Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Michael Scarpitti, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. Michael Scarpitti

    jjs Guest

    By definition, Michael, presuming the subjects were randomly selected, the
    sample is representative of the population and is, therefore, 'average' or
    average enough. But read on before picking on this point.

    I really need to find a genuine copy of the study rather than bad
    abstracts - pictures included, in order to comment further, and so do you.
    There are so many things we do not know that might be important. For
    example, that point on the person-response curve to the first best print -
    at what film speed rating, and how was the speed determined, what were the
    actual values they were seeing, and were the prints all contact-prints (they
    probably were since that's how most commercial processing worked then) - are
    all legitimate questions.

    But we (within the context of this group) are probably not particularly
    interested in hitting some automatic middle-tone level, then letting all the
    rest of the image 'fall where it may', and that's important. We may be an
    average of some kind, but are we the average viewer of the thirties?
    Impressions depend to a _great_ extent upon previous experience because
    previous experience shapes current expectations. Dwell upon that for a
    moment. Seriously, it's pivotal. Personal qualtitative judgements such as in
    the study may, or may not, be separable from prevailing social impressions.

    I want to know more about the study.
     
    jjs, Aug 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Scarpitti, Aug 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > : > : >
    : > > > First, the ZS allows an individual to pursue what his _particular_
    : > concerns
    : > > > are. If an individual wants to aim for mid-tones and let the rest fall
    : > where
    : > > > it may, so be it!
    : > >
    : > > Did you read the quote or not? No matter what you WANT to believe,
    : > > human perception is sensitive mid-tones above all else.
    : >
    : > Actually the measure you cite concerns the average viewer. What does any
    : > serious photographer care about the average viewer? Average is Elvis on
    : > Velvet.
    : >
    : > If your life's goal is to strive to be average, then perhaps you have to
    : > work your way UP. Go to Walmart. Others of us are just fine in interpretive,
    : > personal works.



    : You don't understand. If you ask 1000 people (some experts, some not)
    : to look at 10,000 photographs and you draw spme conclusions, what the
    : hell does that have to do with pandering to 'average taste'? This
    : research was about B&W film and printing characteristics, and how the
    : human eye/brain perceives tomnality. The outcome of that research is
    : that preserving normal tonality in the midtones was deemed more
    : important than anything else.

    I wonder how many people have seen the work of Ansel Adams, John Sexton, etc. I wonder
    how the their reactions of work of Ansel Adams, John Sexton, etc would compare to the
    results of the scarpitti method. In the interests of fairness I would discount the
    howls of laughter from the observers after seeing the work of scarpitti.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Aug 7, 2004


  4. Here's what RK sent me:



    This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]
    From: "Richard Knoppow" <> Add to Address Book
    To: "Michael Scarpitti" <>
    Subject: Re: Kodak
    Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:53:58 -0700


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Scarpitti" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 7:08 PM
    Subject: Kodak

    I am quite familiar with the Kodak booklet you quote. I
    am pretty sure its ideas are based on the extensive research
    by Jones, Nelson, and others with Kodak done over several
    decades. I think one can adjust negative contrast instead of
    paper contrast under some circumstances. If the paper curves
    stay the same from grade to grade a change of a grade either
    way of either will likely produce identical results.
    The Zone System was devised by Minor White, Ansel Adams,
    and Fred Archer to avoid getting unprintible negatives. I
    don't know if they were aware of the work on tonal rendition
    done at Kodak. The scientific papers were published mostly
    in peer reviewed journals which were not too well known by
    non-specialists. Some material was published in the
    puplications of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers
    (later SMPTE) which were probably available to all three.
    Everything they measured, incuuding lens and camera flare,
    reproduces earlier work by Kodak. They came to different
    conclusions about how to handle varying subject contrast. I
    think of the two Kodak was more aware of the requirements
    for the print than Adams et.al. The Zone System may very
    well make it possible to compress a contrasty scene onto the
    limited range of a reflection print but it won't look right.
    This is obviously NOT what Adams did in practice.
    Jones' work has become so obscure now that I don't think
    many photographers have ever heard of him or know the work.
    I proposed to a friend that we obtain copies of the
    classical papers on tone reproduction, mostly by Jones and
    others at Kodak, and post them on a web site. He thought no
    one would be interested. I think that's wrong and that the
    work is far from obsolete. While some film characteristics
    are rather different now the characteristics of the human
    eye certainly are not. I think the main difference in film
    is that modern films do not shoulder off until extremely
    high densities are reached (maybe log 4.0 or more). Its hard
    to overexpose them as far as their ability to record the
    brighness differences of the scene correctly although a very
    dense negative will take forever to print.
    There are many references to Jones' work. I have some of
    these papers, have read others, but have not seen them all.

    Jones, L.A. "On The Theory of Tone Reproduction with a
    Graphic Method for the Solution of Problems" _Journal of the
    Franklin Insitute_ 1920, 190:39 Communication 88

    Jones, L.A. "Photographic Reproduction of Tone" _Journal of
    the Optical Society of America_ 1921, 5:232

    Jones, L.A. "Recent Developments in the throry and Practice
    of Tone Reproduction" _Journal of Photography_ 1949m, 89B:
    126

    Jones, L.A. and Condit, H.R. "Sunlight and Skylight as
    Determinants of Photographic Exposure_
    In two parts, _Journal of the Optical Society of America_
    1948, 38: 123, and 1949, 39: 94 Kodak Laboratories
    Communication No. 115

    Jones, L.A. and Condit, H.R., "The Brightness Scale of
    Exterior Scenes and the Computation of
    correct Photographic Exposure," _Journal of the Optical
    Society of America_ 1941, 31: 651, Communication No. 813
    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
    ````````````
    Jones, L.A. and Nelson, C.N., "Control of Photographic
    Printing by Measured Characteristics of the Negative,"
    _Journal of the Optical Society of America_ 1842m 32: 558
    Kodak Communication No. 874

    Jones, L.A. and Nelson, C.N. "Control of Photographic
    Printing: Improvment in Terminology and Further Analysis of
    Results," ibid 1948 38: 897 communications No.1199


    This is incomplete. There is another series of citations
    covering sensitometry including Jones two part paper in the
    Journal of the Franklin Institute on exposure vs: print
    quality. I will post more of these later if you are
    interested. Both the Journal of the Optical Society of
    America and the Journal of the Franklin Institute should be
    reasonably easy to find.
    The material is very well summarized in the chapters on
    sensitometery and on tone reproduction in _Theory of the
    Photographic Process_ Rivised Edition, C.E.K. Mees, 1954
    (New York) the Macmillan Company.
    There is also a good section in _Modern Photographic
    Processing_ Grant Haist Original publication 1979,
    Wiley-Interscience, reprinted by the Author, 2000, The Haist
    Press, P.O.Box 805 Okemos, MI 48805 This excellent reprint
    is cheaper than most used copies of the original.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 7, 2004
  5. Michael Scarpitti

    jjs Guest

    Super! It would be very worthwhile to get copies of the studies from Kodak.
     
    jjs, Aug 7, 2004
  6. I'm not sure how to go about it, but let me know if you make any
    progress. For me, the statements in the Kodak book suffice for my
    purposes.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 8, 2004
  7. Michael Scarpitti

    Jim Phelps Guest

    Right, and that's a MAJOR point for you! Those statements to which you so
    desperately cling suffice for YOUR purposes. So stop converting (or
    trying/cramming/preaching to) everyone else [to] your purpose. For them,
    the Zone System suffices for their purposes...

    [Must resist using an adjective here. I must resist.... I must resist...
    Aw, the hell with it...]

    IDIOT!
     
    Jim Phelps, Aug 8, 2004
  8. DESPERATELY CLING? WHAT A FUCKING MORON YOU ARE! You don't even know
    what I mean! When I say 'for my purposes' I mean I don't need to see
    the studies in detail.


    I have tried to show this group that the zoan sistern is a MISTAKE. DO
    YOU UNDERSTANFD THAT IT IS A MISTAKE? Why it is a mistake? Do you
    care? Obviously, like most morons, you're so fucking stupid that you
    cannot even see where you're stupid.

    Shut the **** up, asshole.
    Are you so fucking stupid that you actually believe what you wrote?
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004
  9. 1. Variable film development messes up the mid-tones

    2. People (experts and non-experts) don't like messed-up mid-tones.

    3. How do we know this?

    4. Kodak asked experts and non-experts, showing them all kinds of
    prints. The summary of that research is contained in the booklet I
    quoted from. The summary states that experts and non-experts prefer
    mid-tones to be 'normal' no matter what it takes...

    5. That summary suffices to convince me that the research is thorough
    and sound.

    THAT'S WHAT I MEANT, ASSFUCKER!
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004
  10. No, that's a noun. In everything else, though you are correct. ;-}



    Robert Vervoordt, MFA
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Aug 9, 2004
  11. Michael Scarpitti

    Udie Lafing Guest

    Plonk.
     
    Udie Lafing, Aug 9, 2004
  12. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > : > >
    : > > I'm not sure how to go about it, but let me know if you make any
    : > > progress. For me, the statements in the Kodak book suffice for my
    : > > purposes.
    : >
    : > Right, and that's a MAJOR point for you! Those statements to which you so
    : > desperately cling suffice for YOUR purposes.

    : DESPERATELY CLING? WHAT A FUCKING MORON YOU ARE! You don't even know
    : what I mean! When I say 'for my purposes' I mean I don't need to see
    : the studies in detail.

    Desperately cling, describes it well. You're the one that's grasped onto a book written
    some fifty years ago. You ignore the fact that what was written in the book was
    controversial<SP?> at the time and the information in the book has been superseded.
    Even Kodak in a book that you yourself not that long ago held up as a standard makes a
    case for controlling negative contrast by altering development times. You even now
    abandon the claim that you made about a year ago. You once claimed that you reduced
    negative contrast by increased dilution of developer. Now you've changed your mind and
    based on the only book that you can find that supports your position you don't.

    The truth is that you've been proven wrong and you can't stand it.

    : I have tried to show this group that the zoan sistern is a MISTAKE. DO
    : YOU UNDERSTANFD THAT IT IS A MISTAKE? Why it is a mistake? Do you
    : care? Obviously, like most morons, you're so fucking stupid that you
    : cannot even see where you're stupid.

    I understand that you're a rotten photographer. You don't know how to determine the
    proper exposure, you can't properly develop film and you stink at printing.

    : Shut the **** up, asshole.

    : > So stop converting (or
    : > trying/cramming/preaching to) everyone else [to] your purpose. For them,
    : > the Zone System suffices for their purposes...
    : >
    : > [Must resist using an adjective here. I must resist.... I must resist...
    : > Aw, the hell with it...]
    : >
    : > IDIOT!

    : Are you so fucking stupid that you actually believe what you wrote?

    He was wrong in stating that the word he used to describe as an adjective. In reality
    it's a noun
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Aug 9, 2004
  13. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > : >
    : > : > : : > : > : > So, the very clearly stated piece by Kodak, which acknowledges the
    : > : > : > MOTIVES for variable film development and DISMISSES them as mistaken,
    : > : > : > means nothing to you? Then you're STUPID....
    : >
    : > : > : A writing that is almost 50 years old!
    : > : >
    : > : > Since it says what scapitti wants to hear he's going to hold it up as holy writing with
    : > : > more authority then anything from even Kodak stating anything different.
    : >
    : > : This is based on reaearch, which is cited in the text. It is precisely
    : > : the opposite of 'holy writ'.
    : >
    : > The Zone System was developed over years of scientific research aided by Kodak and
    : > experimentation.

    : False statement. Kodak has never endorsed the zoan sistum.

    No one ever claimed they did. Still trying to change the subject I see.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Aug 9, 2004
  14. Michael Scarpitti

    Jim Phelps Guest

    Frank, Robert, I stand corrected. Thank you...
     
    Jim Phelps, Aug 9, 2004
  15. Michael Scarpitti

    Jim Phelps Guest

    True. I didn't know what you meant. I only understood what you wrote.
    Even trained therapist couldn't get inside that feeble mind of yours and
    understand what you meant. Go read "Mein Kampf", now there's another mind
    you can understand...
    After you sir... If this mistake is so wrong, what else have you determined
    to be a mistake. I for one determine your birth a mistake.

    Up to where I was corrected about the word "IDIOT" not being an adjective,
    It's a Noun, but I am able to accept correction and teaching...

    Mike, you are unfit for social interaction. Please commit suicide at the
    earliest possible opportunity.

    Stupidity should, at the very least in your case, be punishable.
     
    Jim Phelps, Aug 9, 2004


  16. Give me ONE good argument against the Kodak statement. ONE.

    You cannot, because you're such a low-life zonefucker! You are
    incapable of rational thought or reasoned argument. You spend your
    miserable life reading Ansel Adams and worshipping Roman numerals.

    Give me a response to the Kodak statement or shut the **** up!
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004

  17. When was 'the Negative' written?
    No, it wasn't, and no, it hasn't.

    'Proven wrong'? By whom? What the hell are you talking about?

    Argue the point the booklet makes: Mid-tones are most important of all.

     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004
  18. Several people here have claimed that.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004
  19. I wonder what it must be like when you visit the proctologist to get
    an IQ test.

    I have yet to see any argument on your part against the statement that
    the mid-tones are the most important of all. Like most ZoNazis, you
    think you're better than anybody else, that you are
    priviledged....special...an artist who does not need to take into
    consideration anything but your own egotistical droolings...
    Good. Start by forgetting you ever heard of the zoan sistum....
    This, coming from one of Ansel's klansmen? How quaint! Is your sheet
    zone IX? Or did you forget to wash it? That would bring it down to
    zone XIII, maybe.
    Why don't you organize a lynching party?

    Here are the TRUE Zone descriptions:

    0 - Black, no texture or detail.
    I - Color of burnt nigger skin.
    II - Dark gray-black. Color of nigger bruises.
    III - Important Zone, very dark gray, but good texture and detail can
    be seen. Dark textured bark on shadow side of tree used for lynching.
    IV - Medium-dark gray, dark green foliage, shadow side of White man's
    skin. Details plainly visible.
    V - Your meter's suggested settings. Medium gray, Kodak 18% Gray Card,
    clear dark blue Northern sky, excellent detail visible.
    VI - Rich mid-tone gray, average White man's skin in sunlight,
    shadowed snow on bright sunny day, sharp fine detail visible.
    VII - Bright light gray, highest Zone that will still hold good
    details. Weathered white paint, silver hair.
    VIII - Light gray-white, shows last texture (minimum) but no detail.
    Reflected highlights from White man's skin, textured snow in sun.
    Gradation exists.
    IX - Clean, washed and bleached Klan robes. Lightest gradation values.
    X - Reproduces as paper base white, no image recorded. In print, will
    appear as specular highlights, sun reflection from chrome bumper,
    sunlit drops of sparkling water, etc.
    Typical lynch-mob mentality. You think you're above everybody else,
    ZoNazi!
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 9, 2004
  20. Michael Scarpitti

    jjs Guest

    This is a word-context medium so it's going to be very hard to know what
    people actually _do_ regardless of the terms they use here. I strongly
    suspect that the "middle-tones" many of us write about can be translated as
    Zone III through Zone V in the actual outcomes people favor. That just might
    put Scarpetti and Zone photographers' works into some applicable
    perspective. What we need are examples, not name calling.

    Could it be that this whole argument is rather moot if we cannot compare
    objects in context? How about posting some works and then comments so we
    know what one is talking about? Or if you can't post your own work, then
    point to images already on line that demonstrate what you mean.
     
    jjs, Aug 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.