35mm on grade 3 explained

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

I'VE PLACED MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE READING EASIER.

snip


And you're a Kodakazi, so there! :P

nener nener neener

Stop relying of 1960 published material and join us int he 21st
century.
Things have changed for both Big Yellow and you since your award
winning days as a yearbook photographer 35 years ago.

lol


You'll note that many zonazis rely on printed materials that are even
older. Adams wrote his books in the late 1940's. White wrote the ZSM
in the early 1950's. White refers to a couple of articles by Davenport
published in 1940 in US Camera. So that argument won't wash, dear! You
can't have it both ways! If you dismiss this because it was written in
1960, you must dismiss all of the classic zs effluvium.

What's interesting (and devastating to the zonazis) is that the Kodak
material acknowledges the existence of the argument that film
development should be varied with subject luminance, but dismisses it,
allowing for exceptions such as very low contrast subject matter
caused by unusual weather conditions (e.g., heavy fog). The rule of
thumb cited by Kodak is that if satisfactory print contrast is not
achievable using grade 4 paper, film contrast should be increased.
This, though, could reflect the fact that many papers were not
available in grades higher than 4 at the time this was written.

The point is clear that Kodak had the research capabilities that Adams
and White did not have. Kodak's conclusions, based on considerable and
extensive research into the preferences of observers (expert and
non-expert alike) are that variable film development has only limited
value.

I quote the relevant section:

"Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average
building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher
gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight?
The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike.
This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional
photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows:
Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important
shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are
most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays
between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a
negative or print are those densities which are not associated with
toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for
the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at
a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot
of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:
My prints are gorgeous!


Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?


Oh please grace me with your mastery of printing!

And why the name change...to get past peoples kill filters???

ROFLMAO!


No, to stop the torrent of spam entering my mailbox. I'm tired of deleting it.

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:
My prints are gorgeous!


Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?


Oh please grace me with your mastery of printing!

And why the name change...to get past peoples kill filters???

ROFLMAO!


No, to stop the torrent of spam entering my mailbox. I'm tired of deleting it.

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message om...
David Nebenzahl wrote in message ...
On 9/13/2004 5:58 PM Uranium Committee spake thus:

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message
. com...

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:

My prints are gorgeous!

Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?

What's really hilarious, Bucko, is that you don't realize that, coming from
you, this is tantamount to asking "Would you like to sniff my dirty socks and
feet, up close and live?".

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?

Being a master printer I'm up for seeing one of these great prints.



Great. Pleas provide address. I have a whole lot of film that has to
be processed from this past month (I'm out of Acutol), and I have not
yet started printing a whole lot that has already been processed. I
can send you something in a month or two. I plan on using Ilford
Galerie grade 3 and Bromophen.

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message om...
David Nebenzahl wrote in message ...
On 9/13/2004 5:58 PM Uranium Committee spake thus:

(Alexis Neel) wrote in message
. com...

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:

My prints are gorgeous!

Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?

What's really hilarious, Bucko, is that you don't realize that, coming from
you, this is tantamount to asking "Would you like to sniff my dirty socks and
feet, up close and live?".

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?

Being a master printer I'm up for seeing one of these great prints.



Great. Pleas provide address. I have a whole lot of film that has to
be processed from this past month (I'm out of Acutol), and I have not
yet started printing a whole lot that has already been processed. I
can send you something in a month or two. I plan on using Ilford
Galerie grade 3 and Bromophen.

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so.

I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is
misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to
note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak
that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason
he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected
making images look unnatural.

That's correct. That's what Kodak found through COMPREHENSIVE (their
term) research. Here's the quote:

"Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average
building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher
gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight?
The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike.
This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional
photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows:
Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important
shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are
most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays
between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a
negative or print are those densities which are not associated with
toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for
the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at
a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot
of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development
time has no effect on tonal distribution.

That's not what I said. It does affect tonal dstribution when
development is INCREASED, which I do not recommend for other reasons
(loss of defintion, increased graininess, etc.). You're confusing two
different issues. I recommend a FIXED, REDUCED amount of development
for 35mm film and the use of grade 3 paper as 'normal', not grade 2
paper. I recommend a FIXED, NORMAL or REDUCED development for sheet
film and the use of grade 2 or grade 3 paper as 'normal'.


This new claim agrees with something
I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact
however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints.
This I have proven through testing.

What Butzi found with the film and paper he tested (!), was that
REDUCED development and increased paper contrast did not significantly
alter the tonal distribution, but that increased development and
reduced paper contrast did.

Kodak points out that graininess increases with increased gradient in
EITHER the film or paper, BUT that the combination of softer negatives
and harder paper was nonetheless 'more favorable' than the other
combination of hard negatives and soft paper. The quote:

"The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination."

The conclusion to be drawn is obvious:

1. Reducing development will reduce the graininess of prints even with
harder paper.

2. Reducing development will benefit the 35mm user not just in reduced
graininess, but in better definition as well, because infectious
development has less effect with the shorter times.

3. Paul Butzi has shown that tonal distribution was virtually
identical with the film and paper he tested(!) when he reduced
development and increased paper contrast. Other materials should
behave similarly (my assertion, not his).


As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll.


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
: "PGG" schreef in bericht
: newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
: I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
: However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.
:
:
: Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
: the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
: developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.

: That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
: for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
: Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

: Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
: printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
: softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
: And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
: Monochrome".

: It really should make no significant difference. See below.

: See:

: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

: Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
: contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
: states:

: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
: believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
: differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
: original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
: so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
: print contrast.

: Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
: and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
: The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
: tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


: And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
: personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
: APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
: was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
: x 5 "!
:
: Third drawback: a little loss of speed.

: Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so.

I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is
misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to
note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak
that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason
he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected
making images look unnatural.

That's correct. That's what Kodak found through COMPREHENSIVE (their
term) research. Here's the quote:

"Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average
building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher
gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight?
The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike.
This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional
photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows:
Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important
shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are
most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays
between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a
negative or print are those densities which are not associated with
toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for
the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at
a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot
of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development
time has no effect on tonal distribution.

That's not what I said. It does affect tonal dstribution when
development is INCREASED, which I do not recommend for other reasons
(loss of defintion, increased graininess, etc.). You're confusing two
different issues. I recommend a FIXED, REDUCED amount of development
for 35mm film and the use of grade 3 paper as 'normal', not grade 2
paper. I recommend a FIXED, NORMAL or REDUCED development for sheet
film and the use of grade 2 or grade 3 paper as 'normal'.


This new claim agrees with something
I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact
however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints.
This I have proven through testing.

What Butzi found with the film and paper he tested (!), was that
REDUCED development and increased paper contrast did not significantly
alter the tonal distribution, but that increased development and
reduced paper contrast did.

Kodak points out that graininess increases with increased gradient in
EITHER the film or paper, BUT that the combination of softer negatives
and harder paper was nonetheless 'more favorable' than the other
combination of hard negatives and soft paper. The quote:

"The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination."

The conclusion to be drawn is obvious:

1. Reducing development will reduce the graininess of prints even with
harder paper.

2. Reducing development will benefit the 35mm user not just in reduced
graininess, but in better definition as well, because infectious
development has less effect with the shorter times.

3. Paul Butzi has shown that tonal distribution was virtually
identical with the film and paper he tested(!) when he reduced
development and increased paper contrast. Other materials should
behave similarly (my assertion, not his).


As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll.


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
: "PGG" schreef in bericht
: newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
: I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
: However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.
:
:
: Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
: the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
: developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.

: That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
: for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
: Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

: Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
: printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
: softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
: And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
: Monochrome".

: It really should make no significant difference. See below.

: See:

: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

: Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
: contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
: states:

: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
: believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
: differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
: original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
: so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
: print contrast.

: Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
: and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
: The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
: tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


: And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
: personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
: APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
: was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
: x 5 "!
:
: Third drawback: a little loss of speed.

: Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
You talking to me?

Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity.

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame war.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
You talking to me?

Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity.

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame war.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


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

I said 'one of the best', for the record.

But you also said: "Because I know more than almost anybody on the planet
about 35mm
monochrome." The "...almost anybody..." kinda limits the field, doesn't
it. How can you make this claim when you've never processed Tech-Pan, used
a Pyro developer, and don't realize Rodinal gives a unique and useful look
to a negative to achieve a desired result. Grain isn't bad if it fits the
vision of the photographer That's just three off the top of my head that
you need to go out and learn before you begin to write the forward on that
rehashed Kodak digest you're planning. I'd even bet you've never compounded
your own chemicals or experimented with different formulas just to see the
results to find out if it was something useful.

Yeah, you know alot about 35mm monochrome, but very little about monochrome
photography.


For the record, I have a basement full of bottles of all kinds of
chemicals and a nice Ohaus scale. I have mixed dozens of formulas for
film and paper. My favorite was Gevaert 262. I have used Amidol, but
not Pyro. I have experimented with a two-solution glycin developer of
my own design (not quite a success from the standpoint of speed, but
very sharp). I quit compounding my own film developers recently when
Acutol became available again, because nothing I can mix with
public-domain formulas is its equal, though FX-15 (Acutol-S) is very
good for high speed films.

The book I am planning will draw from many sources, including my own
experience. Good writers usually draw from a number of sources. The
Kodak material provides a good outline for structuring the sequence of
topics.

MS