Pyro Staining B&W negatives vs. C-41 Monochromatic film

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Udie Lafing wrote:
: : Francis;
:
: : Why waste your breath with him? Its like taking a couple huffs
: : off a running cars muffler. Still the effort is noted
: : and appreciated by some.
:
: I agree that trying to reason with the troll that is scarpitti. The trick is to
: talk past scarpitti to the other readers. While I don't personally use pyro I
: have friends that use pyro with berger film. The results he gets from it are
: amazing! I've seen 11x14 prints made from 35mm negatives that were nearly
: grainless with fantastic tonality. When I first saw some of his 11x14 prints I thought
: it was made from at least 6x4.5 and most likely 6x7 negatives. All done on VC
: paper. Another example of the blathering from scarpitti falling on it's face
: when faced with reality.
:
: On the positive side scarpitti's blatherings are so off the wall and idiotic
: that I doubt anyone but the most rank beginners take anything he says
: seriously? and the little bit of credibility he has with those new to this
: list is lost very quickly. In these cases the best that can be done for the
: newbie is to point out the stupidity of scarpitti's advice and let everyone see
: his childish tantrums.


: Why do you spend so much time trying (trying!) to discredit me instead
: of proving anything I have said is incorrect. It's because you can't.

The fantasies are yours. You need to prove that they're correct.

: Pyro and Rodinal are useless with fast 35mm film (unless you don't
: care a whit about image quality).

Your proof of this is??
--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

Mike, I saw your shot under the old bridge, and sorta liked the
composition, but the washed-out daylight areas really sucked. Any chance
you could reshoot with wider latitude film, or try exposing for the
daylight areas, and use a powerful flash/flashes to fill in the dark
underpass?

As much as I find you to mostly be an egotistical idiot, I gotta praise
you for your "crumbling factories" project. If nothing else, I hope your
efforts will go to the local historical society.

Too many times I've seen beautiful old buildings torn down, and regretted
that I did not document their last years with my Leica/Kiev/Graflex.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

Mike, I saw your shot under the old bridge, and sorta liked the
composition, but the washed-out daylight areas really sucked. Any chance
you could reshoot with wider latitude film, or try exposing for the
daylight areas, and use a powerful flash/flashes to fill in the dark
underpass?

As much as I find you to mostly be an egotistical idiot, I gotta praise
you for your "crumbling factories" project. If nothing else, I hope your
efforts will go to the local historical society.

Too many times I've seen beautiful old buildings torn down, and regretted
that I did not document their last years with my Leica/Kiev/Graflex.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:16:21 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:

John,

I can only speak for myself, but I try to assure new members do not get
lead astray by his ranting and misinformation. This last string really
shows his total lack of current knowledge. Yes, I usually defend myself
when attacked and that's a mistake - to some degree. It's also human
nature.

Months ago, I posted information [that to me at least] shows Mike
Scarpitti as the person who has stalked, masqueraded himself as others and
slandered so many of us. Myself included. You as well.

While I usually have a thick skin and have not really stooped to his
immature level of profane name calling (OK, I sort of did - once), this guy
needs a real hit upside the head. I volunteer my services.

Jim

Jim,

While I certainly applaud the sentiment that most seem to have
towards new members of the group, I do speak with a little voice of
experience. You see we once had a troll on rec.photo.technique.people
known ass Eric Scott. He combined with a couple other whackos to run
off some of the best contributors in the rec.photo. heiarchy. As long
as contributors feed these sick peoples egos, they will hang around.
Take away their food and they will move to greener pastures.

You are all better than this guy. Let him go. Unfortunately
this has to be unanimous. One or two feeders and he'll hang on for a
long, long time.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:16:21 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:

John,

I can only speak for myself, but I try to assure new members do not get
lead astray by his ranting and misinformation. This last string really
shows his total lack of current knowledge. Yes, I usually defend myself
when attacked and that's a mistake - to some degree. It's also human
nature.

Months ago, I posted information [that to me at least] shows Mike
Scarpitti as the person who has stalked, masqueraded himself as others and
slandered so many of us. Myself included. You as well.

While I usually have a thick skin and have not really stooped to his
immature level of profane name calling (OK, I sort of did - once), this guy
needs a real hit upside the head. I volunteer my services.

Jim

Jim,

While I certainly applaud the sentiment that most seem to have
towards new members of the group, I do speak with a little voice of
experience. You see we once had a troll on rec.photo.technique.people
known ass Eric Scott. He combined with a couple other whackos to run
off some of the best contributors in the rec.photo. heiarchy. As long
as contributors feed these sick peoples egos, they will hang around.
Take away their food and they will move to greener pastures.

You are all better than this guy. Let him go. Unfortunately
this has to be unanimous. One or two feeders and he'll hang on for a
long, long time.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
.com...




By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro?


No, but I have seen pyro negatives.


[Pasted from another post]

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Frank Pittel wrote in
message ...

Udie Lafing wrote:
:

Pyro and Rodinal are useless with fast 35mm film (unless
you don't
care a whit about image quality).


Michael,

You cannot say both of what you have said above, i.e., that
you have never used pyro and that it is useless for fast 35
mm films. If you have not tried PMK on Tri-X, TMY, Delta
400, and HP5+, as I have, you are really not in a position
to declare that the developer is useless with fast 35 mm
films. The staining effect is definitely different among
each of these films, but the image quality obtained from
them is generally very good to excellent. Of the four, my
personal preferences are for TMY and HP5+. The latter
exhibits deeper stain absorbtion.

I suggest that you conduct an experiment with two rolls of
each of the films, shooting the same scenes on each roll,
developing one set in PMK and the second set in your
favorite developer. Print the comparative images (on VC
paper) and compare the results. This is essentially what
the author of the article in View Camera which I
previously cited to you did. There are, of course, other
journal articles making the comparison as well.


Francis A. Miniter

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
.com...




By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro?


No, but I have seen pyro negatives.


[Pasted from another post]

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Frank Pittel wrote in
message ...

Udie Lafing wrote:
:

Pyro and Rodinal are useless with fast 35mm film (unless
you don't
care a whit about image quality).


Michael,

You cannot say both of what you have said above, i.e., that
you have never used pyro and that it is useless for fast 35
mm films. If you have not tried PMK on Tri-X, TMY, Delta
400, and HP5+, as I have, you are really not in a position
to declare that the developer is useless with fast 35 mm
films. The staining effect is definitely different among
each of these films, but the image quality obtained from
them is generally very good to excellent. Of the four, my
personal preferences are for TMY and HP5+. The latter
exhibits deeper stain absorbtion.

I suggest that you conduct an experiment with two rolls of
each of the films, shooting the same scenes on each roll,
developing one set in PMK and the second set in your
favorite developer. Print the comparative images (on VC
paper) and compare the results. This is essentially what
the author of the article in View Camera which I
previously cited to you did. There are, of course, other
journal articles making the comparison as well.


Francis A. Miniter

"John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:16:21 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:

John,


Thanks for the background and the lesson learned. Point is well taken.

Jim

"John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:16:21 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:

John,


Thanks for the background and the lesson learned. Point is well taken.

Jim

Also, I would like you to answer my other question about the toxicity
of pyro. Are you aware that pyro is less toxic than Dektol? Put up or
shut
up!

No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.


Well, good. This is a perfect example when confronted with facts, you will
cannot change your mind. As I quoted previously from the Manufacturers
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), Pyro has a Lethal Dose (LD) in 50% of the rats
it's fed to (altogether, LD-50) of 789mg per kg of body weight. Dektol has
a LD-50 in rats of 50 to 500mg per kg of body weight. You need less Dektol
to kill 50% of the rats than Pyro. Therefore, Dektol is more toxic by a
minimum of 1.25 times and a maximum of 15.78 times. These MSDS figures are
quickly available either from Kodak or the web, and therefore my figures are
easily provable. This is the reason you are always on the wrong end of
arguments. You won't listen to anyone other than yourself.

Now here's another goody. The ingestion of 409 spray cleaner is more likely
to kill or harm you than either of the above. That MSDS is also available
on the web. So stop the hysteria!

Good by goof ball. I've have had it with you. You're more frustrating than
a trying to catch a fly with chop sticks.