How do I calibrate my photographic process

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Alexis Neel wrote:
: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
:
: : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then.
: :
: : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: : has changed.
:
: : No, it has NOT.
:
: It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
: black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
: going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.
:
: : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: : then contradicted by Kodak in later times.
:
: : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: : System Manual', written in 1953 or so.
:
: The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: and it's accuracy was confirmed.

: 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean?

I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't
have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.



: : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: : grade 2 paper.
:
: : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: : and new, state this.
:
: Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
: primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: scarpitti.


: No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:

Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Alexis Neel wrote:
: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

: : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then.
: :
: : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: : has changed.

: : No, it has NOT.
:
: It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
: black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
: going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.
:
: : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: : then contradicted by Kodak in later times.

: : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: : System Manual', written in 1953 or so.
:
: The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: and it's accuracy was confirmed.

: 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean?

I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't
have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.



: : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: : grade 2 paper.

: : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: : and new, state this.
:
: Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
: primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: scarpitti.


: No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:

Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Alexis Neel wrote:
: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

: : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then.
: :
: : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: : has changed.

: : No, it has NOT.
:
: It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
: black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
: going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.
:
: : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: : then contradicted by Kodak in later times.

: : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: : System Manual', written in 1953 or so.
:
: The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: and it's accuracy was confirmed.

: 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean?

I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't
have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.



: : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: : grade 2 paper.

: : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: : and new, state this.
:
: Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
: primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: scarpitti.


: No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:

Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.

Leigh Marrin/KM6JE wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
has changed.
No, it has NOT.

Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years
AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film
development. As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer",
it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for:
LOWER contrast: 5.5 minutes
AVERAGE contrast: 8 minutes
HIGHER contrast: 11.5 minutes

The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will
provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in
situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it
desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL
DEVELOPMENT". (1970 edition, page 7)

(Note: the CAPS are mine.)


You'll note, though, that what they're referring to is a set of
constants:

1. Type of work (portrait, etc.) Even here, the 1956 book disagrees,
saying there is no reason portrait and commercial negatives should be
developed differently.

2. Lens flare (brand and type of lens, etc)

3. Enlarger type (condenser, diffusion, etc)

What they are NOT referring to is SUBJECT LUMINANCE RANGE.

Leigh Marrin/KM6JE wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
has changed.
No, it has NOT.

Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years
AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film
development. As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer",
it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for:
LOWER contrast: 5.5 minutes
AVERAGE contrast: 8 minutes
HIGHER contrast: 11.5 minutes

The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will
provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in
situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it
desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL
DEVELOPMENT". (1970 edition, page 7)

(Note: the CAPS are mine.)


You'll note, though, that what they're referring to is a set of
constants:

1. Type of work (portrait, etc.) Even here, the 1956 book disagrees,
saying there is no reason portrait and commercial negatives should be
developed differently.

2. Lens flare (brand and type of lens, etc)

3. Enlarger type (condenser, diffusion, etc)

What they are NOT referring to is SUBJECT LUMINANCE RANGE.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : : Alexis Neel wrote:
: : : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: : : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
:
: : : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then.
: : :
: : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: : : has changed.
:
: : : No, it has NOT.
: :
: : It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
: : black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
: : going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.
: :
: : : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: : : then contradicted by Kodak in later times.
:
: : : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: : : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: : : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: : : System Manual', written in 1953 or so.
: :
: : The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: : and it's accuracy was confirmed.
:
: : 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean?
:
: I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
: ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't
: have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.
:
:
:
: : : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: : : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: : : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: : : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: : : grade 2 paper.
:
: : : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: : : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: : : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: : : and new, state this.
: :
: : Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
: : primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: : scarpitti.
:
:
: : No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:
:
: Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

: No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.

:-) :-)

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : : Alexis Neel wrote:
: : : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: : : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
:
: : : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then.
: : :
: : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: : : has changed.
:
: : : No, it has NOT.
: :
: : It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
: : black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
: : going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.
: :
: : : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: : : then contradicted by Kodak in later times.
:
: : : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: : : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: : : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: : : System Manual', written in 1953 or so.
: :
: : The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: : and it's accuracy was confirmed.
:
: : 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean?
:
: I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
: ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't
: have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.
:
:
:
: : : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: : : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: : : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: : : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: : : grade 2 paper.
:
: : : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: : : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: : : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: : : and new, state this.
: :
: : Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
: : primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: : scarpitti.
:
:
: : No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:
:
: Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

: No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.

:-) :-)

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------