Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:25:03 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

Robert:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong. Their cherished, deeply-held beliefs
about exposure and development are in fact a religious cult. They
continue empty, meaningless, ritualistic practices that have no
relationship to or function for modern materials and equipment.

They 'place' this and and 'let fall' that and speak in Roman Numerals
about 'zones'.

The 'True Believer' will not listen, because he is faithful and
devout. He meets any scientific criticism with animosity, bile, and
hatred.

They have their bible (White's 'Zone System Manual'), their hymnal
(Adams's 'The Negative), and their high priest (John Sexton) a
dsiciple of their prophet (Adams).

Why it is necessary for me to point out the zoneheads' religious cult?
Is the world so ****ing blind?

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong? Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

-Peter De Smidt

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong? Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

-Peter De Smidt

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...

I have spoken with Bill Troop several times. As far as proprietary
developers are concerned, I disagree that there is any reason to avoid
them. The best developers are proprietary. That's why they're
proprietary!

I have also told him that his statements about 'less silver' being the
main motivation for Kodak's creation of T-Max films is quite absurd.
He does not dismiss T-grain films out of hand, but points out several
real problems with them, problems that I have observed myself. Most of
these pertain to the characteristic curves, and this is principally a
problem with TMY. There are also problems that he points out with fine
detail.

TMY DOES 'sag' in the mid-tones (compared to conventional films such
as Tri-X Pan), and ALL of Kodak's curves show this!

Here's Tri-X Pan in T-Max developer:

http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0490ac.gif

Note the slope decreases as density increases.

Here's TMY in T-Max developer:

http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...002_0507ac.gif

Note how throughout most of the middle tones the slope is increasing.

There is no escaping the fact that these films offer different curve
shapes, and that the middle tones of TMY are softer in contrast than
they are with Tri-X, whose highlights are softer in contrast instead.

Films with the Tri-X kind of curve shape are OBVIOUSLY better suited
to outdoor work, because flare tends to reduce contrast in the
shadow/mid-tone areas (where the contrast of TMY is already low).
Clouds, on the other hand, will be denser in the TMY negative, making
them in some cases too hard to print. No 'mastery' of technique or
zone system manipulations will alter the fact that these films have an
inherent difference in their curve shapes.

What 'contradictions' to Kodak's B&W films book have you found in my
statements? An older edition of the book (from the 1960's) goes into
considerable detail about the various curve shapes Kodak films have
and why they are suited for various applications (indoor, outdoor,
portrait, copying, etc.), and they mention specifically the problem of
flare on outdoor work, in particular flare from light striking the
inside of the bellows. Kodak specifically points out that certain
films are superior and others are worse in dealing with this problem.
The kinds of films that are superior have curve shapes like Tri-X. The
kinds that are inferior for outdoor work are ones with curve shapes
like TMY.

Kodak used to make many types of sheet films, all with different curve
shapes for different applications. Since there is so little demand
today for sheet films, the range of materials has been reduced
considerably. Kodak's current marketing takes no account of these past
products, and suggests the few remaining films be used for a wider
range of applications than they did in the past. Make of that what you
will. It does not alter thae fact that the shape of the TMY curve is
less suited for outdoor work than that of Tri-X Pan (the 35mm/120
format emulsion, not the sheet film emulsion, which has a curve shape
more like that of TMY):

http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0504ac.gif

Now, if you THINK you know what you're talking about, you don't. I DO!

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:42:40 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong? Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

-Peter De Smidt

Oh, yeah, beside John Douglas, there was another who asked me to
refrain from replying to MS.

You were right, Pete, so I forgive you for this lapse.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:42:40 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong? Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

-Peter De Smidt

Oh, yeah, beside John Douglas, there was another who asked me to
refrain from replying to MS.

You were right, Pete, so I forgive you for this lapse.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:42:40 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong? Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

-Peter De Smidt

Oh, yeah, beside John Douglas, there was another who asked me to
refrain from replying to MS.

You were right, Pete, so I forgive you for this lapse.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

The 'tone' of hostility comes from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
zonehead klansmen who won't tolerate for a moment the possibility that
everything they 'know' is wrong.

A brief look at the treads you've taken part in show that it's you who's
done most of the "foaming-at-the-mouth". Moreover, when have you ever
expressed sentiment that suggested the possibility that everything you
'know' is wrong?

No, because it's based on actual experience, trial and error, not just
reading ansel adams holy writ.

Your posts have consistently been the most arrogant,
dismissive, vulgar and intollerant in this newsgroup. Try following your
own advice.

Not even close, amico mio. The wretched, automatic dismissal of ANY
questioing of the zoan system comes from the zone klansmen, you know,
the ones wearing their zone ix robes, looking for someone to lynch.
I'm sick of it. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...

: I have spoken with Bill Troop several times. As far as proprietary
: developers are concerned, I disagree that there is any reason to avoid
: them. The best developers are proprietary. That's why they're
: proprietary!

: I have also told him that his statements about 'less silver' being the
: main motivation for Kodak's creation of T-Max films is quite absurd.
: He does not dismiss T-grain films out of hand, but points out several
: real problems with them, problems that I have observed myself. Most of
: these pertain to the characteristic curves, and this is principally a
: problem with TMY. There are also problems that he points out with fine
: detail.

The book gives less then a page to T grain film and then claims that while the 3200
speed films are the most useful the film manufactureres could produce a conventional
film just as fast. That's the last they mention T grain film.

: TMY DOES 'sag' in the mid-tones (compared to conventional films such
: as Tri-X Pan), and ALL of Kodak's curves show this!

: Here's Tri-X Pan in T-Max developer:

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0490ac.gif

: Note the slope decreases as density increases.

: Here's TMY in T-Max developer:

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...002_0507ac.gif

: Note how throughout most of the middle tones the slope is increasing.

Take another look at the two charts you provided URLs for. This time take a closer look
at the scale at the bottom of the graph. There is also no "sag" in the graph for TMY.

: There is no escaping the fact that these films offer different curve
: shapes, and that the middle tones of TMY are softer in contrast than
: they are with Tri-X, whose highlights are softer in contrast instead.

I don't recall anyone arguing that the curves were the same. The primary argument that
you degenerated this thread into is your fantasy that TMY wasn't suited to "outdoor"
photography. YOu have provided no evidence to support your fantasy.

: Films with the Tri-X kind of curve shape are OBVIOUSLY better suited
: to outdoor work, because flare tends to reduce contrast in the
: shadow/mid-tone areas (where the contrast of TMY is already low).
: Clouds, on the other hand, will be denser in the TMY negative, making
: them in some cases too hard to print. No 'mastery' of technique or
: zone system manipulations will alter the fact that these films have an
: inherent difference in their curve shapes.

More fantasy. The "flare you are talking about is more commonly referred to as
"specular highlights" As a result the midtones aren't effected, only the highlights.
The problems that you have with TMY and clouds are your problems. They are easily dealt
with when proper filtering and zone system techniques are used. So far the only one
here that wants the curves of TMY and tri-x to be the same is you.

: What 'contradictions' to Kodak's B&W films book have you found in my
: statements? An older edition of the book (from the 1960's) goes into
: considerable detail about the various curve shapes Kodak films have
: and why they are suited for various applications (indoor, outdoor,
: portrait, copying, etc.), and they mention specifically the problem of
: flare on outdoor work, in particular flare from light striking the
: inside of the bellows. Kodak specifically points out that certain
: films are superior and others are worse in dealing with this problem.
: The kinds of films that are superior have curve shapes like Tri-X. The
: kinds that are inferior for outdoor work are ones with curve shapes
: like TMY.

We can start with your fantasy that Kodak states that TMY isn't suitable for "outdoor"
use. Any book that you have from the '60s is irrelevent to discussions of films like
TMY that didn't exist at the time of printing. There is also your claim that the curve
for TMY has a "sag" in it. The graph presented in the book clearly demonstrates that
there is no "sag" in the curve.

: Kodak used to make many types of sheet films, all with different curve
: shapes for different applications. Since there is so little demand
: today for sheet films, the range of materials has been reduced
: considerably. Kodak's current marketing takes no account of these past
: products, and suggests the few remaining films be used for a wider
: range of applications than they did in the past. Make of that what you
: will. It does not alter thae fact that the shape of the TMY curve is
: less suited for outdoor work than that of Tri-X Pan (the 35mm/120
: format emulsion, not the sheet film emulsion, which has a curve shape
: more like that of TMY):

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0504ac.gif

Once again nobody claimed that the curve for TMY is the same as tri-x. That includes
both the sheet and roll film version of the film. Nice try at changing the subject
though.

: Now, if you THINK you know what you're talking about, you don't. I DO!

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...

: I have spoken with Bill Troop several times. As far as proprietary
: developers are concerned, I disagree that there is any reason to avoid
: them. The best developers are proprietary. That's why they're
: proprietary!

: I have also told him that his statements about 'less silver' being the
: main motivation for Kodak's creation of T-Max films is quite absurd.
: He does not dismiss T-grain films out of hand, but points out several
: real problems with them, problems that I have observed myself. Most of
: these pertain to the characteristic curves, and this is principally a
: problem with TMY. There are also problems that he points out with fine
: detail.

The book gives less then a page to T grain film and then claims that while the 3200
speed films are the most useful the film manufactureres could produce a conventional
film just as fast. That's the last they mention T grain film.

: TMY DOES 'sag' in the mid-tones (compared to conventional films such
: as Tri-X Pan), and ALL of Kodak's curves show this!

: Here's Tri-X Pan in T-Max developer:

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0490ac.gif

: Note the slope decreases as density increases.

: Here's TMY in T-Max developer:

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...002_0507ac.gif

: Note how throughout most of the middle tones the slope is increasing.

Take another look at the two charts you provided URLs for. This time take a closer look
at the scale at the bottom of the graph. There is also no "sag" in the graph for TMY.

: There is no escaping the fact that these films offer different curve
: shapes, and that the middle tones of TMY are softer in contrast than
: they are with Tri-X, whose highlights are softer in contrast instead.

I don't recall anyone arguing that the curves were the same. The primary argument that
you degenerated this thread into is your fantasy that TMY wasn't suited to "outdoor"
photography. YOu have provided no evidence to support your fantasy.

: Films with the Tri-X kind of curve shape are OBVIOUSLY better suited
: to outdoor work, because flare tends to reduce contrast in the
: shadow/mid-tone areas (where the contrast of TMY is already low).
: Clouds, on the other hand, will be denser in the TMY negative, making
: them in some cases too hard to print. No 'mastery' of technique or
: zone system manipulations will alter the fact that these films have an
: inherent difference in their curve shapes.

More fantasy. The "flare you are talking about is more commonly referred to as
"specular highlights" As a result the midtones aren't effected, only the highlights.
The problems that you have with TMY and clouds are your problems. They are easily dealt
with when proper filtering and zone system techniques are used. So far the only one
here that wants the curves of TMY and tri-x to be the same is you.

: What 'contradictions' to Kodak's B&W films book have you found in my
: statements? An older edition of the book (from the 1960's) goes into
: considerable detail about the various curve shapes Kodak films have
: and why they are suited for various applications (indoor, outdoor,
: portrait, copying, etc.), and they mention specifically the problem of
: flare on outdoor work, in particular flare from light striking the
: inside of the bellows. Kodak specifically points out that certain
: films are superior and others are worse in dealing with this problem.
: The kinds of films that are superior have curve shapes like Tri-X. The
: kinds that are inferior for outdoor work are ones with curve shapes
: like TMY.

We can start with your fantasy that Kodak states that TMY isn't suitable for "outdoor"
use. Any book that you have from the '60s is irrelevent to discussions of films like
TMY that didn't exist at the time of printing. There is also your claim that the curve
for TMY has a "sag" in it. The graph presented in the book clearly demonstrates that
there is no "sag" in the curve.

: Kodak used to make many types of sheet films, all with different curve
: shapes for different applications. Since there is so little demand
: today for sheet films, the range of materials has been reduced
: considerably. Kodak's current marketing takes no account of these past
: products, and suggests the few remaining films be used for a wider
: range of applications than they did in the past. Make of that what you
: will. It does not alter thae fact that the shape of the TMY curve is
: less suited for outdoor work than that of Tri-X Pan (the 35mm/120
: format emulsion, not the sheet film emulsion, which has a curve shape
: more like that of TMY):

: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...009_0504ac.gif

Once again nobody claimed that the curve for TMY is the same as tri-x. That includes
both the sheet and roll film version of the film. Nice try at changing the subject
though.

: Now, if you THINK you know what you're talking about, you don't. I DO!

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------