Acufine and Tri-X

Robert Vervoordt wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:42:50 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: BertS wrote in message ...
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: john wrote:
: : May I suggest that Mr. Pittel and Scarpetti put each other into their
: : respective killfiles?
:
: I tried that once last year but I kept getting his posts through the replies to
: his posts.
:
:
:
: And now he has started to send his replies direct. Fortunately I run
: whitelist/blacklist email at my isp so he just gets ignored.
:
: Bert

: What you do or don't do to my posts means absolutely nothing to me. If
: you want to remain an ignorant asshole, go right ahead.

Why then do you feel the need to email your gibberish to him then??


He sent me one email with attachments. I commented in another thread.
It wasn't gibberish, but it didn't make his point in my view.

Has anyone else received unsolicited E-mail from him?



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

I did.

Bert

Robert Vervoordt wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:42:50 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:


Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: BertS wrote in message ...
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: john wrote:
: : May I suggest that Mr. Pittel and Scarpetti put each other into their
: : respective killfiles?
:
: I tried that once last year but I kept getting his posts through the replies to
: his posts.
:
:
:
: And now he has started to send his replies direct. Fortunately I run
: whitelist/blacklist email at my isp so he just gets ignored.
:
: Bert

: What you do or don't do to my posts means absolutely nothing to me. If
: you want to remain an ignorant asshole, go right ahead.

Why then do you feel the need to email your gibberish to him then??


He sent me one email with attachments. I commented in another thread.
It wasn't gibberish, but it didn't make his point in my view.

Has anyone else received unsolicited E-mail from him?



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

I did.

Bert

"john" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd usenet Erlick" Lloyd AT the-wire DOT com wrote in message
...

For anyone (like me) who can't do such a thing via the ISP,
there is a very functional and free program called
Mailwasher. It can be found on the Internet easily. It
literally has two functions (among others) called blacklist
and whitelist. It is used just before you download email,
and it deletes email you reject via a list of headers before
you download the body of the email.

Outlook express has the same functionality. Menu: "Message: Block Sender"
"

True... however, Mailwasher can block by certain words in the subject line.
Also (although I haven't been able to get this feature to work; I suspect
it's a problem with my ISP), Mailwasher will bounce selected e-mails,
indicating to the sender (as if they care!) that you don't exist.

Mailwasher isn't free; it's nag-wa "Send $20 and this banner will
disappear". It's a nice utility; start it up, download your e-mail headers
only, look thru them selecting which ones to delete, then use your email
software to download the remaining e-mails.

Ken Hart

"john" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd usenet Erlick" Lloyd AT the-wire DOT com wrote in message
...

For anyone (like me) who can't do such a thing via the ISP,
there is a very functional and free program called
Mailwasher. It can be found on the Internet easily. It
literally has two functions (among others) called blacklist
and whitelist. It is used just before you download email,
and it deletes email you reject via a list of headers before
you download the body of the email.

Outlook express has the same functionality. Menu: "Message: Block Sender"
"

True... however, Mailwasher can block by certain words in the subject line.
Also (although I haven't been able to get this feature to work; I suspect
it's a problem with my ISP), Mailwasher will bounce selected e-mails,
indicating to the sender (as if they care!) that you don't exist.

Mailwasher isn't free; it's nag-wa "Send $20 and this banner will
disappear". It's a nice utility; start it up, download your e-mail headers
only, look thru them selecting which ones to delete, then use your email
software to download the remaining e-mails.

Ken Hart

"G. Edward Marti" wrote in message
om...
I was wondering if anyone has tried (or better yet, is using) the new
Tri-X 400[400TX] film with Acufine? I was told acufine is an excellent
way to push Tri-x with a minimal loss in speed, but I'm not sure about
the development times. I tried calling the company that sells it (BKA)
and the company who makes it (techchem), but they couldn't help at
all. I even tried calling some photographic press agencies, because I
heard that many (if not most) photojournalists used to use that
combination, but I couldn't get any info.

In particular, I'm interested in pushing my Tri-X to EI800. How does
the development time depend on temperature and dilution with this
combo? Is it different from the old Tri-X? The label on the can says 5
min. for Tri-X EI1000 at 21C, but several websites said not to believe
that.

Thank you in advance,
Ed

My personal experience is that Acufine doesn't give much of a real film
speed increase, despite their claims. Neither does Diafine either, for that
matter (at least in my hands).

I haven't tried everything but Xtol seems to give really good speed.

"G. Edward Marti" wrote in message
om...
I was wondering if anyone has tried (or better yet, is using) the new
Tri-X 400[400TX] film with Acufine? I was told acufine is an excellent
way to push Tri-x with a minimal loss in speed, but I'm not sure about
the development times. I tried calling the company that sells it (BKA)
and the company who makes it (techchem), but they couldn't help at
all. I even tried calling some photographic press agencies, because I
heard that many (if not most) photojournalists used to use that
combination, but I couldn't get any info.

In particular, I'm interested in pushing my Tri-X to EI800. How does
the development time depend on temperature and dilution with this
combo? Is it different from the old Tri-X? The label on the can says 5
min. for Tri-X EI1000 at 21C, but several websites said not to believe
that.

Thank you in advance,
Ed

My personal experience is that Acufine doesn't give much of a real film
speed increase, despite their claims. Neither does Diafine either, for that
matter (at least in my hands).

I haven't tried everything but Xtol seems to give really good speed.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:44:37 -0500, "Ken Hart"
wrote:

....
Also (although I haven't been able to get this feature to work; I suspect
it's a problem with my ISP), Mailwasher will bounce selected e-mails,
indicating to the sender (as if they care!) that you don't exist.

Mailwasher isn't free; it's nag-wa "Send $20 and this banner will
disappear".
....

sep104 from Lloyd Erlick,

It's just as well it won't bounce for you. It's a useless
feature. Who wants to sit still and wait for (perhaps pay
for) a hundred spam emails to be sent out by your computer.
that's what bouncing means: you resend the spam. Plain
delete is better.

The nag isn't bad, just a banner of the author with his dog.
Paying the modest amount he suggests isn't out of line,
either, for a useful tool.

I like it because it downloads headers only for email, like
a newsreader does for messages. Then I choose the ones I
want to bring down.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:44:37 -0500, "Ken Hart"
wrote:

....
Also (although I haven't been able to get this feature to work; I suspect
it's a problem with my ISP), Mailwasher will bounce selected e-mails,
indicating to the sender (as if they care!) that you don't exist.

Mailwasher isn't free; it's nag-wa "Send $20 and this banner will
disappear".
....

sep104 from Lloyd Erlick,

It's just as well it won't bounce for you. It's a useless
feature. Who wants to sit still and wait for (perhaps pay
for) a hundred spam emails to be sent out by your computer.
that's what bouncing means: you resend the spam. Plain
delete is better.

The nag isn't bad, just a banner of the author with his dog.
Paying the modest amount he suggests isn't out of line,
either, for a useful tool.

I like it because it downloads headers only for email, like
a newsreader does for messages. Then I choose the ones I
want to bring down.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

"Ken Hart" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...

Outlook express has the same functionality. Menu: "Message: Block Sender"
"

True... however, Mailwasher can block by certain words in the subject
line.

So can Outlook Express.