National Zonalism
Uranium Committee
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: The Eye is not a camera (was Re: 35mm on grade 3
explained)
References: <2fd2ff8c.04091...@posting.google.com>
<103c5ff5.04091...@posting.google.com>
<9c532379.04091...@posting.google.com>
<ci9ifu$oum$01$1...@news.t-online.com>
<9c532379.04091...@posting.google.com>
<cia858$p16$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
<9c532379.04091...@posting.google.com>
<cibbco$ccu$04$1...@news.t-online.com>
<9c532379.04091...@posting.google.com>
<10kj8d7...@news.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.23.119.186
Message-ID: <9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com>
"jjs" <Jo...@nopsam.stafford.net> wrote in message news:<10kj8d7...@news.supernews.com>...
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message
> > news:<cibbco$ccu$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> >> >
> >> > HUH? If things HAVE changed since 1952, human perceptual preferences
> >> > are not one of them.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are so wrong on this point.
> >
> > AM I?
> >
> > I received this e-mail response from one Richard Knoppow:
> >
> > "While some film characteristics are rather different now the
> > characteristics of the human eye certainly are not."
> > [... snip ...]
>
> Two points. One: If the response of the human eye and brain were as static
> as you and Richard suggest, then we would still be happy smearing berries on
> cave walls. Two: the functional rationalization of the argument you and
> Richard cite presumes a virtue of _mean-attraction of tonalities_ - that's
> the mass-market compromise esthetic. Many of us here, and certainly those
> with whom you argue, are not looking for the mean compromise: they are
> thinking individuals who have idiosyncratic (creative, interpretive)
> aspirations; they are the outliers who make a difference - by definition!
So, you are the Master Race, eh? Your superior 'vision' sets you apart
from the inferior races of mankind.
> So do as you wish and strive for some kind of mass-market esthetic creed,
> but you will not find many sympathetic ears or eyes here.
In the land of National Zonalism?
> You would be
> better served if you found an audience concerned specifically with
> industrial profit-driven schemas. Walmart-paradigm printing comes to mind.
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
> Print that in big letters and put it under your safelight.
Ja wohl, mein Führer!
jjs
>> jjs
>> So do as you wish and strive for some kind of mass-market esthetic creed,
>> but you will not find many sympathetic ears or eyes here.
>
> In the land of National Zonalism?
I rather doubt you even understand the Zone System. Perhaps you have some
other kind of agenda that pursuades you to resent individual preferences and
you have chosen the ZS to castigate. Well, it could be worse. At least this
minor issue keeps you off the streets.
David Nebenzahl
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
>>> So do as you wish and strive for some kind of mass-market esthetic creed,
>>> but you will not find many sympathetic ears or eyes here.
>>
>> In the land of National Zonalism?
>
> I rather doubt you even understand the Zone System. Perhaps you have some
> other kind of agenda that pursuades you to resent individual preferences and
> you have chosen the ZS to castigate. Well, it could be worse. At least this
> minor issue keeps you off the streets.
I rather doubt it; I'm sure he's out there shooting away, unfortunately
fooling many folks who see him into thinking that this is how a Real
Photographer works.
--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.
- Noam Chomsky
Uranium Committee
Gosh, jjs, don't you have a sense of humor?
I do understand National Zonalism. All too well, I'm afraid.
Uranium Committee
> On 9/20/2004 7:06 AM jjs spake thus:
>
> > "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>> So do as you wish and strive for some kind of mass-market esthetic creed,
> >>> but you will not find many sympathetic ears or eyes here.
> >>
> >> In the land of National Zonalism?
> >
> > I rather doubt you even understand the Zone System. Perhaps you have some
> > other kind of agenda that pursuades you to resent individual preferences and
> > you have chosen the ZS to castigate. Well, it could be worse. At least this
> > minor issue keeps you off the streets.
>
> I rather doubt it; I'm sure he's out there shooting away, unfortunately
> fooling many folks who see him into thinking that this is how a Real
> Photographer works.
What, pray tell, is a 'Real Photographer'? One who is a member of the Master Race?
jjs
> What, pray tell, is a 'Real Photographer'? One who is a member of the
> Master Race?
Funny how MS presumes. He doesn't even know our backgrounds, ethnicity,
race, age, whatever. He's managed to put himself at risk twice in once
sentence.
Gregory Blank
In article <10kukjf...@news.supernews.com>, "jjs" <j...@jj.jj>
wrote:
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
web...@yahoo.com
what you think is right! You try and cram your mis-guided beliefs
down anyone who hasn't kill-filled you yet. The sad part is that you
still don't see that you just plain have it wrong.
And I'm still waiting for that "master" print! LOL
Alexis
On 20 Sep 2004 06:45:29 -0700, uraniumc...@yahoo.com (Uranium
Committee) wrote:
>Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
>Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
>Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
>Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
>
>
>Ja wohl, mein Führer!
Leigh Marrin/KM6JE
> Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
Mike, you are more rigid and dogmatic than nearly all the Zone System
gurus; you (try) to dictate both process AND content. No nature
pics/Leicas must always be used for 35mm/Rodinal and T-Max 400 must never
be used/all 35mm B&W negs must be tapered for Grade 3/only condensor
enlargers, etc./ad nausem.
But on the positive side, you're even more eccentric than Minor White.
Uranium Committee
> Uranium Committee <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> > Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> > Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
> > Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
> > Ja wohl, mein Führer!
>
> Mike, you are more rigid and dogmatic than nearly all the Zone System
> gurus; you (try) to dictate both process AND content.
HUH? What are you talking about? Do you think that the 'nature'
photographers whose work consists of time exposures of water running
over rocks have a clue? The 35mm worker can excel as
photojournalism-documentary-sports and any number of other genres.
> No nature
> pics/Leicas must always be used for 35mm/Rodinal and T-Max 400 must never
> be used/all 35mm B&W negs must be tapered for Grade 3/only condensor
> enlargers, etc./ad nausem.
T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work. Rodinal is not the best developer.
So what? There are numerous other choices.
>
> But on the positive side, you're even more eccentric than Minor White.
Minor White's book (ZSM) would be laughed out of a beginning logic
class. Don't insult me by referring to that man here.
jjs
must be tapered for Grade 3/only condensor
> T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work.
Hah! That statement from the guy who's been in the dark so long he sleeps
with mushrooms!
Frank Pittel
: "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm hoping that your opinion of Tmax films has changed a little in the last year. :-)
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Jim Phelps
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlord.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:4qSdnbEB7cH...@giganews.com...
> jjs <Jo...@nopsam.stafford.net> wrote:
> : "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> : must be tapered for Grade 3/only condensor
>
> : > T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work.
>
> : Hah! That statement from the guy who's been in the dark so long he
> sleeps
> : with mushrooms!
>
> I'm hoping that your opinion of Tmax films has changed a little in the
> last year. :-)
>
He'd actually have to use it and test it to change his opinion. You know,
he spends all his time searching the web looking for data that supports his
unchanging mind. Never would/could he take the time to actually test
something.
John
wrote:
>> T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work.
>
>Hah! That statement from the guy who's been in the dark so long he sleeps
>with mushrooms!
Ya know, I never figured you for a particularly generous
person but you just keep giving the nameless one so much of your whit
and time. I think you should be rewarded. Oh nameless one, how about
sending John a print ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
The Wogster
wrote:
That should be easy, one third the Internet is lies, the another third
is untruths, and the last third is male bovine manure......Any idiot
can publish anything online......
W
Uranium Committee
> : "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> : must be tapered for Grade 3/only condensor
>
> : > T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work.
>
> : Hah! That statement from the guy who's been in the dark so long he sleeps
> : with mushrooms!
>
> I'm hoping that your opinion of Tmax films has changed a little in the last year. :-)
Unless TMY has changed, I have no reason to change my opinion. I
worked with it over about a 10-year period before I switched to other
films.
Jim Phelps
"Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> worked with it over about a 10-year period before I switched to other
> films.
Selling it doesn't count...
David Nebenzahl
Right: the questions Mikey asked concerning this film weren't about which
developer to use, but rather more like "Will that be paper or plastic?".
David Nebenzahl
That may be. Just curious, though: what category does *your* posting fall into?
Uranium Committee
I'd be delighted. Address please.
Gregory Blank
same reply but was on my way out the door.
In article <41519673...@but.us.chickens>,
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> That may be. Just curious, though: what category does *your* posting fall
> into?
--
Uranium Committee
Huh? I used it, dumbass....
Uranium Committee
Message from National Zonalist Minister for Propaganda:
"I welcome the opportunity to speak to you on a number of questions
that in my view must be openly discussed if relations between the
National Zonalist Reich and the Protectorate are to be improved. I
believe it necessary to do so now, despite the flame war. I fear that
once the flame war is over, we will not be able to discus these
matters as calmly as we now can.
I am convinced that our posterity in fifty years will look back with
amusement on conflicts between National Zonalists and those who do not
use variable film development. Do not think that, as we bring about a
certain order in photography, we do it to harm individual
photographers. The freedom of individuals must be brought in harmony
with the conditions of the present and with simple questions of
practicality. Just as a member of a family does not have the right to
disturb everyone else's peace, an individual photographer does not
have the right to resist the larger order.
We have never intended to promote this ordering or reordering process
by force. Although we are National Zonalists, we do not wish to injure
the economic, cultural or social characteristics of the others.
However, we must understand each other. We must be either friends or
enemies. As I believe you know well from history, the National
Zonalists can be terrible enemies, or good friends. We can extend our
hand to a friend and work with him. We can also destroy an enemy.
The peoples who have joined this ordering process, or who will join
it, have to decide if they will participate whole-heartedly and
loyally, or if they will resist it. That will not change the facts.
You may be sure that once the National Zonalists powers have defeated
those who do not want to use variable film development, they will not
allow anyone to do so again. If Scarpitti cannot stop it, neither can
the anyone else.
Therefore, gentlemen, I speak realistically, with no appeal to
sentiment. It makes no difference whether you like this or not.
Whether you applaud it or not, the facts remain the same. I believe
that when one cannot change a situation and must accept certain
disadvantages because of it, one would be foolish not to accept its
advantages as well. Since you have become a part of the National
Zonalist Reich, I do not see why the you would prefer not to use
variable film development rather than to accept its advantages.
You have had to accept a series of photographic changes. I know that
they were not pleasant. No one knows that better than I. I know that
you have had to give up things that you enjoyed in the past, and I
know that one does not adjust to such a situation overnight.
Nonetheless: If you have to accept the disadvantages, I believe you
should also accept the advantages. Let me give an example.
In 1933, we faced the Leica Question. Everyone in the world knew that
we opposed the Leica. We discovered the disadvantages of
anti-Leicaism, but we also got the benefits. We had to accept the fact
that we were slandered and attacked throughout the world. We also got
the advantages — namely excluding the Leica users from theater, film,
public life and the government. When we were later attacked as enemies
of the Leica users, we at least could say: It was worth it. We got
something for it.
You, gentlemen, have had a chance to attend the National Zonalist
Workshop. I made sure that you had done so before speaking to you. It
is up to you whether you want to participate, or stand aside. You can
be sure that in the latter case, we have the ways and means to
eliminate Leica users and their little films. We do not want to do
that. We would rather you join with us. Nor do we want to suppress
your cultural life. On the contrary, we want a lively cultural
exchange. But that can happen only on the basis of loyalty. You must
accept the present situation without leaving a back door open and
thinking that if things go wrong, you will have a way out.
Take the history of the National Zonalist movement as an example. Some
members of our party carry a special badge with a gold wreath around
it. That says: "I was a National Zonalist when there was no advantage
to it. I fought for this movement before it came to power." They
affirmed the movement at a time when its victory was not at all
certain. Affirming a cause when it has won takes no great
intelligence. But if you announce your loyalty before the victory is
gained, gentlemen, you will give us full confidence in your loyalty.
You will have to make up your minds. Do not tell me that the people
wants this or that. I think I know something about leadership. A
people thinks the way its intelligentsia teaches it to think. It has
the ideas of its intellectual leaders. It is your intellectual duty to
make clear to those who do not want to use variable film development
the decision they should make.
Today you have the opportunity of accepting all the advantages that
the National Zonalist Workshop has to offer. You have our protection.
Scarpitti can not attack you. As I said, we offer you cooperation. I
have offered you here a foundation for understanding. We do not ask
anything dishonorable of you, or that you become parvenus or lackeys,
or whatever.
That gives no pleasure in the long run. But I do not believe that it
is asking too much that, in this dramatic moment in photographic
history that will lead to new forms of human community, we come to an
understanding about these matters, to create clarity and decide if we
will be friends or foes.Over the past few years, we have proven our
abilities as enemies. If you display a positive and active loyalty,
you will see what kind of friends we can be. Friendship between the
National Zonalists and those who do not want to use variable film
development will result.
My task today has been to make that clear to you. I believe we could
work together, and that we will. I am firmly convinced that if you are
willing to show loyalty, you will do us and yourselves a big favor.
Whether we like each other or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is
that we want to give the millions of photographers a common basis and
a common ideal. Scarpitti has until now resisted this ideal. Scarpitti
has attempted to keep photography in disorder, since he saw that as
the best defense of his influence. But he is falling under the
gigantic blows of our army. Once he falls, we will have the chance to
bring peace to photography. You are warmly invited to join us."
Uranium Committee
Jim Phelps
Your portrayal of being in the right against a group you compare to and even
blatantly call Nazis leaves little room for discussion IMHO. You must have
no idea what a Nazi is, or you are so mentally and morally deficient that
you cannot differentiate right from wrong. A difference of opinion,
technique and philosophy is not a reason to begin calling people Nazis.
As a non-German living in Germany, I have been to the places used by Nazis
to force their will upon those who disagreed with them or were different. I
have never seen anyone who practices the Zone System for exposure and
contrast control use these methods to force their understandings upon
others. I have see the ovens. I have heard stories from survivors of those
camps. You have no idea what reference you are making and because of that I
rightfully call you a damned bastard.
My whole problem with you is your firm belief that your way is the only way.
My problem continues as you are forcing your understandings upon others and
doing it in a manner that is not only child like, but shows a decreased
means of communication with your fellow photographers. You resort to name
calling of the most vile sort and really sink to levels lower than you truly
imagine. Maybe you should look at the correlations there and make a
judgment call.
Atomic Sub Committee
of juvenal tripe.
In article <9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com>,
Atomic Sub Committee
slow witted. He envies those who have the skills and knowledge
he lacks. He envisions himself cloaked in a photographers
vest and bearded, with a spot meter in hand. (It would help his
exposures.^)
In article <cispg4$egb$04$1...@news.t-online.com>,
Robert Vervoordt
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:22:25 -0500, "jjs" <Jo...@nopsam.stafford.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> T-Max 400 is poor for outdoor work.
>>
>>Hah! That statement from the guy who's been in the dark so long he sleeps
>>with mushrooms!
>
> Ya know, I never figured you for a particularly generous
>person but you just keep giving the nameless one so much of your whit
>and time. I think you should be rewarded. Oh nameless one, how about
>sending John a print ?
Good, John; "nameless one". ;-/
Note that he has recently gone radioactive. New appellation?
"Uranameless one", or "UranAIMless one".
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
> Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Robert Vervoordt, MFA
The Wogster
Committee) wrote:
>uraniumc...@yahoo.com (Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:<9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
>Message from National Zonalist Minister for Propaganda:
>
>"I welcome the opportunity to speak to you on a number of questions
>that in my view must be openly discussed if relations between the
<friggin huge snip>
>the best defense of his influence. But he is falling under the
>gigantic blows of our army. Once he falls, we will have the chance to
>bring peace to photography. You are warmly invited to join us."
What a load of male bovine manure...
First, the naziesque inferance, is deeply offensive, to the people who
were assulted, killed, mutilated and mimed by them, and also to the
German people as a whole, nice people who made a bad leadership
decision nearly 70 years ago. However nobody ever asks WHY people
made that decision, and how many regretted it afterwards.
Now, back to on topic.
The zone system was invented for photographers, not photographers for
the zone system. Now I use the zones, as a guideline, for example
black is zone 0, and white is zone IX, okay, my meter, considers
everything as zone V, so if my subject isn't zone V, but zone III,
then 2 stops less exposure, should result in a proper exposure, no
need to alter the development, because the exposure is correct.
W
Uranium Committee
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> Your portrayal of being in the right against a group you compare to and even
> blatantly call Nazis leaves little room for discussion IMHO. You must have
> no idea what a Nazi is, or you are so mentally and morally deficient that
> you cannot differentiate right from wrong. A difference of opinion,
> technique and philosophy is not a reason to begin calling people Nazis.
Why is it that whenever I post a reasoned, carefully constructed
explanation, I am ridiculed and called names? Who's the Nazi?
> As a non-German living in Germany, I have been to the places used by Nazis
> to force their will upon those who disagreed with them or were different.
> I
> have never seen anyone who practices the Zone System for exposure and
> contrast control use these methods to force their understandings upon
> others.
Are you kidding? Have you seen a college catalogue? The books by Ansel
Himmler, Minor Goebbels, and others are required reading.
> I have see the ovens. I have heard stories from survivors of those
> camps. You have no idea what reference you are making and because of that I
> rightfully call you a damned bastard.
>
> My whole problem with you is your firm belief that your way is the only way.
No, there is no 'only way'. There are bad techniques, mediocre
techniques, and best techniques. Nothing is perfect, but there is
ALWAYS a best way.
> My problem continues as you are forcing your understandings upon others and
> doing it in a manner that is not only child like, but shows a decreased
> means of communication with your fellow photographers. You resort to name
> calling of the most vile sort and really sink to levels lower than you truly
> imagine. Maybe you should look at the correlations there and make a
> judgment call.
You have NO idea of what you are talking about. The Zonazis are
everywhere, telling everyone that THEIR way is the only way, even
though Kodak and other sources saying PRECISELY, in no uncertain
terms, that variable film development is generally not desirable or
needed. The Zonazis stuff their dogma down everyone's throat. People
beginning B&W photography invariably are told that they MUST use the
zonazi system.
Just pick up a copy of Minor Goebbels' book 'The Zonazi Manual'.
Uranium Committee
> Sadly I feel he is a mentally retarded or perhaps otherwise
> slow witted. He envies those who have the skills and knowledge
> he lacks. He envisions himself cloaked in a photographers
> vest and bearded, with a spot meter in hand. (It would help his
> exposures.^)
Yes, the Zonazi uniform. The photographer's vest, the beard, the Gitzo
tripod, the denim shirt, the cowboy hat...every Fascist has his
uniform....
Atomic Sub Committee
The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> What a load of male bovine manure...
>
> First, the naziesque inferance, is deeply offensive, to the people who
> were assulted, killed, mutilated and mimed by them
Mimed?
Atomic Sub Committee
Robert Vervoordt <rl...@ptd.net> wrote:
> "Uranameless one", or "UranAIMless one".
Some cross hair adjustment might be the answer ;-)
The Wogster
<yellows...@bitemehard.com> wrote:
>In article <m7a4l0l7jv1orenhp...@4ax.com>,
> The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> What a load of male bovine manure...
>>
>> First, the naziesque inferance, is deeply offensive, to the people who
>> were assulted, killed, mutilated and mimed by them
>> W
>
>Mimed?
er maimed, it;s getting late......
W
Pieter Litchfield
> The zone system was invented for photographers, not photographers for
> the zone system. Now I use the zones, as a guideline, for example
> black is zone 0, and white is zone IX, okay, my meter, considers
> everything as zone V, so if my subject isn't zone V, but zone III,
> then 2 stops less exposure, should result in a proper exposure, no
> need to alter the development, because the exposure is correct.
>
> W
>
rolls of film with compressed or expanded contrast ranges, so I only use the
zone system as described above. Usually I leave my camera on spot metering
(or use a handheld spot meter) and find the area of the frame that should
print wwith some detail. I then meter on this area which would place it in
zone V - middle gray. I stop down two stops to put it in zone III. I will
often also look around the frame for the bright spots, and see where they
fall. This will give me some idea of the contrast range. If necessary, I
may shoot the frame with the brightest ares needing detail in the print in
zone VIII, and if the contrast range is too great, let the stuff in zone III
areas fall off the end into II.
jjs
news:yellowsubmarine-68...@news.verizon.net...
> Mimed?
Yeah, you know those immoderate Black and White freaks with no middle-tones.
Lloyd usenet-Erlick
I found this online recently; seems appropriate:
Godwin's Law
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability
of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was
in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees
the existence of an upper bound on thread length in
those groups. However there is also a widely-recognized
codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law
in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Gregory Blank
"jjs" <Jo...@nopsam.stafford.net> wrote:
<Cough>
Found this on the Massive development chart.
Paterson Developers: To improve the grain and tonal range of film
processed in Paterson developers have a look at theRevised Paterson
Chart submitted by Michael Scarpitti.
Jim Phelps
"Gregory Blank" <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-87A2...@news.verizon.net...
> <Cough>
>
> Found this on the Massive development chart.
>
> Paterson Developers: To improve the grain and tonal range of film
> processed in Paterson developers have a look at theRevised Paterson
> Chart submitted by Michael Scarpitti.
>
I was never a fan of Paterson products anyway (except their print washer).
Now that they're taking his input, they'll be a thing of the past soon.
jjs
news:bugstopped_-87A2...@news.verizon.net...
> <Cough>
>
> Found this on the Massive development chart.
>
> Paterson Developers: To improve the grain and tonal range of film
> processed in Paterson developers have a look at theRevised Paterson
> Chart submitted by Michael Scarpitti.
I told you the Massive Chart was unreliable.
jjs
> Are you kidding? Have you seen a college catalogue? The books by Ansel
> Himmler, Minor Goebbels, and others are required reading.
Since when is the required reading in the catalog? Besides, one doesn't read
only The Proper Materials in college - it is more important to learn the
larger picture.
> You have NO idea of what you are talking about. The Zonazis are
> everywhere, telling everyone that THEIR way is the only way [...]
Take it the conspiracy groups.
The Wogster
Another option, is if you have both zone III and zone VIII components
in your scene, is to shoot 1 frame for Zone III and another for zone
VIII, or use a 2-3 stop Graduated ND filter, positioned so that the
zone III components and zone VIII components are in the appropriate
areas of the frame.
If you shoot 2 frames, either use some dodging and burning, or a
sandwich negative to print it, or scan both, and use software to
combine them.....
W
Gregory Blank
In article <10l5r2d...@news.supernews.com>, "jjs" <j...@jj.jj>
wrote:
> I told you the Massive Chart was unreliable.
--
Uranium Committee
That has nothing to do with Paterson, it's the Massive Developing
Chart. I posted revised CORRECT times because the ones Paterson
supplies are HOPELESSLY over-long. Paterson is not alone in this: most
companies offer times that are excessive.
Uranium Committee
Anyone want to know where the original text came from?
See:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb31.htm
>
> >uraniumc...@yahoo.com (Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:<9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >Message from National Zonalist Minister for Propaganda:
> >
> >"I welcome the opportunity to speak to you on a number of questions
> >that in my view must be openly discussed if relations between the
>
> <friggin huge snip>
>
> >the best defense of his influence. But he is falling under the
> >gigantic blows of our army. Once he falls, we will have the chance to
> >bring peace to photography. You are warmly invited to join us."
>
> What a load of male bovine manure...
That's right. But it represents the typical dogmatic thinking of the
Zonazis!
>
> First, the naziesque inferance, is deeply offensive, to the people who
> were assulted, killed, mutilated and mimed by them, and also to the
> German people as a whole, nice people who made a bad leadership
> decision nearly 70 years ago. However nobody ever asks WHY people
> made that decision, and how many regretted it afterwards.
So? If the shoe fits, wear it! The Zonazis force their dogmatic crap
down everyone's throat, and I for one am not gonna take it anymore!
Grunthos The Flatulent
Wow,
The more you post the dumber you look. I'm beginning to wonder if you
are insecure about having a small penis and are trying to compensate.
Is that why you have a 560mm Leica lens? So you can go out with it and
have people admire your big long thingie?
Cherz, Grunthos
Udie Lafing
skro...@yahoo.com (Grunthos The Flatulent) wrote:
<snip> Likewise. Plonk!!
--
?
?
?
?
LOL
Pieter Litchfield
thought! Actually I often do end up bracketing if I have both zone VII and
III values that are important to composition. More often than not, I can
burn and dodge my way out of those situations using the better negative.
Thanks for the suggestions
Pieternews:iir5l056969t9kauv...@4ax.com...
Frank Pittel
: "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message news:<cispg4$egb$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
: > "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
: >
: > Your portrayal of being in the right against a group you compare to and even
: > blatantly call Nazis leaves little room for discussion IMHO. You must have
: > no idea what a Nazi is, or you are so mentally and morally deficient that
: > you cannot differentiate right from wrong. A difference of opinion,
: > technique and philosophy is not a reason to begin calling people Nazis.
: Why is it that whenever I post a reasoned, carefully constructed
: explanation, I am ridiculed and called names? Who's the Nazi?
When have you ever posted a reasoned, carefully constructed explination that wasn't
full of shit??
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
The Wogster
<pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> wrote:
>Use SOFTWARE to combine frames?? How dare you inject such an impure
>thought! Actually I often do end up bracketing if I have both zone VII and
>III values that are important to composition. More often than not, I can
>burn and dodge my way out of those situations using the better negative.
>Thanks for the suggestions
Yeah software, I closed down the fume room, in 1983, the only reason I
am lurking here, is that I want to get back to souping my own film, so
bracketing, scanning, fixing, then dumping to the inkjet, is my
prefered way of printing my photos these days........
W
Jim Phelps
> "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message
> news:<cispg4$egb$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Your portrayal of being in the right against a group you compare to and
>> even
>> blatantly call Nazis leaves little room for discussion IMHO. You must
>> have
>> no idea what a Nazi is, or you are so mentally and morally deficient that
>> you cannot differentiate right from wrong. A difference of opinion,
>> technique and philosophy is not a reason to begin calling people Nazis.
>
> Why is it that whenever I post a reasoned, carefully constructed
> explanation, I am ridiculed and called names? Who's the Nazi?
To begin by calling us or making references to Nazis, you have in fact
eliminated any possiblity of intelligent discussion (even if you had that
capacity). You prevent us from considering your message, idea or thoughts.
You slung the first mud, so you should have been prepared to get muddy
yourself.
>
>> As a non-German living in Germany, I have been to the places used by
>> Nazis
>> to force their will upon those who disagreed with them or were different.
>> I
>> have never seen anyone who practices the Zone System for exposure and
>> contrast control use these methods to force their understandings upon
>> others.
>
> Are you kidding? Have you seen a college catalogue? The books by Ansel
> Himmler, Minor Goebbels, and others are required reading.
Yes. I have. And I did not need to read their books. Their books were
refered to for some portions of the courses, but were not the text books.
In fact, we did not use text books.
>
>> I have see the ovens. I have heard stories from survivors of those
>> camps. You have no idea what reference you are making and because of
>> that I
>> rightfully call you a damned bastard.
>>
>> My whole problem with you is your firm belief that your way is the only
>> way.
>
> No, there is no 'only way'. There are bad techniques, mediocre
> techniques, and best techniques. Nothing is perfect, but there is
> ALWAYS a best way.
And that best way should and can be selected from many possible methods.
For some photographer and images, even the method you preach is the best
way. However, not for all images as you so desperately preach.
>
>> My problem continues as you are forcing your understandings upon others
>> and
>> doing it in a manner that is not only child like, but shows a decreased
>> means of communication with your fellow photographers. You resort to
>> name
>> calling of the most vile sort and really sink to levels lower than you
>> truly
>> imagine. Maybe you should look at the correlations there and make a
>> judgment call.
>
> You have NO idea of what you are talking about. The Zonazis are
> everywhere, telling everyone that THEIR way is the only way, even
> though Kodak and other sources saying PRECISELY, in no uncertain
> terms, that variable film development is generally not desirable or
> needed. The Zonazis stuff their dogma down everyone's throat. People
> beginning B&W photography invariably are told that they MUST use the
> zonazi system.
>
> Just pick up a copy of Minor Goebbels' book 'The Zonazi Manual'.
You have MAJOR psychological problems. Are little men with white "Hug
Yourself" jackets running around after you? Do you speak with the dead? I
know, Ansel haunts your dream trying to tell you the Zone System is the way
of divine photography, right? FWIW, Kodak acknowledges the zone system in
current day tech pubs (see Tech Pub F4016, dated 2-04). I, personally have
never been force fed, indoctrinated or lead to believe that the Zone System
is the way to photographic happiness. However, I have been force fed your
way. By you. Does that make you a 'ScarNazi' or is that a 'PityNazi'?
Gregory Blank
In article <8327l0d70qqk7jh9j...@4ax.com>,
The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
--
Uranium Committee
For you to say that would be a contradiction, would it not?
Uranium Committee
So, you decided to donate your brain to science BEFORE your death?
The Wogster
<bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
>Your not lurking if your posting.
>
Details, details, I was justifying a reason for being in a darkroom
group, when it's been over 20 years since I had a darkroom. Thinking
of setting back up, at least partly, to do film processing, then
proofing and printing digitally.
W
Jim Phelps
"Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
>
He'd have too, you imbecile! He has no ability to choose to donate after
he's dead. You must really be stupid.
Leigh Marrin/KM6JE
> I'm beginning to wonder if you
> are insecure about having a small penis and are trying to compensate.
> Is that why you have a 560mm Leica lens? So you can go out with it and
> have people admire your big long thingie?
Grunt, Scarpitti's issues certainly go far deeper than any single exposure
system. Rereading this year-old Scarpitti rave about Zone System users
strongly hints to me that he's got some ISSUES regarding tall outdoorsy
WASPs. Being short, urban, Italian and clad in tennis togs, he may well
use a 560mm Leitz telephoto to "compete" with the lanky, well-endowed
outdoorsy Methodist photographers.
(Ohio must have been a lonely State of mind for a small boy named Mike
Scarpitti... but WHY does he care what MUSIC other photographers listen
to??)
From: Michael Scarpitti (mikesc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: It's relgious! (was Re: No rational explanation has yet)
Date: 2003-10-08 06:19:11 PST
-------
They listen to the Grateful Dead, Barbara Steisand, Carol King, James
Taylor, Andrea Bocelli
They're Methodists
All 6 feet 2 inches tall (Honestlty, have you seen any 5' 2" tall Jews
doing Western landscape work?)
Costume: Western hat, denim shirt, jeans
Gitzo tripod
Democrats
Gregory Blank
In article <cj1fpm$pc5$01$1...@news.t-online.com>,
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote:
--
Jim Phelps
"Leigh Marrin/KM6JE" <le...@coyote.rain.org> wrote in message
news:cj1lor$b0$1...@news.rain.org...[snip]
>
> (Ohio must have been a lonely State of mind for a small boy named Mike
> Scarpitti... but WHY does he care what MUSIC other photographers listen
> to??)
>
> From: Michael Scarpitti (mikesc...@yahoo.com)
> Subject: Re: It's relgious! (was Re: No rational explanation has yet)
> Date: 2003-10-08 06:19:11 PST
> -------
> They listen to the Grateful Dead, Barbara Steisand, Carol King, James
> Taylor, Andrea Bocelli
> They're Methodists
> All 6 feet 2 inches tall (Honestlty, have you seen any 5' 2" tall Jews
> doing Western landscape work?)
> Costume: Western hat, denim shirt, jeans
> Gitzo tripod
> Democrats
>
Gives me more proof (IMHO) that Mike Scarpitti was the anti-Semitic,
slandering, stalking troll that plagued this and other newsgroups over the
last year. He's responsible for running off Henry Posner and others that
were positive contributors. I hope he writes his damned book and the
publisher sends it back with the note "Sorry Mikey. We publish
non-fictional and informative books, not something on the order of Mein
Kampf."
FWIW:
I like the Dead, Taylor and Bocelli. Also the Stones, CSN&Y, ELP, The Doors
and the Who. And many others. I don't own a denim shirt (does a jacket
count?), western hat (I hate hats), and I use Manfrotto tripods. Catholic
raised, but indifferent now and I vote my mind as a registered independent.
I guess I'll never master photography nor the Zone System. I'll just be
average... Hey wait, I am 6 foot 2! I have hope...
Gregory Blank
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote:
> I'll just be average... Hey wait, I am 6 foot 2! I have hope...
I thought you might say you have an IQ of 140. Oh well that will just
have to be my excuse,...I'll never be 6'2".
Uranium Committee
> You have MAJOR psychological problems. Are little men with white "Hug
> Yourself" jackets running around after you? Do you speak with the dead? I
> know, Ansel haunts your dream trying to tell you the Zone System is the way
> of divine photography, right? FWIW, Kodak acknowledges the zone system in
> current day tech pubs (see Tech Pub F4016, dated 2-04). I, personally have
> never been force fed, indoctrinated or lead to believe that the Zone System
> is the way to photographic happiness. However, I have been force fed your
> way. By you. Does that make you a 'ScarNazi' or is that a 'PityNazi'?
You cannot distinguish between marketing accomodation and unequivocal
technical advice. The 1952 boolet states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that
some photographers advocate variable film development for scenes with
different lighting, but that this GENERALLY SHOULD NOT BE DONE, with
certain exceptions. One exception mentioned was for unusual
atmospheric conditions, such as fog, which could create unusually weak
optical contrast. The 'rule of thumb' was that only if insufficient
contrast was obtained on grade 4 paper should development be
increased, and of course this discussion was in the context of sheet
film.
In any event, variable film development should never be used with 35mm
film, as it is both impractical and injurious to image quality.
Jim Phelps
> In article <cj1r7n$dm2$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote:
>
>> I'll just be average... Hey wait, I am 6 foot 2! I have hope...
>
> I thought you might say you have an IQ of 140. Oh well that will just
> have to be my excuse,...I'll never be 6'2".
>
> --
jjs
> 142 when I was tested in Jr High. I've forgotten a lot since then ;~)))
By the time I graduated from High School, my IQ was literally off the top of
the chart; immeasurably high. I finished IQ tests that were not supposed to
be finishable. Now you have to ask: how can that be possible? Well, over the
years and despite the randomness of each test, they began to repeat. Talk
about a No Brainer.
Uranium Committee
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > So, you decided to donate your brain to science BEFORE your death?
Uh, he's donated it while still alive, is that clear enough?
Uranium Committee
> > I'm beginning to wonder if you
> > are insecure about having a small penis and are trying to compensate.
> > Is that why you have a 560mm Leica lens? So you can go out with it and
> > have people admire your big long thingie?
>
> Grunt, Scarpitti's issues certainly go far deeper than any single exposure
> system. Rereading this year-old Scarpitti rave about Zone System users
> strongly hints to me that he's got some ISSUES regarding tall outdoorsy
> WASPs. Being short, urban, Italian and clad in tennis togs, he may well
> use a 560mm Leitz telephoto to "compete" with the lanky, well-endowed
> outdoorsy Methodist photographers.
Well, have you seen any 5' 2" tall Jews doing Western landscape work?
Jim Phelps
> "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message
> news:<cj1fpm$pc5$01$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > So, you decided to donate your brain to science BEFORE your death?
>
> Uh, he's donated it while still alive, is that clear enough?
>
Yes, but not given it to them. If he had he'd not be among the living. Oh,
wait, you're proof I'm wrong... Sorry.
Jim Phelps
"Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> technical advice. The 1952 boolet states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that
> some photographers advocate variable film development for scenes with
> different lighting, but that this GENERALLY SHOULD NOT BE DONE, with
> certain exceptions. One exception mentioned was for unusual
> atmospheric conditions, such as fog, which could create unusually weak
> optical contrast. The 'rule of thumb' was that only if insufficient
> contrast was obtained on grade 4 paper should development be
> increased, and of course this discussion was in the context of sheet
> film.
>
> In any event, variable film development should never be used with 35mm
> film, as it is both impractical and injurious to image quality.
And since 1952, they have changed their minds and their products you fool.
It is technical advise as it is presented in a technical publication and not
a marketing advertisement. You are as stupid as you are unbending.
Uranium Committee
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > You cannot distinguish between marketing accomodation and unequivocal
> > technical advice. The 1952 boolet states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that
> > some photographers advocate variable film development for scenes with
> > different lighting, but that this GENERALLY SHOULD NOT BE DONE, with
> > certain exceptions. One exception mentioned was for unusual
> > atmospheric conditions, such as fog, which could create unusually weak
> > optical contrast. The 'rule of thumb' was that only if insufficient
> > contrast was obtained on grade 4 paper should development be
> > increased, and of course this discussion was in the context of sheet
> > film.
> >
> > In any event, variable film development should never be used with 35mm
> > film, as it is both impractical and injurious to image quality.
>
> And since 1952, they have changed their minds and their products you fool.
Oh, really? What evidence do you have of that?
Jim Phelps
"Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> fool.
>
> Oh, really? What evidence do you have of that?
>
Uhmm, None of the monochrome films made in the early 50's are available
today, and the two that have their roots in the 50s were re-worked a few
years ago. Uhmm, Tech Pub F4016. Uhmm, Kodak Publication R-20 (revision
2001, page 28 where they even discuss the zone system).
In a court of law, I would guess you'd be convicted of living in the past
and sentenced to ridicule for life.
wheat
>
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>> And since 1952, they have changed their minds and their products you
>>> fool.
>>
>> Oh, really? What evidence do you have of that?
>>
>
> Uhmm, None of the monochrome films made in the early 50's are available
> today, and the two that have their roots in the 50s were re-worked a few
Jim, what of Efke film?
Jim Phelps
"wheat" <wh...@nowhere.comx> wrote in message
news:10ldncm...@news.supernews.com...
Mike Scarpitti, master of all old knowledge is quoting outdated info and
demeaning all users of the Zone system because the big yellow photo god
(Kodak) said in a publication in 1952 that negative should be printed on
grade 3 paper and developed accordingly (to keep it short and simple). So I
reference Kodak to deflate his argument.
I do not have any experience with Efke films, but since they're so prevalent
where I live (Germany), I may soon. Sorry.
Jim
Nick Zentena
>
> Mike Scarpitti, master of all old knowledge is quoting outdated info and
> demeaning all users of the Zone system because the big yellow photo god
> (Kodak) said in a publication in 1952 that negative should be printed on
> grade 3 paper and developed accordingly (to keep it short and simple). So I
> reference Kodak to deflate his argument.
The funny thing about this stuff is what Adams said about dealing with
35mm film. Something like N-1 development with printing on harder paper.
Kodak's info is Adams info because it all went around.
Nick
Frank Pittel
: "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message news:<cj39i7$u00$02$1...@news.t-online.com>...
: > "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
: > >
: > > You cannot distinguish between marketing accomodation and unequivocal
: > > technical advice. The 1952 boolet states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that
: > > some photographers advocate variable film development for scenes with
: > > different lighting, but that this GENERALLY SHOULD NOT BE DONE, with
: > > certain exceptions. One exception mentioned was for unusual
: > > atmospheric conditions, such as fog, which could create unusually weak
: > > optical contrast. The 'rule of thumb' was that only if insufficient
: > > contrast was obtained on grade 4 paper should development be
: > > increased, and of course this discussion was in the context of sheet
: > > film.
: > >
: > > In any event, variable film development should never be used with 35mm
: > > film, as it is both impractical and injurious to image quality.
: >
: > And since 1952, they have changed their minds and their products you fool.
: Oh, really? What evidence do you have of that?
I've posted the evidence of that from a book that you recommended but clearly never
read. It's Kodak's book on professional B&W film. ince I've already typed and posted
the relevent paragraphs as many times as I'm going to I'm not going to do so again.
Interestingly you always seem to managed to ignore the posts that I quoted from that
book.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<oeKdnVbGEOG...@giganews.com>...
I see you're talking stupid again.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>I see you're talking stupid again.
He stopped ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Jim Phelps
>
> I've posted the evidence of that from a book that you recommended but
> clearly never
> read. It's Kodak's book on professional B&W film. ince I've already typed
> and posted
> the relevent paragraphs as many times as I'm going to I'm not going to do
> so again.
>
> Interestingly you always seem to managed to ignore the posts that I quoted
> from that
> book.
> --
>
outdated, lame position. Any data to the contrary is quickly dismissed as
"Stupid" and not applicable because it's not for 35mm. The poster is also
"Stupid" or some other irrelevant and irrational negative comment. He is
unable to accept change, growth or knowledge.
If he writes and gets a book published, you should be able to find it in the
fiction section of Barnes & Nobel right next to the _Calvin and Hobbes_
books.
The Wogster
wrote:
>
>"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
>news:zLSdnQC7vdR...@giganews.com...
>>
>> I've posted the evidence of that from a book that you recommended but
>> clearly never
>> read. It's Kodak's book on professional B&W film. ince I've already typed
>> and posted
>> the relevent paragraphs as many times as I'm going to I'm not going to do
>> so again.
>>
>> Interestingly you always seem to managed to ignore the posts that I quoted
>> from that
>> book.
>> --
>>
>Mikey is in complete denial. He only recognizes data which supports his
>outdated, lame position. Any data to the contrary is quickly dismissed as
>"Stupid" and not applicable because it's not for 35mm. The poster is also
>"Stupid" or some other irrelevant and irrational negative comment. He is
>unable to accept change, growth or knowledge.
I think that occassionally people need to agree to disagree, and this
thread is a perfect example.
In the case of sheet film and glass plates, where every exposure is
completely independant of every other exposure, then it makes sense to
alter development when you know the exposure was problematic. However
with roll films (including, but not limited to 35mm), bracketing
(multiple exposures one stop under, selected, one stop over, you
could also use two stops if that works better for you) followed by
standard development, will often provide the same kind of result, in
that one of the 3 will be close enough to be usable. The idea being
that developing for one particular exposure, will throw off the other
exposures on the roll.
W
Uranium Committee
Kodak publishes data for thos who wish to use the zs. They do not, and
have never, recommended variable film development, as is clearly
stated in the 1952 book. The zs itself is 'old knowledge', and the
Kodak publication acknowledges that some people suggest that film
development be varied according to scene brilliance range, and
dismisses this notion.
Frank Pittel
: On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:43:22 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com>
: wrote:
: >
: >"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: >news:zLSdnQC7vdR...@giganews.com...
: >>
: >> I've posted the evidence of that from a book that you recommended but
: >> clearly never
: >> read. It's Kodak's book on professional B&W film. ince I've already typed
: >> and posted
: >> the relevent paragraphs as many times as I'm going to I'm not going to do
: >> so again.
: >>
: >> Interestingly you always seem to managed to ignore the posts that I quoted
: >> from that
: >> book.
: >> --
: >>
: >Mikey is in complete denial. He only recognizes data which supports his
: >outdated, lame position. Any data to the contrary is quickly dismissed as
: >"Stupid" and not applicable because it's not for 35mm. The poster is also
: >"Stupid" or some other irrelevant and irrational negative comment. He is
: >unable to accept change, growth or knowledge.
: I think that occassionally people need to agree to disagree, and this
: thread is a perfect example.
I'm not sure what we're agreeing to disagree about in this thread. I do agree with
you that in the world of B&W photography film development and printing is a
personal process. The right way to develop film and the right film and developer to
use is the one that gives you the results you're after.
: In the case of sheet film and glass plates, where every exposure is
: completely independant of every other exposure, then it makes sense to
: alter development when you know the exposure was problematic. However
: with roll films (including, but not limited to 35mm), bracketing
: (multiple exposures one stop under, selected, one stop over, you
: could also use two stops if that works better for you) followed by
: standard development, will often provide the same kind of result, in
: that one of the 3 will be close enough to be usable. The idea being
: that developing for one particular exposure, will throw off the other
: exposures on the roll.
It is possible to effectively use the zone system with roll film. With 35mm
it's not to big a deal to bulk load "short" rolls of film and with mf the rolls
are already "short" enough or you can use a camera with multiple backs. I do have
to admit that these days the smallest format I shot B&W with is 645. When I do
I develop the film with Diafine.
Frank Pittel
: On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:22:52 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >I see you're talking stupid again.
: He stopped ?
I stand corrected.
Jim Phelps
"The Wogster" <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:i21gl0dl2g12s0e36...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:43:22 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com>
> wrote:
>
> I think that occassionally people need to agree to disagree, and this
> thread is a perfect example.
I think you're missing the point. Yes, it is OK to disagree. That's not
what's happening here. I resent and refuse being called a Nazi by a jerk
who is basing his whole dogma on 60, year old superceded data. I cannot
believe that you would condone someone calling you a Nazi for any reason.
There is nothing to disagree on. The rest is argument for the sake of
argument.
>
> In the case of sheet film and glass plates, where every exposure is
> completely independant of every other exposure, then it makes sense to
> alter development when you know the exposure was problematic. However
> with roll films (including, but not limited to 35mm), bracketing
> (multiple exposures one stop under, selected, one stop over, you
> could also use two stops if that works better for you) followed by
> standard development, will often provide the same kind of result, in
> that one of the 3 will be close enough to be usable. The idea being
> that developing for one particular exposure, will throw off the other
> exposures on the roll.
>
> W
Correct, however, bracketing will not give you the compression or expansion
of scale like variable film development will. I am not against standard
development. Just not going to go out on a limb and say it's the best for
every situation, always. That's what boy blunder is doing.
The Wogster
wrote:
>
>"The Wogster" <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:i21gl0dl2g12s0e36...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:43:22 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that occassionally people need to agree to disagree, and this
>> thread is a perfect example.
>
>I think you're missing the point. Yes, it is OK to disagree. That's not
>what's happening here. I resent and refuse being called a Nazi by a jerk
>who is basing his whole dogma on 60, year old superceded data. I cannot
>believe that you would condone someone calling you a Nazi for any reason.
>There is nothing to disagree on. The rest is argument for the sake of
>argument.
>
Perhaps the argument should end, perhaps if enough of us try to pull
the thread back on topic, then it would benefit all of us, and not
just someone with a 17 light year wide ego. It's not uncommon for
someone who has a strong belief to resort to name calling to
detractors of that belief....
>> In the case of sheet film and glass plates, where every exposure is
>> completely independant of every other exposure, then it makes sense to
>> alter development when you know the exposure was problematic. However
>> with roll films (including, but not limited to 35mm), bracketing
>> (multiple exposures one stop under, selected, one stop over, you
>> could also use two stops if that works better for you) followed by
>> standard development, will often provide the same kind of result, in
>> that one of the 3 will be close enough to be usable. The idea being
>> that developing for one particular exposure, will throw off the other
>> exposures on the roll.
>Correct, however, bracketing will not give you the compression or expansion
>of scale like variable film development will. I am not against standard
>development. Just not going to go out on a limb and say it's the best for
>every situation, always. That's what boy blunder is doing.
The issue comes down to, if I have 24 exposures on a roll, and 3 of
them need different development, and the rest do not, then you have a
problem. Now suppose 3 of them need less development, and 4 need
extra development, do you give the roll less or more?
W
The Wogster
It can be a pain in the asp though, because now you need to carry all
of these short rolls, and then try to remember what the issue was with
each one. Isn't the whole idea though to get a useable negative, if
that negative is a little soft or hard, then we can compensate when
printing, by using a slightly harder or softer paper.
W
Frank Pittel
: On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:59:16 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
In practice it's not as difficult as you're making it seem. I simply numbered the
spools and wrote down the development needed for that roll. The problem with high
contrast scenes is that you're stuck with the high contrast "blown out" highlights.
In my never humble opinion the better the negative is, the better the final print will
be.
I still remember when I was first learning the zone system. The instructor gave us an
assignment to do. We were to find a 3 stop scene and photograph it with an entire roll
of film. We wer to then cut the roll in half and develop half at N and the other half
at N+2. (I used two short rolls) We then were to do the same with a 7 stop scene with
the exception that we developed it at N and N-2. After that we were to make the best
print we could of one of the frames of all four negatives. In a class of 15 students
the prints made from the negative with development times other then N were the better
prints.
Frank Pittel
: "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com> wrote in message news:<cj74d2$cg5$03$1...@news.t-online.com>...
More lies from scarpitti. Kodak does in fact describe the advantages of modifying
negative contrast by modifying development time. It's time for you to move on
scarpitti. The only one that believes your fantasies is you.
Jim Phelps
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:41:20 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com>
> the thread back on topic, then it would benefit all of us, and not
> just someone with a 17 light year wide ego. It's not uncommon for
> someone who has a strong belief to resort to name calling to
> detractors of that belief....
>
the Nazi party. How are we going to get it back on topic?
The Wogster
wrote:
>
Maybe better to make this thread die a quick death..... Last comment
from moi on it,
W
Uranium Committee
> "The Wogster" <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:i21gl0dl2g12s0e36...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:43:22 +0200, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.Com>
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that occassionally people need to agree to disagree, and this
> > thread is a perfect example.
>
> I think you're missing the point. Yes, it is OK to disagree. That's not
> what's happening here. I resent and refuse being called a Nazi by a jerk
> who is basing his whole dogma on 60, year old superceded data. I cannot
> believe that you would condone someone calling you a Nazi for any reason.
> There is nothing to disagree on. The rest is argument for the sake of
> argument.
Actually, it is zs Dogma that is superseded and old. White's 'Zone
System Manual' refers to US Camera articles by John Davenport dating
to 1940. Adams's 'The Negative' dates from 1949. White's 'Zone System
Manual' dates from 1953 or so. Kodak had better research capabilities
than any of these gentlemen, and their pronouncements reflect their
ignorance of the Kodak data.
The Kodak book explicitly refers to variable film development (in
other words, it is not something that is NEWER than this book) and
explicitlty rejects it for the vast majority of cases.
You can't have it both ways. You can't reject the Kodak statement
because it's 'old' when the zs stuff is even older.
> > In the case of sheet film and glass plates, where every exposure is
> > completely independant of every other exposure, then it makes sense to
> > alter development when you know the exposure was problematic. However
> > with roll films (including, but not limited to 35mm), bracketing
> > (multiple exposures one stop under, selected, one stop over, you
> > could also use two stops if that works better for you) followed by
> > standard development, will often provide the same kind of result, in
> > that one of the 3 will be close enough to be usable. The idea being
> > that developing for one particular exposure, will throw off the other
> > exposures on the roll.
> >
> > W
>
> Correct, however, bracketing will not give you the compression or expansion
> of scale like variable film development will.
Which is neither desirable nor necessary.
jjs
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> You can't have it both ways. You can't reject the Kodak statement
> because it's 'old' when the zs stuff is even older.
Fer kripes sake, tatoo that on your forehead and stop already.
Uranium Committee
No, they don't. If you think that, you're a Zonazi.
> and the rest do not, then you have a
> problem.
No, you don't.
> Now suppose 3 of them need less development, and 4 need
> extra development, do you give the roll less or more?
You develop the whole roll the same and develop all rolls the same.
That's what Kodak says and that's what I say.
> W
Uranium Committee
>
> It can be a pain in the asp though, because now you need to carry all
> of these short rolls, and then try to remember what the issue was with
> each one. Isn't the whole idea though to get a useable negative, if
> that negative is a little soft or hard, then we can compensate when
> printing, by using a slightly harder or softer paper.
Exactly.
>
> W
Uranium Committee
>
> I still remember when I was first learning the zone system. The instructor
You mean you were in the Hitler youth?
> gave us an
> assignment to do.
You were only following orders...
> We were to find a 3 stop scene and photograph it with an entire roll
> of film. We wer to then cut the roll in half and develop half at N and the other half
> at N+2. (I used two short rolls) We then were to do the same with a 7 stop scene with
> the exception that we developed it at N and N-2. After that we were to make the best
> print we could of one of the frames of all four negatives. In a class of 15 students
> the prints made from the negative with development times other then N were the better
> prints.
Nonsense.
Uranium Committee
Do you understand the words 'generally, no'? That's what Kodak says
about variable film development.
Uranium Committee
Yes, and how since their seiure of power the whole world has gone insane...
Uranium Committee
I'm simply pointing out that 'old is no good' is of no use here.
Jim Phelps
"Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> because it's 'old' when the zs stuff is even older.
>
The Kodak statement has been rejected because it has been superseded and
their products and recommendations have changed. I can't count the number
of times I alone have said that.
Uranium Committee
> "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9c532379.04092...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > You can't have it both ways. You can't reject the Kodak statement
> > because it's 'old' when the zs stuff is even older.
> >
>
> The Kodak statement has been rejected
By whom? YOU? You're a Zonazi, and your opinion is worthless.
> because it has been superseded
No, it hasn't. You're a liar.
> and
> their products and recommendations have changed.
Some products have, and the recommendations have NOT changed.
> I can't count the number
> of times I alone have said that.
A lie repeated ad nauseam makes it not one whit truer...
Frank Pittel
: "Uranium Committee" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It doesn't matter how many times scarpitti gets told the truth. He doesn't want
to hear it so he simply ignores the truth.
The Wogster
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>: On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:59:16 -0500, Frank Pittel
>: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>: It can be a pain in the asp though, because now you need to carry all
>: of these short rolls, and then try to remember what the issue was with
>: each one. Isn't the whole idea though to get a useable negative, if
>: that negative is a little soft or hard, then we can compensate when
>: printing, by using a slightly harder or softer paper.
>
>In practice it's not as difficult as you're making it seem. I simply numbered the
>spools and wrote down the development needed for that roll. The problem with high
>contrast scenes is that you're stuck with the high contrast "blown out" highlights.
>In my never humble opinion the better the negative is, the better the final print will
>be.
Okay, however you need to keep several smaller rolls, rather then a
few long ones, okay if your a low volume shooter, but what about the
person who shoots say 50 36exposure rolls a day, if we use a 10
exposure roll, then it becomes 180 rolls of film, yech if you have to
pack all of those, and walk 25 miles..... Plus you need some kind of
notebook, to keep track of what rolls need less and which need more
development. There is also the 1st law of photography, the best photo
opportunity will come while your changing rolls, between average
shots. By trippling or quadrupling the number of rolls, you are 4
times more likely to miss that shot.
>I still remember when I was first learning the zone system. The instructor gave us an
>assignment to do. We were to find a 3 stop scene and photograph it with an entire roll
>of film. We wer to then cut the roll in half and develop half at N and the other half
>at N+2. (I used two short rolls) We then were to do the same with a 7 stop scene with
>the exception that we developed it at N and N-2. After that we were to make the best
>print we could of one of the frames of all four negatives. In a class of 15 students
>the prints made from the negative with development times other then N were the better
>prints.
Okay, obviosuly they forgot about a couple of things, I don't know
when this was, but films have continually improved, I think for a AgBr
B&W film, these days the tonal range, is about 10 stops. Meaning
that a properly exposed negative will have both highlight and lowlight
details with a 7 stop difference, with normal development
Once the detail is in the negative, it needs to be put on paper, which
is probably closer to 5 stops. Dodging tools can help, simply dodge
the lighterr areas (of the negative), while exposing the paper. The
other alternative, is to simply scan it into your computer, and play
with it in PS. You could even scan it twice at different exposures,
and then combine them as layers......
Maybe you have been doing too much work all these years......
W
jjs
> Okay, however you need to keep several smaller rolls, rather then a
> few long ones, [...]
How soon we forget that at least one 35mm camera maker had interchangable
backs.