Peace, Please
Francis A. Miniter
discussions, may I ask everyone to take a deep breath, call a truce, and
let peace try to reign in the group again. As a way of maintaining
future peace, I would suggest exercise of restraint in responding to
irritating posts. Yes, sometimes, a post can get under your skin.
There was an off topic one in this newgroup yesterday that irritated me
and I was on the verge of responding to it. In fact, I drafted a
response, but did not send it. In the end, I felt that I could not
respond without making the response (negatively) personal to the
sender. In those circumstances, I did not consider it proper to respond
at all. Responding only fuels the hostile poster's objectives. It is
one thing to respond to correct misleading information. But that can be
done without making an emotional statement. It is my observation that a
troll tends to ignore the straight replies.
Francis A. Miniter
Gregory W. Blank
Francis; You are too good....very patient in my experience here the
last couple of years.
>But that can be done without making an emotional statement.
Very true.
>It is my observation that a
> troll tends to ignore the straight replies.
I wish I could say this, but my observation seems to indicate otherwise....
I hope you turn out to have a better insight in this case than myself.
For a long time rec.photo.darkroom has been a great group of people,
I would hope it always continues to be the best photo-news group.
Gb
--
Michael Scarpitti
I began here with the best of intentions. Some people here immediately
attacked me for calling into question the many photo myths that so
many cling to. That attack was uncalled for. If you believe myths, be
preapred to defend them with concrete proof.
Alexis Neel
Michael,
I think what people have a problem with is the way you state your
opinions as fact, your continued disdain for zonie's, which I believe
you were the first to deride as such, especially given the level of
your talents, and your insistance that your way is the only way.
There are so many variables, and desireous results, in darkroom work
and you fail to understand that. Also, the fact that there are many
experienced people using the zone system, with images and results far
better than yours, that totally blow your idea of whats correct and
whats not right out of the water. Then, when people have pointed out
things to you in regards to the quality of your work, both technically
and asthetically, you begin to excuse them as merely tests, bad
quality scans, etc.
My suggestion is to present your opinion as just that, your way of
producing images that appeals to you, and nothing more.
Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
Michael Scarpitti
> There are so many variables, and desirous results, in darkroom work
> and you fail to understand that. Also, the fact that there are many
> experienced people using the zone system, with images and results far
> what's not right out of the water. Then, when people have pointed out
> things to you in regards to the quality of your work, both technically
> quality scans, etc.
Let first begin by stating that all of my points are intended to apply
to the 35mm reportage worker. (I'll pick this up later in more
detail.)
>
> My suggestion is to present your opinion as just that, your way of
> producing images that appeals to you, and nothing more.
>
> Alexis
> www.alexisneel.com
OK, Alexis, let me speak plainly. The amount of misinformation about
B&W for the 35mm worker is staggering. You would not believe the crap
I have heard over the years, from even pros.
I have heard people brag about how high they rate their film. ("I
shoot Plus-X at 1600 in Diafine".)
I have heard people brag about how low they rate their film. ("I shoot
2475 at 50 in Rodinal".)
I have heard people brag about how they don't 'need' to use a
Polycontrast filter "because my negatives are so good".
I have had people walk up to me while I was taking pictures and tell
me I was doing it wrong, after I descibed, at their request, what my
exposure was. (Need I add that of course it wasn't wrong?)
But what gets me most is that I have heard people say you MUST use the
zs to get good quality in 35mm. I have seen 'photo students' on
campuses with a 35mm camera on a tripod taking 1/2 hour to meter their
subject (a rock or something). The absurdity of this appalls me.
That's NOT what 35mm cameras are designed to be used for, and these
poor saps will likely never recover from the bad start.
By that I mean their basic approach to 35mm will not likely become
that of the PJ photographer. That has to come BEFORE technique. You
have to have a sense of timing, of presence, of what's important,
before you even start.
Now, back to the confusion issue. The confusion stems from a number of
sources.
First of all, photography is immensely popular, and has been for many
decades. The many kinds of products from many manufacturers, the wild
claims made by some developer and sensitized goods manufacturers, may
lead the potential user all too easily astray. I had many films ruined
in the early years by this. Tetenal seemed to be the worst. Ethol and
Paterson always had very accurate times.
What I have learned over the many years (40) in which I have been
involved in photography is to trust NOTHING. At any time, anything can
fail, and sometimes does. On the other hand, the nature of
photographic materials and equipment is such that **sometimes** even
large departures from proper procedures have little or no ill effect.
This is then looked upon as a discovery of how to do something by the
lucky individual who just skirted disaster. Without a FUNDAMENTAL
understanding of what goes into making film, paper, lenses, etc, he is
easily misled by these 'non-failures', which he regards mistakenly as
successes. So, the photographer who discovers that over-developed film
yielded somewhat passable results on under-exposures believes he has
actually produced more speed, but does not realize that all he has
done is to take advantage of the under-exposure latitude of the film
that would be there without the extra development. In other words,
processing the film normally would yield prints of at least as good
quality, if adjustments are made to the printing contrast. If the
under-exposure is too extreme, nothing is going to make a difference
anyway.
I have taught photography, both informally and in the classroom, and
what never ceases to amaze me is how people in general have little
understanding of scientific principles. The wildest possible claims
are simply swallowed without the slightest attempt to discriminate
fact from fancy. When the novice walks in the door to the camera
store, there's always someone brought along who 'knows a lot about
photography'. That person may be knowledgeable enough, but often is
only slightly ahead of the curve. They lack true 'expertise'.
What is 'expertise'? Since I claim to have some expertise in
photography, let's examine that notion.
There are practical and theoretical aspects to the knowledge of any
craft. Expertise involves practical skill, that is knowledge of how to
do something that matches one's intentions. There is also the matter
of 'what is intended'. As you may not be surprised to learn, what I
find most objectionable about zonehead work is 'what is intended'.
But let's leave that aside for the moment. What can we say that would
qualify as 'expertise' in photography? Well, there are different areas
of photography, and no-one is likely to be master of them all, so the
first thing to realize is that you must be fairly specialized.
But in any event, I believe I have pretty substantial knowledge in the
following areas of 35mm monochrome work:
Composition, focusing, and timing (aesthetics and mechanics)
Camera operation
Exposure
Development
Printing
Not only am I sufficiently competent in these areas, I have the
ability to communicate technique to other people in an effective,
congenial manner. I've always been good at that (until I ran into this
newsgroup, that is). I have taught many, many people the basics of B&W
work (and indeed beyond), in the camera shop and in more formal
settings such as seminars and classes. When I worked in photo retail,
I got lots of referral business on darkroom, because I showed people
how to be successful, and advised them when they ran into
difficulties. They came to me first when they had questions.
You may recall in an earlier thread that I mentioned that I ran into a
customer in 1984 at a party, and he told me how much he missed having
me around to answer his questions (I had left the retail business a
number of years before). He also shocked me by telling me that neither
he nor any of his friends who were 'into' photography would buy
anything without asking my opinion about it. I'm not saying this to
brag. This is what he told me. That's the kind of following I had
here.
Just a few years ago I was in a large shop where two young 'urban
professional' types were looking at buying a camera outfit. I was
listening to their conversation with the sales clerk and the basic
intent was to do color landscape photography. (Imagine that!) So, of
course, the yuppie #1 advised yuppie #2 to get a Nikon F5 with the
35-70 f/2,8 lens, using Velvia film stock. A large Gitzo tripod was
being used to try this out on.
Yes, I'm serious! I felt I had to speak up, and suggested he look at
an M-6 with 35mm and 50mm Summicrons and Kodachrome 25. I pointed out
that a high-speed auto-focus camera and zoom lens were not the ideal
choice for static subject matter. I got blank stares. (By the way, I
did ask if there was any intent to do sports photography. There was
none.)
So, you can see the problem as I encounter it: photo experts
everywhere making sometimes absurd recommendations and lacking common
sense. (Not that you couldn't get decent results with an F5 and a
35-70 2,8 zoom, but there're better ways to do it.)
And I won't get into the 'silver content of film/paper' issue. I don't
want to burst a blood vessel.
Now, getting back to the ability to discriminate between scientific
facts and mere mythology, one can learn enough about films and
developers to anticipate the kind of results one will get with a given
film/developer combination.
The question of HP5 and Rodinal was raised here a few days ago, and I
felt that however good Rodinal might be for large format negatives
(which it was designed for, back in the 1880's) it was certainly not
the best match for 35mm high-speed films, even given that one was not
looking for the finest grain possible, but rather for the best
combination of sharpness, reasonably fine grain, and tonality. (Acutol
has to be near the top of the list for these qualities.) This is
because this developer (Rodinal, that is) uses sodium hydroxide as its
accelerant, and any developer with such a strong alkali will have a
rather aggressive signature, and therefore a tendency toward excessive
graininess. Developers with carbonates have a similar tendency, and
developers with borax or other milder accelerants (perhaps buffered
with borax and boric acid) are often to be preferred, even if they are
not solvent types. So, given one's knowledge of the behaviour of
developers with strong alkalis on one traditional high speed film
(Tri-X) its behaviour on another of nearly identical character would
not be expected to be significantly different. That is because the
chemical make-up and sensitometric character of HP5 and Tri-X are
sufficiently close to treat them as belonging to the same class. Most
films are designed to work well in the classic D-76 formula, so they
have to be somewhat compatible in general. Indeed, the ISO specifies a
developer nearly identical to D-76 to measure film speed. So, the
knowledge of basic photo chemistry comes into play here. Will it be a
good match? The question can of course only be settled with absolute
finality by testing, but more important, given that we cannot try
every film and developer combination imaginable without spending tons
of money and time, is to be able to answer: What is ***likely*** to be
a good match? This is one of the things that we mean by expertise: the
ability to use our knowledge to predict with reasonable accuracy the
outcomes of tests before they are made, and to understand WHY they are
the way they are.
Just today someone here was asking about edge effects. I asked him to
write to me. He said: "I've been trying D23 1 hour stand (diluted 1+7)
and getting nice negs, but I don't notice edge effects". Why he's not
getting edge effects is not difficult to explain. D23 uses fairly high
concentrations of Metol (7.5 g/l) and sodium sulphite (100 g/l).
Three things favour the formation of edge effects:
1. Low concentration of bromide-sensitive developing agents
2. Low concentration of sulphite (sulphite in high concentrations
offers protection to the developing agent against bromide)
3. High activity (strong alkalinity)
As we can see, D-23, meets not one of these criteria:
It has:
1. High concentration of developing agent (reducing the bromide
sensitivity)
2. High concentration of sulphite (which tends to protect the
developing agent against bromide)
3. Low activity (weak alkalinity) which does not make the developer
work very fast, thus slowing the rate of bromide release
I was able to answer this question and set this poster on the right
track instead of the dead end he was pursuing, precisely because of
this understanding of the fundamentals of developer composition. I can
tell him he's not going to get what he wants out of this developer, so
further testing is a waste of time.
I have used Neofin Red, and I did not like the results at the times
suggested. 'Waffle Boy' (a title I've used for this image simply to
identify it here) was developed in Neofin Red, and the graininess and
edge effects are substantial. This developer uses carbonate, I
believe. So, the conclusion we can draw from using developers with
strong alkalis on high-speed films is that in general they have a
tendency toward excessive graininess. Developers like Paterson Acutol
(which does not use hydroxide) overcome these tendencies while
maintaining outstanding sharpness and tonality.
I don't claim to know everything, but the breadth of my knowledge of
this aspect of photography is considerable. When I'm stumped, I turn
to reference sources, such as the Photo-Lab Index, Anchell and Troop's
'Cookbook', 'Developing' by Jacobsen and Jacobsen, 'The Science of
Photography' by Baines/Bomback, and others. If you have not read the
last-mentioned, I suggest strongly that you do.
One last point:
The evolution of 35mm B&W still photography is closely linked with
that of the 35mm motion picture technique, not the view camera.
One point I raised earlier was the need to develop 35mm film to a
lower degree than sheet film, and to use #3 paper as the basic grade:
I quote from the 1953 Photo Lab Index:
"While it is of course impossible to recommend exact values of gammas
for developing different types of film, the following general
recommendations can be made:
Roll and Pack Film..........................9 to 1.1
35mm Miniature Camera Films..........5 to .9"