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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : 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.
:
: : So? That doesn't mean they 'dismiss' T-grain films.
:
: : : 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.
:
: : You're blind, obviously. The slope of the curves of these two films is
: : different. The slope of Tri-X is greater at the lower densities and
: : less at the higher densities. The exact opposite is true of TMY. This
: : means that when you adjust the OVERALL contrast of the negative so
: : that it prints properly, the contrast of a Tri-X negative will be
: : greater in the deeper tones (mid-tones and shadows) than in the
: : highlights. Again, for TMY, the exact opposite is the case. The
: : shadow/mid-tone contrast will be proportionally less than with Tri-X,
: : and the highlight contrast will be proportionally more. This means the
: : contrast of the shadows/mid-tones 'sags' compared to the highlight
: : contrast. It corresponds to a slightly 'U'-shaped form, whereas the
: : Tri-X curve is described as an 'S'-shaped curve. The TMY curve is like
: : that of a rope suspended at the ends, which sags in the middle.
:
: think you may want to take another look at the graphs and this time pay a ttention to
: the scale at the bottom. (hint: they're different)

: That doesn't matter. Not at all. The SHAPE of the curve is all that
: matters.

Are you just pretending to be a moron or are actually as stupid as you seem??

: : : 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.
:
: : Where does flare affect the image most? Where does flare destroy the
: : contrast most? Obviously, in the areas of least density: the shadows.
: : Films with curves like Tri-X 'fight' the contrast-damaging effects of
: : flare by having high shadow contrast. Bright skies will held in check
: : by the roll-off of density and contrast. This means that the negative
: : will have snap in the shadows and the print will be well-balanced
: : overall. The TMY print will have flat shadows and very dense
: : highlights in comparison.
:
: Where is this "flare" you refer to come from??

: ALL lenses have flare. Flare is worse outdoors where there is a bright
: sky and frequently the sun itself will strike the lens, even when a
: shade is used.

Do you really want to go on record as claiming that Tri-X isn't effecte by sun flare??

: Why does it exist outdoors instead of indoors?

: Because there is a huge difference between bright sky and dark
: fireground. In a studio, there is typicaly no such problem. Lights are
: controlled in placement and spill, and lighting ratios are much more
: tolerable.
:
: : : 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.
:
: : You obviously are retarded. 'Flare' is overall, raw light that covers
: : the entire negative.
:
: Sounds like you have severe problems with composition when making exposures outdoors.

: Oh, really? Since when has it been possible to control the time of day
: of sporting events? The end of the field the goal is placed?

I think you just answered the question about your being a moron.

: : 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 are these magical 'zone system techniques'? Obviously, all that
: : one can do is give more or less exposure, more or less development.
: : That's it. No matter what increase or decrease in exposure and
: : development you may perform, the basic character of TMY is not going
: : to change. The highlights are STILL going to be constrastier than the
: : mid-tones/shadows. With Tri-X, no matter what you do, the shadows are
: : always going to be contrastier than the highlighs.
:
: Who's trying to change the curve of TMY?

: I would like it if it had a curve more like that of Tri-X. The curve
: it has makes it less than ideal for outdoor work.

While TMY isn't my prefered film it works fine for outdoor use. A more likely
explanationSP? for your inability to get go results from TMY is your lack of ability
as a photographer.

:
: : : 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.
:
: : I've explained this over and over. If you don't understand, that means
: : you're a ****ing retard. I cannot think of cloacal invective stong
: : enough for a case of stupidity such as yours, dumbass...
:
: You were wrong the first time you explained it over a year ago and you're wrong now.
: Just like you stunk as a photographer during the early seventies and you still stink
: now.

: You're still a ****ing retard...

--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: :
: : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: :
: :
: :
: : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : 'compensating' development.
:
: : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
:
: Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: Sheet film, perhaps...

Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: Do you think you know more then Kodak??

Do you still think you know more then Kodak??
--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: :
: : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: :
: :
: :
: : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : 'compensating' development.
:
: : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
:
: Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: Sheet film, perhaps...

Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: Do you think you know more then Kodak??

Do you still think you know more then Kodak??
--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: :
: : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: :
: :
: :
: : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : 'compensating' development.
:
: : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
:
: Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: Sheet film, perhaps...

Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: Do you think you know more then Kodak??

Do you still think you know more then Kodak??
--




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

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: :
: : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: :
: :
: :
: : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : 'compensating' development.

: : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
:
: Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: Sheet film, perhaps...

Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

They mean sheet film, dammit!

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: :
: : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: :
: :
: :
: : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : 'compensating' development.

: : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
:
: Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: Sheet film, perhaps...

Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

They mean sheet film, dammit!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : : 'compensating' development.
:
: : : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
: :
: : Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.
:
: : Sheet film, perhaps...
:
: Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: They mean sheet film, dammit!

I just took a closer look at the instructions for the "ringaround" test they suggest
for determining effective film speed and development time. The only time it mentions
a film format is on page 22 (second printing, 2000) in the third column. I quote "With
roll films, use a different roll for each column of the chart. Clearly they don't mean
that the process is or should be limited to sheet film.

I also note that on page 14 of the same book in the second column under the heading of
"contrast" I found the following "Negative with the correct contrast range will produce
good quality prints on normal contrast (grade 2) paper with your equipment".

I then went to page 24 of the same book and found the following at the top of the
second column under the heading "Adjusting Development to Scene Contrast (Luminance
Range):", "If you photograph a scene with higher or lower contrast then the scene you
used for your ringaround test, you can change the development time to adjust the
negative contrast so that the negative will print well on a normal-contrast paper and
provide improved tone reproduction."

It looks as if scarpitti thinks he knows more about B&W film processing then Kodak!!
--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : : 'compensating' development.
:
: : : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
: :
: : Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.
:
: : Sheet film, perhaps...
:
: Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: They mean sheet film, dammit!

I just took a closer look at the instructions for the "ringaround" test they suggest
for determining effective film speed and development time. The only time it mentions
a film format is on page 22 (second printing, 2000) in the third column. I quote "With
roll films, use a different roll for each column of the chart. Clearly they don't mean
that the process is or should be limited to sheet film.

I also note that on page 14 of the same book in the second column under the heading of
"contrast" I found the following "Negative with the correct contrast range will produce
good quality prints on normal contrast (grade 2) paper with your equipment".

I then went to page 24 of the same book and found the following at the top of the
second column under the heading "Adjusting Development to Scene Contrast (Luminance
Range):", "If you photograph a scene with higher or lower contrast then the scene you
used for your ringaround test, you can change the development time to adjust the
negative contrast so that the negative will print well on a normal-contrast paper and
provide improved tone reproduction."

It looks as if scarpitti thinks he knows more about B&W film processing then Kodak!!
--




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

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : : 'compensating' development.

: : : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
: :
: : Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: : Sheet film, perhaps...
:
: Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: They mean sheet film, dammit!

I just took a closer look at the instructions for the "ringaround" test they suggest
for determining effective film speed and development time. The only time it mentions
a film format is on page 22 (second printing, 2000) in the third column. I quote "With
roll films, use a different roll for each column of the chart. Clearly they don't mean
that the process is or should be limited to sheet film.

I also note that on page 14 of the same book in the second column under the heading of
"contrast" I found the following "Negative with the correct contrast range will produce
good quality prints on normal contrast (grade 2) paper with your equipment".

I then went to page 24 of the same book and found the following at the top of the
second column under the heading "Adjusting Development to Scene Contrast (Luminance
Range):", "If you photograph a scene with higher or lower contrast then the scene you
used for your ringaround test, you can change the development time to adjust the
negative contrast so that the negative will print well on a normal-contrast paper and
provide improved tone reproduction."

It looks as if scarpitti thinks he knows more about B&W film processing then Kodak!!



As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

Eastman Kodak wrote this, dumbass....

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : To bad scarpitti doesn't believe in contration. His advice earlier in the thread is to
: : : not worry about the contrast of the scene and simply let the highlights blow out.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : That's not exactly fair. MS advocates using an 's' curved film with
: : : 'compensating' development.

: : : This is simply what Kodak advocates. I merely pass it along.
: :
: : Kodak also advises developing a negative so that it prints with well on grade 2 paper.

: : Sheet film, perhaps...
:
: Nice try. The book from Kodak makes no mention of format or film type.

: They mean sheet film, dammit!

I just took a closer look at the instructions for the "ringaround" test they suggest
for determining effective film speed and development time. The only time it mentions
a film format is on page 22 (second printing, 2000) in the third column. I quote "With
roll films, use a different roll for each column of the chart. Clearly they don't mean
that the process is or should be limited to sheet film.

I also note that on page 14 of the same book in the second column under the heading of
"contrast" I found the following "Negative with the correct contrast range will produce
good quality prints on normal contrast (grade 2) paper with your equipment".

I then went to page 24 of the same book and found the following at the top of the
second column under the heading "Adjusting Development to Scene Contrast (Luminance
Range):", "If you photograph a scene with higher or lower contrast then the scene you
used for your ringaround test, you can change the development time to adjust the
negative contrast so that the negative will print well on a normal-contrast paper and
provide improved tone reproduction."

It looks as if scarpitti thinks he knows more about B&W film processing then Kodak!!



As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

Eastman Kodak wrote this, dumbass....