Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO!

In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Beating a dead horse is more rewarding than a discussion on the Zone
System with this individual. So is pounding sand, ****ing up a rope, etc.
etc. etc...

I need to update my filters. I thought I ignored everything MS wrote...

Ignorance is bliss, and ignore MS is sooooo blissful...

Jim

Address the goddamn post, asshole!

Back into the killfile. Revised my Newsreader........was willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt,....bye bye.
--
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the
measure of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the
measure of skill. Sun Tzu

In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Beating a dead horse is more rewarding than a discussion on the Zone
System with this individual. So is pounding sand, ****ing up a rope, etc.
etc. etc...

I need to update my filters. I thought I ignored everything MS wrote...

Ignorance is bliss, and ignore MS is sooooo blissful...

Jim

What do you mean? Would you prefer to remain ignorant?

Hum? Pot, Kettle, Black.
--
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the
measure of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the
measure of skill. Sun Tzu

In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Beating a dead horse is more rewarding than a discussion on the Zone
System with this individual. So is pounding sand, ****ing up a rope, etc.
etc. etc...

I need to update my filters. I thought I ignored everything MS wrote...

Ignorance is bliss, and ignore MS is sooooo blissful...

Jim

What do you mean? Would you prefer to remain ignorant?

Hum? Pot, Kettle, Black.
--
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the
measure of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the
measure of skill. Sun Tzu

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives
and the improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is
enough of a reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's
position on the matter simply reinforces my position.

Seeing is believing.
--
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the
measure of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the
measure of skill. Sun Tzu

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives
and the improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is
enough of a reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's
position on the matter simply reinforces my position.

Seeing is believing.
--
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the
measure of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the
measure of skill. Sun Tzu

Paul Atreides wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives
: and the improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is
: enough of a reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's
: position on the matter simply reinforces my position.

: Seeing is believing.

Along the same lines getting the results you're after is the most important thing.
While my opinion of the images scarpitti has made available online are well known. He
is happy with the results he gets and that's more important then the method, film,
developer he uses to get it. At the same time I am happy with the results I get and
will continue doing what I do until I find something that gives me results that I
prefer.

Alas since the bandwidth limitations of my web servers and the size of the scans of my
4x5 combined with my lack of a scanner capable of doing them justice prevents me from
putting my work online. I've considered reducing the size of the scans of my prints but
since I primarily use LF for the detail and tonality it affords I don't feel that a
size practical for posting online would do them justice.

I am a member of a LF group here in the midwest we have a website at:
www.midwestlargeformat.com. There is also a mailing list for the group. Send me an
email and I will be happy to add anyone that is interested. Unlike the flame wars here
on the Usenet there is limited tolerance to flame wars and personal insults are not
tolerated. We also have monthly outings on the 3rd weekend of each month and all are
welcome. An important part of each group outing is what we refer to as a "print
exchange". This is were members of the group bring images that they made to pass around
to others in the group. If you ever plan on being in the midwest during one of our
outings I encourage you to attend our outings. In any case I encourage everyone to
consider subscribing to the mailing list. The traffic is very low and the amount of
photographic know how is amazing!!
--




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

Paul Atreides wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives
: and the improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is
: enough of a reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's
: position on the matter simply reinforces my position.

: Seeing is believing.

Along the same lines getting the results you're after is the most important thing.
While my opinion of the images scarpitti has made available online are well known. He
is happy with the results he gets and that's more important then the method, film,
developer he uses to get it. At the same time I am happy with the results I get and
will continue doing what I do until I find something that gives me results that I
prefer.

Alas since the bandwidth limitations of my web servers and the size of the scans of my
4x5 combined with my lack of a scanner capable of doing them justice prevents me from
putting my work online. I've considered reducing the size of the scans of my prints but
since I primarily use LF for the detail and tonality it affords I don't feel that a
size practical for posting online would do them justice.

I am a member of a LF group here in the midwest we have a website at:
www.midwestlargeformat.com. There is also a mailing list for the group. Send me an
email and I will be happy to add anyone that is interested. Unlike the flame wars here
on the Usenet there is limited tolerance to flame wars and personal insults are not
tolerated. We also have monthly outings on the 3rd weekend of each month and all are
welcome. An important part of each group outing is what we refer to as a "print
exchange". This is were members of the group bring images that they made to pass around
to others in the group. If you ever plan on being in the midwest during one of our
outings I encourage you to attend our outings. In any case I encourage everyone to
consider subscribing to the mailing list. The traffic is very low and the amount of
photographic know how is amazing!!
--




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

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
Frank Pittel wrote in message
...
Interestingly enough I can't seem to find this book for sale. The only
refernece
I can find is to a long out of print book from 1952. It's clear from
reading new
publications from Kodak that they have come to see the light.

No, perhaps those who knew what the hell they were talking about
retired or died, dumbass....

Look - Both of You! Veracity in the commercial domain is not the
peer-reviewed constant it is (when at its best) in the scientific domain.
Kodak is certainly not excempt from suspicion in their current technical
proclaims. Get over it. A generation or two has passed through the veil we
knew as their true nature. Kodak can be as full of **** as anyone. They have
adopted a marketing agenda in place of their once default-superior place in
the field.

BE SKEPTICAL OF EVERYTHING!


What does it profit Kodak to offer bad advice? Why would Kodak spend
the time and money they did to conduct these studies, asking observers
to evaluate the images made with variable film development and
constant film development? Kodak's interest is in helping
photographers to get the best results possible, and they spent tons of
money on that effort.

This book dates from 1956. I would be much more inclined to trust
Kodak's pronouncements from this era than from their more recent
publications, since they have cut so much from research funding.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
Frank Pittel wrote in message
...
Interestingly enough I can't seem to find this book for sale. The only
refernece
I can find is to a long out of print book from 1952. It's clear from
reading new
publications from Kodak that they have come to see the light.

No, perhaps those who knew what the hell they were talking about
retired or died, dumbass....

Look - Both of You! Veracity in the commercial domain is not the
peer-reviewed constant it is (when at its best) in the scientific domain.
Kodak is certainly not excempt from suspicion in their current technical
proclaims. Get over it. A generation or two has passed through the veil we
knew as their true nature. Kodak can be as full of **** as anyone. They have
adopted a marketing agenda in place of their once default-superior place in
the field.

BE SKEPTICAL OF EVERYTHING!


What does it profit Kodak to offer bad advice? Why would Kodak spend
the time and money they did to conduct these studies, asking observers
to evaluate the images made with variable film development and
constant film development? Kodak's interest is in helping
photographers to get the best results possible, and they spent tons of
money on that effort.

This book dates from 1956. I would be much more inclined to trust
Kodak's pronouncements from this era than from their more recent
publications, since they have cut so much from research funding.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

Address the goddamn post, asshole!

Mike,

You troll. You want me to address the post? However, the first sentence
says why I should not.

An asshole, I think not. However, you are in need of some deep, inner
self review. Either that or you should pound sand in your blissful state of
mind.

Quote something recent if you would, please. Film technology has
advanced, unlike you.

Even my Kodak Darkroom Dataguide, 5th Edition, First 1976 Printing states
in the discussion on the Developing Dial (last paragraph): "This method
gives the user a way of incorporating adjustments for the
contrast-controlling factors into his working procedures." Seems to me that
Kodak in this edition of the DDg acknowledges the use of time for the
controlling of contrast depending upon the users desires. Never mind the
selection of the developer itself. And that's what the Zone System is about
(to a degree, but there's so much more to the ZS).

No, I do not want to be ignorant, but will in the same sentence admit
there are things I am ignorant about. Like how to design Rockets. But
then, I've never had a need to learn.

Why don't you open that shut mind of yours and stop being so "Blissful".

Now, who's an asshole, Mikey? If we took a vote, I guess I'd lose...

Jim P [but you know my last name don't you]