Neopan400 in Rodinal 1:100?

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Bert, you know nothing whatsoever about me, my work, or my knowledge
of photography.
The 'junk' I showed was scanned from books, prints I did not even
make, or prints that were poorly printed!

A little RPD history: Around the summer of 2003, Mike Scarpitti posted a
URL link to some of his prints, most of which were SCANNED from an old
college yearbook. I liked a few of his photos, but most were
Photo I/yearbook filler cliches; coeds tossing a Frisbee on the campus
quad, etc. The quality of the original prints must of have been mediocre;
scanning them from a litho-screened book made them worse.

A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose
statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS
IN THE WORLD! And to "prove" it, he actually posted a link to some
astoundingly mediocre work...

"Leigh Marrin/KM6JE" wrote in message
...

[...]
A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose
statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS
IN THE WORLD! [...]

Even if one was a great printer but with a thirty years hiatus, it's
unlikely he's the same today.

"Leigh Marrin/KM6JE" wrote in message
...

[...]
A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose
statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS
IN THE WORLD! [...]

Even if one was a great printer but with a thirty years hiatus, it's
unlikely he's the same today.

From: Michael Scarpitti )
If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely
GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment
I can and do.

Reality Check, Mike: there's NO golden glow coming from your prints.

I liked your "Under The Overpass" composition, but it would really SUCK
printed 11x14 with the badly washed-out daylight areas.

A suggestion for an "Under The Overpass" reshoot: get a 24 exposure roll
of Tri-X, expose at EI 100, presoak for 2 minutes in water, then develop
it in D-76 1:1 for FIVE minutes. "Pulling" lowers contrast and increases
latitude, so only use this roll for high-contrast shots.

FWIW, I have 4 35mm cameras; a Russian Kiev 4am, Leica IIIf, Leica M3 and
a folding Zeiss Ikonta 522/24 w/Xenar lens. I use the Kiev the most; it's
an excellent camera with a sharp 53mm Helios lens. The Ikonta folder is
cute & fits in a shirt pocket, but I'm not too impressed with its lens.

My next 35mm purchase will be a 35mm lens for the Kiev.

For my 2 Leicas I have three German-made lenses, the best of which is a DR
50mm Summicron. I also have a Russki Jupiter 50mm/f2, which certainly
does not optically compare to the Summicron. But otherwise the Jupiter is
a better lens: it is lighter, and due to the quicker thread pitch of the
focus-barrel, it focuses faster than the Summicron.

Larger prints from my 50mm Summicron are sharp; no surprise. But I've
probably USED the 50mm Jupiter more; it's faster to use and much lighter
and can be easily replaced for under $50. I'll happily trade off the
slight optical loss for an easier-to-use lens. (Your clunky Leicaflex is
a far cry from the sleek Leica I/f3.5 Elmar of 1935!)

So making 11x14 prints from 35mm is a low priorty for me; I use 35mm for
its small size and ruggedness. If I gotta make a big print, I'll use my
4x5 press cameras. (Speed Graphic & B&J Press; 127 & 205mm Ektar lenses.)

I only have 1 "Jap" 35mm lens, a Fuji 35mm f2, which is fairly soft at
wider apertures, but fairly sharp past f5.6.

So how many of your Leicaflex lenses are "Jap" made? Or made in
Canada?

From: Michael Scarpitti )
If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely
GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment
I can and do.

Reality Check, Mike: there's NO golden glow coming from your prints.

I liked your "Under The Overpass" composition, but it would really SUCK
printed 11x14 with the badly washed-out daylight areas.

A suggestion for an "Under The Overpass" reshoot: get a 24 exposure roll
of Tri-X, expose at EI 100, presoak for 2 minutes in water, then develop
it in D-76 1:1 for FIVE minutes. "Pulling" lowers contrast and increases
latitude, so only use this roll for high-contrast shots.

FWIW, I have 4 35mm cameras; a Russian Kiev 4am, Leica IIIf, Leica M3 and
a folding Zeiss Ikonta 522/24 w/Xenar lens. I use the Kiev the most; it's
an excellent camera with a sharp 53mm Helios lens. The Ikonta folder is
cute & fits in a shirt pocket, but I'm not too impressed with its lens.

My next 35mm purchase will be a 35mm lens for the Kiev.

For my 2 Leicas I have three German-made lenses, the best of which is a DR
50mm Summicron. I also have a Russki Jupiter 50mm/f2, which certainly
does not optically compare to the Summicron. But otherwise the Jupiter is
a better lens: it is lighter, and due to the quicker thread pitch of the
focus-barrel, it focuses faster than the Summicron.

Larger prints from my 50mm Summicron are sharp; no surprise. But I've
probably USED the 50mm Jupiter more; it's faster to use and much lighter
and can be easily replaced for under $50. I'll happily trade off the
slight optical loss for an easier-to-use lens. (Your clunky Leicaflex is
a far cry from the sleek Leica I/f3.5 Elmar of 1935!)

So making 11x14 prints from 35mm is a low priorty for me; I use 35mm for
its small size and ruggedness. If I gotta make a big print, I'll use my
4x5 press cameras. (Speed Graphic & B&J Press; 127 & 205mm Ektar lenses.)

I only have 1 "Jap" 35mm lens, a Fuji 35mm f2, which is fairly soft at
wider apertures, but fairly sharp past f5.6.

So how many of your Leicaflex lenses are "Jap" made? Or made in
Canada?

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On 28 Aug 2004 19:26:24 -0700, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

BertS wrote in message ink.net...
Kokon wrote:

I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares
various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest
resolution on several high-speed films tested.

If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I
have made pdf's from them.

Since these have been E-mailed to me without my having to ask, Here
are my impressions.

Rodinal was used at 1+50 and 1+75 on all films, with, generally, slow
films getting the more dilute version. We have been discussing 1+100
and beyond here and the addition of some Sulfite. The films under
test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible
exeption of Adox, as Efke.

This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to
today's films and this discussion.

Given that, it appears some other developers give poor results with
some films and good results with others. Rodinal is one of these.
Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal
gives results the equal of any number of other developers.

Big surprise is Diafine's abilities to increase effective speed with a
number of films,as well as its image qualities.

An even bigger surprise is the results of using E24 with the Adox
films. Whopping speed increases while maintaining average quality
with other developers.

Hey, what's up with Atomal and Agfa and Perutz films. Lots of speed
and gooos image quality. Back then, this was a variant of the
Promicrol type. containing Glycin and that Amidol-like agent in the
Promicrol patent.

What the nameless one quotes is not anything like proof of his
assertions, even if the datedness is set aside.


You'll note that Rodinal offered no advantage whatsoever on the
high-speed films tested, delivering 'lower' than average resolution,
lower speed, and higher graininess, especially on Tri-X. If that isn't
significant, I don't know what would be.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On 28 Aug 2004 19:26:24 -0700, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

BertS wrote in message ink.net...
Kokon wrote:

I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares
various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest
resolution on several high-speed films tested.

If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I
have made pdf's from them.

Since these have been E-mailed to me without my having to ask, Here
are my impressions.

Rodinal was used at 1+50 and 1+75 on all films, with, generally, slow
films getting the more dilute version. We have been discussing 1+100
and beyond here and the addition of some Sulfite. The films under
test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible
exeption of Adox, as Efke.

This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to
today's films and this discussion.

Given that, it appears some other developers give poor results with
some films and good results with others. Rodinal is one of these.
Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal
gives results the equal of any number of other developers.

Big surprise is Diafine's abilities to increase effective speed with a
number of films,as well as its image qualities.

An even bigger surprise is the results of using E24 with the Adox
films. Whopping speed increases while maintaining average quality
with other developers.

Hey, what's up with Atomal and Agfa and Perutz films. Lots of speed
and gooos image quality. Back then, this was a variant of the
Promicrol type. containing Glycin and that Amidol-like agent in the
Promicrol patent.

What the nameless one quotes is not anything like proof of his
assertions, even if the datedness is set aside.


You'll note that Rodinal offered no advantage whatsoever on the
high-speed films tested, delivering 'lower' than average resolution,
lower speed, and higher graininess, especially on Tri-X. If that isn't
significant, I don't know what would be.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On 28 Aug 2004 19:26:24 -0700, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

BertS wrote in message ink.net...
Kokon wrote:

I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares
various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest
resolution on several high-speed films tested.

If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I
have made pdf's from them.

Since these have been E-mailed to me without my having to ask, Here
are my impressions.

Rodinal was used at 1+50 and 1+75 on all films, with, generally, slow
films getting the more dilute version. We have been discussing 1+100
and beyond here and the addition of some Sulfite. The films under
test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible
exeption of Adox, as Efke.

This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to
today's films and this discussion.

Given that, it appears some other developers give poor results with
some films and good results with others. Rodinal is one of these.
Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal
gives results the equal of any number of other developers.

This is false for the fast films and some medium-speed films. Look again.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On 28 Aug 2004 19:26:24 -0700, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

BertS wrote in message ink.net...
Kokon wrote:

I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares
various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest
resolution on several high-speed films tested.

If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I
have made pdf's from them.

Since these have been E-mailed to me without my having to ask, Here
are my impressions.

Rodinal was used at 1+50 and 1+75 on all films, with, generally, slow
films getting the more dilute version. We have been discussing 1+100
and beyond here and the addition of some Sulfite. The films under
test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible
exeption of Adox, as Efke.

This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to
today's films and this discussion.

Given that, it appears some other developers give poor results with
some films and good results with others. Rodinal is one of these.
Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal
gives results the equal of any number of other developers.

This is false for the fast films and some medium-speed films. Look again.

"john" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

Japanese lenses give a different look, and the quality differential
between the Focotar-2 that I use and anything else is simply amazing.

Can you show us an example? I found the Focotars to be soft.

The 50mm f/4,5 Focotar-2, from 1977, is fantastic. It blew away my
El-Nikkor 50mm 2,8. I'm talking nuclear explosion blow-away, my
friend.....