The question of variable film development
Michael Scarpitti
VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT
This essay is in response to an inquiry by a photographer using 35mm
film regarding zone system techniques and measurements of density. The
response is prompted by the incongruity of the question, as only a few
years ago such a question would have not arisen, because miniature
technique (a technique independent of ZS principles) was well-known
and widely taught. The essay is devoted to explaining how zone system
thinking has infiltrated the miniature format field and begun to
displace well-established miniature technique.
Part 1
The 35mm still camera is directly traceable to the 35mm
motion-picture. Current 35mm black-and-white practise dates from the
early part of the 20th century with its roots in the 35mm
motion-picture, both for its film stock and for its technical
refinements. D-76 developer was formulated by Eastman Kodak in 1927 as
a motion-picture negative developer. The introduction of the Leica in
1925 made the format a reality. Oskar Barnak's desire was to rid
himself of the bulky, heavy photographic apparatus that was the rule.
He wanted a big picture from a small negative.
'Klein Negative, grosse Bild'
See also:
http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early_135.html
Early on, however, it became clear that grain and sharpness were poor
compared to the larger formats then in use, when the negatives were
treated in the way customary with larger formats, and these
represented difficulties to overcome if this ambition were to be
realised. Early research focussed on fine grain, and the DuPont
company published the research of Dr Sease using certain kinds of
developing agents that gave very fine grain, but poor speed. Champlain
also published on the topic of fine grain.
It also became clear that reduction of development times compared to
that of sheet films or plates gave finer grain and best sharpness (see
scans from Photo Lab Index [PLI] below, labelled DuPont 5-01, 5-02,
5-03). It became recommended practise to develop miniature film (35mm)
to a lower degree than sheet film (see scans 0-13 through 017 from PLI
introduction below).
Since the miniature negative was being developed less (to minimise
graininess and preserve sharpness), certain consequences naturally
followed. The most obvious was that, given the lower contrast that a
shorter developing time produced, some means was necessary to boost
the contrast on the print to acceptable levels. This meant that
condenser enlargers soon found favour. It was also deemed expedient to
select a somewhat more vigorous grade of paper.
At about the same time as the Leica was gaining favour in Europe,
photographers in the US were still using large format cameras for
every kind of work: press, commercial and portraiture. The 35mm camera
was hardly a factor until the appearance of Kodachrome in 1936.
Kodachrome colour images began finding their way to national
Geographic shortly thereafter.
The acceptance of 35mm as a tool for the serious pro took quite a lot
longer for the average pro, until in the 1950's and 60's in fact, and
even though Life Magazine featured miniature images starting in the
1930's, this was hardly the tool of the typical press photographer,
who continued using Graflex-type press cameras well into the 1960's.
As a result, the typical professional's darkroom in the US sported
developers, enlargers, and methods most suited to sheet film
development. In Europe, advances in technique made by the Germans
Beutler and Windisch in the 40's indicated that with special
approaches to development (called acutance developers) stunningly
sharp and detailed images could be wrought on miniature films. These
developments were almost unknown in the US, however, where developers
such as D-61a, DK-50, and DK-60a were common, as these were most
suitable for press and portrait work.
The result is that the miniature negative, when 35mm cameras started
finding their way to the hands of a new generation of press and
fashion photographers, was often badly developed and printed, as the
typical work of this initial period, even among the most
knowledgeable, reveals. Kodak Tri-X Pan had made its appearance in
1954, and it was a revolutionary development in emulsion-making. It
was to take some time for the working pro to learn how to deal with
this film to allow its best to come out.
No innovations in developer technology had occurred, save for that of
the developing agent phenidone rediscovered by Ilford during the War,
but this agent seemed ideal for the new film, and thus a number of
developers were formulated in the 1960's that exploited its
speed-enhancing characteristics, among them Microphen (UK), and
Acufine and UFG (US). In no time, however, many workers took a good
thing too far, and started seeing how much they could challenge Tri-X
with the new developers by extending development times beyond
‘normal'.
The advertising by the developer manufacturers certainly did the
industry no good by making outrageous claims for speeds of as much as
EI 1200 on Tri-X with these new developers. The times recommended in
some cases were simply ‘pushes' and provided no real additional speed.
By the late 1960's, the mainstream culture in United States, after
having suffered through political assassinations, riots, Civil Rights
conflicts, and Vietnam, was ripe for a less aggressive kind of
photography. The work of photographers from earlier in the century)
Weston, Adams, Stieglitz, Steichen, and numerous others offered a
respite from the kind of images that had flooded the magazines Life
and Look. Indeed, Life Magazine ceased weekly publication in 1972. The
tide had turned rather rapidly, and what had been fashionable in
photography just a few years before seemed hopelessly outdated. Minor
White's Zone System Manual began to be used in college photography
classes, and ‘living legend' Ansel Adams began to wield enormous
influence on technique through White's book.
When it was written (as White's own words acknowledge) variable film
development was considered a ‘specialist' practise, as standard
recommended practise was to develop to a specified gamma (contrast)
depending on the kind of work and film being used. (see PLI 0-17
below).
Photographers began bragging about their zone system accomplishments,
where a few years before it was how high one could rate one's film
that was the mark of photographic status. Roman Numerals from 1-IX
appeared in every written discussion of images.
The influence of White and Adams, mostly from Adams's images and
White's book being used as a college text, eventually affected
practise. Variable film development ‘came out of the closet' and
became mainstream. Within 30 years, people on internet newsgroups
began assuming that variable film development was recommended practise
and the question such as ‘what density should my Zone VIII be' became
quite common, even though the practitioner asking the question had
probably never touched a view camera. The ZS users who had always used
the system with a view camera and perhaps had no or only a little
experience with the miniature format, by virtue of their acquired
status as the new ‘authority', began counselling novices to use the ZS
with their 35mm equipment. Of course, neither party knew that the
limitations of the small 35mm negative had long before been recognised
and measures taken to ensure maximum quality devised: measures that
conflicted with variable film development. Out of ignorance of these
techniques and products, the assumption was made that variable film
development was just as valid for miniature work as for large format.
The carefully worked-out methods and procedures established for
miniature were either ignored or thrown overboard by hordes of
Roman-Numeral chanting ZS adherents. Prints were evaluated solely on
the basis of tones ‘placed' appropriately. Of course, extreme
expansions and contractions (particularly the former), as part of the
ZS lore, wrought havoc with the miniature format's image quality.
Blindly following the White Manual and ignorant of the decades of work
that had established Minimum Development as the optimum technique for
miniature work, the techniques soon became as obscure as the dusty
pages of old the photographic reference manuals, with the exception of
the British Journal of Photography Annuals, where Geoffrey Crawley's
meticulous explanations of the benefits of the European miniature
format approach were recorded. Indeed, Mr Crawley had himself
performed extensive research on developer composition in the late
1950's with the intention of optimising sharpness. He then formulated
a series of developers marketed by Paterson (most famous among them
being Acutol) that produced the astonishingly high sharpness with
significant advantages in tonality over the formulations of Beutler
and Windisch.
Part 2:
Summary of Part 1:
In Part 1 we learned that miniature (35mm) film development technique
evolved from 35mm motion-picture technique, and that the most popular
developer ever created, D-76, was designed to deal with the problems
of motion-picture work, which because of the great degree of
enlargement in projection requires fine grain and good sharpness, but
not at the expense of speed. Developers that sacrificed speed were
popular among miniature still photographers who wanted even finer
grain, and formulations were published by Sease of duPont for that
purpose. These developers required 200% to 300% increases in exposure,
which for the slow films of the era were painful to accept.
The death of Life Magazine in 1972 clearly left a void. It had been an
unrivalled outlet for 35mm black-and-white photojournalism. With its
passing, the public's exposure to black-and-white 35mm photojournalism
was greatly diminished. This also represents a turning point in
American culture in its attitudes about photography. Once the general
public was no longer exposed to great photojournalism, it faded from
the public consciousness. Before long, the images of Ansel Adams,
inter alia, became far more familiar to many Americans than any of
those of the great photojournalists that had contributed to Life. The
famous photo of John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father's casket in
November 1963 is still etched in my memory.
http://www.lookgreat.com/johnfkennedyjr.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4035/salute.html
http://starbulletin.com/1999/07/23/editorial/chang.html
How many people could name the photographer? I bet very few. Yet
almost anyone can name Ansel Adams as a famous photographer. I do not
intend to discuss Adams's work here, but his reputation led to his
name becoming a ‘brand name' recognizable as synonymous with
‘high-quality black-and-white photography'. Naturally enough the
curious would seek to emulate his working methods in hopes of
emulating his images, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.
The academization of the zone system began with Minor White's Zone
System Manual (ZSM), published in 1961. The Manual itself does not
contain discussions of various film formats, their advantages or
disadvantages, or the techniques used by 35mm photographers. The
Manual assumes that sheet film is being used, and Chapter 4 of the
revised edition (fourth printing, 1972, page 31) begins with rather
blunt, unsupported assertions:
"While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
"The major aim of this chapter is to allow the reader to see for
himself how the "zone" can be used as a unit of measurement for
development as well as exposure. In the process he can also expect to
observe the fundamental effects that different development times bring
about over the entire scale of the print. It is this overall change in
the print value scale that previsualization must cope with when
variable development time is contemplated as a means of rendering an
interpretation of a scene or subject."
No evidence whatsoever is offered for this assertion. We will examine
the implications of variable development on 35mm film in Part 3.
Often ignored or unknown is that White recommends #3 paper for small
negatives:
"The various steps of the calibration tests are the same for both roll
and sheet film, however the handling of each type is necessarily
different. As was said the #2 contrast grade of projection paper is
standard with sheet film and the #3 with roll film. The first is
chosen because its contrast is midway between the harder and softer
contrast grades. The #3 contrast grade is consistent with the general
practice for small negatives."
But little else is discussed concerning the many differences between
formats and their respective limitations. As discussed above in Part
1, at the time White was writing (the late 1950's), 35mm was not
considered a suitable medium for ‘serious' black-and-white work. It is
no wonder then that White does not touch upon the miniature format and
its limitations. In short, White's book is not a comprehensive guide
on the subject of film formats or black and white photography at all.
It makes certain assumptions based on the photographic culture of the
time, which overwhelmingly employed large film sizes for professional
work. From my reading of the Manual, White displays no awareness of
European miniature-format techniques.
Yet despite this inadequacy, White's Manual has been used for decades
in classrooms as an instructional text, and selected even for those
who have only 35mm equipment, for which it was never intended and is
in fact unsuited. As we have seen by examining the old Photo Lab Index
material, differences in suitable treatment of negative films had been
standard, recommended procedure for a number of decades, based upon
the nature of the photography being practised, film size, and the
limitations of the materials themselves. Within each ‘practise', more
or less ‘fixed' development was recommended, not variable. Most
noticeable is the fact that the smaller the gauge, and the greater the
magnification, the less the development given. Motion picture film is
given the least, as it is enlarged the most.
The exact gamma numbers are not important to us today, but the
principles of development that are involved certainly are. It would
seem that White's Manual is wholly inadequate to address such complex
issues. And his statement: "While variable film development is today a
specialist practise, the adjustment of development time to compensate
for a wide variety of subject contrast ranges is still the most
effective way to control rendering" is flatly contradicted by the PLI.
Standardised development times based upon the nature of the work being
done and the use of various paper grades to control print contrast was
standard practise and remains a sound practise.
In Part 3, we will discuss specific recommendations for the 35mm
black-and-white photographer.
End of Part 2.
Part 3
We have learned so far that conflicting and confusing information is
available for the novice regarding proper procedures for maximising
the quality of black-and-white images made with small format cameras.
For a variety of reasons, European miniature format practise was far
ahead of North American practise. Beginning in the 1950's, the
European photographer enjoyed the benefits of research by the Germans
Beutler and Windisch among others, who designed film developers that
were capable of providing greater sharpness than conventional
developers used in North America. Tetenal's Neofin Blue (for slow and
medium speed films) and Neofin Red (for fast films) offered both high
acutance and compensation. These developers paired well with the Adox
thin-emulsion films introduced in the early 1950's to provide stunning
sharpness and fine grain. Problems remained with tonality, however,
because these formulations, which gave high acutance, also caused more
compression of mid-tones than was desired. The European photographer
was thus faced with the choice of developers that were optimised for
either sharpness or tonality, but not both. Not even Agfa Rodinal,
available from the late 19th century, could offer satisfactory
sharpness, fine grain, and tonality simultaneously. It was not until
1961, when Acutol was introduced, that a developer capable of both
extremely high sharpness and normal tonality together with fine grain
was available. Acutol, a British product designed by Geoffrey Crawley
and marketed by Paterson, surpassed the Beutler approach and offered
the miniature photographer the opportunity to achieve results
comparable to larger formats without sacrificing the portability and
speed of 35mm cameras. Acutol does not depend upon the same mechanisms
employed by Beutler-type developers to provide its outstanding
sharpness. Beutler-type developers are also difficult to control and
require great attention to agitation.
Again, we must emphasise that these European advancements were not
widely adopted in the US, where large format (or medium format)
photography still held sway for many decades in those fields of
photography where the miniature format had been accepted for use in
Europe. The result of this ‘technological gap' was inevitably a
‘cultural gap'. With the decline of Life and Look magazines described
above, and the ascendancy in the public consciousness of the
large-format photographic styles popularised by Adams and others, it
was natural for aspiring miniature users entering photography after
about 1972 to look toward the techniques and methods of these ‘America
heroes' of the view camera. Knowledge of the highly-advanced European
techniques and products (made by Ilford, Paterson, Adox, and Agfa,
among others) was not widespread in North America, perhaps because of
the difficulties of marketing away from Europe. None of these products
achieved overwhelming success in North America, though they were
adopted by those lucky enough to find out about them. Those who did
were able to produce stunning results that surpassed those obtainable
using Kodak films, developers, and papers. (Tri-X developed in
Rodinal, printed on Agfa Brovira was a popular combination for a few
years in the late 1960's among ‘with-it' photographers.)
With the greater reliance on college classes instead of ‘trial and
error' and the adoption of the White's Manual for photographic class
texts, it was almost inevitable that the struggle for black-and-white
methodological hegemony would fall to the zone system adherents.
Lacking a moniker that carried the panache of ‘the Zone System', a
charismatic leader such as Adams, and a convenient text such as
White's Manual, European miniature technique almost faded from view.
Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, however, Geoffrey Crawley,
photographic chemist and inventor of Acutol, published a series of
short monographs in the British Journal of Photography Annuals. His
expertise in miniature technique made these volumes particularly
valuable to the 35mm photographer whose wished to achieve optimum
results with his equipment. Crawley carefully discusses various
approaches to film development based on the real-world needs of the
miniature user. He offered formulas based on his own researches into
development made in the late 1950's and published in the British
Journal of Photography in 1960–1961. His writings, though, were
scattered here and there in British Journal of Photography and the
British Journal of Photography Annuals, and were never systematised in
the manner of White's Manual. It would take a considerable effort for
anyone in North America to collect all of this material and put it to
use in any systematic way. This essay attempts to begin that process.
In Part 4, we shall address the shortcomings of the ZS for 35mm use
and offer alternatives.
End of Part 3
Part 4.
In Part 4 we will discuss variable film development as it affects 35mm
film above all, and discuss the primary reasons put forth for varying
film development. Variable film development is most commonly
associated with the Zone System practitioners on the one hand, and
with attempts to alter film speed, (‘pushing' to increase and
‘pulling' to decrease) especially by those who are desperate to
capture action in low levels of illumination.
In our survey of the practises outlined in the Photo lab Index we
learned that the smaller the film and the greater the magnification,
the lower the degree of development that was recommended and
practised. This is confirmed by Minor White's statement in the Zone
System Manual, where he states:
"As was said the #2 contrast grade of projection paper is standard
with sheet film and the #3 with roll film. The first is chosen because
its contrast is midway between the harder and softer contrast grades.
The #3 contrast grade is consistent with the general practice for
small negatives."
This can only be because smaller format negatives, being developed
less, achieve lower levels of contrast. So there is incontrovertible
documentation, even from White himself, the writer of the Manual, that
recommended practise is to give smaller negatives different treatment
than larger ones by virtue of their size alone. This general principle
is documented in countless other 35mm manuals, and by the famous Leica
pioneer Dr. Paul Wolff, whose recipe for fine grain was "Expose
generously—develop moderately".
So we have two groups who claim benefits for variable film
development:
1. Those who want to change the film's contrast
2. Those who want to ‘push' or ‘pull' their film to change its speed
A member of the first group, Minor White's statement is blunt and
unambiguous:
"While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
rendering."
We have come to see, however, that miniature film requires modest
development, so much so that additional contrast in printing is
recommended practise to make up for the reduction. Grade #3 is
considered ‘standard' for roll film. Attempting to use Grade #2 paper
would require additional development, and the small negative rebels at
this. Graininess increases dramatically with even modest increases in
development, and for the miniature worker who wishes to maximise the
potential for enlargement any such increase brings with it a severe
penalty. Grain increases rapidly with only the slightest increase in
time (10-20%) over the ideal. The increase in graininess is naturally
worst with films of higher speed. The graininess derived from longer
development is generally not attractive, as it is mushy and is
accompanied by a general coagulation of tones.
On the other hand, optimal development with miniature film is already
so short that significant further reductions are often difficult to
carry out consistently. This is also mentioned by Minor White:
"With most film-developer combinations, any contraction of N-2 or more
frequently produces muddy negatives. So generally the N-2 development
indication is a signal to use the two solution method. For this a 2%
Borax solution is used as the second bath to the regular developer for
the first bath. The table found in Appendix A will provide the reader
with a starting point for his own combination of developer and Borax."
This seems to contradict what he said earlier, namely that:
"While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
rendering."
It seems that variable film development has limits after all. The
‘wide variety of subject contrast ranges' that variable film
development is supposed to accommodate isn't so wide after all.
As we said, both those who ‘push' and ‘pull', and those who want to
control contrast through Zone System adjustments advocate using
variable film development.
Where does that leave us? The miniature film is, after all, already
being developed for as short a time as is practical, close to what
would be considered an ‘N-1' or ‘N-2' for sheet film. And expansions
would seem imprudent for the very reason that we have reduced the
developing time to begin with: graininess and lack of sharpness in
film given more than optimal development. What possible benefit then,
does variable film development have?
Even if we reject the Zone System for miniature film (and we do)
because the development range of 35mm film is so short to make
significant contrast changes impractical from an image quality
standpoint, there are those who argue that variable film development
still can be useful for film speed adjustments.
Close examination of prints made from pushed film will reveal however
little benefit to the practise. Even modest increases in development
time cause significant increases in graininess, and it can be shown
that no more than about 3/4 of a stop of speed is gained, despite
claims of 2 or 3 stop speed increases. This 3/4 stop actually
represents the film's inherent underexposure latitude, and is
available with or without pushing. The ISO speed rating for film
contains a small safety factor, and if the user attempts to
underexpose the film by more than about 3/4 stop no amount of addition
development will
succeed in revealing more shadow detail: the true measure of film
speed. Some developers do provide a modest increase in film speed
(though at some loss of overexposure latitude and tonal gradation),
and this approach may prove far more appropriate. Extending
development changes contrast far more than it changes speed and causes
a rapid escalation in graininess. If underexposure is unavoidable,
most high-speed films should simply be processed normally and printed
on harder paper. The shadows are recorded, though with lower contrast
than on a correct exposure. The use of the harder paper will overcome
some of this. Attempting to reduce exposure by a margin greater than
about 3/4 stop will result in irretrievable loss of shadow detail.
‘Pushing' the film simply increases the contrast of the image: exactly
what printing on harder paper does, but it also produces an increases
in graininess greater than that produced by harder paper. The ‘speed
increase' produced by ‘pushing' is entirely illusory. See the attached
image showing various development times of motion picture film in
experimental test run by Carleton and Crabtree of Eastman Kodak.
You'll note very little change in the lowest densities.
End of Part 4.
In Part 5 specific solutions to contrast control for the miniature
user will be discussed.
Part 5
In our previous discussions we have learned that because of
limitations of the miniature film format, the use of minimum
development, condenser enlarging, and grade #3 paper has been standard
or recommended practise for many years. Not all users who have bought
35mm equipment and have developed an interest in doing their own
black-and-white work have been fortunate enough to receive instruction
on the more advanced methods and techniques developed primarily in
Europe. The details of miniature practice are recorded in works such
as The Leica Manual (various editions), 35mm Photo Technique (by H.S.
Newcombe), The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (by Aaron Sussman) and
numerous similar books, many now unfortunately out of print or
outdated in other ways. Leica Fotographi' often featured articles of
interest on black-and-white technique too.
Despite all of this, few popular works comparable to White's Manual
devoted exclusively to 35mm black-and-white practise have been
published, and none has been as influential. Once abundant sources of
information, some suppliers of photo sensitised goods have reduced or
eliminated their instructional publications. This has left the Zone
System, at least in North America, as the primary scheme for
black-and-white photography, despite the unsuitability of its major
tenet (Variable Film Development) for miniature work. We have seen how
limited is the range of development times for 35mm film, which renders
any attempt at contrast adjustment using development time doomed to
failure because of excessive graininess on the one hand, and uneven
development on the other. Given these known limitations, it would seem
that attacking the problem of contrast control would require different
tactics than those proposed by the Manual.
Returning then to the discussion of European technique, we recall that
the acutance developers such as Beutler offered greater sharpness.
This is brought about through adjacency effects (which enhance
sharpness) and the absence of solvents (solvents degrade sharpness).
These effects are achieved through the use of small amounts of
developing agent (Metol) and a high amount of activator (typically
Sodium Carbonate). The developing agent Metol, being present in but a
low concentration, is quite susceptible to the by-products of
development. The sodium carbonate, a strong alkali, accelerates the
development process, releasing considerable amounts of bromide as a
by-product, which has a strong inhibitory effect on the Metol. So
wherever heavily exposed areas meet with lightly exposed areas, a
distinct ridge of enhanced contrast is formed at this border. The lack
of high concentrations of sodium sulphite (such as are found in D-76
and other solvent developers) preserves sharpness better than those
do, and further accentuates adjacency effects, because sulphite
protects Metol against bromide inhibition. But a secondary effect
occurs that is of interest to us. In addition to causing adjacency
effects, these exhaustion phenomena also produce a certain amount of
compensation: The heavily exposed areas are restrained and the lightly
exposed areas are emphasised. The importance of this effect cannot be
understated, because it provides a suitable mechanism for the user of
roll film in contrast control, as a single development time for the
entire roll is the overwhelming preference. Cutting up films for
variable development would be extremely inconvenient at best, so if it
can be shown that variable development is unnecessary (we already have
shown that it is undesirable) and that contrast can be controlled
suitably with a single development time for the entire roll, we have
will have achieved a satisfactory solution.
Compensating action allows negatives of high-contrast scenes and
normal contrast scenes to be developed together on a single roll and
still print similarly. Only minor adjustment of paper contrast is
required to print the negatives. This is because compensating
development reduces overall contrast, but reduces the density range of
negatives of contrasty scenes proportionally more than those of
low-contrast scenes. Compensation is also available through dilution
of suitable solvent developers, such as those containing Metol (those
containing only Phenidone, such as Microphen, are not as well suited).
D-76 diluted 1:1 thus has some compensating action and is often
recommended for that reason in 35mm work, rather than the undiluted
form. Regardless of which type of developer is chosen, some amount of
compensation is desirable as it tends to ‘even out' the contrast range
of all negatives on a roll. The Beutler developer, though, tends to
reduce contrast too much, affecting mid-tones excessively, while D-76
diluted 1:3 does not offer the detail or sharpness that Beutler's
formula does. It is the remarkable feature of Acutol that the extent
of compensation can be controlled by dilution between 1+9 and 1+19.
The goal is to reduce the density and gradient (contrast) just enough
to tame the highlights and leave the mid-tone contrast relatively
unaffected. Negatives given compensating development can be printed
using a rather narrow range of paper contrast, regardless of the
subject scene contrast.
Of course, success will also depend upon choice of suitable negative
stock. What is desired is a film whose characteristic curve lends
itself to compensation to begin with. This sort of curve is called
‘S-shaped' because the highest contrast (slope) is in the middle of
the curve, like an ‘S'. Kodak Tri-X Pan is considered to be the
classic film for the kind of photography that the 35mm camera lends
itself to: reportage in uncontrolled conditions. Here is a curve that
shows Tri-X Pan developed in Paterson FX-39, similar to Acutol:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-tx.gif
The dip in contrast at the top of the curve (called the ‘shoulder')
helps to control the density of the highlight areas.
Ilford Delta 400 offers similar curves in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-id400-135.gif
as does HP5+:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-hp5-135.gif
Kodak T-max 400, however, displays a characteristic curve which is the
exact opposite of this, especially with developers that do not provide
compensation, such as Kodak T-Max developer:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
This film and developer combination would be a rather poor choice for
the 35mm user shooting in uncontrolled conditions of varying contrast
illumination, as it tends to make the highlights ‘run away' while
leaving the shadow areas flat and dark. Such a curve is called
‘U-shaped' because the lowest contrast is in the middle of the curve.
Even with FX-39, T-Max 400 does not have an ‘S'-shaped curve:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-tm400-135.gif
This ‘straight-line' curve is still not suitable for uncontrolled
light conditions, especially mixed scenes on a single roll. The FX-39
developer is not able to ‘bend' the curve enough to accomplish that.
Nor is Rodinal, at 1+24
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/kurver/rod1+24-TM400ny.jpg
or even at 1+49:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/kurver/rod-TM400ny.jpg
For this reason, T-Max 400 would not be recommended for the kind of
work being discussed here. It is suitable, however, for studio work
where illumination is controlled.
To fit a contrasty scene onto to a given grade of paper, some measure
of compression is necessary if the print is to have normal contrast
and impact. The general consensus in photography is that the mid-tones
are the most important as far as tonal impact is concerned. T-Max 400
is therefore an undesirable film for situations requiring compression,
as mid-tone contrast is almost always going to be lower than highlight
contrast, which is the opposite of what is desired to control
contrasty scenes.
Outdoor work in sunny conditions bring confronts us with three basic
types of lighting:
1. Direct sunlight
2. Direct open shade
3. Part sunlit, part shaded
Compensating development helps us cope with these situations as
follows:
Scenes illuminated by direct sunlight usually posses a normal range of
contrast that easily fits onto the film and requires no special
compensation. In many cases there is room for exposure error in either
direction, more toward over-exposure of course. Underexposure is to be
avoided in direct sunlight scenes, as the gradation at the lowest
density range of the film (the ‘toe') is low. Shadow detail is
recorded too low on the toe, and thus look weak and flat when such
scenes are underexposed.
Scenes in diffuse light (shade) are low in contrast and thus occupy
the lower mid-tones on the negative, precisely where compensating
development is boosting the contrast. This makes them somewhat
snappier than they would be with ‘straight' development in a
non-compensating developer. Correct exposure helps to place these
scenes on the right part of the curve, but slight exposure errors are
tolerated well.
The third kind of scene involves mixed significant portions of shade
with areas of direct sunlight. For these, the most difficult of all,
compensating development and the ‘S'-shaped curve offer significant
advantages. The shaded areas fall on the lower portion of the curve,
where contrast is higher, and the brighter areas fall on the upper
portions of the curve where the contrast is lower. Nothing could be
more ideal! All the photographer needs to do is to make sure that
adequate exposure is given to the shady areas. Negatives made in the
shade will require between about one-half to one full grade more
contrast than those made in mixed sunlight and shade.
Negatives made on HP5+ and developed in Acutol showed success using
this technique.
It is worth noting that White's claim in the Zone System Manual (ZSM):
"…the adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety
of subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
rendering."
is offered without even attempt at proof. No comparison is made
between variable development and standard development and different
grades of paper to prove the assertion.
The Zone System is a fraud.
Tom Phillips
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> The question of
>
> VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT
No one's going to read this. Too long. The only real question is whether
I killfile you now or later...
David Nebenzahl
Actually, I think the far more interesting question about Scarpitti's essay is
how much historical revisionism it contains. It's quite heavily salted with
assertions that, curiously, jibe with MS's well-known rants here: 35mm film
demands less development to minimize grain, hence thinner negatives, hence
higher-contrast grade printing paper. I don't see much in the way of footnotes
(or even footnotable references). Somehow it seems to read like Michael
Scarpitti's history of 35mm photography from a point of view that buttresses
his beloved points of argumentation.
In that sense, I think it can be safely ignored as essentially a very long,
tedious tautology: "the Zone System is a fraud because I say it is.".
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Peter Irwin
Michael,
I'm not an expert, but I thought I'd comment anyway.
>D-76 developer was formulated by Eastman Kodak in 1927 as
>a motion-picture negative developer.
Actually, I think it was originally for developing duplicate negatives,
but it turned out to be a really good developer for original camera
negatives too.
>It also became clear that reduction of development times compared to
>that of sheet films or plates gave finer grain and best sharpness
I'm pretty sure this was known from the very start from cine film
experience. Standard practice with cine films was to develop to
a gamma of 0.65 (based on slope of straight line portion, probably
resulting in a Contrast Index of about 0.56.) For some reason the
development times Kodak recommended for still 35mm film were
about 30% too long for this.
>Since the miniature negative was being developed less (to minimise
>graininess and preserve sharpness), certain consequences naturally
>followed. The most obvious was that, given the lower contrast that a
>shorter developing time produced, some means was necessary to boost
>the contrast on the print to acceptable levels. This meant that
>condenser enlargers soon found favour. It was also deemed expedient to
>select a somewhat more vigorous grade of paper.
In the 1930s, a "condenser enlarger" was a horizontal affair using a
small light source which increased contrast rather more than a
Valoy type enlarger. When I first started looking at the old literature,
I was a bit puzzled by statements that the Valoy was designed on the
diffusion principle, since it is nowadays what we call a condenser
enlarger. But compared to the old condenser enlargers it has lower
contrast and less exaggeration of dust and scratches.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
R.W. Behan
judgement. Variable film development does indeed adjust negative contrast.
VC papers do indeed adjust print contrast. Neither is right. Neither is
wrong. Neither is fraudulent. Shoot, I use 'em both--without guilt,
without apology, and sure as hell without the need to prove an arcane point.
And variable film development works fine with 35mm. (Tri-X and 1:1 D-76,
which I've used for 40 years or so.) You need to overcome the "Box Brownie"
mentality that every frame is a separate picture, and look at a roll of film
as "material," the way a potter, say, looks at clay. When I'm done shooting
a contrasty scene, the film comes out of the camera, whether or not all 36
frames have been exposed. In other words, each ROLL is a picture. Into the
flat light? Another roll--which costs what, 3 bucks at B&H? And then into
the darkroom to develop each roll differently. No big deal. And if I
missed the development time a bit I'll whip out the VC filters. That's no
big deal, either.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03121...@posting.google.com...
> The question of
>
> VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT
>
<snipped to save space>
Richard Knoppow
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:2fd2ff8c.03121...@posting.google.com...
>
> VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT
>
> This essay is in response to an inquiry by a photographer
using 35mm
> film regarding zone system techniques and measurements of
density. The
> response is prompted by the incongruity of the question,
as only a few
> years ago such a question would have not arisen, because
miniature
> technique (a technique independent of ZS principles) was
well-known
> and widely taught. The essay is devoted to explaining how
zone system
> thinking has infiltrated the miniature format field and
begun to
> displace well-established miniature technique.
>
> The Zone System is a fraud.
Most of long essay snipped....
This is too long to respond to in detail. I've read it
over but must read it carefully, the following are notes
from my brief reading.
I think 35mm film presents some special difficulties
because it requires resolution and grain size near the limit
of what film can provide. I is true that grain is reduced by
reducing development and also by keeping densities as low as
possible consistent with adequate tonal rendition. Because
film and lens resolution are on the same order for 35mm both
must be as high as possible for the resultant image to
reasonably detailed. Acutance is a measure of edge contrast,
which is interpreted by the eye as sharpness. Acutance
becomes especially important for 35mm negatives because
resolution is often too low resulting in images looking
unsharp.
One problem is that developers which accentuate acutance
do so at the expense of increased grain. However, a sharp
grain pattern is also capable of giving the illusion of
sharpness.
D-76 was originally devised as a developer for a fine
grain duplicating film for motion picture negatives. At the
time the most popular motion picture negative developers
were derivatives of Pyro. These developers tended to be
fairly alkaline although the intensifying effect of the pyro
stain may have minimised grain. D-76 became popular for
negative development partly because of its finer grain but
also because it was more predictable than other generally
used developers.
Motion pictures have the advantage over still pictures of
the time integration of the images by the eye. This tends to
minimise the visibility of grain and to increase apparent
sharpness. Anyone who has attempted to make a print from a
35mm motion picture frame, or even more so, from a 16mm
frame, will know that the results are amazingly grainy
compared to the visual impression from watching the motion
picture. So the graininess of the negatives was not nearly
as apparent as it became when small format film began to be
used for still photography, even given the double-frame size
of the Leica.
Many early developers for 35mm still film were based on
paraphenylenediamine, a very low activity reducing agent
with considerable halide solvent ability. A pure PPD
developer is very fine grain but suffers from delivering
substantially lower film speed (as much as four to five
stops loss) and is not capable of high densities or high
contrast. Most of the practical developers used PPD in
combination with something else, usually Glycin, which is
itself capable of fairly fine grain development. Most of the
famous fine grain developers of the 1930's are actually just
PPD and Glycin developers sometimes with other things added
such as Benzoic acid to minimise emulsion swelling and grain
clumping. Later, Kodak introduced a developer called DK-20
which used Metol and hydroquinone but which contained sodium
thiocyanate, a powerful halide solvent. Halide solvents do
not, as is sometimes thought, etch the edges off the
developed silver grains. In fact, solvents, including sodium
sulfite, act in a more complicated way on the undeveloped
and developing silver grains to change the morphology, or
shape of the resulting silver crystals. The use of a lot of
sulfite and other salts also tends to reduce emulsion
swelling. This is important because developing silver
crystals tend to migrate toward each other forming clumps if
the emulsion is softened enough to allow that. Modern fine
grain developers minimise, at least in part, by being close
to neutral pH. Photographic gelatin, of which emulsions are
made is amphoretic, that is, it has characteristics of both
acids and bases. It takes on the pH of whatever the last
solution it was in was. However, the gelatin has what I will
call a prefered pH at which its swelling is minimum. This is
the isoelectric point. For minimum grain the developer
should not be too far from the pH equivalent to the
isoelectric point.
Contast is is controlled by development of film since film
is not developed to "finality" as are pints. Prints are
almost invariably developed to the point where the most
exposed parts reach the maximum density of which the
emulsion is capable. Film is developed usually to a
prescribed gamma or contrast index. This is measured by
comparing the range of log exposure against the range of log
densities which result. Film for pictorial use is seldom, if
ever, developed so that it reaches either its maximum
density, or even near it, or its maximum contrast.
Where it is desired to minimise grain the development must
be kept on the low side because the grains tend to increase
in size and in statistical density as development is
continued. Minimising development also tends to minimise the
effect of the scattering of light in the emulsion at the
time of exposure. This effect, called irradiation, is not so
much of a problem in modern thin-emulsion films as it was in
the past, but it still exists. As a result film developed
for minimum grain and and minimum image spread (the opposite
of acutance) will tend to be both think and low in contrast.
Now, the requirements for an acceptable print were
determined many decades ago in research conducted by Loyd A.
Jones, of Kodak Laboratories, and his collegues. Jones did
research over a period of at some twenty five years most on
the requirements for good tonal rendition in photography and
on devising a meaningful method of measuring and specifying
film speeds.
As early as the late 1920, Jones proposed a method of
speed measurement based on the minimum gradient (contrast)
required for adequate shadow detail. He caried out a very
extensive investigation in the late 1930's to determine the
minimum exposure required for an "excellent" print. Why
minimum exposure? For the reasons stated above, and the ones
Micheal states, namely that a thin negative has finer grain
is in general sharper than a denser one.
Jones found that the exposure should be sufficient to
place the minimum exposure that is to have any detail in it
on the toe at a point where the gamma is 1/3rd that of the
straight line portion of the curve. Any less exposure
results in inadequate shadow detail. Greater exposure makes
little or no difference in overall tonal rendition. The
capability of film to accept overexposure is very great. For
modern films it is many stops, perhaps as much as twelve for
some films.
In the course of this investigation Jones also measured
the brightness range of several hundered scenes. In the
rechearch project he conducted in the late 1930's a large
number of scenes of differing sorts were photographed at
variousl exposures and printed to make the best possible
print of each negative. The resulting prints were judged in
double-blind testing by a large number of viewers. Jones
found that provided the exposure was greater than the
minimum to place the shadows on the minimum gradient point,
there was little differnce in tonal rendition. Because the
minimum exposure for a "first excellent print" was the one
yielding the best grain and sharpness characteristic this
point was adopted by Jones for his "Kodak Speed" system.
This system was adopted by Kodak for interenal use about
1940. The American Standards Association (ASA) adopted this
method in 1943, however, they added a 2.5X safety factor,
so the resuling negatives tended to be quite dense. This
system was replaced by the DIN system in 1958 partly because
it was too difficult to measure the minimum gradient. The
safety factor was eliminated at the same time doubling the
speed of all films. This immediately put out of business
several manufacturers of "super" developers which were
supposed to quadruple film speed. They could; the film was
underrated one stop and film has about a one stop latitude
if one can stand poor shadow detail
Now, what has all this to do with Micheal Scarpetties
post?
First, he is right about the requirements for best grain
and sharpness, i.e., minimum development and density.
Because this results in rather low contrast the contrast
must be made up somewhere. A condenser light source of the
typical type found in photographic enlargers will produce
about one paper grade more contrast than a diffusion light
source. This can be used to make up some contrast. The other
place is the paper. In the past many papers were available
in several grades so a somewhat harder paper could be
chosen. Grade-2 is arbitrarily chosen ans "normal" mostly
based on the density range of negatives of "typical" scenes.
If development is reduced by 20 to 33%, depending on the
film and developer, the contrast of the negative will be
reduced by about one paper grade. The film speed will be
effecively lowered by about 3/4 stop. This is about what one
must do if Grade-2 paper is to be used with a condenser
enlarger.
What else? One must consider, as Jones did, the visual
effect of a reflection print. Reflection prints, as opposed
to transparencies, are limited in tonal range because the
brightest parts of the image can be no brighter than the
ambient light. If a subject with a very wide brightness
range is photographed, and detail is wanted in both shadows
and highlights, the range must be compressed in some way.
Provided the negative material is capable of recording the
entire brightness range of the subject the adjustment can be
made in printing by choosing a low contrast paper. The
contrast adjustment can also be made by adjusting the
negative contrast. This is done by adjusting the development
time, and since that changes the effective speed, the
exposure must be adjusted to match. By making suitable
adjustments in exposure and development the brightness
range, or rather exposure range of the subject can be fitted
within some prescribed density range on the negative. This
is the basis of the Zone System. If its done all negatives,
which is to say, all subject contrast ranges can be printed
on the same grade of paper.
What does this accomplish? A minimal result is the ability
to record the exposure range on a fairly linear part of the
film. This is much more important in the shadows than the
highlights, because there is some minimum exposure where the
contrast of lower exposures is no longer adequate to render
shadows acceptably (Jones finding). Since most films will
record very high exposures without reaching the "shoulder"
of the curve, where the contrast falls off again, it is less
an issue than the low exposure end. So, the Zone System can
insure that the exposure of a subject is sufficient to give
good shadow details. One can also accomplish this without
the Zone System by having some understanding of the way film
records brightness and the meaning of "speed".
Here is a more difficult problem: what is the resulting
print going to look like? It is all very well to use the
Zone System to measure the brightness range of the original
scene and to expose the film and develop it so that the
range of densities resulting from the scene brightness range
falls within the range the printing paper is capable of
reproducing.
The problem is that the eye expects to see a certain
contast, especially in familiar subjects. The Zone System
seems to tacitly assume that this isn't true and I think
this is the basis of the controversey about it.
While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
that it can be misleading. For one thing, while the Zone
system does take into account the shape of the negative
exposure vs: density curve, often called the H&D curve it
does not seem to take into account that there is only a very
limited ability to affect this by means other than choice of
film. Some films have a long "toe", some a short "toe". The
toe is the low exposure end of the curve. It has lower
contrast than the rest of the curve, varying from no
contrast at its start to the overall contrast index of the
film for greater exposure. Lens flare can mimic a long toe,
lowering the contrast of shadows. Flare has little effect on
the mid tones and on high exposure (highlights) regions. The
Zone System, in its full application, measures lens and
camera flare. This can be useful in predicting something
about how a particular camera and film will render scenes.
To that extent it is useful. One can understand that there
will be a limit on the detail one can expect in shadows. For
films wit relatively short toes, the shadow detail can be
improved by increasing exposure to make sure the shadows are
on a higher contrast portion of the film. To a very limited
degree this can compensate for flare.
I suppose what I am getting at is that Micheal has some
valid (IMHO) criricisms of the Zone System, yet I disagree
that it is a complete fraud. I do think more has been made
of it than is there. In fact, it is simply a presentation of
fundamental sensitometry in non-technical terms, probably
because the more formal versions of sensitometry were
obscure and not very accessible.
This is a much too long reply to a long post. Those who
can stay with it and read throug Micheal's post will find
some useful ideas there, I hope there are some here too,
otherwise I applolgize for letting my fingers do too much
walking on the keyboard.
Good summaries of Loyd A. Jones work can be found in:
_Fundamentals of Photographic Theory_ T. H. James and George
C. Higgins, 1st edition, 1948, New York, John Wiley &
Sons -- New Revised Edition, 1960, New York, Morgan and
Morgan
This also( both editions) has a section showing the
relationship between density, grain, and sharpness.
_The Theory of the Photographic Process_ Revised Edition, C.
E. Kenneth Mees, 1954, New York, The Macmillan Company.
This is a classic text written at a more technical level
than the above. It also has an extensive bibliography which
includes citations of Jones' work and much other work on
tone rendition and sensitometry. See in particular chapters
22 and 23.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Phillips
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > The Zone System is a fraud.
>
> Most of long essay snipped....
>
> This is too long to respond to in detail. I've read it
> over but must read it carefully, the following are notes
> from my brief reading.
snip a good deal of good stuff...
> Now, what has all this to do with Micheal Scarpetties
> post?
> First, he is right about the requirements for best grain
> and sharpness, i.e., minimum development and density.
> Because this results in rather low contrast the contrast
> must be made up somewhere. A condenser light source of the
> typical type found in photographic enlargers will produce
> about one paper grade more contrast than a diffusion light
> source. This can be used to make up some contrast. The other
> place is the paper. In the past many papers were available
> in several grades so a somewhat harder paper could be
> chosen. Grade-2 is arbitrarily chosen ans "normal" mostly
> based on the density range of negatives of "typical" scenes.
> If development is reduced by 20 to 33%, depending on the
> film and developer, the contrast of the negative will be
> reduced by about one paper grade. The film speed will be
> effecively lowered by about 3/4 stop. This is about what one
> must do if Grade-2 paper is to be used with a condenser
> enlarger.
Actually, this is where he's wrong, since Scarpitti *denies* that using
paper contrast to raise or lower the negative's Dmax is sensitometric in
nature. Scarpitti appears to have no point, other than his iconoclasm.
> What else? One must consider, as Jones did, the visual
> effect of a reflection print. Reflection prints, as opposed
> to transparencies, are limited in tonal range because the
> brightest parts of the image can be no brighter than the
> ambient light. If a subject with a very wide brightness
> range is photographed, and detail is wanted in both shadows
> and highlights, the range must be compressed in some way.
> Provided the negative material is capable of recording the
> entire brightness range of the subject the adjustment can be
> made in printing by choosing a low contrast paper. The
> contrast adjustment can also be made by adjusting the
> negative contrast. This is done by adjusting the development
> time, and since that changes the effective speed, the
> exposure must be adjusted to match. By making suitable
> adjustments in exposure and development the brightness
> range, or rather exposure range of the subject can be fitted
> within some prescribed density range on the negative. This
> is the basis of the Zone System. If its done all negatives,
> which is to say, all subject contrast ranges can be printed
> on the same grade of paper.
Yet as Adams states Zone System principles (especially for 35mm users)
can be applied by employing other sensitometric controls for adjusting
Dmax besides altering the development times of film -- once having
established threshold Dmin exposure requirements for printing on a
"normal" contrast paper. What is "zone system"? It's a method of
exposure and development for achieving desired print values using
sensitometric principles. In theory and practice, it does not cease to
be zone system just because one chooses to incorporate printing controls
as a substitute for development controls.
This is what Scarpitti is arguing against in his effort to utterly
overthrow the basic concept of zone system, not elucidate some "point"
he is merely struggling to express. In reality, he's simply trying to
obfuscate what zone system is fundamentally based on -- sensitometric
relationships. Peter Henry Emerson likewise rejected the concept, when
Hurter and Driffield scientifically showed there was a relationship
between exposure, negative densities, and print tones. You can't
separate one from the other.
> While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
> I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
> that it can be misleading. For one thing, while the Zone
> system does take into account the shape of the negative
> exposure vs: density curve, often called the H&D curve it
> does not seem to take into account that there is only a very
> limited ability to affect this by means other than choice of
> film.
Are you talking about the shape of the curve, or the CI?
Some films have a long "toe", some a short "toe". The
> toe is the low exposure end of the curve. It has lower
> contrast than the rest of the curve, varying from no
> contrast at its start to the overall contrast index of the
> film for greater exposure. Lens flare can mimic a long toe,
> lowering the contrast of shadows. Flare has little effect on
> the mid tones and on high exposure (highlights) regions. The
> Zone System, in its full application, measures lens and
> camera flare. This can be useful in predicting something
> about how a particular camera and film will render scenes.
> To that extent it is useful. One can understand that there
> will be a limit on the detail one can expect in shadows. For
> films wit relatively short toes, the shadow detail can be
> improved by increasing exposure to make sure the shadows are
> on a higher contrast portion of the film. To a very limited
> degree this can compensate for flare.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding "limits." Once you have basic
sensitometric data for your film-camera-lens-developing system, you can
use it any way you want. I wouldn't go so far to say factors like lens
flare are a limitation of "zone system," but inherent limitations in the
medium regardless.
> I suppose what I am getting at is that Micheal has some
> valid (IMHO) criricisms of the Zone System, yet I disagree
> that it is a complete fraud. I do think more has been made
> of it than is there. In fact, it is simply a presentation of
> fundamental sensitometry in non-technical terms, probably
> because the more formal versions of sensitometry were
> obscure and not very accessible.
I agree. It's a method of applying basic sensitometric principles.
That's all. And as Adams employed "zone system," that includes using
paper contrast to adjust Dmax where using negative contrast adjustments
is otherwise undesirable.
> This is a much too long reply to a long post. Those who
> can stay with it and read throug Micheal's post will find
> some useful ideas there, I hope there are some here too,
> otherwise I applolgize for letting my fingers do too much
> walking on the keyboard.
A good history lesson is never a waste of time.
Michael Scarpitti
We are in complete agreement here.
> I is true that grain is reduced by
> reducing development and also by keeping densities as low as
> possible consistent with adequate tonal rendition. Because
> film and lens resolution are on the same order for 35mm both
> must be as high as possible for the resultant image to
> reasonably detailed. Acutance is a measure of edge contrast,
> which is interpreted by the eye as sharpness. Acutance
> becomes especially important for 35mm negatives because
> resolution is often too low resulting in images looking
> unsharp.
> One problem is that developers which accentuate acutance
> do so at the expense of increased grain. However, a sharp
> grain pattern is also capable of giving the illusion of
> sharpness.
> D-76 was originally devised as a developer for a fine
> grain duplicating film for motion picture negatives.
I have in my hands the Kodak publcation from 1929 entitled 'Sompe
Properties of Fine-Grain developers for Motion Picture Film' by
Carlton and Crabtree. The type of film used for testing was Easman
Panchromatic Negative Film (Type 2), which I must assume was a camera
film.
> At the
> time the most popular motion picture negative developers
> were derivatives of Pyro.
Qyuite likely. That's about all there was back then.
> These developers tended to be
> fairly alkaline although the intensifying effect of the pyro
> stain may have minimised grain. D-76 became popular for
> negative development partly because of its finer grain but
> also because it was more predictable than other generally
> used developers.
Again, quite true.
(snip)
> Many early developers for 35mm still film were based on
> paraphenylenediamine, a very low activity reducing agent
> with considerable halide solvent ability.
> A pure PPD
> developer is very fine grain but suffers from delivering
> substantially lower film speed (as much as four to five
> stops loss) and is not capable of high densities or high
> contrast.
I discussed such devlopers in the essay, as the Sease developers.
(snip)
> Contast is is controlled by development of film since film
> is not developed to "finality" as are pints. Prints are
> almost invariably developed to the point where the most
> exposed parts reach the maximum density of which the
> emulsion is capable. Film is developed usually to a
> prescribed gamma or contrast index. This is measured by
> comparing the range of log exposure against the range of log
> densities which result. Film for pictorial use is seldom, if
> ever, developed so that it reaches either its maximum
> density, or even near it, or its maximum contrast.
Of course.
> Where it is desired to minimise grain the development must
> be kept on the low side because the grains tend to increase
> in size and in statistical density as development is
> continued. Minimising development also tends to minimise the
> effect of the scattering of light in the emulsion at the
> time of exposure. This effect, called irradiation, is not so
> much of a problem in modern thin-emulsion films as it was in
> the past, but it still exists. As a result film developed
> for minimum grain and and minimum image spread (the opposite
> of acutance) will tend to be both think and low in contrast.
Of course. I say as much in the essay.
> Now, the requirements for an acceptable print were
> determined many decades ago in research conducted by Loyd A.
> Jones, of Kodak Laboratories, and his collegues. Jones did
> research over a period of at some twenty five years most on
> the requirements for good tonal rendition in photography and
> on devising a meaningful method of measuring and specifying
> film speeds.
> As early as the late 1920, Jones proposed a method of
> speed measurement based on the minimum gradient (contrast)
> required for adequate shadow detail. He caried out a very
> extensive investigation in the late 1930's to determine the
> minimum exposure required for an "excellent" print. Why
> minimum exposure? For the reasons stated above, and the ones
> Micheal states, namely that a thin negative has finer grain
> is in general sharper than a denser one.
We agree here.
(snip)
> Now, what has all this to do with Micheal Scarpetties
> post?
> First, he is right about the requirements for best grain
> and sharpness, i.e., minimum development and density.
> Because this results in rather low contrast the contrast
> must be made up somewhere. A condenser light source of the
> typical type found in photographic enlargers will produce
> about one paper grade more contrast than a diffusion light
> source. This can be used to make up some contrast. The other
> place is the paper. In the past many papers were available
> in several grades so a somewhat harder paper could be
> chosen. Grade-2 is arbitrarily chosen ans "normal" mostly
> based on the density range of negatives of "typical" scenes.
> If development is reduced by 20 to 33%, depending on the
> film and developer, the contrast of the negative will be
> reduced by about one paper grade. The film speed will be
> effecively lowered by about 3/4 stop. This is about what one
> must do if Grade-2 paper is to be used with a condenser
> enlarger.
All this is pointed out in the essay.
Aha! Now we begin to see the point clearly! The mid-tone gradation
must be maintain no matter what the scene contrast range is.
> While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
> I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
> that it can be misleading.
OK, let's not quibble about why we're not recommending it....
> For one thing, while the Zone
> system does take into account the shape of the negative
> exposure vs: density curve, often called the H&D curve it
> does not seem to take into account that there is only a very
> limited ability to affect this by means other than choice of
> film.
Quite so.
> Some films have a long "toe", some a short "toe". The
> toe is the low exposure end of the curve. It has lower
> contrast than the rest of the curve, varying from no
> contrast at its start to the overall contrast index of the
> film for greater exposure. Lens flare can mimic a long toe,
> lowering the contrast of shadows. Flare has little effect on
> the mid tones and on high exposure (highlights) regions. The
> Zone System, in its full application, measures lens and
> camera flare. This can be useful in predicting something
> about how a particular camera and film will render scenes.
> To that extent it is useful. One can understand that there
> will be a limit on the detail one can expect in shadows. For
> films wit relatively short toes, the shadow detail can be
> improved by increasing exposure to make sure the shadows are
> on a higher contrast portion of the film. To a very limited
> degree this can compensate for flare.
> I suppose what I am getting at is that Micheal has some
> valid (IMHO) criricisms of the Zone System, yet I disagree
> that it is a complete fraud.
As it is presented as THE way to do B&W, I think my characterization
is fair.
> I do think more has been made
> of it than is there. In fact, it is simply a presentation of
> fundamental sensitometry in non-technical terms, probably
> because the more formal versions of sensitometry were
> obscure and not very accessible.
> This is a much too long reply to a long post. Those who
> can stay with it and read throug Micheal's post will find
> some useful ideas there, I hope there are some here too,
> otherwise I applolgize for letting my fingers do too much
> walking on the keyboard.
>
> Good summaries of Loyd A. Jones work can be found in:
> _Fundamentals of Photographic Theory_ T. H. James and George
> C. Higgins, 1st edition, 1948, New York, John Wiley &
> Sons -- New Revised Edition, 1960, New York, Morgan and
> Morgan
> This also( both editions) has a section showing the
> relationship between density, grain, and sharpness.
>
> _The Theory of the Photographic Process_ Revised Edition, C.
> E. Kenneth Mees, 1954, New York, The Macmillan Company.
> This is a classic text written at a more technical level
> than the above. It also has an extensive bibliography which
> includes citations of Jones' work and much other work on
> tone rendition and sensitometry. See in particular chapters
> 22 and 23.
Thanks, Richard!
Michael Scarpitti
> On 12/14/2003 8:23 PM Tom Phillips spake thus:
>
> >
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >>
> >> The question of
> >>
> >> VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT
> >
> > No one's going to read this. Too long. The only real question is whether
> > I killfile you now or later...
>
> Actually, I think the far more interesting question about Scarpitti's essay is
> how much historical revisionism it contains. It's quite heavily salted with
> assertions that, curiously, jibe with MS's well-known rants here: 35mm film
> demands less development to minimize grain, hence thinner negatives,
You deny this? Even Adams says so...
> hence
> higher-contrast grade printing paper. I don't see much in the way of footnotes
> (or even footnotable references). Somehow it seems to read like Michael
> Scarpitti's history of 35mm photography from a point of view that buttresses
> his beloved points of argumentation.
>
> In that sense, I think it can be safely ignored as essentially a very long,
> tedious tautology: "the Zone System is a fraud because I say it is.".
See Richard's comments....
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael,
>
> I'm not an expert, but I thought I'd comment anyway.
>
> >D-76 developer was formulated by Eastman Kodak in 1927 as
> >a motion-picture negative developer.
>
> Actually, I think it was originally for developing duplicate negatives,
> but it turned out to be a really good developer for original camera
> negatives too.
>
> >It also became clear that reduction of development times compared to
> >that of sheet films or plates gave finer grain and best sharpness
>
> I'm pretty sure this was known from the very start from cine film
> experience.
Well, those who first obtained 35mm still cameras were not necessarily
aware of it, being likely unacquainted with cine practices, though
undoubtedly some were, and perhaps there was some exchange of
information about how to deal with small negatives.
> Standard practice with cine films was to develop to
> a gamma of 0.65 (based on slope of straight line portion, probably
> resulting in a Contrast Index of about 0.56.) For some reason the
> development times Kodak recommended for still 35mm film were
> about 30% too long for this.
Thanks for the info.
> >Since the miniature negative was being developed less (to minimise
> >graininess and preserve sharpness), certain consequences naturally
> >followed. The most obvious was that, given the lower contrast that a
> >shorter developing time produced, some means was necessary to boost
> >the contrast on the print to acceptable levels. This meant that
> >condenser enlargers soon found favour. It was also deemed expedient to
> >select a somewhat more vigorous grade of paper.
>
> In the 1930s, a "condenser enlarger" was a horizontal affair using a
> small light source which increased contrast rather more than a
> Valoy type enlarger. When I first started looking at the old literature,
> I was a bit puzzled by statements that the Valoy was designed on the
> diffusion principle, since it is nowadays what we call a condenser
> enlarger. But compared to the old condenser enlargers it has lower
> contrast and less exaggeration of dust and scratches.
What we call today the 'condenser' enlarger is indeed typically a
semi-condenser type. The diffusion models of today produce MUCH less
contrast than the ones you refer to...
>
> Peter.
Michael Scarpitti
> Interesting history, but in no way does it justify your conclusion, in my
> judgement. Variable film development does indeed adjust negative contrast.
Of course it does, but not in the way claimed. It also ruins
definition if allowed to continue very long. The fact of the matter is
that 35mm film has only a very narrow window of possible development
variation if excessive graininess is to be avoided.
> VC papers do indeed adjust print contrast. Neither is right. Neither is
> wrong. Neither is fraudulent. Shoot, I use 'em both--without guilt,
> without apology, and sure as hell without the need to prove an arcane point.
There is 'better' and 'worse'. Do you choose the worse or the better
for your technique: that's the question.
> And variable film development works fine with 35mm.
Quite simply false, utterly and absolutely false.
> (Tri-X and 1:1 D-76,
> which I've used for 40 years or so.) You need to overcome the "Box Brownie"
> mentality that every frame is a separate picture, and look at a roll of film
> as "material," the way a potter, say, looks at clay. When I'm done shooting
> a contrasty scene, the film comes out of the camera, whether or not all 36
> frames have been exposed. In other words, each ROLL is a picture. Into the
> flat light? Another roll--which costs what, 3 bucks at B&H? And then into
> the darkroom to develop each roll differently. No big deal. And if I
> missed the development time a bit I'll whip out the VC filters. That's no
> big deal, either.
If you want to know the best way to expose and develop 35mm film,
that's not it....
Tom Phillips
What Richard said -- while acknowledging the validity of some stated
criticisms -- is he disagrees with you that Zone System is a "fraud."
Peter Irwin
> Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in message news:<brjf2u$d6i$1...@dns.ktb.net>...
>> experience.
>
> Well, those who first obtained 35mm still cameras were not necessarily
> aware of it, being likely unacquainted with cine practices, though
> undoubtedly some were, and perhaps there was some exchange of
> information about how to deal with small negatives.
This has made me think of something.
Is it possible that your dissatisfaction with Tmax films is tied
strongly to your development practices? Tmax films have proven
unsatisfactory in cine use, see:
<http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/tmax.shtml>
Is it possible that you would be happier with Tmax films if
you developed them to a somewhat higher contrast?
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mike
>
> This has made me think of something.
>
> Is it possible that your dissatisfaction with Tmax films is tied
> strongly to your development practices? Tmax films have proven
> unsatisfactory in cine use, see:
>
> <http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/tmax.shtml>
>
> Is it possible that you would be happier with Tmax films if
> you developed them to a somewhat higher contrast?
>
This made me think of my Aunt, who decided to buy some T-Max film at a grocery store on a whim. The pictures she got
back from a minilab were aweful-- no contrast whatsoever. She consulted me for help, and I had to print on Grade-5 to
get decent pictures.
Since then, same thing happened to another friend of mine.
I think its terrible that Kodak (or the grocery stores) is pushing T-Max to consumers. Clearly minilabs aren't taking
the care to develop and print them properly.
Since then, I recommend either Kodak chromogenic film or Tri-X.
Jorge Omar
Congratulations for a sane and clear post!
Jorge
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:tDeDb.4570
$0s2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> Most of long essay snipped....
>
> This is too long to respond to in detail. I've read it
> over but must read it carefully, the following are notes
> from my brief reading.
>
[most of a long repply snipped]
Michael Scarpitti
He agrees in large part with the (lack of) merit of the system as it is presented.
Mike
> While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
> I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
> that it can be misleading.
So Richard's interpretation is that the ZS is inherently tied to variable film development, right? This disagrees with
Mr. Phillip's interpretation that the ZS is also changing contrast through printing.
The problem with the ZS is that many who use put themselves on a pedestal above others ;)
Tom Phillips
As presented by whom? I saw no discussion of this. A fool sees only what
he wants to see.
There are as many "presentations" of Zone System as there are authors
who think they know something. Or like you, know nothing at all. Likely
it was these being referred to (since they were neither identified nor
their individual methods quantified.) That some authors erroneously
think a negative as exposed and developed using Zone System is some sort
of paradigm for achieving perfect print contrast does not invalidate it.
The purpose, said Adams, is only to achieve the necessary information
useful for making a print, then apply whatever *subjective* printing
controls are deemed necessary. You can do this to some extent using
paper contrast gradations instead of film development, but film
development makes it far easier. Zone system exposure and development
wasn't meant to produce to the human eye perfectly balanced contrast in
a print (which is what Richard was talking about), it was meant to
produce a useful starting point for making a print. Adams always made
this abundantly clear.
No one who knows anything about zone system claims it produces "perfect"
negatives. Its purpose is to produce a negative that fits well within
the exposure range of a particular paper, so printing is accomplished
with a minimum of other contrast controls. There have always been
extremists who try to turn it's simple sensitometric principles into
some sort of religion on the hand, and on the other hand there's you...
Gary Beasley
Thank you both.
However Michael, if you want to win more support for what you are
teaching you need to drop the negativism about the ZS. That hurts your
cause more than it helps. I can see what you are putting forward and
it is very relevant so lets not obscure it with negative furor about
ZS. Simply point the way to your ideas in a clear and positive manner
such as I saw coming out in your essay.
FWIW I'm inclined to look at my 35mm technique closer now, though I
rarely use that format lately. I think your points may well improve my
results, Zone System or no Zone System.
Mike
First, unless you are willing to waste the majority of a roll of 35mm film, I would say that individual development of
35mm negatives is harder.
Second, I need to stop in the field, take meter readings and write them down. So taking pictures becomes harder and
more time-consuming. With candid shots, its even harder.
In the darkroom, I can take my negative and color/exposure analzyer to determine the paper grade immediately and at my
own pace. I don't have to write anything down. And I can develop my roll of 36-exposures in one shot instead of trying
to invididually develop rolls with only a few images on them.
I think both of you are absurd for being so religious about systems, words, and etc.
My belief is that the ZS is _not_ fraud, but its overrated. I also believe that changing paper grades is _not_ the same
thing as the ZS.
Mike
Richard Knoppow
I am refering above to curve shape. Curve shape can have a
significant effect on tonal rendition but is generally a
property of the emulsion and not much variable by
development.
The effect of lens flare can not be dealt with by
development. One can reduce the effect on shadow contrast by
increasing exposure, provide that the film gets into a
staight line characteristic fairly close to the threashold,
i.e., has a short toe. An example of a film where this
really can not be done is Tri-X sheet film which has a
characteristic curve which is everywhere upward inflected,
in other words it is practically all toe. Tri-X roll film is
a medium toe film.
The Zone System is an application of basic sensitometry,
that's why I can not agree that it is fraud. However, it may
lead people to expect that they will have more control than
is possible.
I also inadvertently left out a very important point (what
I get for posting without proofreading). While the contast
of the final image can be adjusted either by development of
the film or by choice of paper grade the contrast of the
image must fall into a range the eye will interpret as
looking "right". If the contrast range of the original scene
is too much compressed the print will look flat, regardless
of whether it was made by the Zone System or not.
Increasing contrast may be more acceptable for some
subjects but will still look wrong on others. Here are to
keys to understanding what is going on. 1, The range of
brightness presented to the eye by a reflection print under
normal illumination is less than many actual scenes. 2, The
eye still wants the contrast within the possible range to be
nearly normal.
Now, how does one deal with a scene where the brightness
range is simply way beyond the range of paper? Do want
Ansel Adams did in practice: make negatives which recorded
detail in both shadows and highlights and print so that the
mid range was about normal (meaning what the eye expects to
see) and then burn and dodge to get the highlights and
shadows to have some detail where wanted.
I think what Adams desired was to get negatives which had
detail in them that could be brought out by manipulation if
needed. He talks about the famous picture "Moonrise over
Hernandez". The image was a frustrating one because it was
underexposed. I have seen personally maybe thirty prints of
this picture, some done by Adams some by assistants, no two
are the same. I think Adams' early prints are best because
they have the most work done on them. It must be a very
complicated and frustrating image to print properly. Adams
was rushed when he shot it so there is no gurantee that any
sort of system would have done better but some understanding
of sensitometry will be helpful even under this sort of
circumstance.
The Zone System is an attempt to put sensitometry into a
form which is directly translatable to practical results in
language the photographer can apply to images.
I think the idea of visulaization is really something
apart from the sensitometry issue. It is really a philosophy
of photography. Personally, whatever I think I see when I
take a picture I alsways see other possiblities when looking
at the negative and even more after a test print. But that's
personal and visulalzation (pre-visualization is bad grammer
IMHO) may be just what some people want.
I think the problem with the Zone System is that it may be
counterproductive. That is, instead of giving photographers
a clear understanding of how sensitometry applys to
practical photography it may wind up making the princeiples
more obscure. For myself, an understanding of the underlying
principles makes things clearer.
I think I have left something out again.
In brief, I agree with Micheal about some of his points
and disagree with others. I don't think ZS is a fraud, for
one thing, fraud is intentional and this was certainly not a
motive for Archer, Adams, White, or others who helped
develop the method. However, I do certainly agree that it
may be misleading and create a lot of unnessary effort and
frustration. I also think it was developed at a time when
film was more likely to shoulder off than it is now causing
severe highlight compresseion, what is popularly known as
blocking. Modern films can result in blank highlights if
printed straight but the detail is still there and will come
out with proper burning and dodging.
I think the Zone System is an interesting and ecucational
excercise but I also think that equally good negatives can
usually be made by simply choosing a reasonable exposure and
development based on the sort of subject one is
photographing.
I agree with Michael that 35mm film should probably be
developed to a somewhat lower CI than larger formats
although the effect of density and development is less with
modern films.
Also note that increasing printing contrast can exagerate
grain so there is a point of diminishing returns with it.
Todd and Zakia also wrote a very good book on elemtary
sensitometry but my copy is face down under something at the
moment so I can't even give you the right title let alone
the publication data. All I remember is that the first
edition is better than the second.
I will find this and post again.
I hate housework and am in the middle of a lot of it, my
computer is all too tempting.
Michael Scarpitti
What one does with the paper has no effect on the negative density
that I know of. Did you mean something different from what you said?
Sensitometry is the measure of photographic materials' sensitivity in
relation to density. That's all the word means. For x ergs of energy,
what kind of density to we get?
I have never denied the zs 'uses them', but the it does not accurately
state those relationships or correctly use them. That's why I call it
a 'fraud'. 'Fraud' is the taking of money under false pretenses. The
zs promises what it cannot deliver. It makes bold assertions about the
malleability of film contrast that are simply untrue. Films do not
behave according to zs dogma (and never have), and expansions cause
graininess and fuzziness.
> Peter Henry Emerson likewise rejected the concept, when
> Hurter and Driffield scientifically showed there was a relationship
> between exposure, negative densities, and print tones. You can't
> separate one from the other.
Everyone knows that there is a relationship. The point is not that.
The point is: what is the best way to make pictures?
Again, that is not part of classic zs dogma, wherein the
interpretation of the scene is locked into the negative throuh
development.
Jon
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4rqDb.5480$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Alot of stuff cut out here!
> Todd and Zakia also wrote a very good book on elemtary
> sensitometry but my copy is face down under something at the
> moment so I can't even give you the right title let alone
> the publication data. All I remember is that the first
> edition is better than the second.
> I will find this and post again.
> I hate housework and am in the middle of a lot of it, my
> computer is all too tempting.
>
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dick...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
The book Richard refers to is
Photographic Sensitometry (The Study of Tone Reproduction)
Morgan & Morgan and the Fountain Press
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 75-82445
from 1969
FWIW I bought my copy in 1977
Hope this helps.
Jon
Tom Phillips
I think what leads people to think it can do more than it actually can
is the particular author who attempts to write about it. Or conversely
perhaps the photographer's own lack of understanding of sensitometry.
Yes. Agreed. This was his view of applying zone system. The whole idea
was to get a printable negative as a starting point.
> He talks about the famous picture "Moonrise over
> Hernandez". The image was a frustrating one because it was
> underexposed. I have seen personally maybe thirty prints of
> this picture, some done by Adams some by assistants, no two
> are the same. I think Adams' early prints are best because
> they have the most work done on them. It must be a very
> complicated and frustrating image to print properly. Adams
> was rushed when he shot it so there is no gurantee that any
> sort of system would have done better but some understanding
> of sensitometry will be helpful even under this sort of
> circumstance.
> The Zone System is an attempt to put sensitometry into a
> form which is directly translatable to practical results in
> language the photographer can apply to images.
> I think the idea of visulaization is really something
> apart from the sensitometry issue. It is really a philosophy
> of photography.
I think that depends on your view of visualization. With some it can be
something mystical; with others (like me) it's simply a realistic view
of what the initial print may look like based on exposure. Always
subjective, however.
> Personally, whatever I think I see when I
> take a picture I alsways see other possiblities when looking
> at the negative and even more after a test print. But that's
> personal and visulalzation (pre-visualization is bad grammer
> IMHO) may be just what some people want.
> I think the problem with the Zone System is that it may be
> counterproductive. That is, instead of giving photographers
> a clear understanding of how sensitometry applys to
> practical photography it may wind up making the princeiples
> more obscure. For myself, an understanding of the underlying
> principles makes things clearer.
It's always a good idea to read about both zone system and sensitomerty
from as many different sources as possible. Few photographers have
likely actually read anything on sensitometry. And if they rely on only
a single treatment of zone system can wind up either believing zone
system can work miracles, or like Scarpitti calling it a fraud. There
are as many zone system authors as brands of film, it seems. Some write
little more than fiction IMO and do more harm than good.
> I think I have left something out again.
> In brief, I agree with Micheal about some of his points
> and disagree with others. I don't think ZS is a fraud, for
> one thing, fraud is intentional and this was certainly not a
> motive for Archer, Adams, White, or others who helped
> develop the method. However, I do certainly agree that it
> may be misleading and create a lot of unnessary effort and
> frustration.
Again I think what's misleading is dependent on how it's taught and/or
misunderstood. I think Adams is clear what the purpose is and also that
he never considered his methods the only method.
I also think it was developed at a time when
> film was more likely to shoulder off than it is now causing
> severe highlight compresseion, what is popularly known as
> blocking. Modern films can result in blank highlights if
> printed straight but the detail is still there and will come
> out with proper burning and dodging.
> I think the Zone System is an interesting and ecucational
> excercise but I also think that equally good negatives can
> usually be made by simply choosing a reasonable exposure and
> development based on the sort of subject one is
> photographing.
Another photographer and former teacher once said to me when discussing
"zone system" (which he did not use, btw) "well, zone system seems to
work whether you use it or not." Meaning the sensitometric principles
still applied.
> I agree with Michael that 35mm film should probably be
> developed to a somewhat lower CI than larger formats
> although the effect of density and development is less with
> modern films.
What he said was that due to the effect of increasing granularity from
extended development zone system was a "lie." Of course Scarpitti has a
deliberate habit of appropriating anything anyone says for his straw man
arguments, as per Paul Butzi.
> Also note that increasing printing contrast can exagerate
> grain so there is a point of diminishing returns with it.
>
> Todd and Zakia also wrote a very good book on elemtary
> sensitometry but my copy is face down under something at the
> moment so I can't even give you the right title let alone
> the publication data. All I remember is that the first
> edition is better than the second.
> I will find this and post again.
> I hate housework and am in the middle of a lot of it, my
> computer is all too tempting.
A couple of very good posts.
Tom Phillips
Mike wrote:
> My belief is that the ZS is _not_ fraud, but its overrated. I also believe that changing paper grades is _not_ the same
> thing as the ZS.
Scarpitti's alter ego hard at work...
Michael Scarpitti
"> The problem is that the eye expects to see a certain
> contast, especially in familiar subjects. The Zone System
> seems to tacitly assume that this isn't true and I think
> this is the basis of the controversey about it.
> While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
> I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
> that it can be misleading."
This is I believe the crux of the matter. Large changes in contrast
(expansions and contractions) simply look unnatural. It messes up the
mid-tone gradation, to which the eye is most acutely sensitive.
Thanks, Richard, for mentioning what I forgot.
Mike
>
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>>My belief is that the ZS is _not_ fraud, but its overrated. I also believe that changing paper grades is _not_ the same
>>thing as the ZS.
>
>
> Scarpitti's alter ego hard at work...
That is an insult and I think you should apologize. Why can't I agree with some of his assertions? You don't claim
that Richard Knoppow is "his alter ego" even though he too agrees with some of MS's assertions. In fact, Mr. Knoppow
and I both agree that the word "fraud" is inappropriate.
Patrick Gainer
The difficulty I have seen with slavish application of the Zone system
is that when it is carried too far, one finds that a wide range scene
looks very dull in a "straight" print. The result is a need for
extensive burning, dodging, bleaching or what have you in order to make
local contrasts in various parts of the picture look like what the
photographer saw and wants to show others. That is because the eye is
not like a camera, and neither is the camera like an eye. It will be
(should be now) possible to design a digital camera to scan like an eye,
but most of us wouldn't use it for artistic work.
If you will have to go through all the tedium of dodging, etc, even
after you apply the Zone system to the utmost, why not make use of the
film's latitude and use the minimum correct exposure to keep shadow
detail and develop for the highlight as for an average scene?
Frank Pittel
: excellent post mostly snipped
: > While I do not agree wtih Micheal that the ZS is a fraud,
: > I do agree that similar results can be gotten without it and
: > that it can be misleading.
: So Richard's interpretation is that the ZS is inherently tied to variable film development, right? This disagrees with
: Mr. Phillip's interpretation that the ZS is also changing contrast through printing.
While Mr. Phillips has a point in including the printing process under the umbrella of
the zone system. I disagree with it. While I think that proper application of the zone
system takes into consideration of the printing process I think printing and contrast
adjustment during printing is a process all its own. Of course development tests
take into consideration the enlarger and paper used when printing.
: The problem with the ZS is that many who use put themselves on a pedestal above others ;)
I'm not sure why!! If you get the results that you like with your process I think that
you should continue using it.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
: Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in message news:<brjf2u$d6i$1...@dns.ktb.net>...
: >> I'm pretty sure this was known from the very start from cine film
: >> experience.
: >
: > Well, those who first obtained 35mm still cameras were not necessarily
: > aware of it, being likely unacquainted with cine practices, though
: > undoubtedly some were, and perhaps there was some exchange of
: > information about how to deal with small negatives.
: This has made me think of something.
When kodak developed the Tmax films they developed it with the idea that it would be
used with the zone system to control exposure and contrast.
: Is it possible that your dissatisfaction with Tmax films is tied
: strongly to your development practices? Tmax films have proven
: unsatisfactory in cine use, see:
: <http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/tmax.shtml>
: Is it possible that you would be happier with Tmax films if
: you developed them to a somewhat higher contrast?
I've talked to many people that hated Tmax films and most of them don't develop
it properly. I can't imagine getting good results with the guess at the exposure
and hope for the best method.
Frank Pittel
: How can you say that "film development makes it far easier"?
: First, unless you are willing to waste the majority of a roll of 35mm film, I would say that individual development of
: 35mm negatives is harder.
: Second, I need to stop in the field, take meter readings and write them down. So taking pictures becomes harder and
: more time-consuming. With candid shots, its even harder.
What I used to do was bulk load short rolls of film and as best as practical I shoot the
roll at the same contrast. When in doubt process the film for the normal scene contrast
time and make the contrast up in printing. Of course the zone system is best used with
sheet film.
: In the darkroom, I can take my negative and color/exposure analzyer to determine the paper grade immediately and at my
: own pace. I don't have to write anything down. And I can develop my roll of 36-exposures in one shot instead of trying
: to invididually develop rolls with only a few images on them.
: I think both of you are absurd for being so religious about systems, words, and etc.
: My belief is that the ZS is _not_ fraud, but its overrated. I also believe that changing paper grades is _not_ the same
: thing as the ZS.
The zone system is a system and like every system it has it's weaknesses and strengths.
Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it the best system available? I think it is. Remember
that it's not a magic bullet that will garantee perfect negatives. I hope that you'll
agree that it's better then the guess at the exposure and hope for the best method that
Scarpitti uses.
: >
: > There are as many "presentations" of Zone System as there are authors
: > who think they know something. Or like you, know nothing at all. Likely
: > it was these being referred to (since they were neither identified nor
: > their individual methods quantified.) That some authors erroneously
: > think a negative as exposed and developed using Zone System is some sort
: > of paradigm for achieving perfect print contrast does not invalidate it.
: > The purpose, said Adams, is only to achieve the necessary information
: > useful for making a print, then apply whatever *subjective* printing
: > controls are deemed necessary. You can do this to some extent using
: > paper contrast gradations instead of film development, but film
: > development makes it far easier. Zone system exposure and development
: > wasn't meant to produce to the human eye perfectly balanced contrast in
: > a print (which is what Richard was talking about), it was meant to
: > produce a useful starting point for making a print. Adams always made
: > this abundantly clear.
: >
: > No one who knows anything about zone system claims it produces "perfect"
: > negatives. Its purpose is to produce a negative that fits well within
: > the exposure range of a particular paper, so printing is accomplished
: > with a minimum of other contrast controls. There have always been
: > extremists who try to turn it's simple sensitometric principles into
: > some sort of religion on the hand, and on the other hand there's you...
Michael Scarpitti
Patrick:
This is exactly what I recommend. Contraction (with the resultant loss
of the mid-tone gradation) to cope with long-scale scenes is a
fundamental error in the zoan sistum. The correct approach is not
contraction but rather compensation. This helps to keep the mid-tone
gradation up (if the proper developer and dilution are used) but
softens the highlights. This is basic stuff, ignored by the zoan
sistem in favor of dogma.
It results in flat-looking prints. I can always tell when this has
been done. It's so obvious, and it looks like crap.
Peter Irwin
>
> I've talked to many people that hated Tmax films
> and most of them don't develop it properly. I can't imagine
> getting good results with the guess at the exposure
> and hope for the best method.
I think that MS's method would be better characterized as
"expose for the shadows and give minimum development always
for both low and high contrast scenes."
Just because Michael isn't fair to the zone system and its
practitioners, I see no reason to be unfair to him.
Guessing exposure is part of the fun of using a meterless
miniature camera. You can get pretty good at it in a fair
range of lighting conditions. I don't think MS has ever
suggested that he never uses a light meter.
Peter.
---
pir...@ktb.net
Jorge Omar
negative it's possible to get correct result by using a higher paper
grade.
This is not true, however, for an overdeveloped neg using lower paper
grade.
So, giving minimum development and using a higher paper grade not only is
good from a grain/sharpness viewpoit but as well as from a contrast
viewpoint.
Jorge
Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in news:brn9ti$st$1...@dns.ktb.net:
Michael Scarpitti
> Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've talked to many people that hated Tmax films
> > and most of them don't develop it properly. I can't imagine
> > getting good results with the guess at the exposure
> > and hope for the best method.
>
> I think that MS's method would be better characterized as
> "expose for the shadows and give minimum development always
> for both low and high contrast scenes."
Yes. Simpliciter.
Michael Scarpitti
> Recent postings by Paul Butzi have shown that if one have a light
> negative it's possible to get correct result by using a higher paper
> grade.
> This is not true, however, for an overdeveloped neg using lower paper
> grade.
>
> So, giving minimum development and using a higher paper grade not only is
> good from a grain/sharpness viewpoit but as well as from a contrast
> viewpoint.
>
> Jorge
Right-O
Tom Phillips
Peter Irwin wrote:
>
> Just because Michael isn't fair to the zone system and its
> practitioners, I see no reason to be unfair to him.
Scarpitti's whole purpose is to make unfounded assertions for his own
trolling pleasure. Do a little objective research and you'll find as I
did all Scarpitti does is go around spewing deliberate insults and
baseless assertions. On other lists/groups he has been described by just
about everyone he encounters as "rude," "wrong headed," "ill-tempered,"
"abusive," someone who "spouts useless drivel," and an "argumentative
SOB who wants only to piss people off and start flame wars..."
If you think a troll who can at best exclaim "You peiople are fucking
hopeless turds..." deserves respect and fair treatment (and that from
someone who claims a degree in "philosophy" -- something which usually
requires moral and ethical self-discipline) then he's sure got you fooled.
Paul Butzi
> negative it's possible to get correct result by using a higher paper
> grade.
> This is not true, however, for an overdeveloped neg using lower paper
> grade.
If that's the conclusion people are taking from what I'm writing, then
I'm afraid I'm not communicating very clearly.
First, I don't know what "correct result' might mean. No where in the
web page at www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm do I use the term
'correct result'.
What I've shown is that for two specific papers, the *tonal
distribution* you get is essentially identical if you have a lower
contrast negative (one that prints nicely on a paper that's about a
grade 4) and a normal contrast negative that prints nicely on a paper
that's about a grade 2.
Furthermore, if you have two negatives, one that prints nicely on
grade 0 and one that prints nicely on grade 2, the two prints will
have a different *tonal distribution*.
There's no right or wrong, here. Which tonal distribution is better
is going to be a creative decision. It's perfectly possible that you
might like the tonal distribution you get when you print on the soft
end of the range of paper contrasts, in which case you'd probably plan
for a much contrastier negative (increased development).
-Paul
www.butzi.net
Peter Irwin
>
>
> Peter Irwin wrote:
>>
>> Just because Michael isn't fair to the zone system and its
>> practitioners, I see no reason to be unfair to him.
>
> Scarpitti's whole purpose is to make unfounded assertions for his own
> trolling pleasure. Do a little objective research and you'll find as I
> did all Scarpitti does is go around spewing deliberate insults and
> baseless assertions. On other lists/groups he has been described by just
> about everyone he encounters as "rude," "wrong headed," "ill-tempered,"
> "abusive," someone who "spouts useless drivel," and an "argumentative
> SOB who wants only to piss people off and start flame wars..."
I follow the rec.photo groups and r.a.h-e, so I'm pretty familliar
with MS's postings. I don't think he is a troll. He is a snob who
thinks his own approach is better than other ways. Some of the people
in this group who really know their stuff (cf. Richard K.) appear to
think that some of his points are valid and interesting. Michael
would be much less annoying if he could manage to put forth his own
ideas clearly without trashing everything he doesn't like, agree with
or think good enough.
> If you think a troll who can at best exclaim "You peiople are fucking
> hopeless turds..." deserves respect and fair treatment (and that from
> someone who claims a degree in "philosophy" -- something which usually
> requires moral and ethical self-discipline) then he's sure got you fooled.
Michael can be uncivil, but that's his problem. There is no weakness
in being civil to those who are uncivil to you, and being fair to those
who are unfair. In fact I think it is the best way to keep this newsgroup
worth reading.
I don't think my own photography any better than Michael's, but I'm having
a lot of fun with it, and it is always interesting to try new things.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Jorge Omar
Jorge
con...@butzi.net (Paul Butzi) wrote in
news:e2890fff.03121...@posting.google.com:
Tom Phillips
Peter Irwin wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Irwin wrote:
> >>
> >> Just because Michael isn't fair to the zone system and its
> >> practitioners, I see no reason to be unfair to him.
> >
> > Scarpitti's whole purpose is to make unfounded assertions for his own
> > trolling pleasure. Do a little objective research and you'll find as I
> > did all Scarpitti does is go around spewing deliberate insults and
> > baseless assertions. On other lists/groups he has been described by just
> > about everyone he encounters as "rude," "wrong headed," "ill-tempered,"
> > "abusive," someone who "spouts useless drivel," and an "argumentative
> > SOB who wants only to piss people off and start flame wars..."
>
> I follow the rec.photo groups and r.a.h-e, so I'm pretty familliar
> with MS's postings. I don't think he is a troll.
A troll is someone who makes flame-oriented posts with the deliberate
intent of baiting a response by distorting another's arguments or
statements. Scarpitti does this. Don't tell me he isn't a troll.
> He is a snob who
> thinks his own approach is better than other ways. Some of the people
> in this group who really know their stuff (cf. Richard K.) appear to
> think that some of his points are valid and interesting.
Also classic trolling. Mix in a little truth for the purpose of
presenting a distortion of that truth. Again Scarpitti has consistently
done this in his obfuscations on zone system. It's classic behavior.
> Michael
> would be much less annoying if he could manage to put forth his own
> ideas clearly without trashing everything he doesn't like, agree with
> or think good enough.
And just why is it you feel so strong a need to both defend and excuse
him? Are you related?
This is a guy who claims to have graduated from Ohio State University
with a degree in philosophy. If he can't articulate because he's a poor
lil' "communicator" he's likely lying about his claimed educational
laurels. I happen to know a few professional photographers and teachers
of photography who also attended (for real) OSU. They're quite
articulate and don't go around calling people they disagree with
"fucking hopeless turds."
Don't insult my intelligence, please...
> > If you think a troll who can at best exclaim "You peiople are fucking
> > hopeless turds..." deserves respect and fair treatment (and that from
> > someone who claims a degree in "philosophy" -- something which usually
> > requires moral and ethical self-discipline) then he's sure got you fooled.
>
> Michael can be uncivil, but that's his problem.
no. It's *your* propblem if you defend him and assign someone with the
anal retentive mentality of a 10-year old any credibility. I'll wager
this guy *is* a 10-year old going around using daddy's name.
> I don't think my own photography any better than Michael's
and how would you know?
Peter Irwin
>> >
>
> A troll is someone who makes flame-oriented posts with the deliberate
> intent of baiting a response by distorting another's arguments or
> statements. Scarpitti does this. Don't tell me he isn't a troll.
A troll isn't sincere, and has no interest in learning. MS appears
sincere and I think he may even learn something here on occasion.
> Also classic trolling. Mix in a little truth for the purpose of
> presenting a distortion of that truth. Again Scarpitti has consistently
> done this in his obfuscations on zone system. It's classic behavior.
He's been argumentative, and sometimes unfair, but it really does
seem a stretch to call uniform development of negatives and selection
of different grades of papers for printing the "zone system," given
that that was what was becoming standard practice in the 1930s
when hardly anyone had heard of the "Zone System."
> And just why is it you feel so strong a need to both defend and excuse
> him? Are you related?
I called him a snob. Do call that defense?
Peter.
---
pir...@ktb.net
Frank Pittel
Actually in other threads he claims to not need a meter since he's
trained his eye to accuratly determine the amount of light and the
amount of exposure needed. The truth is that he guesses.
Tom Phillips
Peter Irwin wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Peter Irwin wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> > A troll is someone who makes flame-oriented posts with the deliberate
> > intent of baiting a response by distorting another's arguments or
> > statements. Scarpitti does this. Don't tell me he isn't a troll.
>
> A troll isn't sincere, and has no interest in learning. MS appears
> sincere and I think he may even learn something here on occasion.
I've taught lots of photography. This guy purpose here isn't to learn.
You're either mistaken or haven't read his threads very carefully.
> > Also classic trolling. Mix in a little truth for the purpose of
> > presenting a distortion of that truth. Again Scarpitti has consistently
> > done this in his obfuscations on zone system. It's classic behavior.
>
> He's been argumentative, and sometimes unfair, but it really does
> seem a stretch to call uniform development of negatives and selection
> of different grades of papers for printing the "zone system," given
> that that was what was becoming standard practice in the 1930s
> when hardly anyone had heard of the "Zone System."
It's basic sensitometry as applied. You are in fact using paper contrast
to raise a negative Dmax that is otherwise lacking, something zone
system's inventors suggested as an alternative method to extending 35mm
film development.
> > And just why is it you feel so strong a need to both defend and excuse
> > him? Are you related?
>
> I called him a snob. Do call that defense?
He in fact (as any quick search of various other forums shows) does
little but insult and flame. He doesn't deserve your respect or mine or
anyone else's.
Peter Irwin
>
> Actually in other threads he claims to not need a meter since he's
> amount of exposure needed. The truth is that he guesses.
You can get pretty good with practice, at least under the more
interpretable lighting conditions. For the basic daylight conditions,
it isn't terribly difficult to get an average error of around half
a stop. Lots of people used to expose original Kodachrome without
a meter, and anything worse than that would have really showed.
I don't think MS was suggesting more than this. You definitely need
a meter around twilight.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Michael Scarpitti
But that overlooks what happens to the image quality. That's the
problem that zoan sistum ignores.
Michael Scarpitti
The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
callously and ruthelessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
Tom Phillips
Peter Irwin wrote:
>
> Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually in other threads he claims to not need a meter since he's
> > trained his eye to accurately determine the amount of light and the
> > amount of exposure needed. The truth is that he guesses.
>
> You can get pretty good with practice, at least under the more
> interpretable lighting conditions.
I've been photographing seriously or professionally for more than a
quarter century. I don't know what "interpretable lighting conditions"
means. If you *know* about what your basic exposure should be through
experience you can get away with "guessing," as Adams did when he knew
the luminance of the moon and calculated an exposure based on that. That
exposure, however, may have been o.k. for the moon but as a guess at the
required shadow density exposure failed to be adequate and is why he had
to intensify the negative to make it printable.
> For the basic daylight conditions,
> it isn't terribly difficult to get an average error of around half
> a stop. Lots of people used to expose original Kodachrome without
> a meter, and anything worse than that would have really showed.
With Kodachrome even a half stop will "really show" -- especially in
highlights or shadows. Kodachrome is less forgiving of exposure errors
in my long experience than other transparency films. There is no margin
for exposure error; that's why most people bracket the crap out of it. I
prefer a spot meter.
> I don't think MS was suggesting more than this.
What he's suggesting is many well established photographic methods are a
"fraud," so I'm not surprised he claims he doesn't need a meter.
>You definitely need
> a meter around twilight.
At twilight the margin of exposure error is less than in bright
sunlight. I can "guess" at a twilight shadow density exposure and get
away with it far easier than I can at midday.
Tom Phillips
Classic troll argument, ascribe your own despicable name-calling
behavior to those not guilty of it.
Despite that fact that you have a fan, here, (or perhaps yet another
alter ego) there may be hope for him if he will but take off his
blinders. Let's just see what you "genteely" said from the first
trolling criticism you uttered:
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> gla...@sustainsoft.com (Phil Glaser) wrote in message news:<a3f95acc.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Having seen Beyond the Zone System recommended on this group a number
> > of times, and so have been studying the book. I am reading it (fourth
> > edition) forwarrds, backwards, upside down, and sideways, both
> > standing on my head and right-side-up, and somehow the concepts are
> > starting to penetrate. Still, I have some questions (and anticipate
> > having more questions for months to come). Most of my questions for
> > now are practical -- how to do the material testing with limited
> > resources, etc.
>
> Why are you reading this book? I don't recommend it. If your format is
> 35mm, you don't need or want to use the zone system. It's a fraud from
> top to bottom.
Now, I don't call that giving genteel advice. It just making an
unfounded assertion that in no way addressed the OP's question.
Peter Irwin
> The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
> the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
> callously and ruthlessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
> ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
It doesn't matter who started it. Both you and your opponents
are keeping it going and getting worse. The only way to win
is not to play.
Stop playing, and at least some people might take you seriously.
Some of what is being discussed is quite interesting. It would be
very interesting to know what the trade-offs are for different
degrees of development. If developing for grade 3 on a condenser
gives equal performance to developing for grade 2 except with
finer grain, that would be a thing worth knowing.
The whole business about perception of contrast on prints and
what looks natural is also very interesting.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Michael Scarpitti
> > Recent postings by Paul Butzi have shown that if one have a light
> > negative it's possible to get correct result by using a higher paper
> > grade.
> > This is not true, however, for an overdeveloped neg using lower paper
> > grade.
>
> If that's the conclusion people are taking from what I'm writing, then
> I'm afraid I'm not communicating very clearly.
>
> First, I don't know what "correct result' might mean. No where in the
> web page at www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm do I use the term
> 'correct result'.
I think he meant 'same result'.
> What I've shown is that for two specific papers, the *tonal
> distribution* you get is essentially identical if you have a lower
> contrast negative (one that prints nicely on a paper that's about a
> grade 4) and a normal contrast negative that prints nicely on a paper
> that's about a grade 2.
Yes, and that is what matters most.
> Furthermore, if you have two negatives, one that prints nicely on
> grade 0 and one that prints nicely on grade 2, the two prints will
> have a different *tonal distribution*.
But, as we know, that is not all there is to it, unfortunately. Grain
and fuzziness accompany this.
Peter Irwin
>> interpretable lighting conditions.
>
> I've been photographing seriously or professionally for more than a
> quarter century.
You are way ahead of me. I played around in the darkroom as a kid
in the 1970s, but I have only been getting back into it for around
a year and a half.
> I don't know what "interpretable lighting conditions"
> means.
What I mean is that there are some conditions where making
an estimate with any useful accuracy is difficult. Under heavy
cloud cover, it can be pretty difficult to know without a meter
how much light the clouds are blocking. If I try to guess what
a meter will read off a grey card, I will often be a whole
stop wrong, while I would generally be within half a stop
under cloudy bright conditions.
> With Kodachrome even a half stop will "really show" -- especially in
> highlights or shadows. Kodachrome is less forgiving of exposure errors
> in my long experience than other transparency films. There is no margin
> for exposure error; that's why most people bracket the crap out of it. I
> prefer a spot meter.
A large proportion of the people who shot Weston 8 speed Kodachrome
worked from a sheet which said things like Bright Sun- 1/60 f:6.3,
Weak Hazy Sun - 1/60 f:4.5, Cloudy but Bright 1/40 f:3.5. They
probably didn't often meet your strict standards, but it worked
well enough to sell a lot of Kodachrome.
>> I don't think MS was suggesting more than this.
>
> What he's suggesting is many well established photographic methods are a
> "fraud," so I'm not surprised he claims he doesn't need a meter.
I think he is wrong to use the word fraud, but the idea that
standardizing on low contrast development is generally optimal
for small format film seems to me to be worthy of discussion.
I do not know if it is true or not, but discussion of that
question is more interesting to me than Michael's usenet personality
problems.
>>You definitely need
>> a meter around twilight.
>
> At twilight the margin of exposure error is less than in bright
> sunlight. I can "guess" at a twilight shadow density exposure and get
> away with it far easier than I can at midday.
I would be glad if you would tell me more about this.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mike
> Despite that fact that you have a fan, here, (or perhaps yet another
> alter ego) there may be hope for him if he will but take off his
> blinders. Let's just see what you "genteely" said from the first
> trolling criticism you uttered:
I stopped posting under my real name because of a troll in r.p.e.35mm. This
person has telephoned people and sent snail mail to their home addresses.
And the Google Archive is too powerful....I already regret numerous things
I've posted that are now effectively published forever.
I'd be glad to send you a personal e-mail, which contains a phrase that I
will repeat on a USENET post, so you can verify. I just need your e-mail
address.
Think all you want about me being a MS fanboy. I don't agree with his
method of arguing. I do agree that using a single development time for 35mm
is a very good approach. And I don't think that pre-visualization and
changing paper grades is "actually the zone system".
Yes, I think that the zone system is overrated. People who've spent
countless hours on the zone system, and who have taught courses on the zone
system, will _often_ not accept any other method as being able to produce
quality work. I took an "intro to darkroom" course at my local university
and the instructor brought some of his prints to show us. I asked some
question, I don't remember what, but he answered "you can't achieve results
this fine without using the zone system to develop film precisely". Such
arrogance was clear, but I assumed he was right. And this isn't my only
encounter with people who make similar claims about how the zone system is
the _only_ way to make excellent B&W prints without getting lucky
occasionally.
So I went to my local library and checked out all 3 Adams books seeking to
discover the _only_ way to make excellent prints. I found it confusing and
not practical with 35mm. And no, I am not dumb that I couldn't understand
the ZS (I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a M.S. in Computer
Science from a top-ten university...I hope this is an indication that I have
some intelligence upstairs). I fully admit that I am new to this stuff.
I've only been doing darkroom stuff for about 9 months now. However I think
I have a good handle on the effects of film development and how the zone
system works. What I lack is abundant experience (which is evident in some
of my silly questions), detailed knowledge of chemistry, and most
importantly a prejudice towards one way of doing things.
I don't completely reject the ZS. R.W. Behan kindly sent me his book (he
probably knows who I am), and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I plan to
try his simplified method to the ZS in the coming weeks using a YashicaMat
TLR. I think 6x6 is more practical, for me, to apply the ZS because I won't
be wasting much film, grain isn't as big as an issue, and the camera already
requires me to take my time.
I'm quite glad that MS has created such a stir in this group because it has
brought out some great posts thus I've learned quite a bit. I know realize
that the zone system (variable film developmetn) is not necessary to create
stunning prints that sing, and I have more confidence in what I'm doing.
And I knew this myself, because I've managed to create prints that I
personally find stunning. Some printed on grade 2 by sheer luck. Others
required grade 4 or 0 to get the contrast right. I'm learning to use my old
beat-up color analyzer to help me determine paper grade automagically. And
I like "grab-shot" 35mm photography thus I really don't care to write down 2
meter readings into a notebook that I carry around. And I don't care to lug
around several camera bodies.
Tom, in each response to many of my posts, you accuse me of being MS's
"alter ego" and shrug off what I've said. I don't appreciate this and it is
passive aggressive behavior. At 26 years old, I'm probably one of the
youngest posters here but it doesn't feel that way.
R.W. Behan
Nope, I don't remember your real name. I've sent out about a dozen books,
and you were probably the first, so your identity is safe. Glad to know,
though, you found the book worth your time. Your response here is
responsible, mature, and articulate. Best wishes with your photography.
Dick Behan
"Mike" <no_...@please.com> wrote in message
news:zBSDb.12829$aw2.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Jorge Omar
I can speak a fairly good French and Italian.
I've done a search in Google photo groups using these languages for the ZS
and AA.
Very few, just occasional posts.
One must recognize, then, that the ZS is mostly an American approach, not a
universal system.
Just something to think about.
Jorge
Tom Phillips
Mike wrote:
>
> >
> > Despite that fact that you have a fan, here, (or perhaps yet another
> > alter ego) there may be hope for him if he will but take off his
> > blinders. Let's just see what you "genteely" said from the first
> > trolling criticism you uttered:
>
> I stopped posting under my real name because of a troll in r.p.e.35mm. This
> person has telephoned people and sent snail mail to their home addresses.
> And the Google Archive is too powerful....I already regret numerous things
> I've posted that are now effectively published forever.
>
> I'd be glad to send you a personal e-mail, which contains a phrase that I
> will repeat on a USENET post, so you can verify. I just need your e-mail
> address.
>
> Think all you want about me being a MS fanboy.
I was really referring to peter. We seem to disagree about the value of
Scarpitti in this nsg. I will not allow that he deserves any "respect."
He's presented the same offensive attitudes in other forums.
> I don't agree with his
> method of arguing. I do agree that using a single development time for 35mm
> is a very good approach. And I don't think that pre-visualization and
> changing paper grades is "actually the zone system".
I've never said other methods weren't valid. However, real "zone system"
is nothing more than basically applied sensitometry, as Richard also
discussed. Using paper grades to raise (essentially) a negative's Dmax
is applying basic sensitometric principles, similar to altering negative
contrast though not always as effective. At least as A.A. conceived of
it and taught it for 35mm practitioners. That's all I'm saying. You
don't have to agree with it, but Scarpitti, OTOH, says anything he can
to distort the facts. Typical troll-speak.
> I don't completely reject the ZS. R.W. Behan kindly sent me his book (he
> probably knows who I am), and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I'm sure it's a worthwhile book. Dick is kind to so share his out of
print book at no expense to others.
> I plan to
> try his simplified method to the ZS in the coming weeks using a YashicaMat
> TLR. I think 6x6 is more practical, for me, to apply the ZS because I won't
> be wasting much film, grain isn't as big as an issue, and the camera already
> requires me to take my time.
>
> I'm quite glad that MS has created such a stir in this group because it has
> brought out some great posts thus I've learned quite a bit.
There'd be great posts without him. And better discussions. Anyone who
feels they must resort to calling people they disagrees with "f...
turds" is not worth reading. They are instead puerile imbeciles. Anyone
who responds to a sincere question on Zone Sytem by offering "it's a
fraud" has nothing contructive to say or contribute. This nsg would be
better off without Scarpitti's inane trolling.
> Tom, in each response to many of my posts, you accuse me of being MS's
> "alter ego" and shrug off what I've said. I don't appreciate this and it is
> passive aggressive behavior.
No, it's that I became convinced you were his alter ego -- i.e., simply
another alias. You have to admit, you seem to always follow Scarpitti's
posts with positive, analogous comments about him. It makes one
suspicious and most trolls do use many aliases.
Anyway I have a shoot to prepare for. Scarpitti is worth only so much
time :)
Tom Phillips
Peter Irwin wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Peter Irwin wrote:
> >>
> >> You can get pretty good with practice, at least under the more
> >> interpretable lighting conditions.
> >
> > I've been photographing seriously or professionally for more than a
> > quarter century.
>
> You are way ahead of me. I played around in the darkroom as a kid
> in the 1970s, but I have only been getting back into it for around
> a year and a half.
Welcome back.
> > I don't know what "interpretable lighting conditions"
> > means.
>
> What I mean is that there are some conditions where making
> an estimate with any useful accuracy is difficult. Under heavy
> cloud cover, it can be pretty difficult to know without a meter
> how much light the clouds are blocking. If I try to guess what
> a meter will read off a grey card, I will often be a whole
> stop wrong, while I would generally be within half a stop
> under cloudy bright conditions.
O.K., you meant "guess."
> > With Kodachrome even a half stop will "really show" -- especially in
> > highlights or shadows. Kodachrome is less forgiving of exposure errors
> > in my long experience than other transparency films. There is no margin
> > for exposure error; that's why most people bracket the crap out of it. I
> > prefer a spot meter.
>
> A large proportion of the people who shot Weston 8 speed Kodachrome
> worked from a sheet which said things like Bright Sun- 1/60 f:6.3,
> Weak Hazy Sun - 1/60 f:4.5, Cloudy but Bright 1/40 f:3.5. They
> probably didn't often meet your strict standards, but it worked
> well enough to sell a lot of Kodachrome.
I'm sure that was before my time.
> >> I don't think MS was suggesting more than this.
> >
> > What he's suggesting is many well established photographic methods are a
> > "fraud," so I'm not surprised he claims he doesn't need a meter.
>
> I think he is wrong to use the word fraud, but the idea that
> standardizing on low contrast development is generally optimal
> for small format film seems to me to be worthy of discussion.
> I do not know if it is true or not, but discussion of that
> question is more interesting to me than Michael's usenet personality
> problems.
it would be worthy of discussion if practitioners of 35mm or 35mm zone
system honestly discussed it. Scarpitti isn't interested in honesty,
only distortion. As I've posted several times already, A.A. *did*
espouse and teach somewhat different methods for 35mm practitioners,
which recommened using paper grades to raise Dmax rather than extended
development. That's Adams' "Zone System" as he stated it long before
Scarpitti said it wasn't.
> >>You definitely need
> >> a meter around twilight.
> >
> > At twilight the margin of exposure error is less than in bright
> > sunlight. I can "guess" at a twilight shadow density exposure and get
> > away with it far easier than I can at midday.
>
> I would be glad if you would tell me more about this.
What I mean is in bright sunlight you have less margin for error in
judging adequate exposure for shadows. The exposure has to be concerned
with a larger range of luminances that need to receive proper exposure.
Twilight, OTOH, is exceptionally even light. At twilight you have
possibly a 10-20 minute window where for all practical purposes most of
the incident light available is uniform, and exposures are much longer
-- maybe 2 seconds at f22 as opposed to 1/125th at f22 (just an
example.) So, shadows are easier to photograph and if you're off by a
couple 1/10ths of a second it won't marginalize the desired shadow
densities as much. Of course you're also having to factor in reciprocity
failure so the theoretical exposure might actually be 3 seconds. But all
in all judging exposure is easier; you don't have to meter shadows.
Knowing how to expose for twilight sure beats what a lot of pros I know
do -- bracket the crap out of it. One, you don't have that much time
and, 2, they do this because they don't understand exposure.
Naturally I have a few "tricks of the trade" I won't disclose. But it's
not that hard to figure out if you do understand.
Tom Phillips
Ah! American arrogance once again!
Jean-David Beyer
> But that overlooks what happens to the image quality. That's the
> problem that zoan sistum ignores.
Have you ever looked at a print by Ansel Adams? Whatever you may think
about the artistic merits of his work, I think you would have to admit
that the image quality of his work is outstanding. And he surely
practiced the Zone System since the 1940s or so.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:25am up 14 days, 23:09, 2 users, load average: 0.47, 0.24, 0.17
Jean-David Beyer
> Actually in other threads he claims to not need a meter since he's
> trained his eye to accuratly determine the amount of light and the
> amount of exposure needed. The truth is that he guesses.
>
>
In a former life, I had to participate some extensive visual perception
studies. For example, I had to memorize the entire Munsell Book of Color
(a color atlas of at least 4000 color chips) so I could look at a color
chip and name it (giving hue, lightness, and saturation) and be off by
not more than one chip. It takes a while to learn to do that. We
confirmed (that was already known. Not the purpose of our experiments
that were studying the possibility of using just two primary colors
instead of three for color television picture transmission) that the
human eye is exceedingly sensitive to differences. If you place two very
similar colors next to one another, you can tell that they are
different, and can usually describe the differences quite well.
Similarly for gray scales: it is very easy to detect a finer difference
in brightness than 0.5% (hence the need for more than 8 bits for
uncompressed digital images of very high quality).
But on an absolute scale, it is just not practical. The eye has several
brightness adjusters that work automatically, and more to the point,
unconsciously. Two examples are the iris closes down to control the
light admitted to the system, and the sensitivity of the retina changes
as well. Since we are not conscious of either of these (except in
extreme situations), you cannot put someone in a darkroom and illuminate
a target and have the person tell how many candelas/square-foot are
reflected.
Now someone like Brett Weston could appear to do that kind of thing
outdoors. He could use the sunny f/16 rule or whatever it was. Or Ansel
Adams trick of setting the aperture to 1/squareRootOf(EI) of the film
and the shutter speed to 1/scene luminance where he could judge from
previous experience what that luminance might be. On the Kodak box they
suggest the same thing: 1/250 on bright sunny days, 1/125 on slightly
hazy days, etc., with an aperture depending on film speed. But if I go
from New Jersey to Tucson Arizona, this does not work. I overexpose in
Tucson and the only reason I don't in NJ is because of experience; i.e.,
memory, not because I can determine the amount of light. Perhaps
Mr.Scarpitti can do it as Brett Weston can; I would not know about that.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:35am up 14 days, 23:19, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.14, 0.14
Peter Irwin
>
>
> The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
> the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
> callously and ruthelessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
> ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
I looked through google to test this statement. You started
posting here on 17 July, by 24 July you said this:
>What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
>claptrap.
The odd thing is, you seem to have said this without having
read anything that Adams wrote about 35mm technique. It seems
odd that he should have been asked to contribute material for
the Leica Manual if he knew nothing about 35mm. I have a 12th
edition (1951) in which he contributed the chapter on "Enlarging
Papers and Printing." If you had shown any evidence of having
read this, or another chapter he contributed to a different
edition of the Leica Manual, you might have some grounds for
your statement. I tend to think you might have discovered
that his advice was reasonable and helpful.
Anyhow, I don't call:
>What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
>claptrap.
civil or genteel.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Think all you want about me being a MS fanboy. I don't agree with his
> method of arguing.
I am blunt and use sarcasm. It seems to be the only way to get through
to some people. Subtleties are lost on zoneheads.
> I do agree that using a single development time for 35mm
> is a very good approach. And I don't think that pre-visualization and
> changing paper grades is "actually the zone system".
Yes, and thank you for agreeing with me about what is clearly the
official zs dogma on this point.
> Yes, I think that the zone system is overrated. People who've spent
> countless hours on the zone system, and who have taught courses on the zone
> system, will _often_ not accept any other method as being able to produce
> quality work. I took an "intro to darkroom" course at my local university
> and the instructor brought some of his prints to show us. I asked some
> question, I don't remember what, but he answered "you can't achieve results
> this fine without using the zone system to develop film precisely". Such
> arrogance was clear, but I assumed he was right. And this isn't my only
> encounter with people who make similar claims about how the zone system is
> the _only_ way to make excellent B&W prints without getting lucky
> occasionally.
Their arrogance is typical of cultists. Cults are easily identified by
their arrogance and intolerance of oppostion, together with a sort of
'special language'. The zs is full of it.
Here is some help on that
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/cults.htm
You will note in particular the following points:
1. "focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display
excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment."
This was Ansel Adams before he died. Now it's Sexton
2. "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,"
Sounds like your instructor, no?
See also:
Michael Scarpitti
More help with cults:
http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_leaders.html
My next task will be to find resources to help de-progam zoneheads.
Paul Butzi
> Ok, let's change 'correct' to 'equivalent'.
>
> Jorge
The problem I see with this is that several difficulties remain.
For instance, if you develop all your negatives for the minimum time
that will produce an 'equivalent' print when printed on grade 4 paper,
whenever you make an exposure of a low contrast scene, you will find
that it's not possible to increase the contrast of the paper enough to
compensate. That is, if you expose the film for a scene that calls for
N+2 development, then give the film development that's essentially
N-2, you would need to use a paper contrast of grade 8. Even if you
could manage to increase the contrast of the paper that much, printing
on grade 8 paper would be a very difficult, frustrating task.
So, in some sense, the 'equivalent' you speak of is limited in
practice, especially if someone did as you propose and used minimum
development all the time and attempted to make up the difference by
adjusting the contrast of the VC paper.
I'm indifferent to Mr. Scarpitti's various claims and his verbal
abuse. Techniques that work, work. If people choose to take Mr.
Scarpitti's rants seriously and ignore the value of development
controls (and the tonal changes that accompany them with VC paper) it
makes little difference to me. When I started testing VC papers and
development controls, I was hopeful that I'd find that development
controls were redundant and that I could avoid them. Testing led me
to conclude otherwise, and I'll continue to use development controls
(but now with greater understanding of how I can use them to control
tonal distribution as well).
I do, however, object to people misrepresenting the results of testing
I've done, either by claiming that they support views opposite to the
results obtained (as Mr. Scarpitti has done) or by claiming that they
demonstrate that one method/result is 'correct' and implying therefore
that any other method/result is 'incorrect'.
Testing tells us which methods produce which results. Our artistic
inclinations inform our choice from the set of possible results. In
general, photographers will choose to pursue different results, and so
it's little surprise that they will also choose different methods.
-Paul
www.butzi.net
Michael Scarpitti
I use a meter and experience in familiar situations. None of this is relevant.
Jorge Omar
There's already a lot of flames going on this group. Let's avoid more of
it.
Nowhere in my posting I've said develop for grade 4. Nor any other grade,
for the matter.
What I've said is that your tests show that less development can be
compensated by a higher paper grade, but more cannot. And since less
development will give less grain and higer sharpness, one shall aim for
minimum development - whatever one feels correct, but never overdevelop.
That's in yor site.
Jorge
con...@butzi.net (Paul Butzi) wrote in
news:e2890fff.03121...@posting.google.com:
Michael Scarpitti
> Jorge Omar <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote in message news:<Xns9453E0B7BA002...@130.133.1.4>...
> > Ok, let's change 'correct' to 'equivalent'.
> >
> > Jorge
>
> The problem I see with this is that several difficulties remain.
>
> For instance, if you develop all your negatives for the minimum time
> that will produce an 'equivalent' print when printed on grade 4 paper,
> whenever you make an exposure of a low contrast scene, you will find
> that it's not possible to increase the contrast of the paper enough to
> compensate. That is, if you expose the film for a scene that calls for
> N+2 development, then give the film development that's essentially
> N-2, you would need to use a paper contrast of grade 8. Even if you
> could manage to increase the contrast of the paper that much, printing
> on grade 8 paper would be a very difficult, frustrating task.
One strikes an average that suits most scenes, favoring the
contrastier ones, so that most print on #3 paper or thereabouts, not
#2. That gives you plenty of room for adjustments.
In any event, it is not always necessary to adjust the print contrast
for a softer-contrast scene, at least not all the way. Why not simply
let it be a little soft, the way it was in truth?
> So, in some sense, the 'equivalent' you speak of is limited in
> practice, especially if someone did as you propose and used minimum
> development all the time and attempted to make up the difference by
> adjusting the contrast of the VC paper.
>
> I'm indifferent to Mr. Scarpitti's various claims and his verbal
> abuse. Techniques that work, work. If people choose to take Mr.
> Scarpitti's rants seriously and ignore the value of development
> controls (and the tonal changes that accompany them with VC paper) it
> makes little difference to me.
The problem is the grain, to be straightforward about it, and the
fuzziness...
> When I started testing VC papers and
> development controls, I was hopeful that I'd find that development
> controls were redundant and that I could avoid them. Testing led me
> to conclude otherwise, and I'll continue to use development controls
> (but now with greater understanding of how I can use them to control
> tonal distribution as well).
>
> I do, however, object to people misrepresenting the results of testing
> I've done, either by claiming that they support views opposite to the
> results obtained (as Mr. Scarpitti has done) or by claiming that they
> demonstrate that one method/result is 'correct' and implying therefore
> that any other method/result is 'incorrect'.
Your results showed clearly that #3 paper produced identical
gradations for all intents and purposes, if development were adjusted
for the difference, instead of #2. #1 would not, but who would use
that anyway?
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
> > the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
> > callously and ruthelessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
> > ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
>
> I looked through google to test this statement. You started
> posting here on 17 July, by 24 July you said this:
>
> >What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
> >claptrap.
>
> The odd thing is, you seem to have said this without having
> read anything that Adams wrote about 35mm technique.
Very little did he write. He was not anywhere near an expert on 35mm,
and not even on other formats. Adams was NOT the most technically
advanced photographer at any time during his life. there had been
people in Europe using the Leica from the moment it came out who knew
tons more than he did.
> It seems
> odd that he should have been asked to contribute material for
> the Leica Manual if he knew nothing about 35mm. I have a 12th
> edition (1951) in which he contributed the chapter on "Enlarging
> Papers and Printing." If you had shown any evidence of having
> read this, or another chapter he contributed to a different
> edition of the Leica Manual, you might have some grounds for
> your statement. I tend to think you might have discovered
> that his advice was reasonable and helpful.
In 'The Negative' (I looked at it Saturday), he has about a page of
information. He simply mentions that if #3 paper works better for you,
fine, and don't use film development adjustments to the point that
graininess is increased.
How profound! How useful!
Then he says to look elsewhere for the nitty-gritty. In other words:
he didn't know that much about it and referred the reader to more
authoritative material.
In any event, his approach shows NO awareness of European techniques
or developments, which were far more advanced than his.
>
> Anyhow, I don't call:
>
> >What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
> >claptrap.
>
> civil or genteel.
Adams is the last one I'd look to for the last word on 35mm technique.
Those who advance anything he said about 35mm as definitive overlook
hundreds of others far more deserving of the mantle of authority. This
mindless enunciation of his name as a sort mantra does not sit well
with me.
Peter De Smidt
>>
>> I'm indifferent to Mr. Scarpitti's various claims and his verbal
>> abuse. Techniques that work, work. If people choose to take Mr.
>> Scarpitti's rants seriously and ignore the value of development
>> controls (and the tonal changes that accompany them with VC paper) it
>> makes little difference to me.
>
>
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>The problem is the grain, to be straightforward about it, and the
>fuzziness...
I have a couple of Paul's 11x14 prints. They have no visible grain,
and they are very, very sharp. If one uses plus development, will
one's results be grainy or fuzzy? No, not if one keeps one's
enlargment factor to a reasonable value, and this applies not only to
large format but to 35mm as well. Hence plus development, like
anything else that I can think of, involves trade-offs. Sometimes
these are worth it, and other times they are not. Saying that one
should never use plus development, even with 35mm, is ridiculous.
-Peter De Smidt
Frank Pittel
: Jorge Omar <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote in message news:<Xns9453E0B7BA002...@130.133.1.4>...
Well said.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Michael Scarpitti
Of course one should never use plus development. It is absurd to say otherwise.
Michael Scarpitti
> Paul
>
> There's already a lot of flames going on this group. Let's avoid more of
> it.
> Nowhere in my posting I've said develop for grade 4. Nor any other grade,
> for the matter.
>
> What I've said is that your tests show that less development can be
> compensated by a higher paper grade, but more cannot. And since less
> development will give less grain and higer sharpness, one shall aim for
> minimum development - whatever one feels correct, but never overdevelop.
>
> That's in yor site.
>
> Jorge
My point precisely, Jorge. You understand the implications.
Peter De Smidt
>Peter De Smidt <usenet@_spam_desmidt.net> wrote in message news:<b2d2uvsvt8aq1qu6g...@4ax.com>...
>> If one uses plus development, will
>> one's results be grainy or fuzzy? No, not if one keeps one's
>> enlargment factor to a reasonable value, and this applies not only to
>> large format but to 35mm as well. Hence plus development, like
>> anything else that I can think of, involves trade-offs. Sometimes
>> these are worth it, and other times they are not. Saying that one
>> should never use plus development, even with 35mm, is ridiculous.
>>
>> -Peter De Smidt
>
>
MS wrote:
>
>Of course one should never use plus development. It is absurd to say otherwise.
What a typical (for MS) evasion of the point at hand. You said
earlier that plus development leads to lots of grain and "fuzzy"
pictures. I claim that this is only the case when one enlarges too
much. Given your position stated above, you must be able to prove
that this isn't true. Let's hear it.
-Peter De Smidt
Gregory Blank
Peter De Smidt <usenet@_spam_desmidt.net> wrote:
>
> What a typical (for MS) evasion of the point at hand. You said
> earlier that plus development leads to lots of grain and "fuzzy"
> pictures. I claim that this is only the case when one enlarges too
> much. Given your position stated above, you must be able to prove
> that this isn't true. Let's hear it.
> -Peter De Smidt
& Actually in my experience it would only be true if one is a complete
numbnut and over develops the film -highlights as a "compensation"
If one uses the "Zone System" successfully and a spot meter
one then knows where the upper values should appear and how to process the film
accordingly, to get a more optimal result, even if one uses a 35mm camera to do so.
Hahahahahaha!
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Michael Scarpitti
I can send you some images offline if you wish.
Michael Scarpitti
> >Peter De Smidt <usenet@_spam_desmidt.net> wrote in message news:<b2d2uvsvt8aq1qu6g...@4ax.com>...
> >> If one uses plus development, will
> >> one's results be grainy or fuzzy? No, not if one keeps one's
> >> enlargment factor to a reasonable value, and this applies not only to
> >> large format but to 35mm as well. Hence plus development, like
> >> anything else that I can think of, involves trade-offs. Sometimes
> >> these are worth it, and other times they are not. Saying that one
> >> should never use plus development, even with 35mm, is ridiculous.
> >>
> >> -Peter De Smidt
> >
> >
>
> MS wrote:
> >
> >Of course one should never use plus development. It is absurd to say otherwise.
>
> What a typical (for MS) evasion of the point at hand. You said
> earlier that plus development leads to lots of grain and "fuzzy"
> pictures. I claim that this is only the case when one enlarges too
> much.
Have you noticed that this is a vague standard? What is 'too much? The
point of minimum development is make the films as enlargable as
possible.
Mike
catch a once in a lifetime photo is absurd.
It works on the same principal. Minus development, more exposure/less
development, Plus development, less exposure more development.
But by your post you seem to be agreeing on minus development?
- Mike
On 18 Dec 2003 06:20:11 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Peter Irwin
> Then I guess anyone who pushes their film to gain an extra stop to
> catch a once in a lifetime photo is absurd.
The amount of extra speed you get is actually quite small.
There might be an extra third of a stop actual speed increase
from prolonging development. I think the speed increase you
get from using Microphen instead of D-76 is actually more useful.
If you can, try the following experiment. Shoot available light
pictures with two rolls of HP-5 using the same exposures for the
same conditions. Develop one in Microphen for 6.5 minutes at 68F
and the other in D-76 for 12 minutes at 68F. Try making prints
from each, using high contrast filters/paper for the roll
developed normally in Microphen.
That being said, I do develop available light pictures for a little
longer, but I think the speed increase from using microphen is
more useful than the speed increase from "pushing" film.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Michael Scarpitti
Yes, Peter, this is absolutely correct. 'Pushing' is almost useless. A
speed-emhancing developer used at normal contrast is better.
Peter Irwin
>
> Yes, Peter, this is absolutely correct. 'Pushing' is almost useless. A
> speed-emhancing developer used at normal contrast is better.
If you know that all the negatives on the roll are going to be
underexposed, then I think it is good to extend developement
a bit, not so much because of any small speed increase, but because
printing super thin negatives at grade 5 really brings out the tiniest
bits of dust and scratches.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Peter Irwin
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in message >news:<brpv05$qka$1...@dns.ktb.net>...
>> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
>> > the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
>> > callously and ruthlessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
>> > ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
>>
>> I looked through google to test this statement. You started
>> posting here on 17 July, by 24 July you said this:
>>
>> >What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
>> >claptrap.
>>
>> The odd thing is, you seem to have said this without having
>> read anything that Adams wrote about 35mm technique.
>Very little did he write. He was not anywhere near an expert on 35mm,
That doesn't really matter. The point is that you did not begin
in a "civil and genteel way" when you first arrived here,
you began with rudeness.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Daisaku Ikeda
Hey Mikey,
I followed the link you mentioned and came up with this at the end of
the page.
I think it describes YOU and your motives here;
"Ultimately, "the psychopath must have what he wants, no matter what
the cost to those in his way."(l7)"
Shure sounds like YOU.
Michael Scarpitti
Michael Scarpitti
> Then I guess anyone who pushes their film to gain an extra stop to
> catch a once in a lifetime photo is absurd.
>
> It works on the same principal. Minus development, more exposure/less
> development, Plus development, less exposure more development.
>
> But by your post you seem to be agreeing on minus development?
For 35mm: There is neither 'minus' nor 'plus' development. There is a
single basic development time to a specific contrast established by
trial and error so that the majority of full-range negatives print
well on grade 3 paper or so. G-bar in the range of 0.45 or so.
This amounts to less development than is commonly given to sheet film.
Under extremely contrasty conditions, greater dilutions may be used to
compress the highlight areas.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
> > the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
> > callously and ruthlessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
> > ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
>
> are keeping it going and getting worse. The only way to win
> is not to play.
>
> Stop playing, and at least some people might take you seriously.
>
> Some of what is being discussed is quite interesting. It would be
> very interesting to know what the trade-offs are for different
> degrees of development. If developing for grade 3 on a condenser
> gives equal performance to developing for grade 2 except with
> finer grain, that would be a thing worth knowing.
Yes, indeed it is true, and worth knowing. The problem is that
'certain people' don't want you to know it. They want you to use
variable film development. They either don't know about the grain
issue or don't care.
This is not 'my' method. I did not originate it. It was taught to me
long ago. It was common knowledge until 'certain people' seized power.
The method of lower contrast development goes back to the 30's and
even earlier with the motion picture industry. This practice was well
known until recently, but it has been suppressed by 'certain people'.
I think you know the people I'm talking about.
The only trade-off of which I am aware is a slight loss of film speed,
about 1/2 stop.
> The whole business about perception of contrast on prints and
> what looks natural is also very interesting.
Yes, and the same thing is true here. 'Certain people' have never even
considered the fact that severe expansions and contractions simply
look unnatural. I am glad Richard pointed that out. I can always spot
this in the work of 'certain people'.
>
> Peter.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in message >news:<brpv05$qka$1...@dns.ktb.net>...
> >> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The trouble, Peter, is that from the moment I began criticizing, in
> >> > the beginning, in a very civil and genteel way, the zoan sistum, I was
> >> > callously and ruthlessly attacked, mocked, called names, and
> >> > ridiculed. It is the zoneheads who started it.
> >>
> >> I looked through google to test this statement. You started
> >> posting here on 17 July, by 24 July you said this:
> >>
> >> >What the hell does Adams know about 35mm? NOTHING. Irrelevant
> >> >claptrap.
> >>
> >> The odd thing is, you seem to have said this without having
> >> read anything that Adams wrote about 35mm technique.
>
> >Very little did he write. He was not anywhere near an expert on 35mm,
>
> That doesn't really matter. The point is that you did not begin
> in a "civil and genteel way" when you first arrived here,
> you began with rudeness.
>
> Peter.
No, I did not. At the slightest criticism of the ZS, the teeth are
bared. That should not surprise me, and reinforces my opinion of the
cult-like nature of its practitioners. I happened to see a story
yesterday morning on the History Channel about the Jim Jones mass
murder/suicides of 900 people. Some of the same psychological traits
that charactersize zoneheads are found in cults:
The dogmatic pronouncements that cannot be refuted because they are
untestable.
The lack of even the attempt at proviiding evidence for their
assertions.
The ridicule of any attempt at criticism.
The smugness.
The special language, the Roman Numerals.
The worship of 'gurus'.
All these are traits of cults.
Michael Scarpitti
Surely you jest. The psycopathic personality is characteristic of many
zoneheads who turn red in the face and get flustered when you question
any of their practices. I have seen it in person.
Peter De Smidt
.
>> >Peter De Smidt <usenet@_spam_desmidt.net> wrote in message news:<b2d2uvsvt8aq1qu6g...@4ax.com>...
>> >> If one uses plus development, will
>> >> one's results be grainy or fuzzy? No, not if one keeps one's
>> >> enlargment factor to a reasonable value, and this applies not only to
>> >> large format but to 35mm as well. Hence plus development, like
>> >> anything else that I can think of, involves trade-offs. Sometimes
>> >> these are worth it, and other times they are not. Saying that one
>> >> should never use plus development, even with 35mm, is ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> -Peter De Smidt
>> >
>> >
>>
>> MS wrote:
>> >
>> >Of course one should never use plus development. It is absurd to say otherwise.
>>
>> What a typical (for MS) evasion of the point at hand. You said
>> earlier that plus development leads to lots of grain and "fuzzy"
>> pictures. I claim that this is only the case when one enlarges too
>> much. Given your position stated above, you must be able to prove
>> that this isn't true. Let's hear it.
>>
>> -Peter De Smidt
>
>
Scarpitti) wrote:
>I can send you some images offline if you wish.
And how would they prove that plus development leads to lots of grain
and "fuzzy" pictures? We all know that increasing exposure above the
minimun to record shadow detail and increasing development, barring
any large solvent effect, will increase grain size and lessen
sharpness, unless certain techniques, such as unsharp masking, are
used. But that's not the question. The question is whether plus
development leads to lots of grain and fuzzy pictures, which they
don't if one enlarges appropriately.
Elsewhere, you state that one should always shoot for maximum
enlargeablitliy. Why? I agree that _all things being equal_
enlargeability is a fine thing. But things are not always equal.
Perhaps one desires better tonal seperation, or perhaps one want's to
use a failiry strong unsharp mask. In either of those cases, and
supposing that grain will not be a problem for the intended print
size, then plus development is a good idea. If you won't get the type
of grain or sharpness that you'd like at your intended print size,
then use a larger format.
You don't think that tonality sometimes trumps grains size and
sharpness? Then why do you use FP4+? Delta 100, TP, or TMX would
give siginficantly higher sharpness and less grain (with equal
development) but you don't use them. Why? Curve shape. But curve
shape is simply a representation of tonality. Hence, even you think
that tonality, in some cases anyway, trumps finer grain and higher
sharpness. As a result, your condemnation of other photographers for
valuing tonality, and using plus development to get the tonality that
they want, becomes inexplicable.
Apparently, you think that increasing development is the best way to
get lots of grain. Not according to Barry Thornton, whom you've often
cited as a debate ending authority. In _Edge of Darkness_ Barry said
that to get large grain in a print, the best way is to print with
really high contrast. If one want to get anywhere near normal
tonality, one would then have to use minus development to get huge
grain in a print. At least this is the case of Mr. Thornton is
correct.
Morever, in your diatribes against diffusion enlargers, you apparently
fail to realize that condensor enlargers emphasize grain more than
diffusion enlargers do. Thus even if one follows your policy of
giving less development for negatives to be printed with a condeson
enlarger, it doesn't follow that this will lead to less grain in the
print. Yes, it will lead to less grain in the negative, but this is a
different matter.
Can you show us that you can actual discuss issues in a reasonable
manner, or are we just going to get more of your bile?
-Peter De Smidt
Paul Butzi
> What I've said is that your tests show that less development can be
> compensated by a higher paper grade, but more cannot.
I'm sorry that I don't seem to be able to word this in a way that
makes it clear.
My tests most definitely do NOT show that less development can be
compensated by a higher paper grade but that more development cannot.
What my tests DO show is that in some cases, altering the development
from what is required to produce a 'normal' negative and then
compensating by adjusting the paper contrast will produce no
significant change in tonal distribution, and in other cases it will.
Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea that the tonal distribution
that you get when you print a 'normal' contrast negative on 'normal'
contrast paper is 'correct', and that any change from that is
therefore 'not correct' or perhaps 'does not compensate for the
change'. This is, to put it bluntly, complete nonsense.
As long as you don't exceed the available range of contrast of the
paper you're using, ANY change in negative contrast can be compensated
for by changing the contrast of the paper. In some cases, the
resulting print will have the same tonal distribution as a normal
negative and normal paper contrast, in other cases it will not. If
there is a tonal change, in some cases the change will be benificial,
in other cases it will not.
To argue that one particular tonal rendition of the image is somehow
annointed as 'correct' would be tantamount to claiming that one
particular printing paper was 'correct' and that any paper which
didn't match the tonal distribution of that paper was therefore
'incorrect'. Since all printing papers I've ever used have differnt
tonal renditions, this is the same as stating that there is One True
Printing Paper. Again, this is arrant nonsense.
> And since less
> development will give less grain and higer sharpness, one shall aim for
> minimum development - whatever one feels correct, but never overdevelop.
>
> That's in yor site.
I'd be rather surprised if that was in my site. In general I believe
that the best approach is to give the negative the development that
will make it easiest to achieve the print the artist is trying to
make. If that print is primarily about minimal grain, then I'd agree
that minimal development consistent with the tonal rendition you want
is probably a good plan - but I'd also argue that any photograph that
is primarily about minimal grain is not likely to be a photograph I'd
find worth making with a format small enough that grain is an issue.
In some cases, grain is certainly a consideration. In other cases,
it's not a consideration at all. If I'm making a photograph of a very
faint pattern in the sand on a beach with a 4x5 view camera on TMX,
and I'm aiming for a full range print that's quite dramatic, then
minimal development of the negative guarantees that I will fail. I'm
talking about a scene where the darkest part of the scene and the
lightest part of the scene meter as less than a stop apart. In that
case, the only sensible exposure and development plan is to give the
film reasonable exposure and then develop it as much as is possible -
certainly N+4 would not be unreasonable.
If reduction in grain is a goal, I don't see much reason to resort to
histrionics with film development - reduced grain is easily achieved
simply by using a much bigger piece of film. 35mm cameras are useful
for a great many sorts of photography but they are certainly not the
best solution to every photographic problem. There are more things
between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in 35mm photography.
-Paul
www.butzi.net
Michael Scarpitti
>
>
> >I can send you some images offline if you wish.
>
> And how would they prove that plus development leads to lots of grain
> and "fuzzy" pictures?
Comparisons of two development times. It's easy.
> We all know that increasing exposure above the
> minimun to record shadow detail and increasing development, barring
> any large solvent effect, will increase grain size and lessen
> sharpness, unless certain techniques, such as unsharp masking, are
> used. But that's not the question. The question is whether plus
> development leads to lots of grain and fuzzy pictures, which they
> don't if one enlarges appropriately.
This makes no sense. What is 'appropriately'? What I'm laying out is
the means to get maximum enlargeability.
> Elsewhere, you state that one should always shoot for maximum
> enlargeablitliy.
I say no such thing. I don't care what you do. If you want grainy,
fuzzy, pictures, be my guest.
> Why? I agree that _all things being equal_
> enlargeability is a fine thing. But things are not always equal.
> Perhaps one desires better tonal seperation, or perhaps one want's to
> use a failiry strong unsharp mask.
Developing less and using a higher grade of paper gives the same tonal
separation. See:
http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm
> In either of those cases, and
> supposing that grain will not be a problem for the intended print
> size, then plus development is a good idea.
You're 'supposing' yourself right out of the truth.
> If you won't get the type
> of grain or sharpness that you'd like at your intended print size,
> then use a larger format.
That's not the question, as I have clearly stated before. The question
is: How does one get the best results from 35mm. You've been
brainwashed by zoneheads into thinking that it cannot be done. You can
in fact get excellent results from 35mm, but you MUST reduce
development to a lower dgree than possible with LF, and you cannot
vary from that.
> You don't think that tonality sometimes trumps grains size and
> sharpness?
What are you talking about? Develop less, harder paper. Same tonality.
See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm
> Then why do you use FP4+? Delta 100, TP, or TMX would
> give siginficantly higher sharpness and less grain (with equal
> development) but you don't use them.
I can use any of those films and make 16x20's with no significant
grain. I prefer FP4 for its curve shape. It's more suitable for
outdoor work than the T-Max film is. I don't do studio work, where
T-Max 100 would be quite appropriate.
> Why? Curve shape. But curve
> shape is simply a representation of tonality. Hence, even you think
> that tonality, in some cases anyway, trumps finer grain and higher
> sharpness. As a result, your condemnation of other photographers for
> valuing tonality, and using plus development to get the tonality that
> they want, becomes inexplicable.
Develop less, harder paper. Same tonality.
> Apparently, you think that increasing development is the best way to
> get lots of grain. Not according to Barry Thornton, whom you've often
> cited as a debate ending authority. In _Edge of Darkness_ Barry said
> that to get large grain in a print, the best way is to print with
> really high contrast. If one want to get anywhere near normal
> tonality, one would then have to use minus development to get huge
> grain in a print. At least this is the case of Mr. Thornton is
> correct.
You've misread something there. Graininess is directly proporational
to development. Contrast curves and graininess curves may not match
preciselt, which means you may get more graininess at a development
time that calls for #5 paper than for #3, but also at a develpment
time that calls for #2. that's the point of aiming for #3 paper. It's
the 'sweet spot' for contrast and graininess optimization. Either
significantly more development or significantly less will give less
than optimal results.
> Morever, in your diatribes against diffusion enlargers, you apparently
> fail to realize that condensor enlargers emphasize grain more than
> diffusion enlargers do.
False. They increase contrast, and so one gives LESS development when
using a condenser enlarger, which reduces the graininess. You don't
develop the film the same way.
> Thus even if one follows your policy of
> giving less development for negatives to be printed with a condeson
> enlarger, it doesn't follow that this will lead to less grain in the
> print. Yes, it will lead to less grain in the negative, but this is a
> different matter.
Both. The condenser increases contrast. But the film is developed
less. You ghave to run tests to determine the right times, but it's
usually about 25% less time than recommemded by mfrs.
> Can you show us that you can actual discuss issues in a reasonable
> manner, or are we just going to get more of your bile?
If you take off your blinders.
>
> -Peter De Smidt
Paul Butzi
> > enlargeability is a fine thing. But things are not always equal.
> > Perhaps one desires better tonal seperation, or perhaps one want's to
> > use a failiry strong unsharp mask.
>
> Developing less and using a higher grade of paper gives the same tonal
> separation. See:
>
> http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm
No, once again, you're mis-stating the content of that web page.
What it shows, actually, is that developing less and using a higher
grade of one of two VC papers results in roughly the same TONAL
DISTRIBUTION.
This is not the same as tonality. If you're not aware of the
difference, please stop making statements about it until you're sure
you understand.
> > You don't think that tonality sometimes trumps grains size and
> > sharpness?
>
> What are you talking about? Develop less, harder paper. Same tonality.
> See: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm
No, it's not the same tonality, it's the same tonal distribution.
> > Why? Curve shape. But curve
> > shape is simply a representation of tonality. Hence, even you think
> > that tonality, in some cases anyway, trumps finer grain and higher
> > sharpness. As a result, your condemnation of other photographers for
> > valuing tonality, and using plus development to get the tonality that
> > they want, becomes inexplicable.
>
> Develop less, harder paper. Same tonality.
No, same tonal distribution.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the content of my
web page.
On the other hand, given the insults you've used, I doubt you'll do me
that courtesy. I guess I'll have to add stuff to the page,
specifically mentioning you and how you seem to consistently interpret
things in the wrong way.
-Paul
www.butzi.net
Frank Pittel
: > > Why? I agree that _all things being equal_
: No, same tonal distribution.
That's just the way scarpitti is. He's been caught misrepresenting many a
book. Why would your website be any different.
Mike
On 18 Dec 2003 06:21:25 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Mike
On 18 Dec 2003 06:20:11 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Mike
and maximum sharpness and maiximum enlargeability :)
The result is not at all ideal, or everyone would be using the
equivalent of microphen for everyday use.
On 19 Dec 2003 06:14:28 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Mike
On 19 Dec 2003 12:09:45 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Mike
On 16 Dec 2003 19:52:38 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
>con...@butzi.net (Paul Butzi) wrote in message news:<e2890fff.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>> Jorge Omar <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote in message news:<Xns9453A63D223D6...@130.133.1.4>...
>> > Recent postings by Paul Butzi have shown that if one have a light
>> > negative it's possible to get correct result by using a higher paper
>> > grade.
>> > This is not true, however, for an overdeveloped neg using lower paper
>> > grade.
>>
>> If that's the conclusion people are taking from what I'm writing, then
>> I'm afraid I'm not communicating very clearly.
>>
>> First, I don't know what "correct result' might mean. No where in the
>> web page at www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm do I use the term
>> 'correct result'.
>>
>> What I've shown is that for two specific papers, the *tonal
>> distribution* you get is essentially identical if you have a lower
>> contrast negative (one that prints nicely on a paper that's about a
>> grade 4) and a normal contrast negative that prints nicely on a paper
>> that's about a grade 2.
>>
>> Furthermore, if you have two negatives, one that prints nicely on
>> grade 0 and one that prints nicely on grade 2, the two prints will
>> have a different *tonal distribution*.
>>
>> There's no right or wrong, here. Which tonal distribution is better
>> is going to be a creative decision. It's perfectly possible that you
>> might like the tonal distribution you get when you print on the soft
>> end of the range of paper contrasts, in which case you'd probably plan
>> for a much contrastier negative (increased development).
>>
>> -Paul
>> www.butzi.net
>
>
>
>But that overlooks what happens to the image quality. That's the
>problem that zoan sistum ignores.
Mike
communication problems. Rationale and elucid communication seems to be
a problem.
On 17 Dec 2003 08:33:16 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
>"Mike" <no_...@please.com> wrote in message news:<zBSDb.12829$aw2.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>
>> Think all you want about me being a MS fanboy. I don't agree with his
>> method of arguing.
>
>
>I am blunt and use sarcasm. It seems to be the only way to get through
>to some people. Subtleties are lost on zoneheads.
>
>
>> I do agree that using a single development time for 35mm
>> is a very good approach. And I don't think that pre-visualization and
>> changing paper grades is "actually the zone system".
>
>Yes, and thank you for agreeing with me about what is clearly the
>official zs dogma on this point.
>
>> Yes, I think that the zone system is overrated. People who've spent
>> countless hours on the zone system, and who have taught courses on the zone
>> system, will _often_ not accept any other method as being able to produce
>> quality work. I took an "intro to darkroom" course at my local university
>> and the instructor brought some of his prints to show us. I asked some
>> question, I don't remember what, but he answered "you can't achieve results
>> this fine without using the zone system to develop film precisely". Such
>> arrogance was clear, but I assumed he was right. And this isn't my only
>> encounter with people who make similar claims about how the zone system is
>> the _only_ way to make excellent B&W prints without getting lucky
>> occasionally.
>
>Their arrogance is typical of cultists. Cults are easily identified by
>their arrogance and intolerance of oppostion, together with a sort of
>'special language'. The zs is full of it.
>
>Here is some help on that
>
>http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/cults.htm
>
>You will note in particular the following points:
>
>1. "focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display
>excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment."
>
>This was Ansel Adams before he died. Now it's Sexton
>
>2. "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,"
>Sounds like your instructor, no?
>
>See also:
>
>http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm
Mike
treament is in order. Or maybe the adage Everyone else has a problem
except me is more is the key
On 19 Dec 2003 15:47:11 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael