B&W film question

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:59:07 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Again, you seem to lack proper perspective. The "cruelty" isn't
in the suffering. It's human caused harm, i.e., it isn't about
the animal it's about the cruel and illegal act of the perpetrator,
whether through deliberate sadism, negligence, or indifference.


Uh-oh. I try never to argue with bleeding-heart liberals. Bye.



It's how the law is contextually written and applied, stupid, not
my personal interpretation. It's not about property; it's about
the criminal action of human beings (i.e., most murders start
out by torturing animals. ) Get it?

And in my state it was written by conservatives...

I had typed a reply, but I deleted it. Suffice to say, regardless who
wrote the law, you're interpreting it as a bleeding heart.

No, these laws came from a Conservative tradition of attempting to
maintain societal health.

these days, most of my Conservative friends rush from any discussion
of Bush's torture of animals as a young fellow. They hate to be
presented with something that goes against their morals and puts them
in conflict with their reflexive political choice.

Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives are shirking their duty to
think about heir political actions and alignments.

The only group in which I found even a smidgeon more willingness to
think was the Progressives. They were mostly for Kucinich, but given
their strong individualistic bent, even he was subject to criticism.

You can run, but you can't hide. The inescapable facts of life are
change and interdependency. How you handle it is your choice.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:59:07 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Again, you seem to lack proper perspective. The "cruelty" isn't
in the suffering. It's human caused harm, i.e., it isn't about
the animal it's about the cruel and illegal act of the perpetrator,
whether through deliberate sadism, negligence, or indifference.


Uh-oh. I try never to argue with bleeding-heart liberals. Bye.



It's how the law is contextually written and applied, stupid, not
my personal interpretation. It's not about property; it's about
the criminal action of human beings (i.e., most murders start
out by torturing animals. ) Get it?

And in my state it was written by conservatives...

I had typed a reply, but I deleted it. Suffice to say, regardless who
wrote the law, you're interpreting it as a bleeding heart.

No, these laws came from a Conservative tradition of attempting to
maintain societal health.

these days, most of my Conservative friends rush from any discussion
of Bush's torture of animals as a young fellow. They hate to be
presented with something that goes against their morals and puts them
in conflict with their reflexive political choice.

Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives are shirking their duty to
think about heir political actions and alignments.

The only group in which I found even a smidgeon more willingness to
think was the Progressives. They were mostly for Kucinich, but given
their strong individualistic bent, even he was subject to criticism.

You can run, but you can't hide. The inescapable facts of life are
change and interdependency. How you handle it is your choice.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On 20 Oct 2004 04:39:28 -0700, (Jytzel) wrote:

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in message ...
In article , Jytzel wrote:

Sadly, none! There are no current films that substitute for those old
emulsions. Tonality is not as rich as the old ones but they are
sharper.

Is the new PLus-X that much different than the old Plus-X? While I loved
Pan-X, I always thought that the tonality of Plus-X was pretty good too.

Also my favorite, Adox KB-14 still lives on as EFKE-KB25. Is it that much
different?

My experience with TMAX and Edwal FG-7 when TMAX first came out was that you
could get a pretty good negative out of it too. Of course FG-7 was unique,
it would get a good negative out of almost anything.

Geoff.


I don´t know; I never liked Plus-X. My standard film was Verichrome
Pan which in my opinion, was markedly better than Plus-X (FP4 plus,
Pan F plus, Tmax, or Delta) in terms of tonality.

Hmm. At one time there was a Plus-X version that mached Verichrome Pan
for tonal gradation. It was avilable in long rolls and, perhaps, was
the MP version of Plus-X, with which I only had a brief encounter. I
do remember that the MP version was giving results a bit off from the
still version, but not enough for me to pin it down. Have you looked
into this?

I have experiece with Adox or EFKE but I think they are thick
emulsions like those of Forte (which is great-except for the
resolution.)

Also I believe HP5 to be the best film still available.

So do I. It might be the closest exixting film to Ansco Super
Hypan/GAF 500 that can be found. I loved the rendition of tones when
there was no "pushing": it was not a very pushable film in any case.
The short toe is what gave it notable shadow contrast and full blacks
in unmanipulated printing. I had to work too much with Tri-X/DoubleX
to really like these films.

I don't think
Kodak has anything to offer regarding B&W films. All Ilford films are
better.

Not in all regards, but they are quite good.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On 20 Oct 2004 04:39:28 -0700, (Jytzel) wrote:

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in message ...
In article , Jytzel wrote:

Sadly, none! There are no current films that substitute for those old
emulsions. Tonality is not as rich as the old ones but they are
sharper.

Is the new PLus-X that much different than the old Plus-X? While I loved
Pan-X, I always thought that the tonality of Plus-X was pretty good too.

Also my favorite, Adox KB-14 still lives on as EFKE-KB25. Is it that much
different?

My experience with TMAX and Edwal FG-7 when TMAX first came out was that you
could get a pretty good negative out of it too. Of course FG-7 was unique,
it would get a good negative out of almost anything.

Geoff.


I don´t know; I never liked Plus-X. My standard film was Verichrome
Pan which in my opinion, was markedly better than Plus-X (FP4 plus,
Pan F plus, Tmax, or Delta) in terms of tonality.

Hmm. At one time there was a Plus-X version that mached Verichrome Pan
for tonal gradation. It was avilable in long rolls and, perhaps, was
the MP version of Plus-X, with which I only had a brief encounter. I
do remember that the MP version was giving results a bit off from the
still version, but not enough for me to pin it down. Have you looked
into this?

I have experiece with Adox or EFKE but I think they are thick
emulsions like those of Forte (which is great-except for the
resolution.)

Also I believe HP5 to be the best film still available.

So do I. It might be the closest exixting film to Ansco Super
Hypan/GAF 500 that can be found. I loved the rendition of tones when
there was no "pushing": it was not a very pushable film in any case.
The short toe is what gave it notable shadow contrast and full blacks
in unmanipulated printing. I had to work too much with Tri-X/DoubleX
to really like these films.

I don't think
Kodak has anything to offer regarding B&W films. All Ilford films are
better.

Not in all regards, but they are quite good.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:59:07 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Again, you seem to lack proper perspective. The "cruelty" isn't
in the suffering. It's human caused harm, i.e., it isn't about
the animal it's about the cruel and illegal act of the perpetrator,
whether through deliberate sadism, negligence, or indifference.


Uh-oh. I try never to argue with bleeding-heart liberals. Bye.



It's how the law is contextually written and applied, stupid, not
my personal interpretation. It's not about property; it's about
the criminal action of human beings (i.e., most murders start
out by torturing animals. ) Get it?

And in my state it was written by conservatives...

I had typed a reply, but I deleted it. Suffice to say, regardless who
wrote the law, you're interpreting it as a bleeding heart.

No, these laws came from a Conservative tradition of attempting to
maintain societal health.

Forget it, Robert. Donald feels free to call other people's arguments
"irrational," but when he makes an utterly stupid statement from
his ignorant knowledge base, he can only name call.

The laws in my state were in fact designed to address the concerns
of the torture of animals as a steping stone to more heinous crimes
against humanity. People who have a history of animal cruelty are
typically those who commit sadistic crimes against human beings.
Our rather right wing legilsature recognized this and its the
basis of our law. Perpetrators are given stiff sentences, and I
agree with it.

So go ahead, Don, say something else transparently stupid. The
only thing you constantly demonstrate is your ignorance...


these days, most of my Conservative friends rush from any discussion
of Bush's torture of animals as a young fellow. They hate to be
presented with something that goes against their morals and puts them
in conflict with their reflexive political choice.

Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives are shirking their duty to
think about heir political actions and alignments.

The only group in which I found even a smidgeon more willingness to
think was the Progressives. They were mostly for Kucinich, but given
their strong individualistic bent, even he was subject to criticism.

You can run, but you can't hide. The inescapable facts of life are
change and interdependency. How you handle it is your choice.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:59:07 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Again, you seem to lack proper perspective. The "cruelty" isn't
in the suffering. It's human caused harm, i.e., it isn't about
the animal it's about the cruel and illegal act of the perpetrator,
whether through deliberate sadism, negligence, or indifference.


Uh-oh. I try never to argue with bleeding-heart liberals. Bye.



It's how the law is contextually written and applied, stupid, not
my personal interpretation. It's not about property; it's about
the criminal action of human beings (i.e., most murders start
out by torturing animals. ) Get it?

And in my state it was written by conservatives...

I had typed a reply, but I deleted it. Suffice to say, regardless who
wrote the law, you're interpreting it as a bleeding heart.

No, these laws came from a Conservative tradition of attempting to
maintain societal health.

Forget it, Robert. Donald feels free to call other people's arguments
"irrational," but when he makes an utterly stupid statement from
his ignorant knowledge base, he can only name call.

The laws in my state were in fact designed to address the concerns
of the torture of animals as a steping stone to more heinous crimes
against humanity. People who have a history of animal cruelty are
typically those who commit sadistic crimes against human beings.
Our rather right wing legilsature recognized this and its the
basis of our law. Perpetrators are given stiff sentences, and I
agree with it.

So go ahead, Don, say something else transparently stupid. The
only thing you constantly demonstrate is your ignorance...


these days, most of my Conservative friends rush from any discussion
of Bush's torture of animals as a young fellow. They hate to be
presented with something that goes against their morals and puts them
in conflict with their reflexive political choice.

Sadly, both Liberals and Conservatives are shirking their duty to
think about heir political actions and alignments.

The only group in which I found even a smidgeon more willingness to
think was the Progressives. They were mostly for Kucinich, but given
their strong individualistic bent, even he was subject to criticism.

You can run, but you can't hide. The inescapable facts of life are
change and interdependency. How you handle it is your choice.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

On 20 Oct 2004 04:39:28 -0700, (Jytzel) wrote:

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in message ...
In article , Jytzel wrote:

Sadly, none! There are no current films that substitute for those old
emulsions. Tonality is not as rich as the old ones but they are
sharper.

Is the new PLus-X that much different than the old Plus-X? While I loved
Pan-X, I always thought that the tonality of Plus-X was pretty good too.

Also my favorite, Adox KB-14 still lives on as EFKE-KB25. Is it that much
different?

My experience with TMAX and Edwal FG-7 when TMAX first came out was that you
could get a pretty good negative out of it too. Of course FG-7 was unique,
it would get a good negative out of almost anything.

Geoff.


I don´t know; I never liked Plus-X. My standard film was Verichrome
Pan which in my opinion, was markedly better than Plus-X (FP4 plus,
Pan F plus, Tmax, or Delta) in terms of tonality.

Hmm. At one time there was a Plus-X version that mached Verichrome Pan
for tonal gradation. It was avilable in long rolls and, perhaps, was
the MP version of Plus-X, with which I only had a brief encounter. I
do remember that the MP version was giving results a bit off from the
still version, but not enough for me to pin it down. Have you looked
into this?

PLus-X did in fact used to be a film I used for it's outstanding
tonal rendition. Haven't used it since it was reengineered some
years ago and it no longer comes (thanks, idiot Kodak CEOs...)
in sheet film.


I have experiece with Adox or EFKE but I think they are thick
emulsions like those of Forte (which is great-except for the
resolution.)

Also I believe HP5 to be the best film still available.

So do I. It might be the closest exixting film to Ansco Super
Hypan/GAF 500 that can be found. I loved the rendition of tones when
there was no "pushing": it was not a very pushable film in any case.
The short toe is what gave it notable shadow contrast and full blacks
in unmanipulated printing. I had to work too much with Tri-X/DoubleX
to really like these films.

I don't think
Kodak has anything to offer regarding B&W films. All Ilford films are
better.

Not in all regards, but they are quite good.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

On 20 Oct 2004 04:39:28 -0700, (Jytzel) wrote:

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in message ...
In article , Jytzel wrote:

Sadly, none! There are no current films that substitute for those old
emulsions. Tonality is not as rich as the old ones but they are
sharper.

Is the new PLus-X that much different than the old Plus-X? While I loved
Pan-X, I always thought that the tonality of Plus-X was pretty good too.

Also my favorite, Adox KB-14 still lives on as EFKE-KB25. Is it that much
different?

My experience with TMAX and Edwal FG-7 when TMAX first came out was that you
could get a pretty good negative out of it too. Of course FG-7 was unique,
it would get a good negative out of almost anything.

Geoff.


I don´t know; I never liked Plus-X. My standard film was Verichrome
Pan which in my opinion, was markedly better than Plus-X (FP4 plus,
Pan F plus, Tmax, or Delta) in terms of tonality.

Hmm. At one time there was a Plus-X version that mached Verichrome Pan
for tonal gradation. It was avilable in long rolls and, perhaps, was
the MP version of Plus-X, with which I only had a brief encounter. I
do remember that the MP version was giving results a bit off from the
still version, but not enough for me to pin it down. Have you looked
into this?

PLus-X did in fact used to be a film I used for it's outstanding
tonal rendition. Haven't used it since it was reengineered some
years ago and it no longer comes (thanks, idiot Kodak CEOs...)
in sheet film.


I have experiece with Adox or EFKE but I think they are thick
emulsions like those of Forte (which is great-except for the
resolution.)

Also I believe HP5 to be the best film still available.

So do I. It might be the closest exixting film to Ansco Super
Hypan/GAF 500 that can be found. I loved the rendition of tones when
there was no "pushing": it was not a very pushable film in any case.
The short toe is what gave it notable shadow contrast and full blacks
in unmanipulated printing. I had to work too much with Tri-X/DoubleX
to really like these films.

I don't think
Kodak has anything to offer regarding B&W films. All Ilford films are
better.

Not in all regards, but they are quite good.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

John writes:

Sorry Frank but they were bred for it. It's really that
simple. Can they be trained to be obedient ? Sure. I suggest reviewing

http://www.realpitbull.com/ownership.html

But would I allow one on my property ? Only if he was bringing
me part of George Bush !

Now THAT is cruelty to animals!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

John writes:

Sorry Frank but they were bred for it. It's really that
simple. Can they be trained to be obedient ? Sure. I suggest reviewing

http://www.realpitbull.com/ownership.html

But would I allow one on my property ? Only if he was bringing
me part of George Bush !

Now THAT is cruelty to animals!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.