35mm on grade 3 explained

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.



Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

If you want data to support your theory, go out and run the damn tests
yourself.

I DON'T HAVE TO. YOU ALREADY DID ME THE FAVOR. KODAK DID IT TOO.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my
testing.

I did not 'misrepresent' the results of your testing.

You wrote, and I am quoting directly
Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution.
when in fact, I state quite clearly that I don't believe that will be
the case, that my data don't support that generalization, etc.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE ON YOUR WEB PAGE. I QUOTED IT BY COPYING
AND PASTING.

No, you sure as hell did not. The phrase 'gives essentially the same
tonal distribution' does NOT occur on my web page. I don't know where
the hell you got those words, but you most definitely did NOT get them
off my web page.

Here is the 'Conclusions' section of my web page. It is a direct cut
and paste of the text from my web page.

begin cut and paste -----------------------

Based on this simple experiment, it's clear that there's an
interaction between the film and paper that produces different results
when film development is varied and then the contrast of VC paper is
adjusted to compensate. For both Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MG IV
fb, there's no discernable difference between reduced development of
the film and normal development of the film, but a quite pronounced
difference between normal development and increased development -
increased development (with the paper contrast adjusted to compensate
for the increased negative contrast) results in more highlight
contrast, lower mid-tone values, and reduced shadow contrast.

As a practical matter, this can be used as one more creative control -
if you would like the scene rendered with more highlight contrast,
less shadow contrast, and darker mid-tones, you can plan your
development so that you get a much harder negative, then print with
the VC paper filtered to be much softer than usual.

Several questions remain - do this results apply to other films as
well? TMX in TMax-RS developer produces a very linear film
characteristic curve. If the film curve changes shape with changes in
development, then there would also be the effect of the change in film
curve to factor in. Different VC papers have different tonal
distributions, and different changes in curve shape as you adjust
contrast. It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized
to other films, film developers, etc.

end cut and paste -----------------------

-Paul
www.butzi.net

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...


I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be
generalized to other films, film developers, etc."

Let me clarify. The conclusion you draw is not supported by your data.
At best you could say:

"Whether the results here can be generalized to other films, film
developers, etc., is unknown, but the data available suggest that it
could."

You have NO DATA suggesting that is is "unlikely". NONE.

Actually, I do. But I have absolutely no intention of discussing it
with someone who calls me a Nazi.

In any case, the conclusions I draw are (clipped directly from my web
page):
-----------------------
Based on this simple experiment, it's clear that there's an
interaction between the film and paper that produces different results
when film development is varied and then the contrast of VC paper is
adjusted to compensate. For both Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MG IV
fb, there's no discernable difference between reduced development of
the film and normal development of the film, but a quite pronounced
difference between normal development and increased development -
increased development (with the paper contrast adjusted to compensate
for the increased negative contrast) results in more highlight
contrast, lower mid-tone values, and reduced shadow contrast.
As a practical matter, this can be used as one more creative control -
if you would like the scene rendered with more highlight contrast,
less shadow contrast, and darker mid-tones, you can plan your
development so that you get a much harder negative, then print with
the VC paper filtered to be much softer than usual.

Several questions remain - do this results apply to other films as
well? TMX in TMax-RS developer produces a very linear film
characteristic curve. If the film curve changes shape with changes in
development, then there would also be the effect of the change in film
curve to factor in. Different VC papers have different tonal
distributions, and different changes in curve shape as you adjust
contrast. It seems unlikely that the results here can be generalized
to other films, film developers, etc.
---------------

Regardless of whether my conclusions are justified or not, regardless
of whether they are right or not, those are my conclusions.

If you have OTHER conclusions, you're free to make them, I don't care.
Just don't attribute your screwball notions and your screwball,
unjustified conclusions to me.

-Paul Butzi
www.butzi.net

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...

I have seen my prints and I have seen the prints of many others. Mine
are always better. I offer you a chance to see one. Yes or no?

I have seen the prints of thousands; having been a photo editor helped in
that regard, so has decades of interest. I was once considered a good enough
printer to be chosen as a custom B&W printer at the most prestigious custom
wet printing facility in the country. And STILL I would never claim to be
"the best printer on the planet" as you have, nor even the best printer I
know. Not ever. Why? Because it's a plain fact that there are always better
printers. Period.

If one thinks he is the best, then he has lost the critical mindset which
allows one to become better, indeed even to retain what already has. It's
called The Learning Mindset. Without it there is no hope. From humility
comes learning, then reflection/critique, and the circle continues, and
maybe, just maybe we do something good.

Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.


I try very hard to make negatives that basically print themselves. I
have no desire to spend countless hours in the darkroom trying to
print a negative that is fundamentally flawed. This approach allows me
to get gorgeous prints without having to be one of the best printers
in the world.

As they say, well-begun is half done.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A stitch in time saves nine.

In any event, the negatives I make today are much, much better than I
made 35 years ago.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...

I have seen my prints and I have seen the prints of many others. Mine
are always better. I offer you a chance to see one. Yes or no?

I have seen the prints of thousands; having been a photo editor helped in
that regard, so has decades of interest. I was once considered a good enough
printer to be chosen as a custom B&W printer at the most prestigious custom
wet printing facility in the country. And STILL I would never claim to be
"the best printer on the planet" as you have, nor even the best printer I
know. Not ever. Why? Because it's a plain fact that there are always better
printers. Period.

If one thinks he is the best, then he has lost the critical mindset which
allows one to become better, indeed even to retain what already has. It's
called The Learning Mindset. Without it there is no hope. From humility
comes learning, then reflection/critique, and the circle continues, and
maybe, just maybe we do something good.

Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.


I try very hard to make negatives that basically print themselves. I
have no desire to spend countless hours in the darkroom trying to
print a negative that is fundamentally flawed. This approach allows me
to get gorgeous prints without having to be one of the best printers
in the world.

As they say, well-begun is half done.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A stitch in time saves nine.

In any event, the negatives I make today are much, much better than I
made 35 years ago.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...

I have seen my prints and I have seen the prints of many others. Mine
are always better. I offer you a chance to see one. Yes or no?

I have seen the prints of thousands; having been a photo editor helped in
that regard, so has decades of interest. I was once considered a good enough
printer to be chosen as a custom B&W printer at the most prestigious custom
wet printing facility in the country. And STILL I would never claim to be
"the best printer on the planet" as you have, nor even the best printer I
know. Not ever. Why? Because it's a plain fact that there are always better
printers. Period.

If one thinks he is the best, then he has lost the critical mindset which
allows one to become better, indeed even to retain what already has. It's
called The Learning Mindset. Without it there is no hope. From humility
comes learning, then reflection/critique, and the circle continues, and
maybe, just maybe we do something good.

Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.


I try very hard to make negatives that basically print themselves. I
have no desire to spend countless hours in the darkroom trying to
print a negative that is fundamentally flawed. This approach allows me
to get gorgeous prints without having to be one of the best printers
in the world.

As they say, well-begun is half done.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A stitch in time saves nine.

In any event, the negatives I make today are much, much better than I
made 35 years ago.

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

I try very hard to make negatives that basically print themselves. I
have no desire to spend countless hours in the darkroom trying to
print a negative that is fundamentally flawed. This approach allows me
to get gorgeous prints without having to be one of the best printers
in the world.

In that respect, you are no different than the so-called Zone System mavens.
Different means to the same end. Some make a religion of the methods. Don't
go there. If you intuit the method, more the better.

Best,
John