The B&W situation as I see it
Michael Scarpitti
http://www.acecam.com/cr3index.html
You do realize of course that whatever the media says is hot becomes
hot. If the media come out and says that digital is already old hat,
and people don't like it once they own a digital camera, then I bet it
will spread like wildfire throughout the public, and people will start
buying film and demanding film cameras again!
Kodak has, however, been very lax (and that's being kind) in promoting
and marketing their BEST B&W materials. They came out with a group of
new B&W products in the mid-80's: T-Max films (featuring tabular grain
structures) and Elite graded paper. The T-Max films are not without
their critics (among whom I number myself). The T-Max films (100, 400,
3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
difficult to work with. They have not improved their
conventional-grain films however. This leaves the consumer in a
quandary, as you have a choice between films designed in the 50's (125
ISO Plus-X and 400 ISO Tri-X) or newer films that are very tough to
deal with. Instead, many serious workers choose Ilford products. They
have improved their conventional-grain films (50, 125, 400 ISO) and
added an advanced-technology (tabular-grain) line called Delta (also
100, 400, 3200), just like Kodak's T-Max line. Ilford's Delta films
are much easier to work with, and their conventional-grain films are
now superior to Kodak's.
Ilford is still making graded paper, though they dropped their cheaper
line called Ilfobrom and now sell only Ilfobrom Gallerie, which only
makes sense if you want at least the best materials to remain
available. Graded papers are superior to variable-contrast papers in
tonal rendition in the deeper tones, though they are less flexible in
use. I use both, with graded paper going for exhibition work and
variable contrast paper going for casual stuff.
Kodak makes no graded or portrait paper at all now. They used to make
a warm-toned portrait paper called Ektalure:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g9/g9.jhtml
Elite was a super-high quality museum-grade material:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g19/g19.jhtml
In the distant past, Ansco (later called GAF) and DuPont made
wonderful B&W materials.
I think Agfa has also discontinued all their graded papers.
David Nebenzahl
In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
> [...] The T-Max films (100, 400,
> 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> difficult to work with.
and
> [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.
--
At Boston/Logan airport last Friday, I saw on a Delta departures/arrivals
screen this Windows error dialog in front of the grid of flights:
"At least one service failed to start..."
I took a photo of it. I thought:
"I'm glad I don't run Windows. I'm glad I'm not flying Delta today."
- Recent posting on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/)
Chris Ellinger
Scarpitti) wrote:
>many serious workers choose Ilford products.
I use only Ilford film and paper (though I try not to be too serious
about anything.) I think there will be a niche market for B&W silver
based materials for a long time to come, but I think it is important
for consumers to support the one major company that continues to
invest in R&D for B&W materials.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Michael Scarpitti
> On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>
> In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
>
> > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400,
> > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> > difficult to work with.
>
> and
>
> > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
>
> Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
>
> Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.
Two basic problems:
1. T-Max films change contrast quicker during development. This means
that the slightest error in time or temperature can mean a big swing
in contrast, and excessive contrast is far too easy to get. Of course,
if your developer is slightly too strong or too weak, the same thing
will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect Tri-X, for
example, will ruin TMY.
2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is
'U'-shaped. This means that highlights have MORE contrast than
mid-tones. Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows have
more contrast than highlights. This makes it easier to control the
contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include the
sky. The shadows in Tri-X have more contrast, and the flare in any
lens caused by light coming from the sky tends to lower the contrast
in the shadows. Likewise, for the sky, the lower highlight contrast
keeps the sky from getting too heavy in density. Thus, Tri-X and most
conventional films will give a more pleasing rendition of most outdoor
scenes.
So, when used outdoors, TMY tends to have very bright, contrasty skies
that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking mid-tones
and shadows.
Frank Pittel
: On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
: In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
: > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400,
: > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
: > difficult to work with.
: and
: > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
: Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
: Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.
The problem that scarpitti seems to be having is that hasn't learned how
to process film consistently. The Tmax films are very sensitive to
changes in temperature, agitation, and time. In order to get predictable
results with Tmax films you need to be able to keep those three consistent.
You also need to perform speed and development time tests. On the positive
side if you take the time to run the tests and expend the energy to maintain
consistency in processing and in my opinion use the Tmax developers 1:9@75F
you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the
tonality has to be seen to be believed.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Jean-David Beyer
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:<3F6605F8...@but.us.chickens>...
>
>> On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>>
>> In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
>>
>>
>>> [...] The T-Max films (100, 400, 3200) are very fine-grained, (a
>>> desirable trait) but are very difficult to work with.
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>> [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
>>
>> Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
>>
>> Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed
>> information.
>
>
> Two basic problems:
>
> 1. T-Max films change contrast quicker during development. This means
> that the slightest error in time or temperature can mean a big swing
> in contrast, and excessive contrast is far too easy to get. Of
> course, if your developer is slightly too strong or too weak, the
> same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect
> Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY.
It is not all that difficult. Sure the slope of the curve of CI vs.
temperature, concentration, etc., is somewhat steeper, but it is not
something requireing the second hand on a watch. I use an old GraLab
timer and things work out just fine.
>
> 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is
> 'U'-shaped.
I have never seen that. I developed it in TMax-RS developer, D-23, DK-25
(two bath), and Xtol. The main differences in the curve shape seems to
be with Xtol 1+1 where the curve is closer to a straight line (shorter
toe) than any other combination I have ever seen.
> This means that highlights have MORE contrast than
> mid-tones.
Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution B)
than TMY in Xtol.
> Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows
> have more contrast than highlights.
I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the
contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe.
You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe.
> This makes it easier to control
> the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include
> the sky. The shadows in Tri-X have more contrast, and the flare in
> any lens caused by light coming from the sky tends to lower the
> contrast in the shadows. Likewise, for the sky, the lower highlight
> contrast keeps the sky from getting too heavy in density. Thus, Tri-X
> and most conventional films will give a more pleasing rendition of
> most outdoor scenes.
>
> So, when used outdoors, TMY tends to have very bright, contrasty
> skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking
> mid-tones and shadows.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:20pm up 25 days, 7:45, 2 users, load average: 2.36, 2.22, 2.13
Frank Pittel
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
: > news:<3F6605F8...@but.us.chickens>...
: >
: >> On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
: >>
: >> In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
: >>
: >>
: >>> [...] The T-Max films (100, 400, 3200) are very fine-grained, (a
: >>> desirable trait) but are very difficult to work with.
: >>
: >> and
: >>
: >>
: >>> [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
: >>
: >> Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
: >>
: >> Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed
: >> information.
: >
: >
: > Two basic problems:
: >
: > 1. T-Max films change contrast quicker during development. This means
: > that the slightest error in time or temperature can mean a big swing
: > in contrast, and excessive contrast is far too easy to get. Of
: > course, if your developer is slightly too strong or too weak, the
: > same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect
: > Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY.
: It is not all that difficult. Sure the slope of the curve of CI vs.
: temperature, concentration, etc., is somewhat steeper, but it is not
: something requireing the second hand on a watch. I use an old GraLab
: timer and things work out just fine.
I went to the local Walmart and got a couple of electronic kitchen timers.
: >
: > 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is
: > 'U'-shaped.
Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives.
Jim Phelps
[SNIP]>
>
>
> Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the
negatives.
> --
>
Dare say that Mike needs to begin to use some of the Zone techniques he so
adamantly abhors?
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Jim Phelps
> Kodak has, however, been very lax (and that's being kind) in promoting
> and marketing their BEST B&W materials. They came out with a group of
> new B&W products in the mid-80's: T-Max films (featuring tabular grain
> structures) and Elite graded paper. The T-Max films are not without
> their critics (among whom I number myself). The T-Max films (100, 400,
> 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> difficult to work with. They have not improved their
> conventional-grain films however. This leaves the consumer in a
> quandary, as you have a choice between films designed in the 50's (125
> ISO Plus-X and 400 ISO Tri-X) or newer films that are very tough to
> deal with. Instead, many serious workers choose Ilford products. They
> have improved their conventional-grain films (50, 125, 400 ISO) and
> added an advanced-technology (tabular-grain) line called Delta (also
> 100, 400, 3200), just like Kodak's T-Max line. Ilford's Delta films
> are much easier to work with, and their conventional-grain films are
> now superior to Kodak's.
>
[SNIP]
Didn't Kodak just release an improved version of it's conventional films?
Didn't Kodak just invest millions in a new plant to fabricate conventional
B&W films? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not bowing to the Yellow God named
Kodak. I just want to set the record straight.
Dan Quinn
> ...R&D for B&W materials.
Speaking of R&D how is the quadrupling of film speed reaserch going?
I think it about a year since a report on the subject appeared in Photo
Technique. How about ISO 500 Plus X, 1600 Tri X and EI 12,800 Delta.?
I've noticed that the very latest digitals are still hung up at 400.
For some reason I'm the only one mentioning the subject. The B&W
situation as I see it will be much improved by the quadrupling. Dan
Frank Pittel
: [SNIP]>
: >
: >
: > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the
: negatives.
: > --
: >
: Dare say that Mike needs to begin to use some of the Zone techniques he so
: adamantly abhors?
I never said anything about the zone system!! :-) Although if scarpitti is going
to ever get good results from the Tmax line of film he's going to have to.
mr. chip
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote in message
news:3f66b...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
> [SNIP]
>
> > Kodak has, however, been very lax (and that's being kind) in promoting
> > and marketing their BEST B&W materials. They came out with a group of
> > new B&W products in the mid-80's: T-Max films (featuring tabular grain
> > structures) and Elite graded paper. The T-Max films are not without
> > their critics (among whom I number myself). The T-Max films (100, 400,
> > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> > difficult to work with. They have not improved their
> > conventional-grain films however. This leaves the consumer in a
> > quandary, as you have a choice between films designed in the 50's (125
> > ISO Plus-X and 400 ISO Tri-X) or newer films that are very tough to
> > deal with. Instead, many serious workers choose Ilford products. They
> > have improved their conventional-grain films (50, 125, 400 ISO) and
> > added an advanced-technology (tabular-grain) line called Delta (also
> > 100, 400, 3200), just like Kodak's T-Max line. Ilford's Delta films
> > are much easier to work with, and their conventional-grain films are
> > now superior to Kodak's.
> >
> [SNIP]
>
> Didn't Kodak just release an improved version of it's conventional films?
> Didn't Kodak just invest millions in a new plant to fabricate conventional
> B&W films? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not bowing to the Yellow God
named
> Kodak. I just want to set the record straight.
>
Yes, they did all of that. And in a recent article about the increase in
sales of black and white films I read that while Kodak were very
enthusiastic about this, Ilford were much more downbeat, saying that they
thought digital was the area of growth for them, and that they were very
unlikely to develop any new black and white emulsions.
Simon.
Dennis O'Connor
Why is quadrupling of film speed good? A 12,800 speed film will be
unuseable outdoors... You will have to carry a changing bag with you to
load the camera... You would have to have a 3 stop neutral density filter on
the lens in bright light, adding more reflective surfaces... I don't see an
advantage... 1600 Tri-x will be barely useable outdoors, and only in
subdued light... The tiny F stops will add diffraction problems...
I would rather see improved range of useable zones, and improved tonality...
Denny
"Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
news:b379902d.03091...@posting.google.com...
Michael Scarpitti
> Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives.
Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground,
and are light sources to boot. This means:
1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
their contrast.
2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible
situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
contrast and desnisty.
Michael Scarpitti
It's true, and we discussed this a few weeks ago.
>
> > This means that highlights have MORE contrast than
> > mid-tones.
>
> Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution B)
> than TMY in Xtol.
>
> > Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows
> > have more contrast than highlights.
>
> I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the
> contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe.
> You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe.
I'm talking about Tri-X pan 35mm.
Jorge Omar
Nowadays, due to local availability, I'm using only Kodak (125PX and
400TX).
The point is that I've seen some comments re defective emulsions in
Ilford films; never saw one re Kodak's or heard about it in the past.
Jorge
Chris Ellinger <elli...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:<0o0cmv4jhl155jt3i...@4ax.com>...
Frank Calidonna
I don't know if my experience is strange, but my skies with TMY and no filter print almost black depending on
the sky. It is almost as if I were using an orange filter.
I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the
best film in the world. If you have developed color film before you know how to control time and temp
accurately and if you test your film first (zoning) TMX and TMY give incredible results. I use medium
format and develop with Rodinol with results that please me - very subjective. I have tested Acros and find
it to be an excellent film too. Great highlight and shadow detail, good mid-tones too. But I would certainly
not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their
new factory and films.
And while we are at it no one offers the wealth of information and data about almost anything photographic as
Kodak. B&W is in good shape from the supply side. The problem is that most people use color so the B&W market
has shrunk. Those few of us left should be delighted with the choices of films and papers available. Granted
not as many as years ago, but still a large selection - enough for most tastes.
Frank Rome, NY
Norman Worth
problems with 35mm TMY. TMY seems particularly sensitive to the developer,
giving very different responses to different developers. It is also very
sensitive to time, temperature, and agitation. Too vigorous agitation makes
the highlights nearly impossible to print, although they show up nicely in
the negative.
TMX is a very different animal and is much easier to tame. It's
characteristic curve in D-76 1+1 is very linear - enough so that it is good
for interpositives and masks. I've had very good results in the field with
it.
I haven't used Tri-X for a few years, but it used to be very well behaved,
even if a little grainy. My current favorite is Ilford's FP4+, mostly for
zonehead work. My previous favorite roll film was Verichrome Pan,
unfortunately now discontinued. It was a really fine film. I had hopes
from the advertising hype that Plux-X had been changed to behave more like
VP, but I guess not. I see complaints about excessive contrast and fussy
processing. I'd like to hear a more detailed critique.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com...
Norman Worth
Ultra) but has discontinued graded black and white. Fortunately,
Polycontrast has improved a lot. I tried it again recently, and I was very
impressed with the improved gradation and image quality.
Graded papers are readily available from offshore manufacturers both in
Europe and Japan. The larger photo outlets carry quite a variety. That
would seem to say there is a market. Did Kodak just not work hard enough to
gain it? Kodak seems to have a very local outlook, and I don't really think
they realize that they are no longer a monopoly. They really need some good
domestic competition, like Ansco and DuPont provided in the past.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com...
J. Cordaro
>
> Speaking of R&D how is the quadrupling of film speed reaserch going?
> I think it about a year since a report on the subject appeared in Photo
> Technique. How about ISO 500 Plus X, 1600 Tri X and EI 12,800 Delta.?
> I've noticed that the very latest digitals are still hung up at 400.
> For some reason I'm the only one mentioning the subject. The B&W
> situation as I see it will be much improved by the quadrupling. Dan
Kodak released 5218 motion picture film last year which has two
electron sensitization. see "A New Concept for Doubling Photographic
Speed,"
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/vision2.shtml
Jay
oradrocyaj(BACKWARDS!)@yahoo.com
Michael Scarpitti
>
> > Kodak has, however, been very lax (and that's being kind) in promoting
> > and marketing their BEST B&W materials. They came out with a group of
> > new B&W products in the mid-80's: T-Max films (featuring tabular grain
> > structures) and Elite graded paper. The T-Max films are not without
> > their critics (among whom I number myself). The T-Max films (100, 400,
> > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> > difficult to work with. They have not improved their
> > conventional-grain films however. This leaves the consumer in a
> > quandary, as you have a choice between films designed in the 50's (125
> > ISO Plus-X and 400 ISO Tri-X) or newer films that are very tough to
> > deal with. Instead, many serious workers choose Ilford products. They
> > have improved their conventional-grain films (50, 125, 400 ISO) and
> > added an advanced-technology (tabular-grain) line called Delta (also
> > 100, 400, 3200), just like Kodak's T-Max line. Ilford's Delta films
> > are much easier to work with, and their conventional-grain films are
> > now superior to Kodak's.
> >
> [SNIP]
>
> Didn't Kodak just release an improved version of it's conventional films?
No.
> Didn't Kodak just invest millions
About $1B, actually.
> in a new plant to fabricate conventional
> B&W films?
Yes.
> Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not bowing to the Yellow God named
> Kodak. I just want to set the record straight.
The films were not 'improved' at all, just moved to a better
manufacturing plant. They will be more consistent and free from dust,
etc., but the emulsion chaarcteristics are essentially unchanged.
Developing times changed a lttle due to gelatin differences, but the
emulsions are practically identical.
Jean-David Beyer
> Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<QqOdnS73oOA...@giganews.com>...
>
>>Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives.
>
>
> Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground,
> and are light sources to boot. This means:
>
> 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
> their contrast.
> 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
>
> Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
> softer gradation in the highlights.
It sure did not when I was testing it. It had a relatively long toe (4164).
> TMY has the worst possible
> situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
> contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
> curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
> contrast and desnisty.
Not when I tested it. It had the closest thing to a straight line of any
film I have ever tested (XTol 1+1).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 2:40pm up 26 days, 5 min, 2 users, load average: 4.36, 4.19, 4.07
Jean-David Beyer
> Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
> news:<3F667560...@exit109.com>...
>
>>> This means that highlights have MORE contrast than mid-tones.
>>
>> Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution
>> B) than TMY in Xtol.
>>
>>> Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows have more
>>> contrast than highlights.
>>
>> I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the
>> contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long
>> toe. You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe.
>
>
> I'm talking about Tri-X pan 35mm.
Looking at the graph of Kodak Tri-X Pan Film (the kind only available in
35mm and roll film) shows me a film with medium toe, not one that would
have more contrast in the shadows than in the highlights. The only film
I am aware of that has very high shadow contrast and falling off in the
highlights would be Kodak Recording Film 2475 developped long enough in
D-19 that you would probably hate to use because of its high granularity.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 2:45pm up 26 days, 10 min, 2 users, load average: 4.08, 4.08, 4.04
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<QqOdnS73oOA...@giganews.com>...
> > > Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives.
> >
> > Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground,
> > and are light sources to boot. This means:
> >
> > 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
> > their contrast.
> > 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
> >
> > Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
> > softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible
> > situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
> > contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
> > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
> > contrast and desnisty.
>
> I don't know if my experience is strange, but my skies with TMY and no filter print almost black depending on
> the sky. It is almost as if I were using an orange filter.
>
> I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the
> best film in the world.
It has soft mid-tones, but TMY is the real problem child.
>If you have developed color film before you know how to control time
and temp
> accurately and if you test your film first (zoning) TMX and TMY give incredible results.
TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones
are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight
changes in developer activity are normal and hard to prevent. These
can affect T-Max films much more than conventional ones. Though you
and I may be meticulous in our lab standards, not everyone is or can
be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent
and can be disasterous.
> I use medium
> format and develop with Rodinol with results that please me - very subjective.
In 35mm, it's a little different.
> I have tested Acros and find
> it to be an excellent film too. Great highlight and shadow detail, good mid-tones too. But I would certainly
> not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their
> new factory and films.
Whither Kodabromide, Elite, Medalist, Ektalure, Royal Pan, Velox,
Super-XX?
Dan Quinn
> Let me play devil's advocate here...
> Why is quadrupling of film speed good? A 12,800 speed film will be
> unuseable outdoors... You will have to carry a changing bag with you to
> load the camera... You would have to have a 3 stop neutral density filter on
> the lens in bright light, adding more reflective surfaces... I don't see an
> advantage... 1600 Tri-x will be barely useable outdoors, and only in
> subdued light... The tiny F stops will add diffraction problems...
> I would rather see improved range of useable zones, and improved tonality...
>
> Denny
I take it from your response that you can offer no
update of this matter.
From my hearing and reading of the subject I do not recall that any loss
of quality will result. Perhaps those qualities you value most will be
enhanced. I don't think there will be any sacrifice in quality.
I mentioned ISO speeds. Plus and Tri X speeds, in use, of 250 and 800 are
more likely. How about Tech Pan at a PUI, personal user index, of 50. Or
you might go for Pan F, Tmax, or Delta at PUIs of 100, 200, and 200,
respectively.
If the new films are too speedy for roll film users, perhaps the large
format crowd will buy. More likely the digital crowd will be moveing to
the back of the bus. If you hear anything let us know. Dan
> "Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote
Frank Pittel
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: > Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<QqOdnS73oOA...@giganews.com>...
: > > Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives.
: >
: > Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground,
: > and are light sources to boot. This means:
: >
: > 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
: > their contrast.
: > 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
: >
: > Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
: > softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible
: > situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
: > contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
: > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
: > contrast and desnisty.
: I don't know if my experience is strange, but my skies with TMY and no filter print almost black depending on
: the sky. It is almost as if I were using an orange filter.
It must depend on the conditions where you're at. Here in the midwest in the summer with the
humidity so high that the sky is white to begin with and that is in addition to the 12 zones
between the white sky and the shadows. I haven't gotten filters to help and even the zone
system leaves a lot to be desired.
: I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the
: best film in the world. If you have developed color film before you know how to control time and temp
: accurately and if you test your film first (zoning) TMX and TMY give incredible results. I use medium
: format and develop with Rodinol with results that please me - very subjective. I have tested Acros and find
: it to be an excellent film too. Great highlight and shadow detail, good mid-tones too. But I would certainly
: not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their
: new factory and films.
Have you tried TMX with the Tmax developer diluted 1:9?? The grain is non-existent and the
tonality has to be seen to be believed. As alway you need to run exposure and development
tests.
: And while we are at it no one offers the wealth of information and data about almost anything photographic as
: Kodak. B&W is in good shape from the supply side. The problem is that most people use color so the B&W market
: has shrunk. Those few of us left should be delighted with the choices of films and papers available. Granted
: not as many as years ago, but still a large selection - enough for most tastes.
: Frank Rome, NY
--
J Stafford
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> [...] the white sky and the shadows. I haven't gotten filters to help and
> even the zone system leaves a lot to be desired.
:) Can't filter unless there's a color to contrast with your filter.
> : I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of
that I think that TMX is just about the
> : best film in the world.
How can you say that? Where's the Olde Pharte spirit?
Tri-X 4164 is a great film. I don't know why Kodak ever went to TMX,
unless it was to cut down on silver content just to make some bean-counter
happy.
Michael Scarpitti
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> : On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>
> : In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
>
> : > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400,
> : > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> : > difficult to work with.
>
> : and
>
> : > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
>
> : Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
>
> : Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.
>
>
> The problem that scarpitti seems to be having is that hasn't learned how
> to process film consistently.
That's news to me! Consistency is not MY problem, it's the
characteristic curve of TMY. You'll note Kodak recommends 0.60 instead
of 0.56 CI for this film. WHY? Because the mid-tones are too flat
otherwise! What they neglect to mention is that the highlights are
even contrastier at that CI!
> The Tmax films are very sensitive to
> changes in temperature, agitation, and time. In order to get predictable
> results with Tmax films you need to be able to keep those three consistent.
>
> You also need to perform speed and development time tests. On the positive
> side if you take the time to run the tests and expend the energy to maintain
> consistency in processing and in my opinion use the Tmax developers 1:9@75F
> you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the
> tonality has to be seen to be believed.
I've seen it, and I hate it.
Michael Scarpitti
> Let me play devil's advocate here...
> Why is quadrupling of film speed good?
You'd have finer-grained films at existing speeds, and MUCH faster
films at existing grain levels.
> A 12,800 speed film will be
> unuseable outdoors...
The fastest films we have now are actually only about 640-1000 EI.
TRUE speeds of 1600-4000 would be nice!
Bogdan Karasek
O.K., playing the devil's advocate. I don't mind a good fast film on the
order of 32,000 iso, 64,000 iso or even, if possible 128,000iso so that I
can have more speed and aperture options when shooting at night. I don't
always want to shoot with an RF at 1/30 and f1.4 where all the cars are a
blur or when shooting in a dark smoke filled jazz bar, balancing the camera
on a wine bottle at 1/10. But I certainly wouldn't want to use it outdoors
in the day time. Fast films have their place and I appreciate them for
what they can do. But the fastest Delta will never give me the range of
tonality and texture that I can get with AgfaPan 25 or Efke R25, both shot
at 12iso. I take out my tripod, my stop watch, load up in 120 format.
Each film has its place where it does best what it was designed to do.
AgfaPan 25 is gone, we're left with Efke 25. All R&D is concentrated on
getting faster and faster speeds out of films. Why? You go to the store
and the clerk always reaches for the fast film, 400 when 100 is available.
Does it have to do with the P&S camera that have small aperture lenses
and weak flashes?
Why aren't we developing slow film with a lot of silver content?
Regards,
Bogdan
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
MontrＢl, QuＣec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar｜er muss man schweigen"
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
________________________________________________________________
Jim Phelps
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com...
news:<3f66b...@news5.uncensored-news.com>...
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >
> > Didn't Kodak just release an improved version of it's conventional
films?
>
> No.
Yes.
>
> > Didn't Kodak just invest millions
> About $1B, actually.
That would be millions.
>
> > in a new plant to fabricate conventional
> > B&W films?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not bowing to the Yellow God named
> > Kodak. I just want to set the record straight.
>
>
> The films were not 'improved' at all, just moved to a better
> manufacturing plant. They will be more consistent and free from dust,
> etc., but the emulsion chaarcteristics are essentially unchanged.
> Developing times changed a lttle due to gelatin differences, but the
> emulsions are practically identical.
Then can you explain all the changes in development times, the claim they
found a new manufacturing technique which improves grain structure (I
believe they 'shave' the emulsion and that is supposed to 'cut-off' the tops
of the grains and make the grain structure smaller and more sensitive,
IIRC).
If these are both correct (and in my test and short experience they seem to
be) then Kodak seems to be doing exactly what you claim they are not. There
are slight differences in the new curves I cannot trace to processing.
But then to be honest, most of my B&W usage is on Tech Pan with minor usage
of Plus-X and in 120 format. You ever going to grow out of 35mm?
David Nebenzahl
[...]
> Why aren't we developing slow film with a lot of silver content?
I guess we're leaving that to the Croatians, who appear to be doing a pretty
good job of it from what I hear.
--
At Boston/Logan airport last Friday, I saw on a Delta departures/arrivals
screen this Windows error dialog in front of the grid of flights:
"At least one service failed to start..."
I took a photo of it. I thought:
"I'm glad I don't run Windows. I'm glad I'm not flying Delta today."
- Recent posting on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/)
Alexis Neel
> and are light sources to boot. This means:
>
> 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
> their contrast.
> 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
Now THIS is why Michael is one of the best printers in the world.
>
> Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
> softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible
> situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
> contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
> curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
> contrast and desnisty.
Hm seems landscape, and Zonehead, photographer John Sexton, who
co-developed TMX with Kodak has no problems. But he IS a Zonehead, so
what can you expect? LOL!!
Alexis Neel
> Interesting that Kodak now makes graded color papers (Portra, Supra, and
> Ultra) but has discontinued graded black and white. Fortunately,
> Polycontrast has improved a lot. I tried it again recently, and I was very
> impressed with the improved gradation and image quality.
>
> Graded papers are readily available from offshore manufacturers both in
> Europe and Japan. The larger photo outlets carry quite a variety. That
> would seem to say there is a market. Did Kodak just not work hard enough to
> gain it? Kodak seems to have a very local outlook, and I don't really think
> they realize that they are no longer a monopoly. They really need some good
> domestic competition, like Ansco and DuPont provided in the past.
>
Yes both Kodak, with Ektalure in particular, and Agfa, with Portriga,
never advertised their papers, and yet, amoung printers, they were
perhaps 2 of the most versatle papers around. Luckily I was able to
buy around 3000 sheets of Ektalure before it sold out. I wasn't so
lucky with Portriga.
These big guys seem to look more to the amature market for sales and
ignore the sure, steady, long term sales to professionals who will
always buy them.
Its a sad commentary.
Alexis
www.alexisneel.com
Alexis Neel
> TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones
> are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight
> changes in developer activity are normal and hard to prevent. These
> can affect T-Max films much more than conventional ones. Though you
> and I may be meticulous in our lab standards, not everyone is or can
> be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent
> and can be disasterous.
>
Sounds like agitation problems to me.
Jorge Omar
the store where I purchase my photo gear...
The two of us have completelly diferent shooting styles.
Jorge
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<0qGdnRE9e-6...@giganews.com>...
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> : On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>
> : In a generally informative and useful post, you said:
>
> : > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400,
> : > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very
> : > difficult to work with.
>
> : and
>
> : > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...]
>
> : Please define "easier/more difficult to work with".
>
> : Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.
>
>
> The problem that scarpitti seems to be having is that hasn't learned how
> to process film consistently. The Tmax films are very sensitive to
Michael Scarpitti
> mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message >
> > Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground,
> > and are light sources to boot. This means:
> >
> > 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking
> > their contrast.
> > 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas.
>
> Now THIS is why Michael is one of the best printers in the world.
You ignorant fool. The sky is brighter than the ground, RIGHT? Any
film that exaggerates that difference rather than minimizing it is
going to present problems, RIGHT?
>
> > Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and
> > softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible
> > situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and
> > contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower
> > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more
> > contrast and desnisty.
>
> Hm seems landscape, and Zonehead, photographer John Sexton, who
> co-developed TMX with Kodak has no problems. But he IS a Zonehead, so
> what can you expect? LOL!!
I'm speaking primarily of TMY, and the characteristic curve IS as I
describe, as you can see from Kodak's literature. It has HIGHER
denisty and contrast in the highlights than in the mid-tones, whereas
Tri-X Pan (not TXP) has higher contrast in the mid-tones than in the
highlights.
Here's TX (ISO 400), 35mm and 120:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0490ac.gif
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0493ac.gif
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0492ac.gif
Here's TMY (ISO 400)
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0509ac.gif
You can see clearly, that TMY has higher contrast than TX in the
highlight areas, and that it runs higher in density as well, both of
which characteristics make it exceedingly difficult to use with a
condenser enlarger. Kodak even had to bring out Polymax paper (which
has a much softer highlight gradation) so that you could print it at
all!
TMX is not as bad in this regard.
Michael Scarpitti
It has nothing to do with agitation. It's the character of the film.
And this discussion is aimed at 'Joe average photographer' who takes a
photo class or two.
Michael Scarpitti
> Hi,
>
> O.K., playing the devil's advocate. I don't mind a good fast film on the
> order of 32,000 iso, 64,000 iso or even, if possible 128,000iso so that I
> can have more speed and aperture options when shooting at night. I don't
> always want to shoot with an RF at 1/30 and f1.4 where all the cars are a
> blur or when shooting in a dark smoke filled jazz bar, balancing the camera
> on a wine bottle at 1/10. But I certainly wouldn't want to use it outdoors
> in the day time. Fast films have their place and I appreciate them for
> what they can do. But the fastest Delta will never give me the range of
> tonality and texture that I can get with AgfaPan 25 or Efke R25, both shot
> at 12iso. I take out my tripod, my stop watch, load up in 120 format.
> Each film has its place where it does best what it was designed to do.
> AgfaPan 25 is gone, we're left with Efke 25. All R&D is concentrated on
> getting faster and faster speeds out of films. Why? You go to the store
> and the clerk always reaches for the fast film, 400 when 100 is available.
> Does it have to do with the P&S camera that have small aperture lenses
> and weak flashes?
>
> Why aren't we developing slow film with a lot of silver content?
This whole notion of 'silver content' is mistaken. Films are optimised
for their imaging properties, and today's thinner emulsions with
higher sensitivity and finer grain are the result of many years of
research. It has NOTHING to do with attempts to minimise 'silver
content'. Silver is not even the most important cost factor in film
manufacturing: labour and marketing costs are.
> Montr?al, Qu?bec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Jim MacKenzie
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com...
> for their imaging properties, and today's thinner emulsions with
> higher sensitivity and finer grain are the result of many years of
> research. It has NOTHING to do with attempts to minimise 'silver
> content'. Silver is not even the most important cost factor in film
> manufacturing: labour and marketing costs are.
My instinct says to argue against this, but there must be at least some
truth to it. Efke films are very silver-rich and are competitively priced
with Kodak and Ilford, despite the cost of getting them to North America in
modest quantities from Croatia.
Jim
Michael Scarpitti
Tri-X ISO 400 curves:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f002_0357ac.gif
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f002_0355ac.gif
T-Max 400 TMY curves:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0509ac.gif
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0507ac.gif
You'll note the considerable difference in gradation (contrast)
between highlights and mid-tones with these two films. TMX seems to
have similar problems, as I looked at Kodak's published curves, but I
have seldom used it.
Of course there's no relationship to 'agitation problems'.
Gregory W. Blank
"Jim MacKenzie" <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote:
> My instinct says to argue against this, but there must be at least some
> truth to it. Efke films are very silver-rich and are competitively priced
> with Kodak and Ilford, despite the cost of getting them to North America in
> modest quantities from Croatia.
> Jim
Eastern block countries pay their employees slave wages.
--
Dick
Dick
"Gregory W. Blank" <Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote in message
news:kb1ab.5041$3%6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
ktphotonics
The film is very adaptable in the extraordinary economical Rodinal and the
papers are very flexible with respect to toning. It is a shame that Agfa
don't do more to improve.
On 15/9/03 6:33 pm, in article 0o0cmv4jhl155jt3i...@4ax.com,
"Chris Ellinger" <elli...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2003 10:38:36 -0700, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
>
>> many serious workers choose Ilford products.
>
> I use only Ilford film and paper (though I try not to be too serious
> about anything.) I think there will be a niche market for B&W silver
> based materials for a long time to come, but I think it is important
> for consumers to support the one major company that continues to
> invest in R&D for B&W materials.
>
> Chris Ellinger
> Ann Arbor, MI
>
Gregory W. Blank
"Dick" <r.schnei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yeh, those damn Commies.
Has nothing to do with communisim at this point, by Eastern block
I was referring to to placement of the country.
--
Dick
scorecard, especially with Poland in the North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization.
Slave labor wages are paid wherever a corporation can gain an advantage. I
would venture to guess that the Croatians are a lot better off wage wise
than the people who make Nike or Rockport shoes.
The price, at least to the United States of North America consumers seems to
be independent of country of origin (I will concede the difference between
US Kodak film and "import") when it comes to quality goods. It is most
often when mass retailers (K and Wal Marts) get involved, that the slave
labor factor comes into play.
Another point is the easy exportability of automated technology. In the
making of film, especially, which is essentially an automated process,the
cost of labor is almost inconsequential. I would suspect hat the difference
between Croatian labor cost and German labor costs is less than $.02 per
roll. As for transportation and distribution costs, there is not much
difference between cost between LA and NY than between NY and Zagreb.
Just some thoughts, and sorry to all for digressing from the groups theme.
Dick
"Gregory W. Blank" <Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote in message
news:WU2ab.11$7a...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Gregory W. Blank
"Dick" <r.schnei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'll let that pass, these days it is hard to tell the players without a
> scorecard, especially with Poland in the North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization.
> Slave labor wages are paid wherever a corporation can gain an advantage. I
> would venture to guess that the Croatians are a lot better off wage wise
> than the people who make Nike or Rockport shoes.
That's more than true,... sadly.
> The price, at least to the United States of North America consumers seems to
> be independent of country of origin (I will concede the difference between
> US Kodak film and "import") when it comes to quality goods. It is most
> often when mass retailers (K and Wal Marts) get involved, that the slave
> labor factor comes into play.
The end price regardless of maker, in part is a result of middle man pricing coupled
with distribution costs coupled with retail sale mark up. If you buy more the price goes down.
> Another point is the easy exportability of automated technology. In the
> making of film, especially, which is essentially an automated process,the
> cost of labor is almost inconsequential. I would suspect hat the difference
> between Croatian labor cost and German labor costs is less than $.02 per
> roll.
Maybe, but I can tell you based on my personal experience working
in proximatity to Forte (Hungary) product, that the factory was using
1940's era equipment, break downs were common, delays common.
And alot of the work was hand done, still. Some cutting & finishing like hand packing
the paper and film in boxes ) I beleive Efke films are "hand cut" at least the machine
used to trim the sheet films is "attended" where as Kodak per say would have all these
processes automated. I base these conculsions on the look of the film, its edge
quality and notching system,.....of course I could be wrong,....but I think I am correct.
>As for transportation and distribution costs, there is not much
> difference between cost between LA and NY than between NY and Zagreb.
But then their import duties, taxes and possibly at this point special handling fees
to avoid the radiation problems involved in customs, if any thing companies
possibly even Kodak have had to cut costs to remain saleable in foriegn markets.
I could be over speculating here (on this last point though)
> Just some thoughts, and sorry to all for digressing from the groups theme.
Don't apologize it is relative.
--
J Stafford
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> [...] Films are optimised
> for their imaging properties, and today's thinner emulsions with
> higher sensitivity and finer grain are the result of many years of
Seems to me that TMY is optimized for some qualities other than
photographic. Maybe it fits a business model, but IMHO it doesn't work for
making pictures, unless one shoots under N+ conditions all the time. Heh -
maybe Kodak is anticipating a nuclear winter - I can think of no other
virtue of that sad, sad film.
Frank Pittel
: In article <2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
I don't seem to have the same type of problem with TMY. While it's nowhere
near as good as TMX. It's certainly better then Tri-X. Keep in mind that the
Tmax films were intended to used with the zone system. This includes the exposure
as well as the processing.
Since they're intended to be used with the zone system they are very responsive
to the zone system contrast controls. There is no pushing of these films since
adjustments are made to the development time to control contrast. A 15% change
in processing time results in a one stop change at zone VIII. With Tri-X and
HP5 it takes a ~30% change in time to get that one stop change.
It use Tmax films successfully you NEED to run film speed and development time
tests. The only spec from Kodak you're interested in is the starting development
time for normal development. That is the time you use for the speed test to determine
the speed of the film. After that you run the development test with your EI and determine
the proper development time. From there you test the expansion and contraction times for
N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2 and optionally N+3.
Frank Pittel
type of testing did you do?
Jorge Omar <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote:
: I've never had good results with TMX in 35mm, nor did the ownwer of
: Jorge
--
Frank Pittel
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message >
It sounds like scarpitti has a lot of process control problems. Problems
that start with improper film and development testing. Then of course there's
the lack of any attempt to control contrast in the negatives.
Jim Phelps
>
> Another point is the easy exportability of automated technology. In the
> making of film, especially, which is essentially an automated process,the
> cost of labor is almost inconsequential. I would suspect hat the
difference
> between Croatian labor cost and German labor costs is less than $.02 per
> roll. As for transportation and distribution costs, there is not much
> difference between cost between LA and NY than between NY and Zagreb.
>
Dick,
The German worker is the most expensive worker on the planet. The cost
per hour difference between a German and a Croat, and I'm talking unskilled
labor, is about a ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1. The German social system is so
heavy that the average German worker is running in the 50% tax bracket and
there's additional shared cost to the employer which increase the cost per
hour even more.
I base this on the fact that Croat (and Poles, etc, etc, etc) come into
Germany and work 'Schwartz' (under the table) for about 3 to 4 months and go
home with more than a years pay if they had worked in their own country.
The work they do is construction, gardening, forestry, there's even a group
of them who travel throughout Germany gathering discarded items on 'Big
Trash Day' (the day you can throw out your old large items like furniture,
etc.) and selling them at flea markets.
My guess is it's much cheaper to hire someone in Zagreb than Munich. May
also be why Leica builds their lenses in Portugal.
Jim
Alexis Neel
> film that exaggerates that difference rather than minimizing it is
> going to present problems, RIGHT?
LOL! If you think you are insulting me, think again. Stooping to
juvenille name calling only justify's my thoughts of you and anything
you have to say.
The only reason I ever post a reply to some of the dillusional things
you say is that you, to the untrained new user, are dangerous.
That and to make fun of you.
I've already had to have your emails to me stopped for abuse by yahoo,
don't make me use other tactics that might not be so nice.
Frank Pittel
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
Alexis,
It's important to remember that scarpitti is nothing but a troll. He is
trying to find buttons to push so that you'll react.
Michael Scarpitti
> Alexis Neel <ale...@alexisneel.com> wrote:
> : mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message >
>
> : > TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones
> : > are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight
> : > changes in developer activity are normal and hard to prevent. These
> : > can affect T-Max films much more than conventional ones. Though you
> : > and I may be meticulous in our lab standards, not everyone is or can
> : > be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent
> : > and can be disasterous.
> : >
>
>
> : Sounds like agitation problems to me.
>
> It sounds like scarpitti has a lot of process control problems. Problems
> that start with improper film and development testing. Then of course there's
> the lack of any attempt to control contrast in the negatives.
I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape
of the film charatersitic curve, period.
Michael Scarpitti
You apparently don't know the first thing about photography, let alone the second.
J Stafford
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> Since they're intended to be used with the zone system they are very
> responsive to the zone system contrast controls.
Thank you, Frank. I needed that. I had become so conditioned to working
_around_ films' characteristics using the ZS that my cynicism rolled right
over me. So much for my own critical thinking, eh? Next I will have to
look into TMY's exposure and color sensitivity characterisitcs, but that
is fun, rather like starting again fresh.
Michael Scarpitti
> Did you use the Zone system?? Also how did you develop the film and what
> type of testing did you do?
No matter WHAT you do, you cannot change the basic problem with the
film: it's curve shape.
Michael Scarpitti
'Silver-rich'? That whole notion is absurd. The Adox films were
THINNER than the others!
>
> Jim
J Stafford
> of the film charatersitic curve, period.
Process control might very well be the issue for some of us.
I do dearly like Tri-X Pro and admit that I'm rather stuck on it and
possibly due only to habits that have worked, but this process control
issue is a good point. The T-grain type films _are_ very sensitive to
process control compared to Tri-X. Kodak uses precise methods of
determining developed characteristics. They probably don't use the
development methods we do, and they may even use methods that are
impossible for the photographer - possibly spraying the exposed film with
developer _I don't know_ and I hope to learn here how they do develop.
Regardless, it is clear to me that possibly, just possibly we might have
to consider new ways to control temperature and agitation. Jobo might be
a good thing to consider next. (I'm down to half a freezer of old film.
Never thought I'd live to see this happen. But that's a Good Thing(tm). :)
)
Michael Scarpitti
This film is hopeless, and I don't have any 'agitation problems,
except that I get really agitated about this film!
J Stafford
Replying to my own post - yes, I see from the chart graphic posted earlier
that Kodak says it developed in "small tank", but my skepticism has the
better of me. It would be very cool if they would be perfectly specific -
one sheet in a very small tank, for example.
Michael Scarpitti
You're not helping out mewcomers. TMY is NOT, I repeat, NOT intended
or suitable for landscape/outdoor work, because of its characteristic
curve. Skies are renedered too bright and contrasty, and
foreground/shadows are too dark and flat. What's delusional about
that? If you can't see this, get the hell out of photography, because
you're obviously blind.
Michael Scarpitti
So, your position is that scientific measurement of the film's
characteristics is of no concern to you, or that you cannot read a
film H&D curve? Which is it?
And by the way, pointing out that you're dead wrong is not abuse.
That's what this kind of forum is for.
Your ignorance has long ago lost whatever little charm it had.
Alexis Neel
> or suitable for landscape/outdoor work, because of its characteristic
> curve. Skies are renedered too bright and contrasty, and
> foreground/shadows are too dark and flat. What's delusional about
> that? If you can't see this, get the hell out of photography, because
> you're obviously blind.
You are right...I am NOT helping out "mewcomers". Newcomers, however,
is a different story. Granted my posts so far have been clearly to
point out your lack of knowledge about...photography. Its a lonely
job, but I'm up for it. That and guiding newcomers to more reliable
and accurate information from working professionals.
I'll be sure to tell John Sexton, the next time I see him, that TMY
isn't for landscape use. I'm sure he'll run out and destroy all his
negatives based on your word.
I think your best bet would be to go back to OSU, since you were
revered there as a photo god. Thank goodness my parents moved us out
of that state after I was born, or else I might have ended up like
you.
Frank Calidonna
> >
>
> You're not helping out mewcomers. TMY is NOT, I repeat, NOT intended
> or suitable for landscape/outdoor work, because of its characteristic
> curve. Skies are renedered too bright and contrasty, and
> foreground/shadows are too dark and flat. What's delusional about
> that? If you can't see this, get the hell out of photography, because
> you're obviously blind.
Mike,
Whoa. Sorry, but I can't let that pass. TMY is an excellent film for landscape or just about anything else where
you want a 400 speed fine grained film. There are loads of gorgeous photographs done with this film. (Try John
Sexton for one) Yes one does have to watch their time/temp/agitation for consistency, but you don't have to be a
chemist or a genius or anal retentive to work with it. You just have to use care. Actually you have to watch your
time/temp/agitation for consistency with any film -Tri-x, Acros, HP4 whatever. If your negatives are too contrasty
cut development time, change your agitation whatever. When you test this film (as one should with ANY film) you
should run tests for normal situations, high contrast and low contrast situations. It can be done in a day and is
certainly worth the time.
When T-grained films were first introduced they were photographers dreams. Low granualrity higher speed films
equaling Plus-X or Panatomic-X for quality. They almost immediatly got a lot of bad press for their contrast not
because they were inferior ( they are markedly superior to most everything else) but because a lot of even name
photographers had sloppy work procedures. "Heaven forbid!! I might have to do some real work- and even know what I
am doing?" Those who always treated all their films with care were delighted and continue to be. If one loves
Tri-x or other older film type for their qualities that's great, but if you love them just because you can use
careless procedures and still get a printable negative that means you are not going to get superior quality unless
you accidentally do. Really good photographers process whatever film they use with care and consistency.
Frank Rome, NY
Michael Scarpitti
> In article <2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape
> > of the film charatersitic curve, period.
>
> Process control might very well be the issue for some of us.
Here's the deal: No matter how little or much development is given,
the highlight region ___is___ contrastier than the mid-tone region.
With some developers the effect is greater than with others, but no
developer will give an S-shaped curve like Tri-X Pan.
Tri-X Pro is similar to T-Max 400 in its curve shape.
Michael Scarpitti
Your ignorance of photography and films is vast, wide, and deep. Any
film with an upswept curve will give little life and sparkle to
mid-tones, and excessive contrast to clouds, if you can even print the
damned things. TMY is NOT, I repeat, NOT suitable NOR INTENDED for
outdoor use. KODAK THEMSELVES SAY SO! Ever notice what kind of shots
Kodak uses to promote TMax? Studio shots!
And by the way, don't drop names with me, bubba.
I can out shoot you, and orint you, and out think you.
Go home!
J Stafford
ale...@alexisneel.com (Alexis Neel) wrote:
> I'll be sure to tell John Sexton, the next time I see him, that TMY
> isn't for landscape use. I'm sure he'll run out and destroy all his
> negatives based on your word.
While I have only seen perhaps ten of Sexton's works, all of them had
conditions that I'd call N+1 - none of them a challenge to TMY's straight
'curve'. Can you show me pointers to really contrasty subjects he's done
using TMY? Thank you in advance.
Frank Pittel
: In article <2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
If you like Tri-X then you should use it. I don't see this as a contest to win people
over to Tmax films. However anyone that can say that TMY isn't suitable for outdoor
or landscape use is demonstrating a lack of knowledge about TMY, photography and general
stupidity.
Gregory W. Blank
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> While I have only seen perhaps ten of Sexton's works, all of them had
> conditions that I'd call N+1 - none of them a challenge to TMY's straight
> 'curve'. Can you show me pointers to really contrasty subjects he's done
> using TMY? Thank you in advance.
J Sexton prints some images on Forte warmtone paper a chloro/bromide
emulsion......back when I worked at Omega I actually got a chance to handle
some of his work prints in and effort to correct a paper issue.
My point is: a nice longer slope ( & less steep) paper like a chorobromide
emulsion paper does wonders if the image has adequate density. This very subjective
are you digressing to the what is art thread ;-)
--
J Stafford
<Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote:
> My point is: a nice longer slope ( & less steep) paper like a chorobromide
> emulsion paper does wonders if the image has adequate density. This very
subjective
> are you digressing to the what is art thread ;-)
God no on the Art thing. I don't even care if someone thinks Sexton's
works are art or not. I just want him to make money so he can keep on
keeping on. FWIW, he's photographed in my area. I've been bumming around
for a long time and one of his pictures was shot here:
http://WIND.WINONA.MSUS.EDU/~stafford/alma/
NO! That picture ain't art! I'm pretty sure that's the exterior of power
plant he photographed.
Gregory W. Blank
J Stafford
<Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote:
> In article <john-18090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
>
> > http://WIND.WINONA.MSUS.EDU/~stafford/alma/
>
> Actually that's art in my book,...very nice.
It is really something about the area, Greg; the landscape, an anomaly of
geology. This part of the Mississippi River valley is just that way. I've
not seen any other photos that show the same juxtaposition of this area in
terms of the bluffs. So it's nature, but I do appreciate your appreciation
of the area I live in. I'm just happy to be here.
Michael Scarpitti
Try this on for size, bubba:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp2.jhtml
I quote:
"TRI-X Pan
Professional / TXP
"Especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten or flash lighting.
Retouching surface on both sides. Excellent gradation and brilliant
highlights. Medium contrast, moderate degree of enlargement, wide
exposure latitude."
If you compare the curves of TMY and TXP, you'll find them quite
similar, at least far more similar to each other than either one is to
Tri-X Pan. What does that mean, brother? Can you undertsnad what this
means, brother? Do you understand what 'low-flare' means, brother?
Among other things, it means scenes without a bright sky in them.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > You're not helping out mewcomers. TMY is NOT, I repeat, NOT intended
> > or suitable for landscape/outdoor work, because of its characteristic
> > curve. Skies are renedered too bright and contrasty, and
> > foreground/shadows are too dark and flat. What's delusional about
> > that? If you can't see this, get the hell out of photography, because
> > you're obviously blind.
>
> Mike,
>
> Whoa. Sorry, but I can't let that pass. TMY is an excellent film for landscape or just about anything else where
> you want a 400 speed fine grained film.
WRONG!
>There are loads of gorgeous photographs done with this film.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
(Try John
> Sexton for one) Yes one does have to watch their time/temp/agitation for consistency, but you don't have to be a
> chemist or a genius or anal retentive to work with it. You just have to use care.
I USE A KODAK PROCESS CONTROL THERMOMEMTER
>Actually you have to watch your
> time/temp/agitation for consistency with any film -Tri-x, Acros, HP4 whatever. If your negatives are too contrasty
> cut development time, change your agitation whatever.
THEY'RE NOT 'TOO CONTRASTY'. THE HIGHLIGHTS ARE TOO CONTRASTY WHEN THE
MID-TONES ARE CORRECT.
> When you test this film (as one should with ANY film) you
> should run tests for normal situations, high contrast and low contrast situations. It can be done in a day and is
> certainly worth the time.
This is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
the problem!
THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE!
> When T-grained films were first introduced they were photographers dreams. Low granualrity higher speed films
> equaling Plus-X or Panatomic-X for quality. They almost immediatly got a lot of bad press for their contrast not
> because they were inferior ( they are markedly superior to most everything else)
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
>but because a lot of even name
> photographers had sloppy work procedures.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
>"Heaven forbid!! I might have to do some real work- and even know
what I
> am doing?" Those who always treated all their films with care were delighted and continue to be. If one loves
> Tri-x or other older film type for their qualities that's great, but if you love them just because you can use
> careless procedures and still get a printable negative that means you are not going to get superior quality unless
> you accidentally do.
I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE
PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE
SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY!
THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE
CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT
SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS
THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M
NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE
PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE
SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY!
THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE
CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT
SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS
THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M
NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE
PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE
SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY!
THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE
CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT
SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS
THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M
NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE
PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE
SHAPE! I'M NOT SLOPPY! THE PROBLEM IS THE CURVE SHAPE!
Michael Scarpitti
>
> > >
> >
> > You're not helping out mewcomers. TMY is NOT, I repeat, NOT intended
> > or suitable for landscape/outdoor work, because of its characteristic
> > curve. Skies are renedered too bright and contrasty, and
> > foreground/shadows are too dark and flat. What's delusional about
> > that? If you can't see this, get the hell out of photography, because
> > you're obviously blind.
>
> Mike,
>
> Whoa. Sorry, but I can't let that pass. TMY is an excellent film for landscape or just about anything else where
> you want a 400 speed fine grained film.
I'll make it easy for you. I'll talk about photography, which I know
something about, and you be silent, becaue you obviously don't, OK?.
Don't spread disinformation and falsehoods to innocent bystanders.
Read this:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp2.jhtml
New PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 / 320TXP
TRI-X Pan
Professional / TXP Especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten
or flash lighting. Retouching surface on both sides. Excellent
gradation and brilliant highlights. Medium contrast, moderate degree
of enlargement, wide exposure latitude.
If you compare the curves of Tri-X Pro and TNY, you'll se a lot of
similarity.
Jim Phelps
>
> That and to make fun of you.
> I've already had to have your emails to me stopped for abuse by yahoo,
> don't make me use other tactics that might not be so nice.
Alex,
I suspected the level of unwanted E-Mail in my box happen to coincide with
Mike getting my real E-Mail address through an error on my part. Now I'm
sure. Thanks. Time to take action...
Warning to everyone. Don't 'piss' mikie off and let him get ahold of
your E-Mail address.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Jeff Novick
"Gregory W. Blank" <Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote in message
news:0wsab.6477$uF3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> In article <john-18090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
>
> > http://WIND.WINONA.MSUS.EDU/~stafford/alma/
>
> Actually that's art in my book,...very nice.
>
I see you haven't been reading my posts on
'art' in the film group. :-)
Jeff Novick
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote in message
news:3f6ab...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
>
>
> >
> > That and to make fun of you.
> > I've already had to have your emails to me stopped for abuse by yahoo,
> > don't make me use other tactics that might not be so nice.
>
> Alex,
>
> I suspected the level of unwanted E-Mail in my box happen to coincide
with
> Mike getting my real E-Mail address through an error on my part. Now I'm
> sure. Thanks. Time to take action...
>
> Warning to everyone. Don't 'piss' mikie off and let him get ahold of
> your E-Mail address.
>
Alessandro Serrao
for christ's sake!!
Te lo dico in italiano: hai proprio rotto il cazzo!!!
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0309...@posting.google.com...
Jon
> plant he photographed.
This one ain't art either:
The image łhttp://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/alma/lookout1.jpg˛ cannot
be displayed, because it contains errors.
Composition errors? Processing errors?? Delusional photographer at the helm
errors???
:)
Jon
Jon
> From: "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net>
> Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:18:47 GMT
> Subject: Re: The B&W situation as I see it
Lots of "Microsoft Update", endless .exe's, etc. Got really heavy tonight...
Jon
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> If you compare the curves of TMY and TXP, you'll find them quite
> similar, at least far more similar to each other than either one is to
> Tri-X Pan. What does that mean, brother? Can you undertsnad what this
> means, brother? Do you understand what 'low-flare' means, brother?
> Among other things, it means scenes without a bright sky in them.
Sorry, I can't let this pass with out a comment. Kodak and others have
spent a lot of time and money on makeing color photography simple. The
film, developing by machine, and printing "system" produces "good" pictures
with ALMOST any exposure. You can underexpose color negative film by two
stops or overexpose it by 4 or 5 stops and still get a good looking print
out of it.
Monochrome film is not so forgiving. To assume that you can take any film,
expose it at the stated speed, develop it in D-76 1:1, or X-TOL, or rodinal,
or plain water and get a perfect negative is naieve at best, downright
stupid at worst.
Just about any monochrome film can be used for landscapes, even 2475,
litho film, IR film, etc. Depending upon exposure, development and printing
you will get different results. That's the fun and art of photography.
The zone system is a good example of trying to make it a science. Ansel
Addams did not sit down and say "I want to invent a science of
photography", he did it without thinking. The zone system was his way of
making "Addams for Dummies". (If you are familiar with the "for Dummies"
series of books, you understand, if not forget it.)
I was blessed that early in my photgraphic experience I came across
Edwal FG-7. FG-7 would produce a good looking negative with almost any
film. You could easily adjust for exposure and temperature. I never
bothered with temperature control. I used warm tap water and adjusted
the development time based upon the thermometer reading. Its working
range was 65-85f.
As for landspaces and TMY or TMX, or whatever, each one is different.
When I lived in Philly, there were very few days of clear bright skies.
There were always clouds.
Now I live in Jerusalem and it's very different. I'm 3000 feet up in the
desert. From April till November, it's bright clear skies. Very few clouds,
the sun is so bright, the "sunny f16" rule has become "sunny f22".
The tonal range of TMY was well suited for the woodlands of Pensylvania,
but here it would just burn out. Or would it? I have not tried it, but I
assume that if you were to adjust exposure and sacrefice shadow (yes, we
have lots of shadows) detail for highlight detail, or vice versa, you
could get a decent negative out of it.
I'd love to get my hands on FG-7 again. It's gone from the photo stores
here.
It saddens me to see this kind of discussion going on. There are many people
in this group, you especailly Michael, that can contribute a wealth of
experience and worthwile comment.
Instead of arguing over wether or not TMY is a landscape film, let's discuss
it in a positive light. For example, we could discuss:
Best landscape film and development combinations.
Best uses for TMY, TMX, TXP, etc.
Why I love (insert name of product) and what it's done for me.
How to use a developer/exposure combination to get the best results out
of a film in a less than ideal situation.
My favorite (I'd better duck) is how to use you computer and digital imaging
to improve your darkroom work. One example is someone responded to my comments
about using a computer to teach yourself contrast and how it affects prints
(pardon me for forgetting your name) with the idea of using a digital
system to produce contrast masks. These would replace dodging and burning,
and would be repeatable and adjustable.
Since the demise of darkroom coverage in magazines, we need to keep something
going, and I feel that this newsgroup is "our last, best hope". Let's
keep it going as a good resource and avoid pissing contests.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson g...@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: geoffrey_...@hotmail.com (Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.
Alessandro Serrao
> Lots of "Microsoft Update", endless .exe's, etc. Got really heavy
tonight...
>
> Jon
That's a common situation also here in Italy (Telecom Italia Network).
Dennis O'Connor
Denny
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-18090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
J Stafford
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
]> This one ain't art either:
>
> The image łhttp://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/alma/lookout1.jpg˛ cannot
> be displayed, because it contains errors.
>
> Composition errors? Processing errors?? Delusional photographer at the helm
> errors???
As the page showed, that one is a very large image so you are on your own
there. It works for me. Or perhaps there's a loose nut on your keyboard.
J Stafford
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Lots of "Microsoft Update", endless .exe's, etc. Got really heavy tonight...
I received several dozen and there's another thirty-something waiting to
load. Chances are looking better that someone in the photogroup is
shedding a virus.
aasainz_...@ix-dot-.netcom-dot-.com
I have not pissed Mike off and I have gotten a bunch of those Microsoft Update
and Microsoft mail related messages, all with an address related to MS or to
Microsoft. I delete them immediately without opening.
I would suggest that if you have your reader set to "preview" you turn the
preview option off. If you get a virus or trojan in a message the damage will
already have been done by the time you delete the message. Getting an .exe in
a message is a sure red flag. Make sure your virus checking is up to date.
Bert
Michael Scarpitti
Kodak says TXP is suited for low-flare studio use.
Here: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp2.jhtml
"TRI-X Pan
Professional / TXP Especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten
or flash lighting. Retouching surface on both sides. Excellent
gradation and brilliant highlights. Medium contrast, moderate degree
of enlargement, wide exposure latitude."
TMY has a very similar curve to TXP.....and both are quite different
from Tri-X Pan's curve...the conclusion is? Wahetever applies to TXP
applies to TMY.
Didn't you know this? Awwwww! I did. So who's stupid?
Sherman
news:john-18090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
John,
Very nice shot! That vantage point is perfect. I've driven through that
area a couple of times and thought I should make a photographic excursion
there. I've just not done it yet unfortunately.
I didn't realize you were in "the area" so to speak. I'm actually in
suburban Chicago but spend as much time as I can each summer in SW Wisconsin
fly fishing for trout. I rarely get to the Minnesota side of the river
though. My brother lived in Alma for a few years (moved up to Mondovi
about 10 years ago).
The geology of SW Wisconsin, NE Iowa and SE Minnesota is remarkable. The
"driftless region" where the last ice age didn't scrape everything totally
flat as it did further east and south. I find something new everytime I'm
in the area.
Anyway, nice shot and as far as I'm concerned it *is* art!
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Gregory W. Blank
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I see you haven't been reading my posts on
> 'art' in the film group. :-)
Actually I have, for the most part I agree, however
from the stand point of a photographer and painter
and that I am selling what I do, I must however use the term "Art"
to describe a portion of it/what I create.....so yes it is a viable
marketing term for me.
--
Gregory W. Blank
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
>
> I received several dozen and there's another thirty-something waiting to
> load. Chances are looking better that someone in the photogroup is
> shedding a virus.
How does that happen?
--
Sherman
news:john-18090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
> <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> > Since they're intended to be used with the zone system they are very
> > responsive to the zone system contrast controls.
>
> Thank you, Frank. I needed that. I had become so conditioned to working
> _around_ films' characteristics using the ZS that my cynicism rolled right
> over me. So much for my own critical thinking, eh? Next I will have to
> look into TMY's exposure and color sensitivity characterisitcs, but that
> is fun, rather like starting again fresh.
Like Frank I find the TMax films to be excellent and 100 TMax in particular
has become my standard and "favorite" film. I will confess that I happen to
like APX 100 also but since it is going away in 4x5 TMax is it.
I have found that once I developed consistency in my processing technique I
can consistently excellent negatives from this film. I use a Unidrum with a
Unicolor motor base. I keep my mixed chemistry in bottles in a tempering
tray set at 75 degrees F. Not as nice as a Jobo but it is probably the next
best thing. I ran a full set of film tests and found I can shoot at full
speed which is nice.
I think the "deciding moment" for me was printing a particular negative. I
shot from inside a Japanese tea house, shooting the wooden wall and the view
out the window. There was about a 14 stop difference from shadows to the
stuff outside and TMax 100 got it all. I was very impressed.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Gregory W. Blank
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> I'M NOT SLOPPY!
With all that yelling, You do seem to be one sick puppy however.
--
Gregory W. Blank
In article <slrnbmlm3...@cable.mendelson.com>,
g...@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
<Snip> Good stuff.
>
> Now I live in Jerusalem and it's very different. I'm 3000 feet up in the
> desert. From April till November, it's bright clear skies. Very few clouds,
> the sun is so bright, the "sunny f16" rule has become "sunny f22".
You could use Grad ND filters on camera to adjust contrast of the sky
> It saddens me to see this kind of discussion going on. There are many people
> in this group, you especailly Michael, that can contribute a wealth of
> experience and worthwile comment.
>
> Instead of arguing over wether or not TMY is a landscape film, let's discuss
> it in a positive light. For example, we could discuss:
>
> Best landscape film and development combinations.
>
> Best uses for TMY, TMX, TXP, etc.
>
> Why I love (insert name of product) and what it's done for me.
>
> How to use a developer/exposure combination to get the best results out
> of a film in a less than ideal situation.
>
> My favorite (I'd better duck) is how to use you computer and digital imaging
> to improve your darkroom work. One example is someone responded to my comments
> about using a computer to teach yourself contrast and how it affects prints
> (pardon me for forgetting your name) with the idea of using a digital
> system to produce contrast masks. These would replace dodging and burning,
> and would be repeatable and adjustable.
>
> Since the demise of darkroom coverage in magazines, we need to keep something
> going, and I feel that this newsgroup is "our last, best hope". Let's
> keep it going as a good resource and avoid pissing contests.
> Geoff.
Well thought out. For the most part this group does more thinking than all the other
photo groups possibly combined.
--
J Stafford
"Sherman" <shermanD...@dunnam.net> wrote:
> [...]
> I didn't realize you were in "the area" so to speak. I'm actually in
> suburban Chicago but spend as much time as I can each summer in SW Wisconsin
> fly fishing for trout.
Come visit! I live in Winona, Minnesota, which you probably know is almost
an island in the Mississippi south of Alma. Email me regarding local
trout fishing. It's apparently an endeavor so rife with secrets that I
don't want to share it with the world.
> The geology of SW Wisconsin, NE Iowa and SE Minnesota is remarkable. The
> "driftless region" where the last ice age didn't scrape everything totally
> flat as it did further east and south. I find something new everytime I'm
> in the area.
Thanks for the note. It encourages me to continue the effort. Indeed, the
subject is daunting when one gets to know it. The picture of Alma's power
plants was actually a desperate attempt to, once again, cut through the
haze to get the panoramic of the bluffs to include the level of the tops.
Even on a fairly clear day it is difficult to see them with the eye.
Getting through all that blue haze - well, the modest MF IR did the trick.
I have a some Kodak 4x5 IR in the freezer and once I finish making this
wide lens (or win the lottery to buy one) I'll do it again in 4x5.
J Stafford
<Whowill-...@Hortons.net> wrote:
> In article <john-19090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com>,
> jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> >
> > I received several dozen and there's another thirty-something waiting to
> > load. Chances are looking better that someone in the photogroup is
> > shedding a virus.
>
> How does that happen?
It's a worm that works from MS WindoZe. Other OS users need not worry
about this particular monster, unless you use a web-based service in which
case it fills up your server mailbox fast. I get about 10mb of these
things an hour. Fortunately, I have a few email addresses I don't
advertise. :)
If you use WindoZe, it is more than just a good idea to get Nortons, run
it and set it to auto-update. Microsoft IS a disease. Don't get me going.
J Stafford
> In article <slrnbmlm3...@cable.mendelson.com>,
> g...@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
>
> <Snip> Good stuff.
> >
> > Now I live in Jerusalem and it's very different. I'm 3000 feet up in the
> > desert. From April till November, it's bright clear skies. Very few clouds,
> > the sun is so bright, the "sunny f16" rule has become "sunny f22".
>
> You could use Grad ND filters on camera to adjust contrast of the sky
A good thought, and a polarizer is helpful, too.
But you reminded me of the 'other' contrast filters. A very small portion
of my day job includes using a digital video camera (Canon XL1) and in
bright light the blooming of highlights are totally unacceptable, so I use
Tiffen 'contrast' filters. B&W photographers might be immediately confused
because we think of color-contrast filters (Yellow, Green, etc...),
however these contrast filters are _diffusion_ filters (of some kind) of
varying grades. Diffusion filters over a fine B&W lens? I THINK NOT. Well
I _thought_ not, but I tried it. On an unbearably bright, clear day I used
it to take a snapshot of my friend's kids as they planted their garden.
Faces were in full shadow with the bright sky behind. Frankly, I was
amazed by how it helped lower contrast while retaining adequate (not recon
quality:)) sharpness.
So, Mr. Mendelson - you might try the contrast filters in Jerusalem. If
you have difficulty getting them there, let us (me) know. We can probably
help out.
Michael Scarpitti
> In article <2fd2ff8c.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > If you compare the curves of TMY and TXP, you'll find them quite
> > similar, at least far more similar to each other than either one is to
> > Tri-X Pan. What does that mean, brother? Can you undertsnad what this
> > means, brother? Do you understand what 'low-flare' means, brother?
> > Among other things, it means scenes without a bright sky in them.
>
> Sorry, I can't let this pass with out a comment. Kodak and others have
> spent a lot of time and money on makeing color photography simple. The
> film, developing by machine, and printing "system" produces "good" pictures
> with ALMOST any exposure. You can underexpose color negative film by two
> stops or overexpose it by 4 or 5 stops and still get a good looking print
> out of it.
>
> Monochrome film is not so forgiving. To assume that you can take any film,
> expose it at the stated speed, develop it in D-76 1:1, or X-TOL, or rodinal,
> or plain water and get a perfect negative is naieve at best, downright
> stupid at worst.
>
> Just about any monochrome film can be used for landscapes, even 2475,
> litho film, IR film, etc. Depending upon exposure, development and printing
> you will get different results. That's the fun and art of photography.
But Geoff, Kodak specifically states that some films are best in
'low-flare' situations. Films with a soft shadow contrast (long-toe)
do not look good with flare in them, and shadow separation suffers.
Why otherwise would Kodak even bring it up in their technical
literature? Why would they say that TXP is best used in controlled
(studio) conditions? they used to make Royal Pan (ISO 400), which WAS
intended for press/outdoor work. Royal an had a curve shape almost
identical to (ISO 400) Tri-X Pan. People have assumed that because of
the name 'Tri-X' that the films are similar. They are DECIDELY
different. And TMY is very similar to TXP in its curve shape.
Therefore, it's not ideal for outdoor work.
> The zone system is a good example of trying to make it a science. Ansel
> Addams did not sit down and say "I want to invent a science of
> photography", he did it without thinking. The zone system was his way of
> making "Addams for Dummies". (If you are familiar with the "for Dummies"
> series of books, you understand, if not forget it.)
That's not really what's going on here. It's the curve shape and only
the curve shape that makes a film approriate or not for outdoor work
or for studio work. Kodak used to make a Portrait Pan before Ektapan,
which is now discontinued. Unfortunately, the variety of films once
available has dwindled to almost nothing, and this was indeed the
motivation for this post.
Portrait Pan, Super XX, Royal Pan, and Tri-X Pro were all specialised
films with specific properties intended for specific applications.
Kodak is doing us a disservice by promoting T-Max films as 'do-it-all'
films. They're not.
> I was blessed that early in my photgraphic experience I came across
> Edwal FG-7. FG-7 would produce a good looking negative with almost any
> film. You could easily adjust for exposure and temperature. I never
> bothered with temperature control. I used warm tap water and adjusted
> the development time based upon the thermometer reading. Its working
> range was 65-85f.
Yes, but depending on their composition, most developers can do this.
TMY film, however, is somewhat sensitive to developer temperature with
T-Max developer. Kodak recommends T-Max developer be used at 75F, not
68F. I can't be bothered, so I use Ilford Delta films instead.
> As for landspaces and TMY or TMX, or whatever, each one is different.
> When I lived in Philly, there were very few days of clear bright skies.
> There were always clouds.
That creates flare in the shadow areas.
> Now I live in Jerusalem and it's very different. I'm 3000 feet up in the
> desert. From April till November, it's bright clear skies. Very few clouds,
> the sun is so bright, the "sunny f16" rule has become "sunny f22".
>
> The tonal range of TMY was well suited for the woodlands of Pensylvania,
> but here it would just burn out. Or would it? I have not tried it, but I
> assume that if you were to adjust exposure and sacrefice shadow (yes, we
> have lots of shadows) detail for highlight detail, or vice versa, you
> could get a decent negative out of it.
>
> I'd love to get my hands on FG-7 again. It's gone from the photo stores
> here.
>
> It saddens me to see this kind of discussion going on. There are many people
> in this group, you especailly Michael, that can contribute a wealth of
> experience and worthwile comment.
>
> Instead of arguing over wether or not TMY is a landscape film, let's discuss
> it in a positive light. For example, we could discuss:
>
> Best landscape film and development combinations.
FP4 in Acutol.
> Best uses for TMY, TMX, TXP, etc.
>
> Why I love (insert name of product) and what it's done for me.
The problem is that Kodak has discontinued so many products.