I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
: :
: : : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : : by side qualitative comparison.
: :
: : A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: : comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire
: : to do so I won't.
:
: : Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: : by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: : is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: : undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: : paper.
:
: ??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

: sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
: silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
: No difference in continuity.

sigh The colored dots I see when I look at a color enlargement contradicts
you claim of "continuous".

: : Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: : are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: : It looks continuous, but isn't.
:
: :
: : : I made from it compare
: : : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : : with an enlarger!!
: :
: : : True, real world comparison:
: :
: : : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : : is different.
: :
: : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap
:
: : O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: : doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.
:
: If you say so.
:
: : and I'll
: : bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: : think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: : smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.
:
: : Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: : spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: : help, but not prevent 100%
:
: : (no offense intended)
: : I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: : and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: : there is no "smearing".
:
: : it spreads.
:
: That's different then smearing.

: To smear means to spread, to spread to smear.

If you say so.

snip

: I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
: to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

: You do if you want to know qualitatively and
: quantitatively what you're talking about when
: making such comparisons.

What?? I looked at the print and it looked good.

: : I also know
: : that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.
:
: : sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: : Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: : professional photography and the quality professionals
: : I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: : High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: : across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.
:
: I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
: on a persons standards.

: No. It depsnds on controlling the imaging variables...

If you like it that's all that matters.

: : But you must have more extensive "professional"
: : experience than they?
:
: A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.

: Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
: Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
: the samae as yours.

You know nothing about the quality of the prints I make.
If you set your standards low enough that you think that a 16x20
print from a 35mm negative looks good I'm glad for you. I'll bet
you think that a 16x20 print from a 110 of aps frame looks great also.

: The enlargements I'm referring
: aren't crap; they rival (though not equal) larger
: formats because my use of the term "professional"
: isn't "commercial." It's means meeting certain
: standards.

T
: In many cases they will generate work of lower quality.

: Now that's crap.

Not at all.

: When printing
: or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
: under time pressueres that I am not under.

: More crap.

More truth that you deny.

: I am not under those pressures
: to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
: without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
: "professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

: And I'm not impressed with your insistent ignorance.

I simply have my standards set higher then yours.

: You simply assert enlargements from 35mm to 16x20 are
: "crap" yet you don't know (1) why your enlargements
: are crap or (2) how to control your photographic
: variables in order to get better quality enlargements.

Now that statement is ignorant.

: : Yes. Good professional quality photography
: : takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.
:
: It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
: look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.

: Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
: because you don't understand anything yet then
: assume you actually know something based on your
: empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
: knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
: to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
: irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."


Now you're talking stupid.

: It's not the materials...

: Of course a person
: with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying
: to do what can't be done.

: That's total meaningless nonsense you are simply
: making up.

: Here's the truth, though sometimes I wonder why I
: "waste" my time trying to tell you something you
: don't appear to care to understand:

You can't resist. You have to be right and you have to have
the last word in any and every thread you're involved.

: The optics, depth of field, resolution-MTF of the
: film-camera system, plus optics and alignment of
: the enlarging system, and sometimes on the image
: subject matter itself all affect the quality of the
: end enlargement. Most people simply never spend the
: time and effort to assess those factors before going
: out to shoot whatever it is they shoot. Professionals
: whose end goal is the highest quality enlargements do.
: If those factors are all carefully considered and the
: variables strictly controlled, there's no reason very
: high quality enlargements from 35mm cannot be made.


: You won't get the same as with LF, but you will get
: better quality.

More of the point techno-babble.

: Tell me, Frank, have you _ever_ performed an MTF
: test of your film-camera system? And assessed the
: weak links and made corrections in equipment, optics,
: and film? Or have you ever performed depth of field
: tests with graphs to calulated your system's needed
: circle of confusion size _for_ the enlargments you
: plan to make? (Yes, Frank, one should determine the
: desired degree of enlargement before even making an
: exposure.) Bet you don't even know how to do that.
: I've a chart I made that tells me what circle of
: confusion size and hyperfocal distance I need to get
: a certain quality at a particular enlargment size.

All that work and your 16x20 enlargements of a 35mm still looks
like crap.

: A person with "the proper amount of knowledge" does
: all these things _before_ going out to shoot anything,
: so they don't "waste time" haphazardly hoping for good
: results that translate into superb enlargements. When
: shooting they use the best optics, the proper tripod,
: the right f-stop (to prevent diffraction), the right
: film, the right composition with a suitable subject
: for a _planned_ enlargement of that subject. They never
: shoot haphazardly "see what you get, hope for the best"
: style. Even a slight breeze or something as simple as
: failure to lock up the mirror on your SLR when tripping
: the shutter can degrade an image for desired enlargement.
: Are you using 400 speed film, or Kodachrome 64? It all
: makes a difference and any one variable not addressed
: and controlled for the planned enlargement can result
: in a lesser quality when enlarging.

: In other words, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
: your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. As I
: say, scans of film can also lose detail and sharpness in
: critical areas (highlight and shadow areas and _will_
: with ALL low end consumer scanners), so unless you get
: the best scan by a good scanning technician using a high
: end scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
: better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
: shot with enlargement in mind.

: That's all I have to say on the matter. Continue to
: obfuscate in ignorance if you choose.

Obfuscation is all you've been providing.


--




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

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : : Frank Pittel wrote:
: : :
: : : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
: :
: : : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : : by side qualitative comparison.
: :
: : A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: : comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire
: : to do so I won't.
:
: : Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: : by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: : is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: : undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: : paper.
:
: ??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

: sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
: silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
: No difference in continuity.

sigh The colored dots I see when I look at a color enlargement contradicts
you claim of "continuous".

: : Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: : are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: : It looks continuous, but isn't.
:
: :
: : : I made from it compare
: : : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : : with an enlarger!!
: :
: : : True, real world comparison:
: :
: : : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : : is different.
: :
: : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap
:
: : O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: : doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.
:
: If you say so.
:
: : and I'll
: : bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: : think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: : smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.
:
: : Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: : spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: : help, but not prevent 100%
:
: : (no offense intended)
: : I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: : and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: : there is no "smearing".
:
: : it spreads.
:
: That's different then smearing.

: To smear means to spread, to spread to smear.

If you say so.

snip

: I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
: to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

: You do if you want to know qualitatively and
: quantitatively what you're talking about when
: making such comparisons.

What?? I looked at the print and it looked good.

: : I also know
: : that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.
:
: : sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: : Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: : professional photography and the quality professionals
: : I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: : High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: : across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.
:
: I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
: on a persons standards.

: No. It depsnds on controlling the imaging variables...

If you like it that's all that matters.

: : But you must have more extensive "professional"
: : experience than they?
:
: A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.

: Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
: Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
: the samae as yours.

You know nothing about the quality of the prints I make.
If you set your standards low enough that you think that a 16x20
print from a 35mm negative looks good I'm glad for you. I'll bet
you think that a 16x20 print from a 110 of aps frame looks great also.

: The enlargements I'm referring
: aren't crap; they rival (though not equal) larger
: formats because my use of the term "professional"
: isn't "commercial." It's means meeting certain
: standards.

T
: In many cases they will generate work of lower quality.

: Now that's crap.

Not at all.

: When printing
: or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
: under time pressueres that I am not under.

: More crap.

More truth that you deny.

: I am not under those pressures
: to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
: without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
: "professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

: And I'm not impressed with your insistent ignorance.

I simply have my standards set higher then yours.

: You simply assert enlargements from 35mm to 16x20 are
: "crap" yet you don't know (1) why your enlargements
: are crap or (2) how to control your photographic
: variables in order to get better quality enlargements.

Now that statement is ignorant.

: : Yes. Good professional quality photography
: : takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.
:
: It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
: look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.

: Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
: because you don't understand anything yet then
: assume you actually know something based on your
: empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
: knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
: to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
: irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."


Now you're talking stupid.

: It's not the materials...

: Of course a person
: with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying
: to do what can't be done.

: That's total meaningless nonsense you are simply
: making up.

: Here's the truth, though sometimes I wonder why I
: "waste" my time trying to tell you something you
: don't appear to care to understand:

You can't resist. You have to be right and you have to have
the last word in any and every thread you're involved.

: The optics, depth of field, resolution-MTF of the
: film-camera system, plus optics and alignment of
: the enlarging system, and sometimes on the image
: subject matter itself all affect the quality of the
: end enlargement. Most people simply never spend the
: time and effort to assess those factors before going
: out to shoot whatever it is they shoot. Professionals
: whose end goal is the highest quality enlargements do.
: If those factors are all carefully considered and the
: variables strictly controlled, there's no reason very
: high quality enlargements from 35mm cannot be made.


: You won't get the same as with LF, but you will get
: better quality.

More of the point techno-babble.

: Tell me, Frank, have you _ever_ performed an MTF
: test of your film-camera system? And assessed the
: weak links and made corrections in equipment, optics,
: and film? Or have you ever performed depth of field
: tests with graphs to calulated your system's needed
: circle of confusion size _for_ the enlargments you
: plan to make? (Yes, Frank, one should determine the
: desired degree of enlargement before even making an
: exposure.) Bet you don't even know how to do that.
: I've a chart I made that tells me what circle of
: confusion size and hyperfocal distance I need to get
: a certain quality at a particular enlargment size.

All that work and your 16x20 enlargements of a 35mm still looks
like crap.

: A person with "the proper amount of knowledge" does
: all these things _before_ going out to shoot anything,
: so they don't "waste time" haphazardly hoping for good
: results that translate into superb enlargements. When
: shooting they use the best optics, the proper tripod,
: the right f-stop (to prevent diffraction), the right
: film, the right composition with a suitable subject
: for a _planned_ enlargement of that subject. They never
: shoot haphazardly "see what you get, hope for the best"
: style. Even a slight breeze or something as simple as
: failure to lock up the mirror on your SLR when tripping
: the shutter can degrade an image for desired enlargement.
: Are you using 400 speed film, or Kodachrome 64? It all
: makes a difference and any one variable not addressed
: and controlled for the planned enlargement can result
: in a lesser quality when enlarging.

: In other words, if your 35mm enlargments are "crap," it
: your fault, not the enlargement or the materials. As I
: say, scans of film can also lose detail and sharpness in
: critical areas (highlight and shadow areas and _will_
: with ALL low end consumer scanners), so unless you get
: the best scan by a good scanning technician using a high
: end scanner there's simply no way an inkjet should look
: better than a skillfully printed photochemical print
: shot with enlargement in mind.

: That's all I have to say on the matter. Continue to
: obfuscate in ignorance if you choose.

Obfuscation is all you've been providing.


--




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

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: : A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side
: : by side comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I
: : have any desire to do so I won't.
:
: : Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: : by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: : is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: : undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: : paper.
:
: ??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

: sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
: silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
: No difference in continuity.

sigh The colored dots I see when I look at a color enlargement contradicts
you claim of "continuous".

Frank, I know you're often as dense as 300 year old
hickory, but do you have to prove it with every other
post? If you don't know what you're talking about (and
you don't) stop arguing. It's a grain pattern frank,
not dots. What one SEES as grain in a print, whether
color or b&w _isn't_ the grain of the print. Not EVER.
It's the grain pattern of the film you enlarge on the
print. Silver or dye clouds, makes no difference since
_visually_ those are the same. But you don't know that
because you always insist on meaningless arguing from
the standpoint of total ignorance and the even more
ignorant conclusions your draw.

snip...

: : But you must have more extensive "professional"
: : experience than they?
:
: A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.

: Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
: Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
: the samae as yours.

You know nothing about the quality of the prints I make.

You're the one who said they were "crap." I said you
didn't know what you were doing and is why you think
your small format enlargements are crap...

If your enlargements are crap, it ain't the enlargement's
fault. That's your ignorant misassessment of the
photographic process. The fault lies in your method of
photography and your ignorance, so you blame what you
don't understand.

You don't even know the difference between "dots" and
grain (of which there really is none in print materials.)
You don't know how to do s/n tests. You don't know
how to do camera-film system MTF tests, or determine
needed CoC for a planned enlargement. This is why
your enlargements by your own admission are "crap."

snip...

: : Yes. Good professional quality photography
: : takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.
:
: It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
: look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.

: Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
: because you don't understand anything yet then
: assume you actually know something based on your
: empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
: knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
: to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
: irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."

Now you're talking stupid.

"Stupid" because you don't understand...

back to the killfile...

I started a 35mm B&W darkroom group.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...to35mmdarkroom
Anyone want to contribute?

I started a 35mm B&W darkroom group.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...to35mmdarkroom
Anyone want to contribute?

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : : A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side
: : : by side comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I
: : : have any desire to do so I won't.
: :
: : : Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: : : by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: : : is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: : : undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: : : paper.
: :
: : ??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?
:
: : sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
: : silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
: : No difference in continuity.
:
: sigh The colored dots I see when I look at a color enlargement contradicts
: you claim of "continuous".

: Frank, I know you're often as dense as 300 year old
: hickory, but do you have to prove it with every other
: post? If you don't know what you're talking about (and
: you don't) stop arguing. It's a grain pattern frank,
: not dots. What one SEES as grain in a print, whether
: color or b&w _isn't_ the grain of the print. Not EVER.
: It's the grain pattern of the film you enlarge on the
: print. Silver or dye clouds, makes no difference since
: _visually_ those are the same. But you don't know that
: because you always insist on meaningless arguing from
: the standpoint of total ignorance and the even more
: ignorant conclusions your draw.

Irrelevent since the tones contained in the print aren't continuous.
It's good to hear you admit it.

: snip...

: : : But you must have more extensive "professional"
: : : experience than they?
: :
: : A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.
:
: : Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
: : Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
: : the samae as yours.
:
: You know nothing about the quality of the prints I make.

: You're the one who said they were "crap." I said you
: didn't know what you were doing and is why you think
: your small format enlargements are crap...

I never said they were crap. You did.

: If your enlargements are crap, it ain't the enlargement's
: fault. That's your ignorant misassessment of the
: photographic process. The fault lies in your method of
: photography and your ignorance, so you blame what you
: don't understand.

Once again you're the one claiming my prints are crap not me.

: You don't even know the difference between "dots" and
: grain (of which there really is none in print materials.)
: You don't know how to do s/n tests. You don't know
: how to do camera-film system MTF tests, or determine
: needed CoC for a planned enlargement. This is why
: your enlargements by your own admission are "crap."

I suppose in a later post you're going to claim that I said that I don't
know the difference between dots and grain.

: snip...

: : : Yes. Good professional quality photography
: : : takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.
: :
: : It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
: : look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.
:
: : Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
: : because you don't understand anything yet then
: : assume you actually know something based on your
: : empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
: : knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
: : to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
: : irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."
:
: Now you're talking stupid.

: "Stupid" because you don't understand...

I admit to having a hard time following your double talk and free
flowing changes in topic.

: back to the killfile...

Won't be the first time and it won't be the last. I wouldn't be surprised
if I never actually make it into your killfile.
--




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

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : : A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side
: : : by side comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I
: : : have any desire to do so I won't.
: :
: : : Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: : : by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: : : is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: : : undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: : : paper.
: :
: : ??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?
:
: : sigh.. the dye cloud _mirrors_ in exact detail the
: : silver grain pattern. Dye cloud/silver grains-clumps.
: : No difference in continuity.
:
: sigh The colored dots I see when I look at a color enlargement contradicts
: you claim of "continuous".

: Frank, I know you're often as dense as 300 year old
: hickory, but do you have to prove it with every other
: post? If you don't know what you're talking about (and
: you don't) stop arguing. It's a grain pattern frank,
: not dots. What one SEES as grain in a print, whether
: color or b&w _isn't_ the grain of the print. Not EVER.
: It's the grain pattern of the film you enlarge on the
: print. Silver or dye clouds, makes no difference since
: _visually_ those are the same. But you don't know that
: because you always insist on meaningless arguing from
: the standpoint of total ignorance and the even more
: ignorant conclusions your draw.

Irrelevent since the tones contained in the print aren't continuous.
It's good to hear you admit it.

: snip...

: : : But you must have more extensive "professional"
: : : experience than they?
: :
: : A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.
:
: : Yes, they are, if they know this issues involved.
: : Otherwise their enlargements would look like "crap"
: : the samae as yours.
:
: You know nothing about the quality of the prints I make.

: You're the one who said they were "crap." I said you
: didn't know what you were doing and is why you think
: your small format enlargements are crap...

I never said they were crap. You did.

: If your enlargements are crap, it ain't the enlargement's
: fault. That's your ignorant misassessment of the
: photographic process. The fault lies in your method of
: photography and your ignorance, so you blame what you
: don't understand.

Once again you're the one claiming my prints are crap not me.

: You don't even know the difference between "dots" and
: grain (of which there really is none in print materials.)
: You don't know how to do s/n tests. You don't know
: how to do camera-film system MTF tests, or determine
: needed CoC for a planned enlargement. This is why
: your enlargements by your own admission are "crap."

I suppose in a later post you're going to claim that I said that I don't
know the difference between dots and grain.

: snip...

: : : Yes. Good professional quality photography
: : : takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.
: :
: : It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
: : look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it.
:
: : Complete ignorance and nonsense on your part. It's
: : because you don't understand anything yet then
: : assume you actually know something based on your
: : empirical and subjective amateur experience. If you
: : knew something you wouldn't insist on words like "crap"
: : to explain your enlargement problems and wouldn't draw
: : irrelevant conclusions like it's the "materials."
:
: Now you're talking stupid.

: "Stupid" because you don't understand...

I admit to having a hard time following your double talk and free
flowing changes in topic.

: back to the killfile...

Won't be the first time and it won't be the last. I wouldn't be surprised
if I never actually make it into your killfile.
--




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

Frank Pittel wrote:

snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with
someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental
photographic physics.)

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:

: snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with
: someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental
: photographic physics.)

Interesting that Tom seems to think that getting a print from an
inkjet of an image taken with a 4mp p&s camera that looks good
is a violation of fundamental photographic physics.


--




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

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:

: snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with
: someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental
: photographic physics.)

Interesting that Tom seems to think that getting a print from an
inkjet of an image taken with a 4mp p&s camera that looks good
is a violation of fundamental photographic physics.


--




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