How to do?

[Michael Scarpitti]

When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

This is especially true in photography, because for some reason
photography seems to be plagued by a culture of half-truths and
misinformation. Any number of things will be said that are based on an
imperfect or incorrect understanding of the scientific principles
governing light, silver halide, and optical glass.

I remember working with a photo student who said he didn't 'need' to
use any filter on his variable contrast paper. For him, using the
filter meant his negative was in some way 'deficient' or 'weak'.
Ilford (and now Kodak) have set up the filter scheme on their VC
papers to make the exposure for grades #1-3 identical, with #4 simply
double. So, if this student were to use the #2 filter, he could change
to #3 or #1 with no alteration of exposure, which he is unable to do
if he goes from 'no filter' to one of the others. He has to start from
scratch to figure out the exposure.

So, for those who are users of 35mm film, I offer the following
recommendations:

1. If you can find one, get a Leica Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5 enlarging
lens. Expect to pay a good price for this, the best enlarging lens
ever made. Several hundred dollars. (Here's one that went as part of
complete Reprovit set-up):
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2942016651&category=30030

2. Avoid T-Max films for non-studio use. Their contrast/tonal range
makes them extremely difficult to use out-of-doors. The contrast range
in a studio is limited and controlled, whereas that of an out-of-doors
setting is many times higher. This often leads to unprintable
negatives, especially with TMY. I'd suggest Tr-X or HP5 for a good
fast film, and FP4 for a medium speed film.

3. Tr-X in D-76 1:1 (@EI 320) and FP4 in Acutol (@EI 160) are hard to
beat.

4. Use of a condenser enlarger coupled with modest developing times
(20-30% less than Kodak's listed times) and semi-compensating
development (see 3, above) will provide astonishing sharpness and fine
grain in 35mm work. Use grade 3 as your standard grade.

5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.

6. Don't be cheap. Don't expect a cheap filter or lens to be as good
as a camera mfr's filter or lens, and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

7. Pushing really doesn't work. If you need more speed, use a
speed-increasing developer such as Microphen or Acufine at the
'normal' time(!), or use a super-speed film. You're better off using a
faster film and slowing it down slightly (Tri-X at EI 250 in D-76 1:1
is wonderful!) than using a slower film and pushing it. That is,
unless you happen to like clear shadow areas.

8. Graded paper is better than variable contrast paper. You will have
smoother gradations of tone in the middle greys. I know: I tested
them.

9. Don't write back and say I'm wrong. Trust me. I've been doing this
for 40 years.

10. Read #9 again.

11. Film that's dated for 1957 or 1965 is no good anymore.

[Tom Thackrey]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

<big snip>

How true! It was so kind of you to go on and prove your point.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Tom Thackrey

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

<big snip>
How true! It was so kind of you to go on and prove your point.

I'll reply to this one as representative:

Everything you know is wrong.

Try what I say, then report back.

[Gregory W. Blank]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.
9. Don't write back and say I'm wrong. Trust me. I've been doing this
for 40 years.

I guess we can all stop posting now, since you have answered all the questions.
I guess the newsgroup as outlived its usefulness, lets all go home ;-)

[Nick Zentena]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

Well I'll agree with this.

Nick

[Gregory W. Blank]

Since you don't want people to write back I will send this
to the news group and not via e-mail.
this is a general statement.

Richard; I just want to say thanks for addressing some
of this.

[Tobias Begalke]

Mike,

you forgot Point #12:

"All this works for my own individual taste and goals, so feel free to
ignore it."

You're neglecting the fact that everybody has their own taste and
different goals. If your setup works for you that's great but that does by
no means imply that everybody else will be happy with it. From a purely
technical point of view you might be right to a certain extent, however
the technical element is given too much weight in my opinion. A good
photographer will take good photos with a crappy camera and a bad photo
shot by a bad photographer will still be a bad photo even if it was shot
with a Leica and developed using the latest voodoo techniques.

For those who start out with photography some of your tips are good
starting points but beyond that your point is moot. I'll argue that for
most of us testing new film/developer combinations is as much fun as
taking pictures. Eventually everybody will reach a conclusion like
yours, they'll find what works best for them. There's no point in
prescribing your solution because the way there is fun and I wouldn't
want to miss it.

Tobias

[Richard Knoppow]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
6. Don't be cheap. Don't expect a cheap filter or lens

to be as good

Post by Michael Scarpitti
as a camera mfr's filter or lens,

Agreed. Filters should be optical quality glass,

anti-reflection coated and

preferably multicoated.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax

and Minolta can't

do, other than charge high prices?
(Or for a fairer comparison, Nikon or Canon. Why do so

many professional

photographers use Nikon and Canon if Leica lenses are

indeed better?)
I don't think this is a matter of lens quality but of
choices based on the camera systems.
For a long time Canon has made superb lenses but comparing
Nikon to Canon to Leica requires using three different
cameras. I don't know of any optical bench tests on these
lenses which have been published. On film tests are subject
to so many variations, many of which are very hard to
control, that I don't most of them are trustworthy.
Both Kodak and Ilford have built special cameras and
lenses for testing film resolution. These have been
described in the technical literature (it would take me some
time to find the citations). They are extremely rigidly made
with very special attention to insuring the film position is
where its supposed to be.
Computer analysis of lens prescription data will tell you
what the design is capable of but not what an actual lens,
subject to manufacturing variations, will do. Nonetheless,
such analyses are interesting and useful.
The glass for filters should be of low index (and
preferably also of low dispersion) and ground with the
surfaces flat and parallel. The glass must also be very
homogenious but this is a common requirement for optical
glass.
The best filters in terms of optical performance are plain
gelatin filters. They are somewhat better than plastic since
the index of refraction of gelatin is lower. The problem
with gelatin filters is that they are short lived and
delicate. Where a filter must be used in a converging or
diverging beam (as behind the lens) gelatin filters are a
must. It is not generally appreciated that a plane parallel
plate of glass will introduce spherical and chromatic
aberration, and some astigmatism where the light going
through it is vergent. The degree of the imposed aberrations
are proportional to the ratio of the index of refraction of
the filter to air (assuming it is in air) and its thickness.
Long ago Kodak offered Wratten glass filters in two grades
of glass whcich they called A glass and B glass. A glass was
superior being especially ground to a very high degree of
flatness and parallelism. A filters were recommended for
long lenses and for scientific use. One can still find them
used occasionally. They were about three times the price of
the same filter in B glass.

[Manny Bhuta]

I own Leica M6 with Leica glass as well as Nikon F5 with high-end Nikon
glass. I virtually always use Nikon because I find it much more
convenient to use and to my eye there is no real difference in image
quality. YMMV
--
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Michael Scarpitti
6. Don't be cheap. Don't expect a cheap filter or lens

to be as good

Post by Michael Scarpitti
as a camera mfr's filter or lens,

Agreed. Filters should be optical quality glass,

anti-reflection coated and

preferably multicoated.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax

and Minolta can't

do, other than charge high prices?
(Or for a fairer comparison, Nikon or Canon. Why do so

many professional

photographers use Nikon and Canon if Leica lenses are

indeed better?)
I don't think this is a matter of lens quality but of
choices based on the camera systems.
For a long time Canon has made superb lenses but comparing
Nikon to Canon to Leica requires using three different
cameras. I don't know of any optical bench tests on these
lenses which have been published. On film tests are subject
to so many variations, many of which are very hard to
control, that I don't most of them are trustworthy.
Both Kodak and Ilford have built special cameras and
lenses for testing film resolution. These have been
described in the technical literature (it would take me some
time to find the citations). They are extremely rigidly made
with very special attention to insuring the film position is
where its supposed to be.
Computer analysis of lens prescription data will tell you
what the design is capable of but not what an actual lens,
subject to manufacturing variations, will do. Nonetheless,
such analyses are interesting and useful.
The glass for filters should be of low index (and
preferably also of low dispersion) and ground with the
surfaces flat and parallel. The glass must also be very
homogenious but this is a common requirement for optical
glass.
The best filters in terms of optical performance are plain
gelatin filters. They are somewhat better than plastic since
the index of refraction of gelatin is lower. The problem
with gelatin filters is that they are short lived and
delicate. Where a filter must be used in a converging or
diverging beam (as behind the lens) gelatin filters are a
must. It is not generally appreciated that a plane parallel
plate of glass will introduce spherical and chromatic
aberration, and some astigmatism where the light going
through it is vergent. The degree of the imposed aberrations
are proportional to the ratio of the index of refraction of
the filter to air (assuming it is in air) and its thickness.
Long ago Kodak offered Wratten glass filters in two grades
of glass whcich they called A glass and B glass. A glass was
superior being especially ground to a very high degree of
flatness and parallelism. A filters were recommended for
long lenses and for scientific use. One can still find them
used occasionally. They were about three times the price of
the same filter in B glass.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Mike King]

The only pearl of truth in this posting that I completely agree with is the
first paragraph.

--
darkroommike

----------

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.
This is especially true in photography, because for some reason
photography seems to be plagued by a culture of half-truths and
misinformation. Any number of things will be said that are based on an
imperfect or incorrect understanding of the scientific principles
governing light, silver halide, and optical glass.
I remember working with a photo student who said he didn't 'need' to
use any filter on his variable contrast paper. For him, using the
filter meant his negative was in some way 'deficient' or 'weak'.
Ilford (and now Kodak) have set up the filter scheme on their VC
papers to make the exposure for grades #1-3 identical, with #4 simply
double. So, if this student were to use the #2 filter, he could change
to #3 or #1 with no alteration of exposure, which he is unable to do
if he goes from 'no filter' to one of the others. He has to start from
scratch to figure out the exposure.
So, for those who are users of 35mm film, I offer the following
1. If you can find one, get a Leica Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5 enlarging
lens. Expect to pay a good price for this, the best enlarging lens
ever made. Several hundred dollars. (Here's one that went as part of

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2942016651&category=30030

Post by Michael Scarpitti
2. Avoid T-Max films for non-studio use. Their contrast/tonal range
makes them extremely difficult to use out-of-doors. The contrast range
in a studio is limited and controlled, whereas that of an out-of-doors
setting is many times higher. This often leads to unprintable
negatives, especially with TMY. I'd suggest Tr-X or HP5 for a good
fast film, and FP4 for a medium speed film.
beat.
4. Use of a condenser enlarger coupled with modest developing times
(20-30% less than Kodak's listed times) and semi-compensating
development (see 3, above) will provide astonishing sharpness and fine
grain in 35mm work. Use grade 3 as your standard grade.
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.
6. Don't be cheap. Don't expect a cheap filter or lens to be as good
as a camera mfr's filter or lens, and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.
7. Pushing really doesn't work. If you need more speed, use a
speed-increasing developer such as Microphen or Acufine at the
'normal' time(!), or use a super-speed film. You're better off using a
faster film and slowing it down slightly (Tri-X at EI 250 in D-76 1:1
is wonderful!) than using a slower film and pushing it. That is,
unless you happen to like clear shadow areas.
8. Graded paper is better than variable contrast paper. You will have
smoother gradations of tone in the middle greys. I know: I tested
them.
9. Don't write back and say I'm wrong. Trust me. I've been doing this
for 40 years.
10. Read #9 again.
11. Film that's dated for 1957 or 1965 is no good anymore.

[Mike King]

Apparently unaware that some "Leica" optics are made by Minolta.

--
darkroommike

----------

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the

answers

Post by Michael Scarpitti
received should be treated with some scepticism.
This is especially true in photography, because for some

reason

Post by Michael Scarpitti
photography seems to be plagued by a culture of

half-truths and

Post by Michael Scarpitti
misinformation. Any number of things will be said that are

based on an

Post by Michael Scarpitti
imperfect or incorrect understanding of the scientific

principles

Post by Michael Scarpitti
governing light, silver halide, and optical glass.

I agee with this, although its not as bad as hi-end
audio:-)

Post by Michael Scarpitti
I remember working with a photo student who said he didn't

'need' to

Post by Michael Scarpitti
use any filter on his variable contrast paper. For him,

using the

Post by Michael Scarpitti
filter meant his negative was in some way 'deficient' or

'weak'.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Ilford (and now Kodak) have set up the filter scheme on

their VC

Post by Michael Scarpitti
papers to make the exposure for grades #1-3 identical,

with #4 simply

Post by Michael Scarpitti
double. So, if this student were to use the #2 filter, he

could change

Post by Michael Scarpitti
to #3 or #1 with no alteration of exposure, which he is

unable to do

Post by Michael Scarpitti
if he goes from 'no filter' to one of the others. He has

to start from

Post by Michael Scarpitti
scratch to figure out the exposure.
So, for those who are users of 35mm film, I offer the

following

Post by Michael Scarpitti
1. If you can find one, get a Leica Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5

enlarging

Post by Michael Scarpitti
lens. Expect to pay a good price for this, the best

enlarging lens

Post by Michael Scarpitti
ever made. Several hundred dollars. (Here's one that went

as part of

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2942016651&category=30030

Post by Michael Scarpitti
What evidence to you have of this? There are many
experienced users who would disagree.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
2. Avoid T-Max films for non-studio use. Their

contrast/tonal range

Post by Michael Scarpitti
makes them extremely difficult to use out-of-doors. The

contrast range

Post by Michael Scarpitti
in a studio is limited and controlled, whereas that of an

out-of-doors

Post by Michael Scarpitti
setting is many times higher. This often leads to

unprintable

Post by Michael Scarpitti
negatives, especially with TMY. I'd suggest Tr-X or HP5

for a good

Post by Michael Scarpitti
fast film, and FP4 for a medium speed film.

I completely disagree with this. T-Max is quite tractible
if you understand it. I use it for both studio and outside
work with very good results.
are hard to

Post by Michael Scarpitti
beat.

Agreed!

Post by Michael Scarpitti
4. Use of a condenser enlarger coupled with modest

developing times

Post by Michael Scarpitti
(20-30% less than Kodak's listed times) and

semi-compensating

Post by Michael Scarpitti
development (see 3, above) will provide astonishing

sharpness and fine

Post by Michael Scarpitti
grain in 35mm work. Use grade 3 as your standard grade.

We have had some discussion about this. The use of grade 3
paper with a condenser enlarger will also considerably
exagerate any negative blemishes. I think you may also be
seeing some acutance effects due to the, essentially, two
grade increase in printing contrast over "normal".

Post by Michael Scarpitti
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its

origin, and

Post by Michael Scarpitti
at best works only partially as intended, and then only

with sheet

Post by Michael Scarpitti
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized,

consistent,

Post by Michael Scarpitti
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for

the optimum

Post by Michael Scarpitti
compromise between convenience and technical quality.

Changing

Post by Michael Scarpitti
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior

to

Post by Michael Scarpitti
shortening devlopment time below normal.

Again, what substantiation do you have here? What is the
fundamental error in the Zone System?
In what way is dilution better than shortening times?
Dilution has other effects on the developer than increasing
the time for a given gamma.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
6. Don't be cheap. Don't expect a cheap filter or lens to

be as good

Post by Michael Scarpitti
as a camera mfr's filter or lens, and don't expect a

Pentax or Minolta

Post by Michael Scarpitti
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Again where is the evidence. Leitz makes very good lenses
but modern lens design and production methods allow many to
make excellent lenses.
Also, probably the best filters available are made by B+W,
not associated with a camera manufacturer. How about Tiffen
who now has the Kodak line?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
7. Pushing really doesn't work. If you need more speed,

use a

Post by Michael Scarpitti
speed-increasing developer such as Microphen or Acufine at

the

Post by Michael Scarpitti
'normal' time(!), or use a super-speed film. You're better

off using a

Post by Michael Scarpitti
faster film and slowing it down slightly (Tri-X at EI 250

in D-76 1:1

Post by Michael Scarpitti
is wonderful!) than using a slower film and pushing it.

That is,

Post by Michael Scarpitti
unless you happen to like clear shadow areas.

This is true. Increasing development really only increases
contrast. The contrast of the toe (low exposure) area of the
film is, of course, also increased which may make images
recorded there more printable. However, this is not a true
increase in film speed and, of course, the more exposed
parts of the film will have very high contrast. At some
point on the low side the film simply won't record anything.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
8. Graded paper is better than variable contrast paper.

You will have

Post by Michael Scarpitti
smoother gradations of tone in the middle greys. I know: I

tested

Post by Michael Scarpitti
them.

Again, I would like to see some characteristic curves to
prove this. There have been tremendous improvements in VC
paper even in the last few years. The main problem with most
of them is that they really only varied the low and mid
tones, not highlight contrast. Newer VC paper varies all
over.
Also, what do you maean by "smoother"? Paper curves are
not discontinuous.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
9. Don't write back and say I'm wrong. Trust me. I've been

doing this

Post by Michael Scarpitti
for 40 years.

I've been doing it for even longer! I can still be wrong.
I also have and enough training in the sciences to expect to
have to substantiate alleged statements of fact. No one
should take such statements on trust.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
10. Read #9 again.
11. Film that's dated for 1957 or 1965 is no good anymore.

Depends on what it is and how it was stored. The slower the
film and the colder the storage the longer it will last.
Most film of this age will be fogged but some may still be
usable. One of my correspondents recently bought a box of
Ansco Ortho portrait film from the 1950s which was still
good!
Since you don't want people to write back I will send this
to the news group and not via e-mail.
this is a general statement.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Jorge Omar]

Why do some people buys Rolex to see the time?

Jorge

Post by Michael Scarpitti
and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax and Minolta can't
do, other than charge high prices?
(Or for a fairer comparison, Nikon or Canon. Why do so many professional
photographers use Nikon and Canon if Leica lenses are indeed better?)

[Manny Bhuta]

May be Rolex time is better? Not more accurate but higher quality?
Just could not resist. :)
--
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA

Post by Jorge Omar
Why do some people buys Rolex to see the time?
Jorge

Post by Michael Scarpitti
and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax and Minolta can't
do, other than charge high prices?
(Or for a fairer comparison, Nikon or Canon. Why do so many

professional

Post by Jorge Omar

photographers use Nikon and Canon if Leica lenses are indeed

better?)

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Jorge Omar
Why do some people buys Rolex to see the time?

See:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002Wrd

" In terms of resolution, the Focotar-2, the old and new Nikons, and
the Schneider lenses tested very well, with the Focotar-2 just edging
the others, especially at the smaller apertures. The old Focotar was
very close, but lost out at f11 and 16 to the others. But what really
surprised me was the color fringng and ghosting flare that I observed
with the new Nikor and Schneider lenses!"

Post by Jorge Omar
Jorge

Post by Michael Scarpitti
and don't expect a Pentax or Minolta
lens to equal a Leica optic. It won't happen.

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax and Minolta can't
do, other than charge high prices?
(Or for a fairer comparison, Nikon or Canon. Why do so many professional
photographers use Nikon and Canon if Leica lenses are indeed better?)

[Paul Butzi]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
9. Don't write back and say I'm wrong. Trust me. I've been doing this
for 40 years.
10. Read #9 again.

1. where can we see the work that demonstrates your superior
knowledge and skills?

2. see #1

3. See #1 and #2

As a friend of mine always says, "It's always nice to hear from an
expert."

-Paul

[Mark Wolenski]

Since you espouse to be an expert, perhaps you can explain all of the
aspects of the Zone System and each of its "erroneous assumptions".

My impression is that your OPINION of the Zone System is that it is dogma.
This is certainly, in my opinion, very far from the truth. Its basis in one
where the photographer takes as much control over the process (from film
exposure to the final print) as is possible.

The "Zones", those 9 or 10 steps of gray, represent a geometric progression
of tones that correspond, more or less, to the geometric progression of
exposure. The graduated steps also allow for a common photographic language,
so that a photographer to express a particular tone in a way that others can
hear and visualize exactly what the first person was referring to.
To say that the Zone System works "only with sheet film" is in part, again
in my opinion, a falsehood. By standardizing on the process, chances are
much greater that the AVERAGE frame on the roll will print without excessive
print manipulation. Most others on the same roll will print with minimal
print manipulation.

I would recommend that you take time to examine the results of the "System".
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many venues, including
some in Carmel and New York.

BTW, to say that one has X number of years of experience in photography
makes one an expert is foolheardy. If time alone would make an expert, then
an 86-year-old driver, with 70 years behind the wheel, would make him an
expert driver. We know from experience, as well as other sources
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/30/older.drivers.ap/index.html) that this
is simply not true in all cases.
I'm not some 20-something bashing older people. I'm 47 years young and have
been a photographer for over 30 years, including 10 years professionally.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Scarpitti" <***@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: How to do?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.

.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.

[Bob & Linda Flood]

The Zone system survives because it is simple and works pretty well most

of

the time. Some of the concepts, like zone placement of key elements, can

be

handy even with roll film, although the whole concept can't be applied
unless you use multiple film magazines. The system is a pragmatic
approximation and should be treated as such.
There was a comment that expanded and contracted film development does not
work - at least with modern films. A look at the characteristic curves

for

different development times shows that is wrong. The contrast does vary.
Sometimes it varies in quite non-linear ways, but it does vary with
development time. If you're a purist, the key to the zone system is to do
controlled experiments to determine the development times (and, indeeed,

the

developers) that work for expansion and contraction. For the rest of us,
approximation works pretty well, most of the time. There are times when

the

simple approach just won't work, and you have to learn to recognize them

and

deal with them. It's worthy to note also that you should match the

negative

to the paper, not just for contrast but for the total effect.

Very well said. Let me add one more idea - the entire focus of the zone
system was to get the desired image onto the film. If that much is
accomplished, then darkroom techniques have a chance of getting that image
onto the paper. If you don't get the image onto the negative, no one has
the hardware or darkroom skills to compensate for the missing parts. The
system should not be judged by its ability to produce #2 contrast images
every time - Adams' legendary skill at darkroom manipulation to achieve
those great prints is testimony that the system was never intended to do
that.

[David Nebenzahl]

[...]

Post by Mark Wolenski
The "Zones", those 9 or 10 steps of gray, represent a geometric progression
of tones that correspond, more or less, to the geometric progression of
exposure. The graduated steps also allow for a common photographic language,
so that a photographer to express a particular tone in a way that others can
hear and visualize exactly what the first person was referring to.

OOOOOOOHHH? Is that like notes in a symphony? I want MUSIC, not NOTES!
I want IMAGES, not TONES!

To write or perform a symphony, or any other piece of music, one needs notes
and tones. Those who cannot master these fundamentals can't make music.

Your arguments, by analogy, are starting to sound like the fallacious
statements about music one hears, along the lines of "the technical stuff
isn't important: all that matters is what you feel, what's in your *heart*".

Which, of course, is absolute horseshit. In fact, music is one of the few arts
where there are very clear objective standards by which one can gauge
competence. I can't imagine photography is very far behind.

[Peter De Smidt]

I like Bill Troop. I have his book, and I've talked with him via email a
number of times. He's always been very friendly and helpful. That said, I
have yet to see any of his photographs. I have seen a number of Adam's.
... I'll interleave comments.
.

A principle of the ZS is that you can alter contrast without
materially altering speed. This I do not believe was ever
possible. If it was thought possible, it was because, in the
pre-Jones days, nobody understood speed. And even afterwards,
Adams himself had only a poor grasp of the Jones system.
For example, he never seemed to be able to grasp the point that
densities below 0.1 over b+f are often printable.

Bill is wrong. Adams does not state that changing development does not
change speed, as the graphs in The Negative clearly show. Development time
has less effect on speed than contrast, but it does have an effect.
Furthermore, Adams never said that densitites below .1 over fb+f aren't
printable. He did say, however, that prints with very good shadow
seperation often look better than those that don't. Bruce Barnbaum, John
Sexton, Les McLean: all agree, as do numerous others. The tricky occasions
where I've resorted to bracketing have bourne out this advice, with 4x5 and
with 35mm.

Towards the end, one could see Adams inclining to the kind
of technique that had been popular at least since Atget: if you
have a high contrast negative, you don't develop "less" -- you
develop for a long time, in a highly dilute developer, with
infrequent agitation. The technique Adams was espousing in his
last years for low contrast film development -- dilute HC-110 with
agitation only on each third minute -- had been well publicized
by Crawley in 1960 and had been a known technique for generations
before that.

Over Adam's lifetime, film changed tremendously. Thus he switched from
water bath to very dilute developer for extreme contractions. So?

Also noteworthy is Adams's dislike for working with Pyro, which for
other photographers, continuously, was always the most convenient
way to deal with contrast difficulties of every kind. Had Adams
been a pyro afficionado, he might not have felt so compelled to
formulate his system."

A number of his images where shot with pyro. He didn't like the
inconsistency of the formulas. Neither does Gordon Hutchings, which is why
he developed PMK.

It is NOT applicable to 35mm. 35mm needs MINIMAL, consistent,
semi-compensating development because of the problem of enlargement.
This means that certain aspects of tonality must be sacrificed to
achieve good acutance and sharpness together with reasonably fine
grain. These problems are not faced by the large format worker.

You keep saying this, but that doesn't mean that it's true. I often value
tonal seperation over fine grain in 35mm photography, as does anyone who
pushes his or her film.

-Peter De Smidt

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Peter De Smidt
I like Bill Troop. I have his book, and I've talked with him via email a
number of times. He's always been very friendly and helpful. That said, I
have yet to see any of his photographs. I have seen a number of Adam's.
... I'll interleave comments.
.

A principle of the ZS is that you can alter contrast without
materially altering speed. This I do not believe was ever
possible. If it was thought possible, it was because, in the
pre-Jones days, nobody understood speed. And even afterwards,
Adams himself had only a poor grasp of the Jones system.
For example, he never seemed to be able to grasp the point that
densities below 0.1 over b+f are often printable.

Bill is wrong. Adams does not state that changing development does not
change speed, as the graphs in The Negative clearly show. Development time
has less effect on speed than contrast, but it does have an effect.
Furthermore, Adams never said that densitites below .1 over fb+f aren't
printable. He did say, however, that prints with very good shadow
seperation often look better than those that don't. Bruce Barnbaum, John
Sexton, Les McLean: all agree, as do numerous others. The tricky occasions
where I've resorted to bracketing have bourne out this advice, with 4x5 and
with 35mm.

With 35mm, you have to use denisties lower down on the curve to get
the thinnest possible negative that will still print. That means
shadow separation will suffer a little compared to LF. I think that's
the issue. You don't need to do that with LF.

Post by Peter De Smidt

Towards the end, one could see Adams inclining to the kind
of technique that had been popular at least since Atget: if you
have a high contrast negative, you don't develop "less" -- you
develop for a long time, in a highly dilute developer, with
infrequent agitation. The technique Adams was espousing in his
last years for low contrast film development -- dilute HC-110 with
agitation only on each third minute -- had been well publicized
by Crawley in 1960 and had been a known technique for generations
before that.

Over Adam's lifetime, film changed tremendously. Thus he switched from
water bath to very dilute developer for extreme contractions. So?

So? The point is that Zonies are still taught and still practise the
'old way'. If you're faced with extreme contrast, dilute, man, dilute!

Post by Peter De Smidt

Also noteworthy is Adams's dislike for working with Pyro, which for
other photographers, continuously, was always the most convenient
way to deal with contrast difficulties of every kind. Had Adams
been a pyro afficionado, he might not have felt so compelled to
formulate his system."

A number of his images where shot with pyro. He didn't like the
inconsistency of the formulas. Neither does Gordon Hutchings, which is why
he developed PMK.

I have no working knowledge of Pyro, so I cannot comment. The point is
that other methods for handling contrast are available, and are ignore
in Zone System Dogma.

Post by Peter De Smidt

It is NOT applicable to 35mm. 35mm needs MINIMAL, consistent,
semi-compensating development because of the problem of enlargement.
This means that certain aspects of tonality must be sacrificed to
achieve good acutance and sharpness together with reasonably fine
grain. These problems are not faced by the large format worker.

You keep saying this, but that doesn't mean that it's true. I often value
tonal seperation over fine grain in 35mm photography, as does anyone who
pushes his or her film.

Why not treat 35mm as unique and adapte your technique to suit it? The
historical origins of 35mm are in the motion picture industry. D-76
was brought out as a motion picture developer (I have the 1929 Kodak
publication "Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion
Picture Film" in front of me right now!)

Both the aesthetic and technical aspects of 35mm work are dfferent
from LF. they are different as sprinting is from cros-country. You do
yourself a disservice by refusing to adapt your technique to get the
best 35mm has to offer. 35mm CAN produce wonderful results when
handled properly, and by 'properly' I mean quite a bit differently
from LF.

1. Tonal separation (at least in shadows) will never be as good with
35mm as with LF, because you need to keep densities down. This means
that shadows will be recorded lower on the curve (in the toe) where
the slope is gentler, not on the 'straight-line' portion. A 'good'
35mm negative is necessarily thinner and flatter than a 'good' LF
negative.

2. Using a single developing time for all work, using a
semi-compensating developer, allows more creative freedom. You just
shoot and respond to the scene without having to think. Thinking gets
in the way of good work. Let your aesthetic brain rule.

3. Those who come to 35mm only after they have learned LF skills are
naturally going to apply LF thinking and practises to 35mm. This is of
course NOT the best way to approach 35mm, either technically or
aesthetically. It must be treated quite independently of LF, as though
you knew NOTHING about LF. You have to start from scratch.

Post by Peter De Smidt
-Peter De Smidt

[John]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Thinking gets
in the way of good work. Let your aesthetic brain rule.

I assume that you use an auto-everything camera as well.

John

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by John

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Thinking gets
in the way of good work. Let your aesthetic brain rule.

I assume that you use an auto-everything camera as well.
John

No, I don't. Manual Leicaflex SL2. I don't 'think' during my picture
taking in the creative mode (as opposed to when I'm doing photography
for work). It just 'happens', the same as playing tennis. You don't
'think' when you're exercising a skill that you've cultivated for
years and years.

[Patrick Gainer]

Post by Mark Wolenski
Since you espouse to be an expert, perhaps you can explain all of the
aspects of the Zone System and each of its "erroneous assumptions".
My impression is that your OPINION of the Zone System is that it is dogma.
This is certainly, in my opinion, very far from the truth. Its basis in one
where the photographer takes as much control over the process (from film
exposure to the final print) as is possible.

"I would argue, today, that plus and minus development
is not really possible, and I am coming to doubt that
it ever was, with the older films. I incline to the
suspicion that sensitometric innocence and bad
instruments led the early photographers to believe
they had more control than they did.
A principle of the ZS is that you can alter contrast without
materially altering speed. This I do not believe was ever
possible. If it was thought possible, it was because, in the
pre-Jones days, nobody understood speed. And even afterwards,
Adams himself had only a poor grasp of the Jones system.
For example, he never seemed to be able to grasp the point that
densities below 0.1 over b+f are often printable.
Towards the end, one could see Adams inclining to the kind
of technique that had been popular at least since Atget: if you
have a high contrast negative, you don't develop "less" -- you
develop for a long time, in a highly dilute developer, with
infrequent agitation. The technique Adams was espousing in his
last years for low contrast film development -- dilute HC-110 with
agitation only on each third minute -- had been well publicized
by Crawley in 1960 and had been a known technique for generations
before that.
Also noteworthy is Adams's dislike for working with Pyro, which for
other photographers, continuously, was always the most convenient
way to deal with contrast difficulties of every kind. Had Adams
been a pyro afficionado, he might not have felt so compelled to
formulate his system."

Post by Mark Wolenski
The "Zones", those 9 or 10 steps of gray, represent a geometric progression
of tones that correspond, more or less, to the geometric progression of
exposure. The graduated steps also allow for a common photographic language,
so that a photographer to express a particular tone in a way that others can
hear and visualize exactly what the first person was referring to.

OOOOOOOHHH? Is that like notes in a symphony? I want MUSIC, not NOTES!
I want IMAGES, not TONES!

Post by Mark Wolenski
To say that the Zone System works "only with sheet film" is in part, again
in my opinion, a falsehood.

It is NOT applicable to 35mm. 35mm needs MINIMAL, consistent,
semi-compensating development because of the problem of enlargement.
This means that certain aspects of tonality must be sacrificed to
achieve good acutance and sharpness together with reasonably fine
grain. These problems are not faced by the large format worker.

Post by Mark Wolenski
By standardizing on the process, chances are
much greater that the AVERAGE frame on the roll will print without excessive
print manipulation. Most others on the same roll will print with minimal
print manipulation.

I agree wholehearetdly. Standardized minimal semi-compensating
development.

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results of the "System".
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many venues, including
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

Post by Mark Wolenski
BTW, to say that one has X number of years of experience in photography
makes one an expert is foolheardy.

Lots of experimentation and practise is behind it. What's foolhearty
is to assume what works in LF works in 35mm. It doesn't.

Post by Mark Wolenski
If time alone would make an expert, then
an 86-year-old driver, with 70 years behind the wheel, would make him an
expert driver. We know from experience, as well as other sources
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/30/older.drivers.ap/index.html) that this
is simply not true in all cases.
I'm not some 20-something bashing older people. I'm 47 years young and have
been a photographer for over 30 years, including 10 years professionally.
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: How to do?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.

.

Post by Michael Scarpitti
5. The Zone Sytem is based on erroneous assumptions in its origin, and
at best works only partially as intended, and then only with sheet
film. 35mm users are advised to stick with standardized, consistent,
semi-compensating development and condenser enlarging for the optimum
compromise between convenience and technical quality. Changing
dilution for coping with extreme contrast is far superior to
shortening devlopment time below normal.

Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined. I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

So what?

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.

How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

[Patrick Gainer]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.

How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

Have you read mine? It too is based on experiment. You still haven't defined compensation or
semi-compensation so that anyone can measure it.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.

How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

Have you read mine? It too is based on experiment. You still haven't defined compensation or
semi-compensation so that anyone can measure it.

They're not exact terms. Some developers provide little or no
compensation, some a moderate amount (this is what is called
semi-compensating), some a great deal. Semi-compensating developers
affect the mid-tones very little, and have the greatest effect on the
highlight areas. Strongly compensating developers affect the mid-tones
too. Which is appropriate depends on several factors, but for most
work I recommend semi-compensating for 35mm.

Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. 1+14 is more compensating.

[Patrick Gainer]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.

How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

Have you read mine? It too is based on experiment. You still haven't defined compensation or
semi-compensation so that anyone can measure it.

They're not exact terms. Some developers provide little or no
compensation, some a moderate amount (this is what is called
semi-compensating), some a great deal. Semi-compensating developers
affect the mid-tones very little, and have the greatest effect on the
highlight areas. Strongly compensating developers affect the mid-tones
too. Which is appropriate depends on several factors, but for most
work I recommend semi-compensating for 35mm.

In other words, compensating and semi-compensating are in the category of half-truths you complained about in
your original post. They cannot be measured.

The fine grain usually attributed to high sulfite content can be obtained without any sulfite by use of
ascorbic acid in place of hydroquinone. Hydroquinone requires sulfite in order to be superadditive with metol
or phenidone. Sodium ascorbate does not.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own principles.

How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I don't know what that means because in
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of sulfite concentration are well known to
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

Have you read mine? It too is based on experiment. You still haven't defined compensation or
semi-compensation so that anyone can measure it.

They're not exact terms. Some developers provide little or no
compensation, some a moderate amount (this is what is called
semi-compensating), some a great deal. Semi-compensating developers
affect the mid-tones very little, and have the greatest effect on the
highlight areas. Strongly compensating developers affect the mid-tones
too. Which is appropriate depends on several factors, but for most
work I recommend semi-compensating for 35mm.

In other words, compensating and semi-compensating are in the category of half-truths you complained about in
your original post. They cannot be measured.
The fine grain usually attributed to high sulfite content can be obtained without any sulfite by use of
ascorbic acid in place of hydroquinone. Hydroquinone requires sulfite in order to be superadditive with metol
or phenidone. Sodium ascorbate does not.

They're not 'half-truths', just inexact terms.

[Peter De Smidt]

A compensating developer is one that lowers only highlight, perhaps in
addition upper mid-tone, contrast compared to a regular developer, although
I expect that all the participants of the debate know this. Now the question
is really is, does this really happen in practice? A number of
well-repected people claim that it doesn't, at least if you give enough
agitation to result in even development, and you develop enough to get the
same contrast throughout the rest of the negative. Highly dilute developer
is often recommended by advocates of compensating developers. (Until now,
I've never heard D76 1:1 mentioned as a "semi-compensating" developer.) Is
using a compensating developer a useful techinique? I have no idea. I
almost never worry about the highlights blocking, as most current films have
an almost incredible light recording ability. They don't shoulder off until
massive amounts of exposure are given. (I'd use Zone System terms, but I
certainly wouldn't want to clarify the issue any more.) Thus, I don't worry
about compensating developers. I have used PMK in the past, which causes a
shouldering of most film when using VC printing paper. I didn't like the
effect, whether in 35mm or in 4x5.

-Peter De Smidt

[Gregory W. Blank]

Post by Peter De Smidt
A compensating developer is one that lowers only highlight, perhaps in
addition upper mid-tone, contrast compared to a regular developer, although
I expect that all the participants of the debate know this. Now the question
is really is, does this really happen in practice? A number of
well-repected people claim that it doesn't, at least if you give enough
agitation to result in even development, and you develop enough to get the
same contrast throughout the rest of the negative. Highly dilute developer
is often recommended by advocates of compensating developers. (Until now,
I've never heard D76 1:1 mentioned as a "semi-compensating" developer.)

I certainly would not say that, maybe D23 but not D76.

Post by Peter De Smidt
Is using a compensating developer a useful techinique? I have no idea. I
almost never worry about the highlights blocking, as most current films have
an almost incredible light recording ability. They don't shoulder off until
massive amounts of exposure are given. (I'd use Zone System terms, but I
certainly wouldn't want to clarify the issue any more.) Thus, I don't worry
about compensating developers. I have used PMK in the past, which causes a
shouldering of most film when using VC printing paper. I didn't like the
effect, whether in 35mm or in 4x5.
-Peter De Smidt

Its really a matter of personal taste, and the paper you intend to print upon
and how you print upon that paper.

[Gregory W. Blank]

Obviously you have no idea who Patrick is ?

He has some interesting articles at the www.unblinkingeye.com
Look for Vitamin C developers

Do you understand what 'compensating' development means? I'm not sure
you understand.

[Francis A. Miniter]

Post by Gregory W. Blank
Obviously you have no idea who Patrick is ?
He has some interesting articles at the www.unblinkingeye.com
Look for Vitamin C developers

And Photo Techniques magazine and other journals of photography, not to
mention that he is generally regarded as the most knowledgeable person
in the USA, maybe the world, on the use of sodium ascorbate and ascorbic
acid as developers in photographic processes.


Francis A. Miniter

[Gregory W. Blank]

Post by Francis A. Miniter
And Photo Techniques magazine and other journals of photography, not to
mention that he is generally regarded as the most knowledgeable person
in the USA, maybe the world, on the use of sodium ascorbate and ascorbic
acid as developers in photographic processes.
Francis A. Miniter

Yes and I respect what Patrick has contributed to photo,
needless to say there are quite a few knowledgeable contributers
to this and rec.photo.equipment.large-format I have found the best
method is to maintain a sense of humilty, and I have learned alot by
just being here, Thanks Francis.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Compensate for what, being under five foot tall? And what is the "effect",
elevator shoes? The previous poster wanted definitions of those terms, I
believe.

See:

http://www.jackspcs.com/fdev.htm
http://www.jackspcs.com/pyrohd.htm

"Pyrocat-HD
Pyrocat-HD is a semi-compensating, high-definition developer,
formulated by Sandy King as an alternative to PMK"

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002aDO
"I used self mixed D-23 for many years with 4x5" Ilford FP-4. It's a
developer easy to make and easy to use. As semi-compensating, it
allows broader exposure without burned highlights, it also produces a
fine grain. I shifted later to HC-110 because I felt the midtones were
a little too compressed. But when I'm looking now at the negs taken
with D-23, I can't decide which one could in general be better. In LF
(8x10") I would choose the D-23."

-- Jan Eerala , September 30, 1999; 11:42 A.M. Eastern


http://www.photoshot.com/articles/general/kodak_d_23.htm
"As well as being a very simple developer, D-23 is also a very
versatile one. I mentioned earlier the Windisch compensating
developer. Well, D-23 is more accurately described as a
semi-compensating developer, but you can make it into a fully
compensating solution by simply diluting it with water."

Dick

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
Michael,
The problem with quoting authority is that it violates your own

principles.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti
How so? His expertise is based on research, just as mine is. If you
don't believe me, you have to go through him too.

Post by Patrick Gainer
As soon as you used the term "semi-compensating" I tuned out. I

don't know what that means because in

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
all my readings I have never seen it defined.

Developers that are intermediate bewteen devlopers such as Neofin Blue
(strongly compensating) and straight D-76. D-76 1:1 is
semi-compensating. Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. D-76 1:3 is
strongly compensating. Acutol 1+14 is strongly compensating.
Acuspecial (no longer made) was stongly compensating. Rodinal 1:25 is
semi-compensating. Rodinal 1:100 is strongly compensating.

Post by Patrick Gainer
I have been searching for the elusive compensating
developer for 60 years and can't tell it from any other.

Have you used Acutol?

Post by Patrick Gainer
Bill Troop can deal in truisms as well as any. The effects of

sulfite concentration are well known to

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
every one but me. I can get the same effects without any sulfite.

What do you mean? What 'effects'? Have you read Crawley's work in BJP?
I have. Have you read Carlton and Crabtree 1929?

Post by Patrick Gainer
So what?

Have you read mine? It too is based on experiment. You still haven't

defined compensation or

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Patrick Gainer
semi-compensation so that anyone can measure it.

They're not exact terms. Some developers provide little or no
compensation, some a moderate amount (this is what is called
semi-compensating), some a great deal. Semi-compensating developers
affect the mid-tones very little, and have the greatest effect on the
highlight areas. Strongly compensating developers affect the mid-tones
too. Which is appropriate depends on several factors, but for most
work I recommend semi-compensating for 35mm.
Acutol 1+9 is semi-compensating. 1+14 is more compensating.

[AnonyMouse]

At this point, you have refused to "explain ALL of the aspects of the Zone
System and each of its 'erroneous assumptions'". Why is this? Is it that you
do not understand that which you ridicule?

Post by Mark Wolenski
The "Zones", those 9 or 10 steps of gray, represent a geometric progression
of tones that correspond, more or less, to the geometric progression of
exposure. The graduated steps also allow for a common photographic language,
so that a photographer to express a particular tone in a way that others can
hear and visualize exactly what the first person was referring to.

OOOOOOOHHH? Is that like notes in a symphony? I want MUSIC, not NOTES!
I want IMAGES, not TONES!

Rather than offer a logical and though-out alternative, it appears that you
are simply offering a childish come-back. Is this impression correct?

Do you agree that a photograph usually consists of varied tones of gray?
Do you agree that a geometric progression of exposure will produce a
geometric progression of tones?
Do you agree that there are limitations to the tonal reproduction
characteristics of both film and paper?

Post by Mark Wolenski
To say that the Zone System works "only with sheet film" is in part, again
in my opinion, a falsehood.

It is NOT applicable to 35mm. 35mm needs MINIMAL, consistent,
semi-compensating development because of the problem of enlargement.
This means that certain aspects of tonality must be sacrificed to
achieve good acutance and sharpness together with reasonably fine
grain. These problems are not faced by the large format worker.

Based on this, I can only assume that you make absolutely no compensation
with either exposure or development based upon the contrast of the original
scene as presented by nature. Instead "certain aspects of tonality must be
sacrificed" in order to achive an image on the final print. Is this
impression correct?

Post by Mark Wolenski
By standardizing on the process, chances are
much greater that the AVERAGE frame on the roll will print without excessive
print manipulation. Most others on the same roll will print with minimal
print manipulation.

I agree wholehearetdly. Standardized minimal semi-compensating
development.

Then this is part of your recommended SYSTEM for Tonal Reproduction, tones
that can be expressed on a scale of 1 to 9?

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results of the "System".
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many venues, including
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

... and have you formulated an opinion on the quality of the results? (I
refer, of course, to original prints and not on halftone/duotone
reproductions in books an magazines.) It appears that you have already
formulated an opinion on the techniques that he used to arrive at the final
print.

Post by Mark Wolenski
BTW, to say that one has X number of years of experience in photography
makes one an expert is foolheardy.

Lots of experimentation and practise is behind it. What's foolhearty
is to assume what works in LF works in 35mm. It doesn't.

Then it would be more correct for you to state that your opinion is based on
experimentation and practice, rather than a set number of years. Do you
agree?

I do not recall making a statement that large format and 35mm photography
should be handled in exactly the same manner. I indirectly stated that
control of tonal reproduction using 35mm roll film is possible. In my lab, I
use a fulll diffision enlarger (an old Elwood) for printing large format
negatives, while my 35mm enlarger is not a diffusion enlarger. This, even by
itself, is reason enough not to treat the films in a similar manner.

Post by Mark Wolenski
If time alone would make an expert, then
an 86-year-old driver, with 70 years behind the wheel, would make him an
expert driver. We know from experience, as well as other sources
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/30/older.drivers.ap/index.html) that this
is simply not true in all cases.
I'm not some 20-something bashing older people. I'm 47 years young and have
been a photographer for over 30 years, including 10 years

professionally.

[AnonyMouse]

Post by AnonyMouse
Rather than offer a logical and though-out alternative, it appears that you
are simply offering a childish come-back. Is this impression correct?

The point is the DIFFERENCE between 35mm work and LF work.

I was not referring to any difference between 35mm and LF work. I was
referring to a progression of tones that are the basis of photography. If
you can present my words back to me (from this particular context) that
support your statement then (and only then) would I owe you any apology.
Otherwise, it appears that you are trying very hard to make some sort of
interpretation of what appears to me to be a rather straightforward
statement.

Keep that in mind. The obsession with Zones produces in my opinion

empty-hreaded

dreck. I'm sick of the typical Zonie work. Nauseating crap.

At no time, within the context, did I use the phrase "Zone". I referred to
TONES that correspond MORE OR LESS to the geometric progression of exposure.
Obsession of any sorts is usually not considered healthy.

By the way, how would you describe to another photographer, in words alone,
a tone of gray that is one f-stop (use the Law of Reciprocity as a basis for
the unit of measure) darker than an industry standard gray card? How about a
tone of gray that is one f-stop darker than the "whiteness" of the printing
paper? Use as few words as you can.

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a photograph usually consists of varied tones of gray?

Yes

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a geometric progression of exposure will produce a
geometric progression of tones?

Not exactly. there is inevitable compression and distortion.

Agreed, but what about within the range that film is subject to Reciprocity?

35mm films such as Tri-X are deliberately
designed to limit highlight density. They're intended for miniature
work and have characteristic curves that assist in producing a high
percentage of usable negatives with a single developing time. The
shoulder of Tri-X is quite soft. This allows considerable tolerance
for both over-exposure and overdevelopment.

Looking at the information from Kodak(
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jht
ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en for the "new" Tri-X and
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml?id=
0.3.8.20.18.24.4&lc=en for the "old" Tri-X), I cannot seem to find data that
supports your statements. If you would be so kind as to point to the
information in the above cited Kodak-supplied data.

If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the 35mm,
120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film base
that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of the
emulsion itself. If you can cite information from the manufacturer that
leads to a contrary conclusion, I would be very interested in the URL.

Post by AnonyMouse
Based on this, I can only assume that you make absolutely no

compensation

Post by AnonyMouse
with either exposure or development based upon the contrast of the original
scene as presented by nature.

No, I do not. I'll often shoot rolls of a sports events or reportage
that renders such treatment impossible, even if I were to want to.

I do not understand the answer. Do lighting conditions for reportage and
sports (as presented by nature) differ from the lighting conditions (and
subsequent contrast of the scene) from conditions you encounter in other
types of photography?

Post by AnonyMouse
Instead "certain aspects of tonality must be
sacrificed" in order to achive an image on the final print. Is this
impression correct?

Absolutely correct. I use a standard time for all negatives, which is
about 20% less than for a diffusion system. I make my own formulas
based on the FX series of Geoffrey Crawley. Adjustments in print
contrast are made if necessary.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
By standardizing on the process, chances are
much greater that the AVERAGE frame on the roll will print without

excessive

Post by Mark Wolenski
print manipulation. Most others on the same roll will print with minimal
print manipulation.

I agree wholehearetdly. Standardized minimal semi-compensating
development.

Then this is part of your recommended SYSTEM for Tonal Reproduction, tones
that can be expressed on a scale of 1 to 9?

No, it's not. It's based on average scene brightness. If YOU want to
give them numbers, go right ahead.

Is it my understanding that you will process film rolls exposed on a dull
and overcast day and film rolls exposed on a bright cloudless day in exactly
the same manner?

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results of the

"System".

Post by Mark Wolenski
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many venues,

including

Post by Mark Wolenski
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

... and have you formulated an opinion on the quality of the results? (I
refer, of course, to original prints and not on halftone/duotone
reproductions in books an magazines.) It appears that you have already
formulated an opinion on the techniques that he used to arrive at the final
print.

Again, I ask the question: (as presented in the previous context) have you
formulated an opinion on the quality of the results?

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
BTW, to say that one has X number of years of experience in photography
makes one an expert is foolheardy.

Lots of experimentation and practise is behind it. What's foolhearty
is to assume what works in LF works in 35mm. It doesn't.

Then it would be more correct for you to state that your opinion is based on
experimentation and practice, rather than a set number of years. Do you
agree?

Yes, in my case both.

This was a choice of either A or B. Which is more important?:
A. Experimentation and practice
B. Age

Post by AnonyMouse
I do not recall making a statement that large format and 35mm photography
should be handled in exactly the same manner. I indirectly stated that
control of tonal reproduction using 35mm roll film is possible.

Simply following the basics as outlined by film and chemistry
companies will provide almost all the information you need to have.
You can fine-tune it more than that if you want, since this
information is for average workers with average lenses. I use Leica
products, including enlarging lenses, so my film developing time is in
all likelihood slighly less in duration than it would be with other
camera systems and enlarging lenses.

Post by AnonyMouse
In my lab, I
use a fulll diffision enlarger (an old Elwood) for printing large format
negatives, while my 35mm enlarger is not a diffusion enlarger. This, even by
itself, is reason enough not to treat the films in a similar manner.

Agreed!

Based upon your agreement, can I conclude that you are of the feeling that
if both LF and 35mm films are printed using identical condenser-based
enlargers that they should be treated in a similar manner?

[Michael Scarpitti]

Subject: Re: How to do?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-08-02 17:20:34 PST

Post by AnonyMouse
Rather than offer a logical and though-out alternative, it

appears that you

Post by AnonyMouse
are simply offering a childish come-back. Is this impression correct?

The point is the DIFFERENCE between 35mm work and LF work.

I was not referring to any difference between 35mm and LF work. I was
referring to a progression of tones that are the basis of

photography.

What about emotion?

If
you can present my words back to me (from this particular context) that
support your statement then (and only then) would I owe you any

apology.

Otherwise, it appears that you are trying very hard to make some sort of
interpretation of what appears to me to be a rather straightforward
statement.

Keep that in mind. The obsession with Zones produces in my opinion

empty-hreaded

dreck. I'm sick of the typical Zonie work. Nauseating crap.

At no time, within the context, did I use the phrase "Zone". I

referred to

TONES that correspond MORE OR LESS to the geometric progression of exposure.
Obsession of any sorts is usually not considered healthy.

But your drift was clear enough. You want me to be obsessed with
tones, and I don't want to be obsessed with tones. There are several
interlocking facets of B&W photography in 35mm: speed, sharpness,
graininess, and tonality. You cannot have all the sharpness and
tonality of 4x5 in 35mm. Cannot be done.

By the way, how would you describe to another photographer, in words alone,
a tone of gray that is one f-stop (use the Law of Reciprocity as a basis for
the unit of measure) darker than an industry standard gray card? How about a
tone of gray that is one f-stop darker than the "whiteness" of the printing
paper? Use as few words as you can.

Dunno. Donna care.

How would you describe the exquisite sharpness and tonal separation in
the shadows that a Focotar-2 enlarging lens has? I don't know that
either. It doesn't matter to me whether I can describe it to you, but
I can see it and I'm sure you could see it if it were presented to
you. The best way to preserve tones in the shadow areas is by using
the best taking and enlarging lenses, all other things being equal.

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a photograph usually consists of varied tones of gray?

Yes

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a geometric progression of exposure will

produce a

Post by AnonyMouse
geometric progression of tones?

Not exactly. there is inevitable compression and distortion.

Agreed, but what about within the range that film is subject to

Reciprocity?

In 35mm work, you use a lot more of the toe. Films vary. See below.

35mm films such as Tri-X are deliberately
designed to limit highlight density. They're intended for miniature
work and have characteristic curves that assist in producing a high
percentage of usable negatives with a single developing time. The
shoulder of Tri-X is quite soft. This allows considerable tolerance
for both over-exposure and over-development.

Looking at the information from Kodak(
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jht
ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en for the "new" Tri-X and
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml?id=
0.3.8.20.18.24.4&lc=en for the "old" Tri-X), I cannot seem to find data that
supports your statements. If you would be so kind as to point to the
information in the above cited Kodak-supplied data.
If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the 35mm,
120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film base
that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of the
emulsion itself.

Incorrect. See below.

If you can cite information from the manufacturer that
leads to a contrary conclusion, I would be very interested in the URL.

TX (ISO 400) is completely different from TXP (ISO 320). Look:

TX in D-76:
Loading Image...

TXP in D-76
Loading Image...

You'll note the shoulder characteristic is different (flatter with the
35mm material) and that the slope in the lower mid-tones/shadows is
steeper with the 35mm material, softer with the large-format material.
They're completely opposite films as far as the highlight and shadow
regions are concerned. They could hardly be less similar.

See:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jhtml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en

Post by AnonyMouse
Based on this, I can only assume that you make absolutely no compensation
with either exposure or development based upon the contrast of the original
scene as presented by nature.

No, I do not. I'll often shoot rolls of a sports events or

reportage

that renders such treatment impossible, even if I were to want to.

I do not understand the answer. Do lighting conditions for reportage and
sports (as presented by nature) differ from the lighting conditions (and
subsequent contrast of the scene) from conditions you encounter in other
types of photography?

The subject doesn't stand still. Angles vary from instant to instant.
Clouds come and go. You may find yourself shooting into the sun one
second, and away the next. Not like landscape/static object
photography, where you can pick your time and angle to shoot.

Post by AnonyMouse
Instead "certain aspects of tonality must be
sacrificed" in order to achieve an image on the final print. Is

this

Post by AnonyMouse
impression correct?

Absolutely correct. I use a standard time for all negatives, which is
about 20% less than for a diffusion system. I make my own formulas
based on the FX series of Geoffrey Crawley. Adjustments in print
contrast are made if necessary.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
By standardizing on the process, chances are
much greater that the AVERAGE frame on the roll will print without excessive
print manipulation. Most others on the same roll will print with minimal
print manipulation.

I agree wholeheartedly. Standardized minimal semi-compensating
development.

Then this is part of your recommended SYSTEM for Tonal

Reproduction, tones

Post by AnonyMouse
that can be expressed on a scale of 1 to 9?

No, it's not. It's based on average scene brightness. If YOU want to
give them numbers, go right ahead.

Is it my understanding that you will process film rolls exposed on a dull
and overcast day and film rolls exposed on a bright cloudless day in exactly
the same manner?

Generally, yes. In some cases, I might dilute more. That does not
change the contrast in the shadow areas much, but it does hold back
the highlights. I never use 'minus' development, though, if that's
what you're asking. That lowers the contrast too much in the shadows
and causes uneven development. Dilute, man, dilute!

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results of the "System".
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many

venues, including

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

... and have you formulated an opinion on the quality of the results? (I
refer, of course, to original prints and not on halftone/duotone
reproductions in books an magazines.) It appears that you have already
formulated an opinion on the techniques that he used to arrive at the final
print.

Again, I ask the question: (as presented in the previous context) have you
formulated an opinion on the quality of the results?

I know what you're getting at, but it is irrelevant as an example for
35mm work. 35mm work should be compared to other 35mm work. You don't
compare a cassette tape to a studio recorder doing 30ips, and then say
it sounds like shit! Take the studio recorder into the woods--if you
can!

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
BTW, to say that one has X number of years of experience in photography
makes one an expert is foolhardy.

Lots of experimentation and practise is behind it. What's

foolhardy

Post by AnonyMouse

is to assume what works in LF works in 35mm. It doesn't.

Then it would be more correct for you to state that your opinion is based on
experimentation and practice, rather than a set number of years. Do you
agree?

Yes, in my case both.

A. Experimentation and practice
B. Age

A. LOTS of 'A'. Years of A. Critically understood A.

Post by AnonyMouse
I do not recall making a statement that large format and 35mm photography
should be handled in exactly the same manner. I indirectly stated that
control of tonal reproduction using 35mm roll film is possible.

Simply following the basics as outlined by film and chemistry
companies will provide almost all the information you need to have.
You can fine-tune it more than that if you want, since this
information is for average workers with average lenses. I use Leica
products, including enlarging lenses, so my film developing time is in
all likelihood slightly less in duration than it would be with

other

camera systems and enlarging lenses.

Post by AnonyMouse
In my lab, I
use a full diffusion enlarger (an old Elwood) for printing large

format

Post by AnonyMouse
negatives, while my 35mm enlarger is not a diffusion enlarger. This, even by
itself, is reason enough not to treat the films in a similar manner.

Agreed!

Based upon your agreement, can I conclude that you are of the feeling that
if both LF and 35mm films are printed using identical condenser-based
enlargers that they should be treated in a similar manner?

Depends on wht you mean by 'similar manner. So, I wouuld say: No, not
exactly. The LF negative is generally going to be contrastier and
heavier, the 35mm thinner and flatter. The 35mm will generally be
printed on approx #3 grade, the LF on #2.

Post a follow-up to this message
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services &

Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help

(c)2003 Google

[Francis A. Miniter]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Subject: Re: How to do?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-08-02 17:20:34 PST
<snip>By the way, how would you describe to another photographer, in words alone, a tone of gray that is one f-stop (use the Law of Reciprocity as a basis for the unit of measure) darker than an industry standard gray card? How about a tone of gray that is one f-stop darker than the "whiteness" of the printing paper? Use as few words as you can.

Dunno. Donna care.
How would you describe the exquisite sharpness and tonal separation in
the shadows that a Focotar-2 enlarging lens has? I don't know that
either. It doesn't matter to me whether I can describe it to you, but
I can see it and I'm sure you could see it if it were presented to
you. The best way to preserve tones in the shadow areas is by using
the best taking and enlarging lenses, all other things being equal.

There are people who can perform a task well without understanding what
they are doing or being able to explain it.


As to the "best way to preserve tones in the shadow areas", the task
begins long before you get to the enlarger lens. First, you have to
consider the typical curve of the film itself and its sensitivity to
shadows. Second, whatever your distaste for terminology, you have to
determine how many stops below mid-gray the shadows will be exposed at.
Third, you have to determine the effect of the particular film developer
and process on those shadow areas. Fourth, you have to consider what
paper you are going to print on. Fifth, you have to decide which print
developer will yield the desired effect, whatever that effect is. Yes,
some enlarging lenses perform better than others. But to say that one
particular lenses outperforms all others in a visibly noticeable manner
in each case is the sort of thing that causes raised eyebrows. It
would be nice if a comparison test were possible to arrange.


Francis A. Miniter

[AnonyMouse]

Post by AnonyMouse

Subject: Re: How to do?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-08-02 17:20:34 PST

Post by AnonyMouse
Rather than offer a logical and though-out alternative, it

appears that you

Post by AnonyMouse
are simply offering a childish come-back. Is this impression

correct?

The point is the DIFFERENCE between 35mm work and LF work.

I was not referring to any difference between 35mm and LF work. I was
referring to a progression of tones that are the basis of

photography.
What about emotion?

This last "answer" is completely off-track from my orignal statement. Please
reread my contributions.

Post by AnonyMouse

Keep that in mind. The obsession with Zones produces in my opinion

empty-hreaded

dreck. I'm sick of the typical Zonie work. Nauseating crap.

At no time, within the context, did I use the phrase "Zone". I

referred to

TONES that correspond MORE OR LESS to the geometric progression of

exposure.

Obsession of any sorts is usually not considered healthy.

But your drift was clear enough. You want me to be obsessed with
tones, and I don't want to be obsessed with tones. There are several
interlocking facets of B&W photography in 35mm: speed, sharpness,
graininess, and tonality. You cannot have all the sharpness and
tonality of 4x5 in 35mm. Cannot be done.

No, I do not WANT you to be obsessed with tones, as it is quite apparent
that you are not. Yet you appear to exhibit obsession in other areas of
"your process".
If your definition of a good photographic quality is based solely on
sharpness and acutance with a secondary consideration of a tonal
representation in black and white of what is usually a color scene, then
perhaps gross underdevelopment of the negative (and the corresponding lack
of contrast) is the approach to take, along with increasing the contrast of
the final print during the printing stage, as will occur with a combination
of condenser systems and Grade 3 papers.
While the primary goals may be achieved, the secondary goal will not,
perhaps I may say, EVER. Tones that do not exist in the negative cannot be
magically fabricated later on.
Speed, as I perceive it in the overly broad context presented, is irrelivent
as it is not readily apparent in the final product, is derived from the
extrapolation of graininess and sharpness. It appears then, in your way of
thinking, that "two out of three ain't bad"

Post by AnonyMouse
How would you describe the exquisite sharpness and tonal separation in
the shadows that a Focotar-2 enlarging lens has? I don't know that
either. It doesn't matter to me whether I can describe it to you, but
I can see it and I'm sure you could see it if it were presented to
you. The best way to preserve tones in the shadow areas is by using
the best taking and enlarging lenses, all other things being equal.

How about such terms as lines per mm resolution (USAF target) and circle of
confusion for
a start? These are measurable and have a direct effect on the final product.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a photograph usually consists of varied tones

of gray?

Yes

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a geometric progression of exposure will

produce a

Post by AnonyMouse
geometric progression of tones?

Not exactly. there is inevitable compression and distortion.

Agreed, but what about within the range that film is subject to

Reciprocity?
In 35mm work, you use a lot more of the toe. Films vary. See below.

See below and above.

Post by AnonyMouse

35mm films such as Tri-X are deliberately
designed to limit highlight density. They're intended for miniature
work and have characteristic curves that assist in producing a high
percentage of usable negatives with a single developing time. The
shoulder of Tri-X is quite soft. This allows considerable tolerance
for both over-exposure and over-development.

Looking at the information from Kodak(

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jh

t

Post by AnonyMouse

ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en for the "new" Tri-X and

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml?id

=

Post by AnonyMouse

0.3.8.20.18.24.4&lc=en for the "old" Tri-X), I cannot seem to find

data that

supports your statements. If you would be so kind as to point to the
information in the above cited Kodak-supplied data.
If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the

35mm,

120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film

base

that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of

the

emulsion itself.

Incorrect. See below.

If you can cite information from the manufacturer that
leads to a contrary conclusion, I would be very interested in the

URL.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0492
ac.gif

Post by AnonyMouse
TXP in D-76

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0496
ac.gif

Post by AnonyMouse
You'll note the shoulder characteristic is different (flatter with the
35mm material) and that the slope in the lower mid-tones/shadows is
steeper with the 35mm material, softer with the large-format material.
They're completely opposite films as far as the highlight and shadow
regions are concerned. They could hardly be less similar.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jht
ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en

The second chart you cite refers to 120 roll film, not sheet as you contend.
Nor have you addressed :
"If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the 35mm,
120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film base
that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of the
emulsion itself." Again, I cannot find evidence that supports your
contention that the emulsion formulas for Tri-X (as per your example) are
different than those used to produce the corresponding sheet film.

Post by AnonyMouse

I do not understand the answer. Do lighting conditions for reportage

and

sports (as presented by nature) differ from the lighting conditions

(and

subsequent contrast of the scene) from conditions you encounter in

other

types of photography?

The subject doesn't stand still. Angles vary from instant to instant.
Clouds come and go. You may find yourself shooting into the sun one
second, and away the next. Not like landscape/static object
photography, where you can pick your time and angle to shoot.

Is it fair to conclude that a photographer who wishes to practice "street
photography" will not benefit from your processing techniques? Nor would any
photographer who does not rely upon a "static" subject?

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results

of the "System".

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many

venues, including

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

... and have you formulated an opinion on the quality of the

results? (I

Post by AnonyMouse
refer, of course, to original prints and not on halftone/duotone
reproductions in books an magazines.) It appears that you have

already

Post by AnonyMouse
formulated an opinion on the techniques that he used to arrive at

the final

Post by AnonyMouse
print.

Again, I ask the question: (as presented in the previous context)

have you

formulated an opinion on the quality of the results?

I know what you're getting at, but it is irrelevant as an example for
35mm work. 35mm work should be compared to other 35mm work. You don't
compare a cassette tape to a studio recorder doing 30ips, and then say
it sounds like shit! Take the studio recorder into the woods--if you
can!

By your statement, is it your opinion that photographs produced with 35mm
equipment (cassette tape) will always be "shit" compared to large format
(30ips)? If this is true, then what is the point of creating a "perfect"
35mm exposure and development system if the final result will always be
substandard?

Post by AnonyMouse

A. Experimentation and practice
B. Age

A. LOTS of 'A'. Years of A. Critically understood A.

Yet you are apparently quick to discount and ridicule the experimentation
and practice of someone who had more "years of experience" than yourself?

Post by AnonyMouse

Based upon your agreement, can I conclude that you are of the feeling

that

if both LF and 35mm films are printed using identical condenser-based
enlargers that they should be treated in a similar manner?

Depends on wht you mean by 'similar manner. So, I wouuld say: No, not
exactly. The LF negative is generally going to be contrastier and
heavier, the 35mm thinner and flatter. The 35mm will generally be
printed on approx #3 grade, the LF on #2.

Why will the large format negative be "contrastier and heavier" if exposed
and processed in a manner similar to your 35mm system? If your system is
"perfect" for 35mm, what is the limiting factor(s) to developing a parallel
system for Large Format?

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Subject: Re: How to do?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-08-02 17:20:34 PST

Post by AnonyMouse
Rather than offer a logical and though-out alternative, it

appears that you

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
are simply offering a childish come-back. Is this impression

correct?

Post by AnonyMouse

The point is the DIFFERENCE between 35mm work and LF work.

I was not referring to any difference between 35mm and LF work. I was
referring to a progression of tones that are the basis of

photography.
What about emotion?

This last "answer" is completely off-track from my orignal statement. Please
reread my contributions.

You apparently don't understand.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Keep that in mind. The obsession with Zones produces in my opinion

empty-hreaded

Post by AnonyMouse

dreck. I'm sick of the typical Zonie work. Nauseating crap.

At no time, within the context, did I use the phrase "Zone". I

referred to

Post by AnonyMouse

TONES that correspond MORE OR LESS to the geometric progression of

exposure.

Post by AnonyMouse

Obsession of any sorts is usually not considered healthy.

But your drift was clear enough. You want me to be obsessed with
tones, and I don't want to be obsessed with tones. There are several
interlocking facets of B&W photography in 35mm: speed, sharpness,
graininess, and tonality. You cannot have all the sharpness and
tonality of 4x5 in 35mm. Cannot be done.

No, I do not WANT you to be obsessed with tones, as it is quite apparent
that you are not. Yet you appear to exhibit obsession in other areas of
"your process".

I don't 'obsess' with anything. I know EXACTLY what can and what
cannot be done with 35mm B&W film. It will never equal LF. NEVER. On
the other hand, try 'impulse street photography' with your view
camera.

Post by AnonyMouse
If your definition of a good photographic quality is based solely on
sharpness and acutance with a secondary consideration of a tonal
representation in black and white of what is usually a color scene, then
perhaps gross underdevelopment of the negative (and the corresponding lack
of contrast) is the approach to take, along with increasing the contrast of
the final print during the printing stage, as will occur with a combination
of condenser systems and Grade 3 papers.

It's nowhere near 'gross underdevelopment', nor is there
'corresponding lack
of contrast'. Kodak recommends 20-30% less with conventional films,
10-15% with T-grain films, when using a condenser enlarger. That's
Kodak saying this, and does not rest merely on my authority. The
condenser supplies the contrast, and the reduction in developing time
is a significant benefit for 35mm. It allows finer grain and higher
sharpness, which on a larger negative are not needed because
enlargement factors are so much less with LF.

Post by AnonyMouse
While the primary goals may be achieved, the secondary goal will not,
perhaps I may say, EVER. Tones that do not exist in the negative cannot be
magically fabricated later on.

They exist in MY negatives. Ever shoot Leica equipment? The contrsat
is stunning.

Post by AnonyMouse
Speed, as I perceive it in the overly broad context presented, is irrelivent
as it is not readily apparent in the final product, is derived from the
extrapolation of graininess and sharpness. It appears then, in your way of
thinking, that "two out of three ain't bad".

Sharpness. Speed. Fine grain. Rich tonality: In 35mm, Pick two. In LF,
pick all four. This ineveitable because of the small size of the 35mm
negative. You can optimize your negative for sharpness/acutance/speed
at the expense of fine grain and tonality (e.g., Neofin, etc.), or you
can achieve higher speed with fine grain at the expense of sharpness
(e.g., Ilford Microfin) or you can achieve fine grain and high
sharpness with good tonality at the expense of speed (Microdol-X).

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
How would you describe the exquisite sharpness and tonal separation in
the shadows that a Focotar-2 enlarging lens has? I don't know that
either. It doesn't matter to me whether I can describe it to you, but
I can see it and I'm sure you could see it if it were presented to
you. The best way to preserve tones in the shadow areas is by using
the best taking and enlarging lenses, all other things being equal.

How about such terms as lines per mm resolution (USAF target) and circle of
confusion for
a start? These are measurable and have a direct effect on the final product.

That's only part of it. (The USAF target is not that good. I can
recommend the Paterson test target.) MTF will give you a better idea.
Flare in the shadows is markedly less with this lens, and no
'lines/mm' chart will show you that. It's contrast, pure and simple.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a photograph usually consists of varied tones

of gray?

Post by AnonyMouse

Yes

Post by AnonyMouse
Do you agree that a geometric progression of exposure will

produce a

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
geometric progression of tones?

Not exactly. there is inevitable compression and distortion.

Agreed, but what about within the range that film is subject to

Reciprocity?
In 35mm work, you use a lot more of the toe. Films vary. See below.

See below and above.

Post by AnonyMouse

35mm films such as Tri-X are deliberately
designed to limit highlight density. They're intended for miniature
work and have characteristic curves that assist in producing a high
percentage of usable negatives with a single developing time. The
shoulder of Tri-X is quite soft. This allows considerable tolerance
for both over-exposure and over-development.

Looking at the information from Kodak(

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jh

t

Post by AnonyMouse

ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en for the "new" Tri-X and

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml?id

=

Post by AnonyMouse

0.3.8.20.18.24.4&lc=en for the "old" Tri-X), I cannot seem to find

data that

Post by AnonyMouse

supports your statements. If you would be so kind as to point to the
information in the above cited Kodak-supplied data.
If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the

35mm,

Post by AnonyMouse

120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film

base

Post by AnonyMouse

that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of

the

Post by AnonyMouse

emulsion itself.

Incorrect. See below.

If you can cite information from the manufacturer that
leads to a contrary conclusion, I would be very interested in the

URL.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0492
ac.gif

Post by AnonyMouse
TXP in D-76

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0496
ac.gif

Post by AnonyMouse
You'll note the shoulder characteristic is different (flatter with the
35mm material) and that the slope in the lower mid-tones/shadows is
steeper with the 35mm material, softer with the large-format material.
They're completely opposite films as far as the highlight and shadow
regions are concerned. They could hardly be less similar.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jht
ml?id=0.3.8.20.8.4&lc=en
The second chart you cite refers to 120 roll film, not sheet as you contend.

It's the same emulsion. TXP (120/sheet) and TX (35mm/120) are
different. Address that difference, please! In 120, Kodak makes BOTH
TX and TXP!

Post by AnonyMouse
"If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the 35mm,
120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film base
that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of the
emulsion itself." Again, I cannot find evidence that supports your
contention that the emulsion formulas for Tri-X (as per your example) are
different than those used to produce the corresponding sheet film.

I did. You can look on their webs ite at the place I provided for you.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

I do not understand the answer. Do lighting conditions for reportage

and

Post by AnonyMouse

sports (as presented by nature) differ from the lighting conditions

(and

Post by AnonyMouse

subsequent contrast of the scene) from conditions you encounter in

other

Post by AnonyMouse

types of photography?

The subject doesn't stand still. Angles vary from instant to instant.
Clouds come and go. You may find yourself shooting into the sun one
second, and away the next. Not like landscape/static object
photography, where you can pick your time and angle to shoot.

Is it fair to conclude that a photographer who wishes to practice "street
photography" will not benefit from your processing techniques?

??? They will benfit enormously. Lots of street photogs do it exactly
this way. Some of them do it this way because I taught them how!

Post by AnonyMouse
Nor would any
photographer who does not rely upon a "static" subject?

??? Anybody dealing with uncontrollable lighting and angles will
benefit.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
I would recommend that you take time to examine the results

of the "System".

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
Original prints by Adams are available for view at many

venues, including

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Mark Wolenski
some in Carmel and New York.

I've seen this stuff before.

... and have you formulated an opinion on the quality of the

results? (I

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
refer, of course, to original prints and not on halftone/duotone
reproductions in books an magazines.) It appears that you have

already

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
formulated an opinion on the techniques that he used to arrive at

the final

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse
print.

Again, I ask the question: (as presented in the previous context)

have you

Post by AnonyMouse

formulated an opinion on the quality of the results?

I know what you're getting at, but it is irrelevant as an example for
35mm work. 35mm work should be compared to other 35mm work. You don't
compare a cassette tape to a studio recorder doing 30ips, and then say
it sounds like shit! Take the studio recorder into the woods--if you
can!

By your statement, is it your opinion that photographs produced with 35mm
equipment (cassette tape) will always be "shit" compared to large format
(30ips)?

If you're judging by those standards, it may appear of lesser quality.
That's an unfair comparison, which is what my analogy was intended to
show. You don't criticize a cassette recording from the Amazon jungle
when using a 30ips machine is impractical. You can't judge 35mm B&W
work by LF standards when LF is impractical. They're intended for
different kinds of work.

Post by AnonyMouse
If this is true, then what is the point of creating a "perfect"
35mm exposure and development system if the final result will always be
substandard?

Precisely my point about ZS being useless for 35mm film. It will not
provide adequate results for that system. If that's what you want to
do, use LF and go on about your life. Use 35mm for what it's designed
for, with the full understanding that no amount of manipulation of the
negative will get it to print like a LF negative. On the other hand,
if what you want to do is maximize the quality potential of 35mm,
knowing full well its limitations, then you follow something like what
I do, which is exactly what Geoffrey Crawley and other experts have
been saying for decades.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

A. Experimentation and practice
B. Age

A. LOTS of 'A'. Years of A. Critically understood A.

Yet you are apparently quick to discount and ridicule the experimentation
and practice of someone who had more "years of experience" than yourself?

From what basis of experimentation? If you spend 30 years
experimenting with pyro on 35mm, I guaratntee you'll get nothing of
value compared to what Crawley has done. It's the direction of the
experimentation that matters.

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Based upon your agreement, can I conclude that you are of the feeling

that

Post by AnonyMouse

if both LF and 35mm films are printed using identical condenser-based
enlargers that they should be treated in a similar manner?

Depends on wht you mean by 'similar manner. So, I wouuld say: No, not
exactly. The LF negative is generally going to be contrastier and
heavier, the 35mm thinner and flatter. The 35mm will generally be
printed on approx #3 grade, the LF on #2.

Why will the large format negative be "contrastier and heavier" if exposed
and processed in a manner similar to your 35mm system?

LF shouldn't be 'exposed and processed in a manner similar to your
35mm system', and I never said they should, because 35mm demands a
thinner negative than LF. LF has no such constraints, and a fuller,
denser negative works in LF. What is so hard to understand here?

Post by AnonyMouse
If your system is
"perfect" for 35mm, what is the limiting factor(s) to developing a parallel
system for Large Format?

See response above. I would prefer the term 'ideal'. LF and 35mm have
different limitations and excellencies. Systems for either should not
be constrained by the limitations of the other. What I practise in
35mm is described in many books on 35mm work, and has been known for
many, many years. It's not in any way original, but it is news to many
LF people, who mistakenly apply ZS LF thinking and
exposure/development to 35mm, where it has no place. It is apparently
unknown to many who start with LF with no prior knowledge of 35mm
practise. I'm trying to make it known here.

[AnonyMouse]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by AnonyMouse

Subject: Re: How to do?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-08-02 17:20:34 PST
I was not referring to any difference between 35mm and LF work. I was
referring to a progression of tones that are the basis of

photography.
What about emotion?

This last "answer" is completely off-track from my orignal statement. Please
reread my contributions.

You apparently don't understand.

Nor do you. I must reiterate once again that I referred to a geometric
progression on tones. Tones are a measurable with properly calibrated
instruments, emotion is not.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
No, I do not WANT you to be obsessed with tones, as it is quite apparent
that you are not. Yet you appear to exhibit obsession in other areas of
"your process".

I don't 'obsess' with anything. I know EXACTLY what can and what
cannot be done with 35mm B&W film. It will never equal LF. NEVER. On
the other hand, try 'impulse street photography' with your view
camera.

With the proper portable large format equipment, such as you describe is
possible. Large format does not automatically denote a view camera, a
particular subcatagory with highly adjustable lens and film planes .
Although not as prevalent as in the past, The Speed and Crown Graphic
cameras come to mind.
I suppose that modern medium format equipment is not even offered as an
alternative, including Hasselblad with Leitz lenses.
As for my statement about obsession: I leave that to others to come to their
own conclusions, sonething that it appears you are not willing to do within
the context of 35mm camera work. As for my previous statement about
obsession, I will stand by it unless I can see evidence in your writings
here that may lead me to a different conlusion.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
If your definition of a good photographic quality is based solely on
sharpness and acutance with a secondary consideration of a tonal
representation in black and white of what is usually a color scene, then
perhaps gross underdevelopment of the negative (and the corresponding lack
of contrast) is the approach to take, along with increasing the contrast of
the final print during the printing stage, as will occur with a combination
of condenser systems and Grade 3 papers.

It's nowhere near 'gross underdevelopment', nor is there
'corresponding lack
of contrast'. Kodak recommends 20-30% less with conventional films,
10-15% with T-grain films, when using a condenser enlarger. That's
Kodak saying this, and does not rest merely on my authority.

Can you provide a citation from a Kodak publication that supports such a
specific recommendation, since ""that's Kodak saying this"?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
The
condenser supplies the contrast, and the reduction in developing time
is a significant benefit for 35mm. It allows finer grain and higher
sharpness, which on a larger negative are not needed because
enlargement factors are so much less with LF.

By lack of argument, I can conclude that:
"your definition of a good photographic quality is based solely on
sharpness and acutance with a secondary consideration of a tonal
representation in black and white of what is usually a color scene..."
is correct.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
While the primary goals may be achieved, the secondary goal will not,
perhaps I may say, EVER. Tones that do not exist in the negative cannot be
magically fabricated later on.

They exist in MY negatives. Ever shoot Leica equipment? The contrsat
is stunning.

This contradicts previous statements, such as "there is inevitable
compression and distortion." and ""certain aspects of tonality must be
sacrificed".
In answer to your query: Yes, I have used Leica equipment in the past.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
Speed, as I perceive it in the overly broad context presented, is irrelivent
as it is not readily apparent in the final product, is derived from the
extrapolation of graininess and sharpness. It appears then, in your way of
thinking, that "two out of three ain't bad".

Sharpness. Speed. Fine grain. Rich tonality: In 35mm, Pick two. In LF,
pick all four. This ineveitable because of the small size of the 35mm
negative. You can optimize your negative for sharpness/acutance/speed
at the expense of fine grain and tonality (e.g., Neofin, etc.), or you
can achieve higher speed with fine grain at the expense of sharpness
(e.g., Ilford Microfin) or you can achieve fine grain and high
sharpness with good tonality at the expense of speed (Microdol-X).

Again, you make reference to speed. Please reread my contribution. I am
referring to something "not readily apparent in the FINAL PRODUCT",
referring to the print viewable by others. In the
context provided, speed is irrelivent.
Your most recent statement and its followup ring of the same conclusion, in
that "two out of three ain't bad".

Post by Michael Scarpitti
That's only part of it. (The USAF target is not that good. I can
recommend the Paterson test target.) MTF will give you a better idea.
Flare in the shadows is markedly less with this lens, and no
'lines/mm' chart will show you that. It's contrast, pure and simple.

It appears that you were able to verbalize after all. Perhaps there is hope
for coherence.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
The second chart you cite refers to 120 roll film, not sheet as you contend.

It's the same emulsion. TXP (120/sheet) and TX (35mm/120) are
different. Address that difference, please! In 120, Kodak makes BOTH
TX and TXP!

Yet you used the citation as evidence of the difference between 35mm and
Large Format! Stay on the same page, please!

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
"If I read Kodak's information correctly, the differences between the 35mm,
120 roll and sheet sizes are because of the differences in the film base
that the emulsion is applied, not to a differences in formulation of the
emulsion itself." Again, I cannot find evidence that supports your
contention that the emulsion formulas for Tri-X (as per your example) are
different than those used to produce the corresponding sheet film.

I did. You can look on their webs ite at the place I provided for you.

I found no reference to the term "manufacture", "manufacturing process" or
its derivatives in your citation. I have, however, seen mention (at least
within the context of color products) that more stringent control is placed
on the professional products as it relates to emulsion seasoning (which I
can cite upon request). Again, I cannot find evidence that supports your
contention that the emulsion formulas for Tri-X (as per your example) are
different than those used to produce the corresponding sheet film.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
Is it fair to conclude that a photographer who wishes to practice "street
photography" will not benefit from your processing techniques?

??? They will benfit enormously. Lots of street photogs do it exactly
this way. Some of them do it this way because I taught them how!

Post by AnonyMouse
Nor would any
photographer who does not rely upon a "static" subject?

??? Anybody dealing with uncontrollable lighting and angles will
benefit.

"No, I do not. I'll often shoot rolls of a sports events or reportage
that renders such treatment impossible, even if I were to want to."
"The subject doesn't stand still. Angles vary from instant to instant.
Clouds come and go. You may find yourself shooting into the sun one
second, and away the next. Not like landscape/static object
photography, where you can pick your time and angle to shoot."

These seem to be contradict your most previous statements. In the one
directly above, you say that your system is not adequate for static
subjects, then state that it those with non-static subjects will "benefit
enormously". How can both statements be true and still be exclusively valid?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
If you're judging by those standards, it may appear of lesser quality.
That's an unfair comparison, which is what my analogy was intended to
show. You don't criticize a cassette recording from the Amazon jungle
when using a 30ips machine is impractical. You can't judge 35mm B&W
work by LF standards when LF is impractical. They're intended for
different kinds of work.

So you want your viewers to lower their standards when looking at your work.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
If this is true, then what is the point of creating a "perfect"
35mm exposure and development system if the final result will always be
substandard?

Precisely my point about ZS being useless for 35mm film. It will not
provide adequate results for that system. If that's what you want to
do, use LF and go on about your life. Use 35mm for what it's designed
for, with the full understanding that no amount of manipulation of the
negative will get it to print like a LF negative. On the other hand,
if what you want to do is maximize the quality potential of 35mm,
knowing full well its limitations, then you follow something like what
I do, which is exactly what Geoffrey Crawley and other experts have
been saying for decades.

You seem to have dismissed the first sentence of the pragraph in order to
place the second sentence into a different context:
"By your statement, is it your opinion that photographs produced with 35mm
equipment (cassette tape) will always be "shit" compared to large format
(30ips)?"
Was it your intention to ignore the question?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
From what basis of experimentation? If you spend 30 years
experimenting with pyro on 35mm, I guaratntee you'll get nothing of
value compared to what Crawley has done. It's the direction of the
experimentation that matters.

I was referring to the experimentation of Mr. Adams. In addition to his more
famous work with large format, he also worked with 35mm (Leica, I believe).

Post by Michael Scarpitti
LF shouldn't be 'exposed and processed in a manner similar to your
35mm system', and I never said they should, because 35mm demands a
thinner negative than LF. LF has no such constraints, and a fuller,
denser negative works in LF.

I was putting forth the possibility, since your system offers such an
'ideal' solution for 35mm, that those "Zonies", with their "empty-headed
dreck", could apply the same principles to their "typical Zonie work" as to
avoid producing "nauseating crap".

Post by Michael Scarpitti
...is news to many
LF people, who mistakenly apply ZS LF thinking and
exposure/development to 35mm, where it has no place.

"...where it has no place."
Shall I consider that your OPINION or as a statement of irrefutable fact?

[Michael Scarpitti]

"AnonyMouse" <***@optonline.net> wrote
(snip)

Post by AnonyMouse
"No, I do not. I'll often shoot rolls of a sports events or reportage
that renders such treatment impossible, even if I were to want to."
"The subject doesn't stand still. Angles vary from instant to instant.
Clouds come and go. You may find yourself shooting into the sun one
second, and away the next. Not like landscape/static object
photography, where you can pick your time and angle to shoot."
These seem to be contradict your most previous statements. In the one
directly above, you say that your system is not adequate for static
subjects, then state that it those with non-static subjects will "benefit
enormously". How can both statements be true and still be exclusively valid?

Post by Michael Scarpitti
If you're judging by those standards, it may appear of lesser quality.
That's an unfair comparison, which is what my analogy was intended to
show. You don't criticize a cassette recording from the Amazon jungle
when using a 30ips machine is impractical. You can't judge 35mm B&W
work by LF standards when LF is impractical. They're intended for
different kinds of work.

So you want your viewers to lower their standards when looking at your work.

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by AnonyMouse
If this is true, then what is the point of creating a "perfect"
35mm exposure and development system if the final result will always be
substandard?

Sorry for making this two responses, but I have been busy.
Let me clarify:

The way to produce the best ***overall*** 35mm print quality (good
sharpness, fine grain, and good tonality) consistent with reasonable
exploitation of the film's sensitivity (discussing medium speed and
fast films), is with a condenser enlarger and a negative developed for
condenser enlarger, that is, using some kind of compensating,
fine-grain developer (often merely diluted standard fine-grain
developer) or a high acutance developer, and reducing the times from
those given for diffusion work (by this I mean the times that are
typically given by Kodak's data sheets). That is not 'substandard',
but itself represents a standard for 35mm work, which, naturally,
cannot hope ever to equal the best LF work in tonality and detail.
That said, the results can be very satisfying in themselves. No other
combination of developer and enlarger will give as much definition,
sharpness, and fineness of grain coupled with film speed, which is of
course important for the purposes under discussion (35mm candid work).
The developing time is fixed for all occasions. Under some conditions
of exrtraordinarily high contrast, further diluton may be indicated.

None of this, again, will give you the equivalent of a LF negative.
But it will give you, especially with very fine taking and enlarging
optics (in my opinion, Leica excels in both cases), astonishingly good
quality images, images that cannot be captured with a LF camera
system.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by AnonyMouse

Post by Michael Scarpitti
It's nowhere near 'gross underdevelopment', nor is there
'corresponding lack
of contrast'. Kodak recommends 20-30% less with conventional films,
10-15% with T-grain films, when using a condenser enlarger. That's
Kodak saying this, and does not rest merely on my authority.

Can you provide a citation from a Kodak publication that supports such a
specific recommendation, since ""that's Kodak saying this"?

"http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j86/j86.jhtml"

"PROCESSING

The development times in the following tables are starting point
recommendations. They are intended to produce a contrast index of 0.60
for KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 Film and 0.56 for the other films.
These development times should produce negatives with a contrast
suitable for printing with a diffusion enlarger. To adjust contrast
for printing with a condenser enlarger, reduce the development time by
20 to 30 percent."

[Norman Worth]

Why, apart from mystique? What can Leica do that Pentax and Minolta can't
do, other than charge high prices?

That's the point! They can charge higher prices and therefore they can
incur the extra manufacturing costs to be fussy. For custom work or high
priced scientific equipment, so can Minolta and Nikon.

[Jorge Omar]

I should keep my big mouth shot, but it's 1:50 Am and I've been in the
darkromm since 7 PM...

- What I dislike about this Leica thing is the way some users brag
about it. See this bokeh thing - very seldom any other camera user
worries about it.
So, it has become a religion, and as every religion, if you disagree
you are wrong.
I use old cameras (70's Pentax, one of them purchased brand new, so
over 33 yrs here, with a normal lens that, according to Photodo, is as
good as a Sumicron).
I've never said to any person 'this is a good photo due to this lens'.

Mr. Cartier Bresson, very famous Leica user, said that worrying about
focus is not for real photographers (or alike). So what's the use?

- I've read Ansel Adams books, I've tried to understand ZS, I've
calibrated my camera/film/developer combination using it. But I do not
consider him a saint. I DO NOT USE the Zone System.
It's just not practical for 35mm IMHO.

- I use, have used for decades, highly dilluted, high energy
developers.
Because it's 'right'? No, because that's the way 'I' like my photos...
I develop my prints for the coldest tone possible for the same reason.

Have I seen wonderful photos (many very much better than mines) using
other formats, other developers, other techniques?

You bet.

Jorge

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

[rest of message deleted to save bandwidth]

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Jorge Omar
I should keep my big mouth shot, but it's 1:50 Am and I've been in the
darkromm since 7 PM...
- What I dislike about this Leica thing is the way some users brag
about it. See this bokeh thing - very seldom any other camera user
worries about it.
So, it has become a religion, and as every religion, if you disagree
you are wrong.

We'd just like others to share the pleasure of getting the finest
results possible, that's all.

Post by Jorge Omar
I use old cameras (70's Pentax, one of them purchased brand new, so
over 33 yrs here, with a normal lens that, according to Photodo, is as
good as a Sumicron).
I've never said to any person 'this is a good photo due to this lens'.
Mr. Cartier Bresson, very famous Leica user, said that worrying about
focus is not for real photographers (or alike). So what's the use?

Contrast. Even the out-of focus areas in a photo have snap and zip in
Leica images.

Post by Jorge Omar
- I've read Ansel Adams books, I've tried to understand ZS, I've
calibrated my camera/film/developer combination using it. But I do not
consider him a saint. I DO NOT USE the Zone System.
It's just not practical for 35mm IMHO.

Well, we're in agreement. That's fine with me.

Post by Jorge Omar
- I use, have used for decades, highly dilluted, high energy
developers.
Because it's 'right'? No, because that's the way 'I' like my photos...
I develop my prints for the coldest tone possible for the same reason.

Same here. Remember velour Black by DuPont?

Post by Jorge Omar
Have I seen wonderful photos (many very much better than mines) using
other formats, other developers, other techniques?
You bet.

So have I. But I have not seen 35mm work whose ***technical***
excellence exceeds what I can do in a darkroom, using any normal-speed
materials, since I have been using the Focotar-2 enlarging lens, which
I acquired in 1976.

Post by Jorge Omar
Jorge

Post by Michael Scarpitti
When asking questions on a newsgroup such as this one, the answers
received should be treated with some scepticism.

[rest of message deleted to save bandwidth]

[Steven]

I don't think I've
ever encountered an individual who was simultaneously so arrogant and
so misinformed.

Exactly!

[AnonyMouse]

unarmed opponent. I don't think I've ever encountered an individual who

was

simultaneously so arrogant and so misinformed.

You mean about science? Math? Chemistry? Physics? Optics?
If you doubt any of my points, prove me wrong. TRY IT!

If I remember correctly, in modern scientific research, it is the
responsibility of those who publish to PROVE their conclusions based on
experimentation and postulation and submit it for peer review.
At this point, I have not seen or heard you produce ENOUGH evidence that you
are RIGHT, other than "trust me" and "every one else is wrong!".

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by AnonyMouse

unarmed opponent. I don't think I've ever encountered an individual who

was

simultaneously so arrogant and so misinformed.

You mean about science? Math? Chemistry? Physics? Optics?
If you doubt any of my points, prove me wrong. TRY IT!

If I remember correctly, in modern scientific research, it is the
responsibility of those who publish to PROVE their conclusions based on
experimentation and postulation and submit it for peer review.
At this point, I have not seen or heard you produce ENOUGH evidence that you
are RIGHT, other than "trust me" and "every one else is wrong!".

The purpose of ng is to bring argument. It is not possible for me to
show you in person, but I can provide what I hope are cogent
arguments, which are in turn supported by the literature.

What have I stated that needs 'proof'? Nothing that Kodak or Agfa or
Paterson or any major mfr of sensitized goods will not verify.

All I have cliamed is that 35mm and LF are as different as can be in
their technical limitations. 35mm is simply not a 'smaller LF' system.
It's altogether different. 35mm is at the low end of acceptable sizes
for B&W photography. Because of this, certain compromises are
necessary. This is neither mysterious nor surprising, and most of what
I have brought up here has been known for decades.

[CBlood59]

<< This is especially true in photography, because for some reason
photography seems to be plagued by a culture of half-truths and
misinformation. >>


..and arrogance

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by CBlood59
<< This is especially true in photography, because for some reason
photography seems to be plagued by a culture of half-truths and
misinformation. >>
..and arrogance

Yes, indeed. Not mine, of course. It's the ZONIES!