35mm on grade 3 explained

(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
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.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "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 photographer."

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of
the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

Where the devil do you get those numbers?

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of
the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

Where the devil do you get those numbers?

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of
the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

Where the devil do you get those numbers?

The Kodak article I quoted from earlier suggested that film
development not be changed unless....

"....a print from a normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade
would contain insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the
desirability of reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and
because of the wide control over contrast possible with various paper
grades, it is highly advisable for the professional photographer to
develop the great majority of his negatives to the same gamma."

In my experience, correctly exposed negatives developed 'normally'
have plenty of contrast. Almost never is it necessary to go higher
than grade 4.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of
the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

Where the devil do you get those numbers?

The Kodak article I quoted from earlier suggested that film
development not be changed unless....

"....a print from a normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade
would contain insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the
desirability of reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and
because of the wide control over contrast possible with various paper
grades, it is highly advisable for the professional photographer to
develop the great majority of his negatives to the same gamma."

In my experience, correctly exposed negatives developed 'normally'
have plenty of contrast. Almost never is it necessary to go higher
than grade 4.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

HUH? If things HAVE changed since 1952, human perceptual preferences
are not one of them.


You are so wrong on this point.

AM I?

I received this e-mail response from one Richard Knoppow:

"While some film characteristics are rather different now the
characteristics of the human eye certainly are not."
[... snip ...]

Two points. One: If the response of the human eye and brain were as static
as you and Richard suggest, then we would still be happy smearing berries on
cave walls. Two: the functional rationalization of the argument you and
Richard cite presumes a virtue of _mean-attraction of tonalities_ - that's
the mass-market compromise esthetic. Many of us here, and certainly those
with whom you argue, are not looking for the mean compromise: they are
thinking individuals who have idiosyncratic (creative, interpretive)
aspirations; they are the outliers who make a difference - by definition!

So, you are the Master Race, eh? Your superior 'vision' sets you apart
from the inferior races of mankind.

So do as you wish and strive for some kind of mass-market esthetic creed,
but you will not find many sympathetic ears or eyes here.

In the land of National Zonalism?

You would be
better served if you found an audience concerned specifically with
industrial profit-driven schemas. Walmart-paradigm printing comes to mind.

Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg
Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

Print that in big letters and put it under your safelight.

Ja wohl, mein Führer!

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
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.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "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 photographer."

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

No, if what you want is greater highlight contrast, lowered mid-tones,
and reduced shadow contrast, then with TMX, Tmax-RS, and Ilford MGVI
fb or Kodak Polymax IIrc in PolyMax-T, then 100% of the time you'll
need to adjust development to give a higher contrast negative and then
print on lower contrast paper.

-Paul
www.butzi.net

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
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.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "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 photographer."

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

No, if what you want is greater highlight contrast, lowered mid-tones,
and reduced shadow contrast, then with TMX, Tmax-RS, and Ilford MGVI
fb or Kodak Polymax IIrc in PolyMax-T, then 100% of the time you'll
need to adjust development to give a higher contrast negative and then
print on lower contrast paper.

-Paul
www.butzi.net

(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
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.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "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 photographer."

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

No, if what you want is greater highlight contrast,


I want fine grain and high sharpness.

lowered mid-tones,

Why would I want that?

and reduced shadow contrast,

NEVER would I want that

then with TMX, Tmax-RS, and Ilford MGVI
fb or Kodak Polymax IIrc in PolyMax-T, then 100% of the time you'll
need to adjust development to give a higher contrast negative and then
print on lower contrast paper.

-Paul
www.butzi.net

Look, Paul, you really don't understand at all. Let's try it from the
top:

A dialogue:

Photographer in sto
"I'd like some grade 2 Ilford Galerie paper please."

Mike:
"What format are you using?"

Photographer in sto
"35mm"

Mike:
"Oh, do you use grade 2 all the time?"

Photographer in sto
"Uh, yeah, that's the normal grade...at least that's what I was always
taught."

Mike:
"Didn't you know that using grade on 35mm, together with a little less
development, will give you sharper, finer-grained images?"

Photographer in sto
"Huh? Where did you hear that?"

Mike:
"It's been known for a long time, in fact since the 1930's, that
reduced development and harder paper gives a better print from small
negatives."

Photographer in sto
"But won't reducing the development mess up my tones?"

Mike:
"Actually, no, it won't. It's only one grade, after all. Reduce the
development by about 20%, maybe a little more."

Photographer in sto
"So, by reducing my development, what do I gain again? Won't the
harder paper just increase the graininess?"

Mike:
"Actually, no. Although using harder paper does increase the
appearance of grain compared to softer paper, the reduction in
development more than offsets it. The contrast decreases less than the
graininess. The net result is a better image."

Photographer in sto
"Do you have anything that I can refer to to verify what you're
saying? It's not that I don't believe you, but you see I was always
taught...."

Mike:
"I just happened to have this Kodak booklet here. Let's see, oh, here
it is. Read this part he

'The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination.'

Mike:
Look, here, let me show you what this will do for your prints.

Photographer in sto
"Wow, that IS sharp! And I don't notice any grain! I think I'll try
that! Thanks, Mike!"

So, you see Paul, this discussion is NOT about what effects increasing
development might have on highlight contrast, however true that may
be. It's about the benefits of reduced development on 35mm film. What
happens with INCREASED development is of absolutely no importance
whatsoever, because it causes considerable loss of image quality on
35mm film.

Let's put it this way:

1. Reducing development allows sharper images because of reduced
infectious development and irradiation. This is a POSITIVE benefit.
This is important for the 35mm user. It is not important for the LF
user.

2. Reduced development coupled with increased paper contrast should
yield somewhat finer grain, and have little or no effect on the tonal
distribution with most film and paper combinations. Even if were to be
SOME small change from the distribution of tones achieved with
increased development, the benefits outweigh that. In any event, grade
2 is no more entitled to be called 'normal' than grade 3 is. Portrait
papers such as Ektalure, which were available in a single grade only,
were closer to grade 3 than grade 2.

See:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe....54.42&lc= en

"Medium-speed, single-contrast (approximately printing grade 3),
fiber-base, warm-tone paper. For making enlargements and contact
prints with reduced illumination. Particularly suited to portraiture
and to salon and display work."

So, you see Paul, the reason I have an interest in your experiment is
because it shows that REDUCING development and increasing contrast in
the paper does not result in any loss or significant distortion of
tonal balance (with the materials that you tested). Even if other
materials were to show greater divergence, it does not matter,
because, as I said, grade 3 is just as entitled to be considered
'normal' as grade 2. The tonal distribution obtained at grade 3 is
therefore just as 'legitimate' as that of grade 2. Nothing is perfect,
but obtaining the best results from our materials calls for modifying
our technique to suit the medium being employed. In other words, 35mm
has its own rules that are different from LF. It just so happens that
reducing development and using grade 3 as 'normal' gives better
results than using grade 2 and developing more, when we are working
with roll films.

(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
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.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "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 photographer."

Fine. That can be had by adjusting the contrast of the paper, in 95% of the cases.
Most of the time, using the 'normal' grade is all that's necessary.

No, if what you want is greater highlight contrast,


I want fine grain and high sharpness.

lowered mid-tones,

Why would I want that?

and reduced shadow contrast,

NEVER would I want that

then with TMX, Tmax-RS, and Ilford MGVI
fb or Kodak Polymax IIrc in PolyMax-T, then 100% of the time you'll
need to adjust development to give a higher contrast negative and then
print on lower contrast paper.

-Paul
www.butzi.net

Look, Paul, you really don't understand at all. Let's try it from the
top:

A dialogue:

Photographer in sto
"I'd like some grade 2 Ilford Galerie paper please."

Mike:
"What format are you using?"

Photographer in sto
"35mm"

Mike:
"Oh, do you use grade 2 all the time?"

Photographer in sto
"Uh, yeah, that's the normal grade...at least that's what I was always
taught."

Mike:
"Didn't you know that using grade on 35mm, together with a little less
development, will give you sharper, finer-grained images?"

Photographer in sto
"Huh? Where did you hear that?"

Mike:
"It's been known for a long time, in fact since the 1930's, that
reduced development and harder paper gives a better print from small
negatives."

Photographer in sto
"But won't reducing the development mess up my tones?"

Mike:
"Actually, no, it won't. It's only one grade, after all. Reduce the
development by about 20%, maybe a little more."

Photographer in sto
"So, by reducing my development, what do I gain again? Won't the
harder paper just increase the graininess?"

Mike:
"Actually, no. Although using harder paper does increase the
appearance of grain compared to softer paper, the reduction in
development more than offsets it. The contrast decreases less than the
graininess. The net result is a better image."

Photographer in sto
"Do you have anything that I can refer to to verify what you're
saying? It's not that I don't believe you, but you see I was always
taught...."

Mike:
"I just happened to have this Kodak booklet here. Let's see, oh, here
it is. Read this part he

'The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination.'

Mike:
Look, here, let me show you what this will do for your prints.

Photographer in sto
"Wow, that IS sharp! And I don't notice any grain! I think I'll try
that! Thanks, Mike!"

So, you see Paul, this discussion is NOT about what effects increasing
development might have on highlight contrast, however true that may
be. It's about the benefits of reduced development on 35mm film. What
happens with INCREASED development is of absolutely no importance
whatsoever, because it causes considerable loss of image quality on
35mm film.

Let's put it this way:

1. Reducing development allows sharper images because of reduced
infectious development and irradiation. This is a POSITIVE benefit.
This is important for the 35mm user. It is not important for the LF
user.

2. Reduced development coupled with increased paper contrast should
yield somewhat finer grain, and have little or no effect on the tonal
distribution with most film and paper combinations. Even if were to be
SOME small change from the distribution of tones achieved with
increased development, the benefits outweigh that. In any event, grade
2 is no more entitled to be called 'normal' than grade 3 is. Portrait
papers such as Ektalure, which were available in a single grade only,
were closer to grade 3 than grade 2.

See:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe....54.42&lc= en

"Medium-speed, single-contrast (approximately printing grade 3),
fiber-base, warm-tone paper. For making enlargements and contact
prints with reduced illumination. Particularly suited to portraiture
and to salon and display work."

So, you see Paul, the reason I have an interest in your experiment is
because it shows that REDUCING development and increasing contrast in
the paper does not result in any loss or significant distortion of
tonal balance (with the materials that you tested). Even if other
materials were to show greater divergence, it does not matter,
because, as I said, grade 3 is just as entitled to be considered
'normal' as grade 2. The tonal distribution obtained at grade 3 is
therefore just as 'legitimate' as that of grade 2. Nothing is perfect,
but obtaining the best results from our materials calls for modifying
our technique to suit the medium being employed. In other words, 35mm
has its own rules that are different from LF. It just so happens that
reducing development and using grade 3 as 'normal' gives better
results than using grade 2 and developing more, when we are working
with roll films.