|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#171
September 18th 04, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:52:47 -0500, "jjs" wrote: "Uranium Committee" wrote in message . com... You have completely misunderstood, as is typical of the Zonazis. Please read the Kodak text AGAIN. It has nothing to do with 'mass-market aesthetics'. That's a complete distortion of the studies, which obviously you have not read. Richard has. I believe Richard can speak for himself. I'll come back on this if neccessary, but your blank denial is impotent. In your arrogance, you presume to tell the viewer that his perceptive faculties are out of whack? I am not telling the viewer anything. The sample, method, time and circumstances evinced by the outcome of the study says it all. Read on. 'Perception' has absolutely NOTHING to do with aesthetics in this sense. Our visual faculty has been honed by millions of years of evolution. The eye is part of perception, but not all of perception. Perception can also depend a great deal upon how one has been trained to perceive, and that is hugely influenced by culture which does change. This particular group is certainly not a random sample of the population at large. As I said, many of them have quite specific visual prefrences developed from rather elusive semiotics so Persons who respond here, for better or worse, are not typical of the whole: they aren't happy with Walmart metrics. I think this is the place to point out something overlooked in this "discussion". The Kodak study mentioned, which may be the same or similar to one I saw in the old phot encyclopedia I once had, showed a range of prints to many subjects for their judgement as to acceptability. There was a range from near total rejection of prints from underexposed negatives, through general acceptance to rejection, once again, with overexposure. Ehile the experiment, whose results I saw, may not be exactly the same as Kodak's, the one factor in common is that there was a range of acceptability in the subject's response. Human perception is variable. More likely that the prints from a wide range of exposures produce acceptable prints. In 4x5, this is not unusual. Both studies, if they were not the same study, were focussed on general photography of real world scenes for the mundane recording of such scenes. As such they were not considering interpretive renderings in any fashion. Why do you presume that 'interpretation' involves deliberate distortion rather than sensitive selection? When I started out in photography, I had to master such general applications. Later, I delved into more interpretive uses. Eventually, when working as a Director of Photography in motion pictures, I was forced to do most of my interpretive work with initial exposure, as the range of options in the processing and post processing stages were limited or downright expensive. Of late, I have become just another snapshooter, and probably would have to agree with the newly radioactive flamer as to what is most useful. But that's only because I gave up using most of the tools still availble to me, and many others, as an artist; for now. The slavish reliance on the results of either study is limiting. There's more to be gained by considering the use of varied techniques than these studies would suggest. We know when things 'look right' without having to be told. There are many cases in which the human eye cannot possibly distinguish colors or colors withthout hue (that's tonality of black-and-white) in plain light of day. It's a famous truism. I can show you samples. Our color vision enables us to distinguish between ripe fruit and 'green' fruit. Fine if your aspirations are limited to green and red fruit, but you are drifting way off the subject. How about the impression of 'vividness'? It's cultural.. Believe it. If you make a photograph of ripe red fruit and tell us that 'just because it's red does't mean that it's ripe' I say you're full of it. Let me guess, you believe red grocery store meat is really read, and the 'fresh' tomatos are red, too. Pitty you chose that example. Maybe it's a good thing, too, that some people are ignorant. My pale orange tomatos are safe from your kind, as are our ripe green apples. If you claim that your 'aesthetic' is more sophisticated than mine simply because YOU think YOU have the right to call red fruit 'green'...then there's no hope for you... I've proven above that my experience overwhelms your impressionistic ignorance. Robert Vervoordt, MFA 
|
|
#173
September 18th 04, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message Based on this simple experiment, it's clear that there's an interaction between the film and paper that produces different results when film development is varied and then the contrast of VC paper is adjusted to compensate. It would be more exact to say; 'There is a range of near-perfect contrast reciprocity and a range where reciprocity breaks down.' That might be equally exact, although choosing the term 'reciprocity' seems deliberately obfuscatory. Perhaps. However, clipping away part of my conclusions and then claiming that adding something similar to what you've clipped away seems more than a little pedantic and completely pointless. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. Your statements were not 'conclusions'. There has to be some relationship between the data and the conclusions. In your case there wasn't. The part I am referring to is where I write "For both Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MG IV fb, there's no discernable difference between reduced development of the film and normal development of the film, but a quite pronounced difference between normal development and increased development - increased development (with the paper contrast adjusted to compensate for the increased negative contrast) results in more highlight contrast, lower mid-tone values, and reduced shadow contrast. " The range where it breaks down (increased development) is almsot useless for the 35mm user, which is the point of this thread. The idea is to optimize the quality of 35mm work. Kodak states: There's no 'break down' except in your mind. Whatever are you talking about? Reduced development turned out to be reciprocating. Increased did not. The reciprocity 'breaks down'. I documented a different tonal arrangement. To call it 'break down' you'd need to posit that the other arrangement is correct The 'normal' and the reduced were all but identical. I can assume there would be quite a range where it would be virtually identical, and another range (increased development) where it would not be. I AM INTERESTED IN THE REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ONLY! but that the high contrast neg/low contrast print is incorrect, an idea that I specifically and explicitly reject. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. HIGH CONTRAST NEG-LOW CONTRAST PAPER IS NOT GOOD FOR 35MM. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. WHY? SEE: Kodak points out that the soft neg and hard paper are 'more favorable' that the reverse. Increased development is bad for 35mm. End of discussion. There is no 'correct' tonal distribution for all images, only a 'correct' distribution for each image - the one which best meets the intent of the artist. Photography is not 'art' and cannot be art. The point of this is that it complements your results. If, as Kodak states, 'a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination', why do the other, when it will only lead to loss of definition? Perhaps you should try actually reading the conclusions part of my web page, where I write that "As a practical matter, this can be used as one more creative control - if you would like the scene rendered with more highlight contrast, less shadow contrast, and darker mid-tones, you can plan your development so that you get a much harder negative, then print with the VC paper filtered to be much softer than usual." Perhaps you should read the POINT of this thread! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! Why do the other? Because, as an artist, YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART! I might decide that achieving the lowered mid-tone, higher highlight contrast, lowered shadow contrast look is the one I want - the one that, in this particular case, is 'correct' in the sense that it gives me the print that I want. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! 35mm should be developed to print on grade 3 the vast majority of the time. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. As a side note, I'd point out that my testing seems to show that the 'normal' development tonal distribution and 'soft negative/hard print' distribution being the same is not a property that is shared by all VC papers. I use graded paper most of the time for serious work. Newer VC papers have much greater ability to change the highlight contrast as the overall paper exposure scale is changed; older papers (such as the venerable Oriental Seagull VC) do not have this ability and seem to not have a range of exposure scales which have the 'reciprocity' property, as you call it. I don't have tests handy on the Forte papers, but my recollection is that both the warmtone paper (Polywarmtone) and the cold tone (PolyGrade V)do not change highlight contrast significantly as you change the overall exposure scale and I would expect that there would be no range of negative density ranges which had the same tonal distribution. Folks who are interested in exploiting this ability to control the tonal distribution of prints by adjusting negative contrast thru development and then making offsetting changes in the print contrast might find it helpful to try one of those older style VC papers. From the limited testing I've done it's not clear that the range of tonal distributions achievable is actually greater with old style papers, but it might be in interesting avenue to explore. Since I now do the vast majority of my printing digitally, it's not something I will be testing enough to actually make it worth writing up, though. -Paul
|
|
#174
September 18th 04, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message Based on this simple experiment, it's clear that there's an interaction between the film and paper that produces different results when film development is varied and then the contrast of VC paper is adjusted to compensate. It would be more exact to say; 'There is a range of near-perfect contrast reciprocity and a range where reciprocity breaks down.' That might be equally exact, although choosing the term 'reciprocity' seems deliberately obfuscatory. Perhaps. However, clipping away part of my conclusions and then claiming that adding something similar to what you've clipped away seems more than a little pedantic and completely pointless. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. Your statements were not 'conclusions'. There has to be some relationship between the data and the conclusions. In your case there wasn't. The part I am referring to is where I write "For both Kodak PolyMax IIrc and Ilford MG IV fb, there's no discernable difference between reduced development of the film and normal development of the film, but a quite pronounced difference between normal development and increased development - increased development (with the paper contrast adjusted to compensate for the increased negative contrast) results in more highlight contrast, lower mid-tone values, and reduced shadow contrast. " The range where it breaks down (increased development) is almsot useless for the 35mm user, which is the point of this thread. The idea is to optimize the quality of 35mm work. Kodak states: There's no 'break down' except in your mind. Whatever are you talking about? Reduced development turned out to be reciprocating. Increased did not. The reciprocity 'breaks down'. I documented a different tonal arrangement. To call it 'break down' you'd need to posit that the other arrangement is correct The 'normal' and the reduced were all but identical. I can assume there would be quite a range where it would be virtually identical, and another range (increased development) where it would not be. I AM INTERESTED IN THE REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ONLY! but that the high contrast neg/low contrast print is incorrect, an idea that I specifically and explicitly reject. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. HIGH CONTRAST NEG-LOW CONTRAST PAPER IS NOT GOOD FOR 35MM. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. WHY? SEE: Kodak points out that the soft neg and hard paper are 'more favorable' that the reverse. Increased development is bad for 35mm. End of discussion. There is no 'correct' tonal distribution for all images, only a 'correct' distribution for each image - the one which best meets the intent of the artist. Photography is not 'art' and cannot be art. The point of this is that it complements your results. If, as Kodak states, 'a low gradient in the negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is more favorable than the alternative combination', why do the other, when it will only lead to loss of definition? Perhaps you should try actually reading the conclusions part of my web page, where I write that "As a practical matter, this can be used as one more creative control - if you would like the scene rendered with more highlight contrast, less shadow contrast, and darker mid-tones, you can plan your development so that you get a much harder negative, then print with the VC paper filtered to be much softer than usual." Perhaps you should read the POINT of this thread! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! Why do the other? Because, as an artist, YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART! I might decide that achieving the lowered mid-tone, higher highlight contrast, lowered shadow contrast look is the one I want - the one that, in this particular case, is 'correct' in the sense that it gives me the print that I want. THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! THIS IS ABOUT 35MM! 35mm should be developed to print on grade 3 the vast majority of the time. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. As a side note, I'd point out that my testing seems to show that the 'normal' development tonal distribution and 'soft negative/hard print' distribution being the same is not a property that is shared by all VC papers. I use graded paper most of the time for serious work. Newer VC papers have much greater ability to change the highlight contrast as the overall paper exposure scale is changed; older papers (such as the venerable Oriental Seagull VC) do not have this ability and seem to not have a range of exposure scales which have the 'reciprocity' property, as you call it. I don't have tests handy on the Forte papers, but my recollection is that both the warmtone paper (Polywarmtone) and the cold tone (PolyGrade V)do not change highlight contrast significantly as you change the overall exposure scale and I would expect that there would be no range of negative density ranges which had the same tonal distribution. Folks who are interested in exploiting this ability to control the tonal distribution of prints by adjusting negative contrast thru development and then making offsetting changes in the print contrast might find it helpful to try one of those older style VC papers. From the limited testing I've done it's not clear that the range of tonal distributions achievable is actually greater with old style papers, but it might be in interesting avenue to explore. Since I now do the vast majority of my printing digitally, it's not something I will be testing enough to actually make it worth writing up, though. -Paul
|
|
#175
September 18th 04, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#176
September 18th 04, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#177
September 19th 04, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om... THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular) different. BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned 35mm photographers.
|
|
#178
September 19th 04, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om... THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular) different. BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned 35mm photographers.
|
|
#179
September 19th 04, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om... THIS IS ABOUT 35MM. oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular) different. BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned 35mm photographers.
|
|
#180
September 19th 04, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message om... (Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com... Paul: What is the title of this thread? When you have understood that, then and ONLY then, respond. Hey, why don't you do The Right Thing and collect your thoughts into some kind of manifesto. It might be a good exercise for you. I can already tell that you have facist tendencies. Don't get all bent out of shape. There are virtues even in that regard, albeit none that are worth a damn in politics. I'll send you a name and nudge or two of the esthecic facist movement if it helps.BUT you ain't going nowhere with such metrics except to Wally Land (Walmart Esthetics). Enjoy.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
| Removing 35mm mask on Durst M606? | Luigi de Guzman | In The Darkroom | 4 | March 1st 04 04:09 AM |
| split grade printing - can it be done with only G5 +G0 filters? | Jules Flynn | In The Darkroom | 3 | February 7th 04 04:46 AM |
| FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |
| FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |
Linear Mode
