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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
: "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
: om...
:
: Pyro developers were in use and popular almost a CENTURY before VC
: papers were even thought of. The main benefit of pyro was understood
: to be density WITHOUT silver. You're so ****ING STUPID (and this is
: incontrovertible) that you don't know this. Pyro was the FIRST organic
: developing agent to be discovered, dumbass! It was introduced in the
: 1850's.
:
: You know nothing, NOTHING, ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING about darkroom,
: so shut the **** up!
:
: Your statements on Pyro are correct, it has been used for a long time.
: About me, incorrect. I may not be the most respected nor loved person in
: these newsgroups, but at least I have the knowledge to back up what I state
: or in the face of correction are willing to be so. When it comes to pyro, I
: have first hand experience. Do you?
:
: You are the one who knows absolutely nothing about photography other than
: what you have read in half century old books.

: Nonsense, I have 40 years of experience.

It doesn't matter. You stunk 40 years ago and you stink now.

: Your experience in the
: darkroom and behind the camera are so evident in your "waffle boy" print as
: well as the other you invited us to view.

: 35 years old photo. My methods and skills have improved enormously in
: that time. Even so, I still like the image.

You still haven't gotten passed the intro to photography level.

--




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

"John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:09:57 GMT, Udie Lafing
wrote:

I think it was I who encouraged as many people as possible
to killfile you shortly after you came to the newsgroup
last year.....

Shame on me but unfortunately I haven't been keeping up on
this little Peyton Place. Exactly who are you ?

And I also recommended group-wide filtering but some people
seem to give his trolling enough merit that they actually read/reply
to his posts. Why they should do so knowing full well that it's
causing serious damage to this group is beyond me.


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

"John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:09:57 GMT, Udie Lafing
wrote:

I think it was I who encouraged as many people as possible
to killfile you shortly after you came to the newsgroup
last year.....

Shame on me but unfortunately I haven't been keeping up on
this little Peyton Place. Exactly who are you ?

And I also recommended group-wide filtering but some people
seem to give his trolling enough merit that they actually read/reply
to his posts. Why they should do so knowing full well that it's
causing serious damage to this group is beyond me.


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

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

Pyro developers were in use and popular almost a CENTURY before VC
papers were even thought of. The main benefit of pyro was understood
to be density WITHOUT silver. You're so ****ING STUPID (and this is
incontrovertible) that you don't know this. Pyro was the FIRST organic
developing agent to be discovered, dumbass! It was introduced in the
1850's.

You know nothing, NOTHING, ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING about darkroom,
so shut the **** up!

Your statements on Pyro are correct, it has been used for a long time.
About me, incorrect. I may not be the most respected nor loved person
in
these newsgroups, but at least I have the knowledge to back up what I
state
or in the face of correction are willing to be so. When it comes to
pyro, I
have first hand experience. Do you?

You are the one who knows absolutely nothing about photography other
than
what you have read in half century old books.

Nonsense, I have 40 years of experience.

Well that 40 years of experience is rooted in knowledge that is 40+ years
old. You do not seem to have progressed. Your total lack of understanding
of Pyro with modern VC paper is so indicative of your confusion and behind
the times knowledge. By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro? 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!


Your experience in the
darkroom and behind the camera are so evident in your "waffle boy" print
as
well as the other you invited us to view.

35 years old photo. My methods and skills have improved enormously in
that time. Even so, I still like the image.

That's not saying much. From the waffle boy the only way to go was up...


I have likely forgotten more
about the darkroom and photography in general than you know.

The reverse is more likely, punk.

Haaa haaa haaaa haaaaaa. Your demonstrated knowledge on this and many
other forums is quite contrary to the above statement.


Go away. Go
to one of the alt.binary.pictures.* groups and get a good grip on
yourself.
You may find it satisfying.

Wow, I must applauded you. When I hit the send button on the original
message, I expected you to come back with some comment to the above like
"More 'first hand' experience?", but you didn't. Just the same. Nope, no
experience there. But your lack of anticipated comment suggest something, I
think...

Why must you always use profanity? Is it because you cannot argue sensibly
or maturely?

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

Pyro developers were in use and popular almost a CENTURY before VC
papers were even thought of. The main benefit of pyro was understood
to be density WITHOUT silver. You're so ****ING STUPID (and this is
incontrovertible) that you don't know this. Pyro was the FIRST organic
developing agent to be discovered, dumbass! It was introduced in the
1850's.

You know nothing, NOTHING, ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING about darkroom,
so shut the **** up!

Your statements on Pyro are correct, it has been used for a long time.
About me, incorrect. I may not be the most respected nor loved person
in
these newsgroups, but at least I have the knowledge to back up what I
state
or in the face of correction are willing to be so. When it comes to
pyro, I
have first hand experience. Do you?

You are the one who knows absolutely nothing about photography other
than
what you have read in half century old books.

Nonsense, I have 40 years of experience.

Well that 40 years of experience is rooted in knowledge that is 40+ years
old. You do not seem to have progressed. Your total lack of understanding
of Pyro with modern VC paper is so indicative of your confusion and behind
the times knowledge. By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro? 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!


Your experience in the
darkroom and behind the camera are so evident in your "waffle boy" print
as
well as the other you invited us to view.

35 years old photo. My methods and skills have improved enormously in
that time. Even so, I still like the image.

That's not saying much. From the waffle boy the only way to go was up...


I have likely forgotten more
about the darkroom and photography in general than you know.

The reverse is more likely, punk.

Haaa haaa haaaa haaaaaa. Your demonstrated knowledge on this and many
other forums is quite contrary to the above statement.


Go away. Go
to one of the alt.binary.pictures.* groups and get a good grip on
yourself.
You may find it satisfying.

Wow, I must applauded you. When I hit the send button on the original
message, I expected you to come back with some comment to the above like
"More 'first hand' experience?", but you didn't. Just the same. Nope, no
experience there. But your lack of anticipated comment suggest something, I
think...

Why must you always use profanity? Is it because you cannot argue sensibly
or maturely?

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

Pyro developers were in use and popular almost a CENTURY before VC
papers were even thought of. The main benefit of pyro was understood
to be density WITHOUT silver. You're so ****ING STUPID (and this is
incontrovertible) that you don't know this. Pyro was the FIRST organic
developing agent to be discovered, dumbass! It was introduced in the
1850's.

You know nothing, NOTHING, ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING about darkroom,
so shut the **** up!

Your statements on Pyro are correct, it has been used for a long time.
About me, incorrect. I may not be the most respected nor loved person
in
these newsgroups, but at least I have the knowledge to back up what I
state
or in the face of correction are willing to be so. When it comes to
pyro, I
have first hand experience. Do you?

You are the one who knows absolutely nothing about photography other
than
what you have read in half century old books.

Nonsense, I have 40 years of experience.

Well that 40 years of experience is rooted in knowledge that is 40+ years
old. You do not seem to have progressed. Your total lack of understanding
of Pyro with modern VC paper is so indicative of your confusion and behind
the times knowledge. By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro? 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!


Your experience in the
darkroom and behind the camera are so evident in your "waffle boy" print
as
well as the other you invited us to view.

35 years old photo. My methods and skills have improved enormously in
that time. Even so, I still like the image.

That's not saying much. From the waffle boy the only way to go was up...


I have likely forgotten more
about the darkroom and photography in general than you know.

The reverse is more likely, punk.

Haaa haaa haaaa haaaaaa. Your demonstrated knowledge on this and many
other forums is quite contrary to the above statement.


Go away. Go
to one of the alt.binary.pictures.* groups and get a good grip on
yourself.
You may find it satisfying.

Wow, I must applauded you. When I hit the send button on the original
message, I expected you to come back with some comment to the above like
"More 'first hand' experience?", but you didn't. Just the same. Nope, no
experience there. But your lack of anticipated comment suggest something, I
think...

Why must you always use profanity? Is it because you cannot argue sensibly
or maturely?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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