35mm on grade 3 explained

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


For the record, I have a basement full of bottles of all kinds of
chemicals and a nice Ohaus scale. I have mixed dozens of formulas for
film and paper. My favorite was Gevaert 262. I have used Amidol, but
not Pyro. I have experimented with a two-solution glycin developer of
my own design (not quite a success from the standpoint of speed, but
very sharp). I quit compounding my own film developers recently when
Acutol became available again, because nothing I can mix with
public-domain formulas is its equal, though FX-15 (Acutol-S) is very
good for high speed films.

The book I am planning will draw from many sources, including my own
experience. Good writers usually draw from a number of sources. The
Kodak material provides a good outline for structuring the sequence of
topics.

MS

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

"jjs" wrote in message
...
You talking to me?

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

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

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

"jjs" wrote in message
...
You talking to me?

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

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
You'll note that many zonazis rely on printed materials that are even
older. Adams wrote his books in the late 1940's. White wrote the ZSM
in the early 1950's. White refers to a couple of articles by Davenport
published in 1940 in US Camera. So that argument won't wash, dear! You
can't have it both ways! If you dismiss this because it was written in
1960, you must dismiss all of the classic zs effluvium.



Uhh, my copy of Fred Picker's (RIP) book _Zone VI Workshop_ is copyrighted
in 1974. Not exactly new, but it has a 14 year leap on your references.
Also, my copy of Carson Graves _The Zone System for 35mm Photographers_ (2nd
Edition) is copyrighted in 1997. Wow, on your timeline that was like
yesterday or last week even...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
You'll note that many zonazis rely on printed materials that are even
older. Adams wrote his books in the late 1940's. White wrote the ZSM
in the early 1950's. White refers to a couple of articles by Davenport
published in 1940 in US Camera. So that argument won't wash, dear! You
can't have it both ways! If you dismiss this because it was written in
1960, you must dismiss all of the classic zs effluvium.



Uhh, my copy of Fred Picker's (RIP) book _Zone VI Workshop_ is copyrighted
in 1974. Not exactly new, but it has a 14 year leap on your references.
Also, my copy of Carson Graves _The Zone System for 35mm Photographers_ (2nd
Edition) is copyrighted in 1997. Wow, on your timeline that was like
yesterday or last week even...

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame
war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

Are you saing I'm immature ya big Poopie Head?

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame
war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

Are you saing I'm immature ya big Poopie Head?

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
You'll note that many zonazis rely on printed materials that are even
older. Adams wrote his books in the late 1940's. White wrote the ZSM
in the early 1950's. White refers to a couple of articles by Davenport
published in 1940 in US Camera. So that argument won't wash, dear! You
can't have it both ways! If you dismiss this because it was written in
1960, you must dismiss all of the classic zs effluvium.



Uhh, my copy of Fred Picker's (RIP) book _Zone VI Workshop_ is copyrighted
in 1974. Not exactly new, but it has a 14 year leap on your references.
Also, my copy of Carson Graves _The Zone System for 35mm Photographers_ (2nd
Edition) is copyrighted in 1997. Wow, on your timeline that was like
yesterday or last week even...

Not relevant, in that the notion of variable film development was
ALREADY around, and acknowledged and dismissed by Kodak in the 1952
material. That material cites the shortcomings of the thought behind
it.

Kodak:

"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.]"

The materials you mention are simply rehashings of the earlier stuff
dating from the 40's. White and Adams got the idea of the zoan sistern
from Davenport's 1940 US Camera articles. ALL subsequent zonazi
writings are derived from Adams and White's popularization of
Davenport's articles. The problem is, they do not carry the same
weight as the Kodak writing, which is based on EXHAUSTIVE research.
Davenport surely had no access to these findings.

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

"jjs" wrote in message

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame
war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

Are you saing I'm immature ya big Poopie Head?



Stop or I'll get my big brother to beat you up!

Thanks for the humor. I needed it today. Everything I touched either went
wrong or burnt. I even burnt a pan of Uncle Ben's rice tonight. It's late
here, and I'm glad this day is over.

Have a good night John...

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

"jjs" wrote in message

I knew that. Darn. I'll bet you and I could have a heck of a flame
war.


Well, then, you oversize patoot! So there, your move ;~))) What's a
patoot anyway???

Are you saing I'm immature ya big Poopie Head?



Stop or I'll get my big brother to beat you up!

Thanks for the humor. I needed it today. Everything I touched either went
wrong or burnt. I even burnt a pan of Uncle Ben's rice tonight. It's late
here, and I'm glad this day is over.

Have a good night John...