Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO!

: : > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:13:07 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: > No, that's a noun. In everything else, though you are correct. ;-}
: >
: >
: >
: > Robert Vervoordt, MFA

: Frank, Robert, I stand corrected. Thank you...

What we need now are adjectives that properly modify the noun you have given.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

given.

Well, to be honest, in the original post where I called it an adjective, I
did have "Stupid Fucking ..." in front of the noun, however, I didn't want
to stoop to the level of that insane ass and took those two words out. But
maybe that's all he understands. My mistake was not updating my earlier
text when I wrongly eliminated the decriptive.

I think it's time we let this die as it's only going to give SFB (if you
want the meaning, I'll post, but most will know what it means) high blood
pressure. Hey, there's an idea!!!

Thanks Frank,

Jim

 

Of course: ignore the argument, misinterpret every reply to your inane
responses, and claim that the OTHER guy is unreasonable.

You donkey-fucking, camel-semen swallowing Democrat!

 

I'm not sure that on-line images would be of much benefit, as a lot is lost.

 

I call End of Thread. It's degernated into insults. NONE OF YOU PERPS HAS
SHOWN A PICTURE.

 

John, sorry no pics here.. FWIW, I posted the following two days ago, but
I'm not sure it made the Newserver. All NON-ABUSIVE COMMENTS are welcome
to my reposting.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Leigh Marrin/KM6JE ()
Date: 2004-08-06 18:06:49 PST

Sigh... In a 1970s edition of the Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide, Kodak
clearly states on pages 8 and 9 that Kodak Tri-X can be developed in
D-76 1:1 from 5.5 minutes to 12 minutes as needed for higher or lower
contrast.

Almost over a year ago Mike Scarpitti stated that he sometimes VARIES THE
DILUTION of his developer to lower contrast, if needed. I retrieved (and
greatly edited) that posting from Google. Note that he was answering a
question which has the ">" marks.

From: Michael Scarpitti ()
Subject: Re: How to do?
Date: 2003-08-03 15:54:10 PST

"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!"

[All of the material within quotes was written by Mike Scarpitti.]

 

: I call End of Thread. It's degernated into insults. NONE OF YOU PERPS HAS
: SHOWN A PICTURE.

This informative part of this thread actually ended a while ago. I have a feeling I
know why scarpitti isn't in a hurry to post any more images. A week ago I had the
chance to use a scanner to scan a print at a level of resolution that I found
reasonable. After all why bother with LF and then scan the print at 300dpi. The problem
is that the resulting file was over 50meg in size. I'm not putting files that large on
my web server. There would also be no way of anyone telling if I "fixed" up the
images with photoshop (or in my case gimp).


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

That refers to varying contrast to adjust for one's enlarger, etc.,
not scene contrast.

Did you read the statement that I posted from the Kodak book 'Negative
Making'?

The most important line is:

"Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average
building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher
gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight?
The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike.
"

"As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part IT IS ACTUALLY THE MIDDLE TONES
WHICH ARE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL.* Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

*Italics in original.

This is completely different from contraction and expansion through
variable film development for the sake of achieving a certain
'placement' of 'zones'. In fact, I hardly ever do this. I was simply
being agreeable. I have not actually done this in many years. I have
refined my technique so that the negatives from almost any scene
brightness range will print just fine (i.e., on grade 2 1/2-3 1/2)
when developed to a fixed, standard time.

 

You must keep in mind the context of that statement. It has nothing to
do with the zoan sistern...

Additional clarification:

Changing dilution affects primarily the upper part of the curve, with
little impact on midtones. Changing the time (advocated by zoan
sistern workers) alters the contrast of the entire negative, and it is
this to which I object, as it affects the midtones significantly.

 

Good gosh, more than _doubling_ or halfing development time is a huge
adjustment and certainly more than is necessary to make up for variations in
enlarger contrast.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. If I read any more of it, I'll have to
search for some kind of Darkroom Twelve Step Program. It's really gone out
of control.

 

I miss having my own web server. I have served files as large as 256mb
using ZoomView. It's quite effective for sampling very large images. I'm
looking for another server to put on my T1. When I get it there will be no
excuses!

I would certainly trust your word, Frank.

 

: > > I call End of Thread. It's degernated into insults. NONE OF YOU PERPS HAS
: > > SHOWN A PICTURE.
: >
: > John, sorry no pics here.. FWIW, I posted the following two days ago, but
: > I'm not sure it made the Newserver. All NON-ABUSIVE COMMENTS are welcome
: > to my reposting.
: > -----------------------------------------------------------
: > From: Leigh Marrin/KM6JE ()
: > Date: 2004-08-06 18:06:49 PST
: >
: > > But they did the research. Anyone who would argue FOR variable film
: > > development must respond to that research. Ignoring it or dismissing
: > > it won't work.
: >
: > Sigh... In a 1970s edition of the Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide, Kodak
: > clearly states on pages 8 and 9 that Kodak Tri-X can be developed in
: > D-76 1:1 from 5.5 minutes to 12 minutes as needed for higher or lower
: > contrast.

: You must keep in mind the context of that statement. It has nothing to
: do with the zoan sistern...

Actually it has a lot to do with your claim that Kodak recommends against using
development time. Nice try at changing the subject.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

I'm not too confident of that. I have scanned many of my B&W and they
don't have the same impact.

Another trouble, is that scanning can be varied to look different in
contrast and tonality from the originals.

 

: :
: > > Sigh... In a 1970s edition of the Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide, Kodak
: > > clearly states on pages 8 and 9 that Kodak Tri-X can be developed in
: > > D-76 1:1 from 5.5 minutes to 12 minutes as needed for higher or lower
: > > contrast.
: >
: > That refers to varying contrast to adjust for one's enlarger, etc.,
: > not scene contrast.

: Good gosh, more than _doubling_ or halfing development time is a huge
: adjustment and certainly more than is necessary to make up for variations in
: enlarger contrast.

: Anyway, I'm out of this thread. If I read any more of it, I'll have to
: search for some kind of Darkroom Twelve Step Program. It's really gone out
: of control.

As I remember Kodak recommends decreasing the development time by one zone. This means
15% less time for Tmax films and 30% for "conventional" film. I just took a look at the
Tech-pub for the Tmax films and I noticed a section under "Contrest Adjustment". It
seems that Kodak gives recommendations for development time changes to adjust the
contrast of negatives. Rather then discouraging it Kodak gives recommended starting
points for development time changes when using development time to adjust negative
contrast.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

Ah, but the whole objective of the Middle-Tones goal is to have something
that looks good regardless. Believe me, web viewing is good enough _for this
particular_ venue. It's not good enough for a show, of course.

 

: : >
: > : I call End of Thread. It's degernated into insults. NONE OF YOU PERPS
: HAS
: > : SHOWN A PICTURE.
: >
: > This informative part of this thread actually ended a while ago. I have a
: feeling I
: > know why scarpitti isn't in a hurry to post any more images. A week
: ago I had the
: > chance to use a scanner to scan a print at a level of resolution that I
: found
: > reasonable. After all why bother with LF and then scan the print at
: 300dpi. The problem
: > is that the resulting file was over 50meg in size. I'm not putting files
: that large on
: > my web server.

: I miss having my own web server. I have served files as large as 256mb
: using ZoomView. It's quite effective for sampling very large images. I'm
: looking for another server to put on my T1. When I get it there will be no
: excuses!

I wish I could afford a T1!! Right now I'd settle for a decent DSL connection.
I live in the Chicago area which is a major hub for the Internet connections in
the US and only a few miles from the Illinois "Technology corridor" and the best
I can get is idsl. :-( With a max. throughput of 144Kbps I'm not putting a image
files scanned in a way to do them justice.

: > There would also be no way of anyone telling if I "fixed" up the
: > images with photoshop (or in my case gimp).

: I would certainly trust your word, Frank.

You may want to rethink that!! I'm still holding out hope that I'll be able
to show you some of my prints in person on a photo outing this fall. An active
member of the midwestlf (www.midwestlargeformat.com) has just moved to
Minnesota and as a result we will be having photo outings there.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

 

I will certainly offer up my meager online images

http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/photos/photos.html

but I think looking at Don Kirby's online images would be much more
representative of what can be done using variable film development, along
with variable contrast paper and a lot of work in the darkroom.

http://www.santafephotogallery.com/artists/bio.php?artist=DK

Of the modern practitioners of the Zone System that I have talked to (Don
Kirby, Bruce Barnbaum, Ray McSavaney, John Sexton, Stu Levy), they are not
using it in the way that Mr. Scarpitti appears to be representing it. Instead
of varying the development times to fit the scene contrast range onto the
negative and to the paper, they vary development times to get good local
contrast and good tonal separation within the scene. To over simplify a
little, give the negative enough exposure to get the shadows off of the toe
(I place them on zone IV), don't worry too much about the highlights
(particularly with TMax, which doesn't have a shoulder for most practical
purposes), and develop to get good tonal separation. If the highlights will
end up being way too dense (but still with good tonal separation), then you
can also use other developing techniques, such as stand development or
diluted developers.

Of course, they all recognize that you very rarely get a perfect negative, so
there is still a lot of work to be done in the darkroom, using variable
contrast paper and other techniques to further work on the local contrast in
different regions of the print. The goal is to make the print "sing", give it
that "snap" and luminosity. Perhaps this is what Mr. Scarpitti means by
making sure the midtones are appropriate?

 

I have, but since it does not fit into that narrow, petrified mind of yours,
you did not see it or if you did, you did not believe/understand it.

Several other people have given you examples of more recent Kodak text that
proves they [Kodak] changed their minds... [Intelligent people can do that
you know...] Variable film development to control contrast is OK and they
[Kodak] agree and approve of it. For what it's worth, Agfa and Tetenal
(both have been around a lot longer than Kodak) both agree that variable
film development is one means of controlling negative contrast.

You however, on the first post to one of mine, started calling me names and
showing just how low of a scumball you truly are. I guess when faced with
intelligent and contrary discourse to your own, one must resort to the most
Neanderthal and base means of discrediting the opponent. Sandbox and locker
room name calling. I guess I answered with some of my own name calling just
to try and get the message across in a means you seem to understand. I
appear to have been wrong in this thinking. I apologize for calling you a
"Stupid Fucking Idiot", that really doesn't reach deep enough into a
description for you.

You are truly a troll. So why don't YOU shut up and go away.

By the way, mikey. Just to be sure you understand. You may know my name,
but you are thousands of miles from here and you sure don't have any idea of
what/who or where I am and that old E-Mail address won't work either so all
the porn messages you signed me up for was for naught. You also don't know
that as a member of a minority, all the KKK slander you spewed is really
indicative of your level of mentality and social status.

In the words of the Great Daffy Duck; "What a Maroon".

 

Actually, I lost the T1 connection. Forgot that. I do have a 100mb line to
our lab, however. It will have to suffice.

 

: > : > : >
: > : > : > : : > : > : > : > 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.

: Several people here have claimed that.

Such as??
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you