35mm on grade 3 explained

I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so.

I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is
misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to
note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak
that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason
he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected
making images look unnatural.

Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development
time has no effect on tonal distribution. This new claim agrees with something
I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact
however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints.
This I have proven through testing.

As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll.


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
: "PGG" schreef in bericht
: newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
: I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
: However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.
:
:
: Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
: the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
: developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.

: That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
: for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
: Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

: Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
: printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
: softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
: And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
: Monochrome".

: It really should make no significant difference. See below.

: See:

: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

: Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
: contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
: states:

: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
: believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
: differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
: original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
: so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
: print contrast.

: Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
: and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
: The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
: tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


: And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
: personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
: APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
: was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
: x 5 "!
:
: Third drawback: a little loss of speed.

: Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!

--




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

I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so.

I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is
misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to
note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak
that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason
he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected
making images look unnatural.

Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development
time has no effect on tonal distribution. This new claim agrees with something
I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact
however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints.
This I have proven through testing.

As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll.


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
: "PGG" schreef in bericht
: newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...
: I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain.
: However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable.
:
:
: Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for
: the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film
: developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast.

: That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this
: for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain.
: Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast.

: Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
: printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
: softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
: And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
: Monochrome".

: It really should make no significant difference. See below.

: See:

: http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

: Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
: contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
: states:

: Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
: believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
: differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
: original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
: so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
: print contrast.

: Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
: and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
: The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
: tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."


: And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit
: personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my
: APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I
: was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4
: x 5 "!
:
: Third drawback: a little loss of speed.

: Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous!

--




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

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head...

You talking to me?

Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity.

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

I said 'one of the best', for the record.

But you also said: "Because I know more than almost anybody on the planet
about 35mm
monochrome." The "...almost anybody..." kinda limits the field, doesn't
it. How can you make this claim when you've never processed Tech-Pan, used
a Pyro developer, and don't realize Rodinal gives a unique and useful look
to a negative to achieve a desired result. Grain isn't bad if it fits the
vision of the photographer That's just three off the top of my head that
you need to go out and learn before you begin to write the forward on that
rehashed Kodak digest you're planning. I'd even bet you've never compounded
your own chemicals or experimented with different formulas just to see the
results to find out if it was something useful.

Yeah, you know alot about 35mm monochrome, but very little about monochrome
photography.

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
m...


Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it.

I said 'one of the best', for the record.

But you also said: "Because I know more than almost anybody on the planet
about 35mm
monochrome." The "...almost anybody..." kinda limits the field, doesn't
it. How can you make this claim when you've never processed Tech-Pan, used
a Pyro developer, and don't realize Rodinal gives a unique and useful look
to a negative to achieve a desired result. Grain isn't bad if it fits the
vision of the photographer That's just three off the top of my head that
you need to go out and learn before you begin to write the forward on that
rehashed Kodak digest you're planning. I'd even bet you've never compounded
your own chemicals or experimented with different formulas just to see the
results to find out if it was something useful.

Yeah, you know alot about 35mm monochrome, but very little about monochrome
photography.

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:
My prints are gorgeous!


Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?


Oh please grace me with your mastery of printing!

And why the name change...to get past peoples kill filters???

ROFLMAO!

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:
My prints are gorgeous!


Now THATS funny!

Do you want to see one, up close and live?


Oh please grace me with your mastery of printing!

And why the name change...to get past peoples kill filters???

ROFLMAO!

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...

I'VE PLACED MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE READING EASIER.

snip


And you're a Kodakazi, so there! :P

nener nener neener

Stop relying of 1960 published material and join us int he 21st
century.
Things have changed for both Big Yellow and you since your award
winning days as a yearbook photographer 35 years ago.

lol