A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

35mm on grade 3 explained



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old September 13th 04, 08:12 PM
Paul Butzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "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. "

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


You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other
materials.


Yes, I've not tested other materials, or at least I haven't published
my results of testing other materials, which to you is exactly the
same thing.

But since different films, developers, and papers all produce changes
in the characteristic curves of the films and papers, it seems
unlikely to me that the specific changes (or lack of changes) I've
documented will occur with, say, a film with a pronounced s-shape H&D
curve, or with highly compensating development, or with a film with an
upswept film curve like Plus-X.

So let me ask you, since you seem so enamored of your pet theory -
where are YOUR tests? Until you have some data, I don't see why
anyone would bother listening to you. And without any data of your
own, you sure as hell are in no position to challenge my conclusions,
nor are you in any position to chastise me when I carefully avoid
generalizing on the basis of very limited testing, nor are you in any
way entitled to chastise me for having done limited testing rather
than extensive testing.

You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish.

I could, yes. But I haven't, and my conclusions are based on the
tests I've done.

You, also, could do the tests. Why don't you? Go do the damn tests,
write up the results, and people will pay attention to you.

But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed
suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder
paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative
overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is
not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination.


I don't give a rat's ass about your apparent agenda to get everyone on
the planet to reduce the development of their 35mm B&W negatives.

What I do care about, though, is your consistent attempt to take the
text off my web page and claim it supports your agenda by adding
conclusions to it which my data don't actually support, that I haven't
made, which I specifically state on the page I am NOT making. In
particular I don't want you attributing those generalizations to me.

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


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.

It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.


But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for
35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer
contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle
more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have
simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's
statement is clear enough:


Look, I really don't give a damn how long you've known it. I just
want you to stop asserting that my web page says something which it
DOES NOT SAY, AND IN FACT GOES TO SOME LENGTH TO POINT OUT
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT SAY.

I don't claim, as you assert I have done, anything even vaguely
resembling 'exploring this systematically' for the simple reason that
I have neither the time nor the interest to actually do anything that
extensive with it. I had very specific questions about a very
specific set of materials, and I did very specific and very limited
testing. I wrote that up, making very specific and limited
conclusions, and I don't want to be viewed by people as trying to make
a generalized, authoritative statement on this crap on because you
think that a limited set of tests I banged out in one day somehow
should be generalized and think it will be more persuasive if you
attribute that erroneous generalization to me.

Do your own damn tests, and put them on your own damn web page, and
you can make whatever conclusions you like - I don't actually care
about you, your theory of 'softer negatives are good', or anything
else you do as long as you don't continually misrepresent what I've
said.
  #14  
Old September 13th 04, 08:12 PM
Paul Butzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "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. "

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


You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other
materials.


Yes, I've not tested other materials, or at least I haven't published
my results of testing other materials, which to you is exactly the
same thing.

But since different films, developers, and papers all produce changes
in the characteristic curves of the films and papers, it seems
unlikely to me that the specific changes (or lack of changes) I've
documented will occur with, say, a film with a pronounced s-shape H&D
curve, or with highly compensating development, or with a film with an
upswept film curve like Plus-X.

So let me ask you, since you seem so enamored of your pet theory -
where are YOUR tests? Until you have some data, I don't see why
anyone would bother listening to you. And without any data of your
own, you sure as hell are in no position to challenge my conclusions,
nor are you in any position to chastise me when I carefully avoid
generalizing on the basis of very limited testing, nor are you in any
way entitled to chastise me for having done limited testing rather
than extensive testing.

You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish.

I could, yes. But I haven't, and my conclusions are based on the
tests I've done.

You, also, could do the tests. Why don't you? Go do the damn tests,
write up the results, and people will pay attention to you.

But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed
suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder
paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative
overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is
not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination.


I don't give a rat's ass about your apparent agenda to get everyone on
the planet to reduce the development of their 35mm B&W negatives.

What I do care about, though, is your consistent attempt to take the
text off my web page and claim it supports your agenda by adding
conclusions to it which my data don't actually support, that I haven't
made, which I specifically state on the page I am NOT making. In
particular I don't want you attributing those generalizations to me.

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


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.

It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.


But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for
35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer
contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle
more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have
simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's
statement is clear enough:


Look, I really don't give a damn how long you've known it. I just
want you to stop asserting that my web page says something which it
DOES NOT SAY, AND IN FACT GOES TO SOME LENGTH TO POINT OUT
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT SAY.

I don't claim, as you assert I have done, anything even vaguely
resembling 'exploring this systematically' for the simple reason that
I have neither the time nor the interest to actually do anything that
extensive with it. I had very specific questions about a very
specific set of materials, and I did very specific and very limited
testing. I wrote that up, making very specific and limited
conclusions, and I don't want to be viewed by people as trying to make
a generalized, authoritative statement on this crap on because you
think that a limited set of tests I banged out in one day somehow
should be generalized and think it will be more persuasive if you
attribute that erroneous generalization to me.

Do your own damn tests, and put them on your own damn web page, and
you can make whatever conclusions you like - I don't actually care
about you, your theory of 'softer negatives are good', or anything
else you do as long as you don't continually misrepresent what I've
said.
  #18  
Old September 14th 04, 04:24 AM
Uranium Committee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

Paul, you've gone off the deep end:

1. Your tests show virtual identical results in tonal distribution (of
the film and papers you tested) when devlopment of film is reduced
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

2. 35MM FILM BENEFITS FROM REDUCED DEVELOPMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR
NOT.

On my web page, I quite clearly state : "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. "

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


You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other
materials.


Yes, I've not tested other materials, or at least I haven't published
my results of testing other materials, which to you is exactly the
same thing.

But since different films, developers, and papers all produce changes
in the characteristic curves of the films and papers, it seems
unlikely to me that the specific changes (or lack of changes) I've
documented will occur with, say, a film with a pronounced s-shape H&D
curve, or with highly compensating development, or with a film with an
upswept film curve like Plus-X.


Again, you have no basis for claiming that this is 'unlikely'. The
ONLY evidence you offer runs counter to that claim.

So let me ask you, since you seem so enamored of your pet theory -


IT IS NOT MY PET THEORY. IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED. I OFFERED A QUOTE
FROM A KODAK PUBLICATION. HERE IT IS AGAIN:

"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."

QUIT SAYING THIS IS MY PET THEORY.

where are YOUR tests?


I DON'T NEED TESTS KODAK MADE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

Until you have some data, I don't see why
anyone would bother listening to you.


MY DATA ARE FROM KODAK. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO LISTEN THEM?

And without any data of your
own, you sure as hell are in no position to challenge my conclusions,
nor are you in any position to chastise me when I carefully avoid
generalizing on the basis of very limited testing, nor are you in any
way entitled to chastise me for having done limited testing rather
than extensive testing.


BUT YOU DIDN'T 'CAREFULLY AVOID GENERALIZING ON THE BASIS OF VERY
LIMITED TESTING'. PRECISELY THE POINT: YOU SAID: 'It seems unlikely
that the results here can be generalized to other films, film
developers, etc."

THE CORRECT THING TO SAY IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE RESULTS
CAN BE GENERALIZED. BUT THE POINT IS THAT ALL THE DATA YOU HAVE
SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT REDUCED DEVELOPMENT (WITHIN REASON, OF COURSE)
IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO TONAL DISTRIBUTION. AND THE QUOTE FROM KODAK
AFFIRMS THAT IS IS BENEFICIAL. THAT'S WHY I POSTED IT.

You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish.

I could, yes. But I haven't, and my conclusions are based on the
tests I've done.

You, also, could do the tests. Why don't you? Go do the damn tests,
write up the results, and people will pay attention to you.

But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed
suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder
paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative
overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is
not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination.


I don't give a rat's ass about your apparent agenda to get everyone on
the planet to reduce the development of their 35mm B&W negatives.


THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE A ZONAZI. YOU'LL DO ANYTHING TO PROMOTE YOUR
AGENDA OF VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO
SCIENTIFIC BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR IT.


What I do care about, though, is your consistent attempt to take the
text off my web page and claim it supports your agenda by adding
conclusions to it which my data don't actually support, that I haven't
made, which I specifically state on the page I am NOT making.



I DID NOT. READ MY POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU
CANNOT EVEN READ.

In
particular I don't want you attributing those generalizations to me.


I DID NOT DO SO. READ MY POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO
PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.

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.

It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.


But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for
35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer
contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle
more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have
simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's
statement is clear enough:


Look, I really don't give a damn how long you've known it. I just
want you to stop asserting that my web page says something which it
DOES NOT SAY, AND IN FACT GOES TO SOME LENGTH TO POINT OUT
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT SAY.


BUT THAT'S FALSE. I QUOTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM YOUR WEB PAGE. READ MY
POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.

I don't claim, as you assert I have done, anything even vaguely
resembling 'exploring this systematically' for the simple reason that
I have neither the time nor the interest to actually do anything that
extensive with it. I had very specific questions about a very
specific set of materials, and I did very specific and very limited
testing. I wrote that up, making very specific and limited
conclusions, and I don't want to be viewed by people as trying to make
a generalized, authoritative statement on this crap on because you
think that a limited set of tests I banged out in one day somehow
should be generalized and think it will be more persuasive if you
attribute that erroneous generalization to me.


READ WHAT KODAK AND MANY, MANY OTHER SOURCES HAVE SAID ON THE ISSUE.
HERE'S A QUOTE FROM KODAK, IMMEDIATELY BELOW.

"It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. 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.
In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the
print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible,
regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures
were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same
contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade.

There are exceptions, of course. The "majority" of outdoor subjects in
the tests mentioned previously included about 85 percent of
picture-taking situations, such as portraits, landscapes, and
architectural pictures taken in sunlight, in shade, and on overcast
days. The remaining 15 percent of the scenes had, for the most part,
large and very deep shadow areas which comprised an important part of
the subject. It was these latter scenes which the majority of
observers thought were best printed on a paper one grade softer than
normal. Thus, even for subjects with a long scale of brightnesses, it
was found satisfactory to develop the negative as though for a normal
scene and to let the range of paper grades compensate for the unusual
nature of the subject. In other words, the varying lighting conditions
may demand the use of a paper grade other than No.2 for best results.

However, unusual subjects in which heavy shadows may either be present
or actually predominate the scene are usually treated differently by
professional photographers than they are by amateur photographers. The
professional uses fill-in flash illumination, whereas the amateur does
them without the benefit of supplementary illumination. The flash
converts an "unusual" subject into a "normal" subject, and as such
requires a normal negative development and will print on a normal
grade of paper.

The degree of negative development for some subjects naturally depends
on the photographer's "artistic intent." For example, suppose he were
to photograph a sailboat at anchor during foggy weather. If it is
thought that the fog lends a desirable pictorial effect to the scene,
then it can be reproduced as the eye saw it with a normal negative
development and a print on No.2 grade paper. If, on the other hand, a
clear record picture of the boat was the photographer's object, and
the exposure could be made only under a fog condition, then the
negative should receive more than normal development to compensate for
the contrast-reducing action of the fog particles. In this case,
overdevelopment of the negative is desirable only if a print from a
normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade would contain
insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the desirability of
reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and because of the
wide control over contrast possible with various paper grades, it is
highly advisable for the professional photographer to develop the
great majority of his negatives to the same gamma.

A sensible approach to planning a standard photographic technique,
including the degree of negative development, is to strive for a
negative that will print best on a normal grade of paper. Although
there is no necessity to confine oneself to anyone gamma if several
paper grades are available, it is only logical to aim for No.2 paper.
If this is done successfully, the printing problem is simplified by
using one grade of paper for most negatives. At the same time, the
photographer is protected on both sides of normal by papers with
greater or less contrast capacity, should an underdeveloped or
overdeveloped negative accidentally result.

Kodak processing recommendations for film are generally based on the
use of diffusion-type enlargers, or on contact printing which results
in prints of approximately the same contrast, everything else being
equal. Obviously, these same processing recommendations should be
modified by a reduction of 15 to 20 percent in gamma to suit
condenser-type enlargers if prints of the same contrast are to be
obtained.

Individual preferences are shown in a survey made of several
individual newspapers and the principal news photo services. The
results showed that films were developed to gammas ranging from 0.62
to 1.18, with an average of 0.85; that Kodak Developer DK-60a was the
most popular of the developers, although a number of others were used;
and that developing times ranged all the way from 4 ½ to 8 minutes.
The photographers who preferred the lower range of gammas used
condenser enlargers. The ones who developed films in the intermediate
range used tungsten-source, diffusion enlargers, and those using the
highest gammas employed mercury-vapor enlargers. In a similar manner,
commercial and, to a lesser extent, portrait photographers also modify
the basic development recommendations according to individual
conditions.

(From: Negative Making for Professional Photographers, Eastman Kodak,
1956.)

Do your own damn tests, and put them on your own damn web page, and
you can make whatever conclusions you like - I don't actually care
about you, your theory of 'softer negatives are good', or anything
else you do as long as you don't continually misrepresent what I've
said.


THAT'S FALSE. I QUOTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM YOUR WEB PAGE. READ MY
POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.
  #19  
Old September 14th 04, 03:21 PM
Hemi4268
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi

Generally speaking, it's much better to print a low contrast film image on to a
higher contrast receiver paper then the other way around.

This low contrast to high contrast printing has been used in the motion picture
industry for years.

I learned this first had when I found some old B&W slide images of a football
game I photographed when I was in highschool.

At the time I needed B&W slides so I contacted printed the negs to slides using
kodalith and dektol.

After several trys I got what I needed. Somehow though I kept the rejects
which had very low contrast and image density.

After 35 years I found those rejects in a box and scanned them on my Nikon Cool
Scan. After contrast corrected by Photoshop the images looked great. Better
then the original prints which were published in the yearbook.

Larry
  #20  
Old September 14th 04, 03:21 PM
Hemi4268
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi

Generally speaking, it's much better to print a low contrast film image on to a
higher contrast receiver paper then the other way around.

This low contrast to high contrast printing has been used in the motion picture
industry for years.

I learned this first had when I found some old B&W slide images of a football
game I photographed when I was in highschool.

At the time I needed B&W slides so I contacted printed the negs to slides using
kodalith and dektol.

After several trys I got what I needed. Somehow though I kept the rejects
which had very low contrast and image density.

After 35 years I found those rejects in a box and scanned them on my Nikon Cool
Scan. After contrast corrected by Photoshop the images looked great. Better
then the original prints which were published in the yearbook.

Larry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 30 September 12th 04 04:46 AM
Removing 35mm mask on Durst M606? Luigi de Guzman In The Darkroom 4 March 1st 04 05:09 AM
split grade printing - can it be done with only G5 +G0 filters? Jules Flynn In The Darkroom 3 February 7th 04 05:46 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne APS Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 08:34 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne Other Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 08:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.