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

(Jytzel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
Right. Rodinal has been surpassed, but some people still use it in
ignorance of the fact that it has been superseded...


By what? Rodinal has a quality and characterist of it's own. D-76 or
Microdol haven't replaced it for me...

Neofin, Acutol, FX-39, Xtol, TEC, Acu-1, etc.....


Jim is right, Rodinal has a look of its own. Michael you have to stop
talking from theory. We have too much book talk here but much less
experience. Go and try things instead of wasting your time replying to
every single post on NG.



I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

(Jytzel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
Right. Rodinal has been surpassed, but some people still use it in
ignorance of the fact that it has been superseded...


By what? Rodinal has a quality and characterist of it's own. D-76 or
Microdol haven't replaced it for me...

Neofin, Acutol, FX-39, Xtol, TEC, Acu-1, etc.....


Jim is right, Rodinal has a look of its own. Michael you have to stop
talking from theory. We have too much book talk here but much less
experience. Go and try things instead of wasting your time replying to
every single post on NG.



I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

(Jytzel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
Right. Rodinal has been surpassed, but some people still use it in
ignorance of the fact that it has been superseded...


By what? Rodinal has a quality and characterist of it's own. D-76 or
Microdol haven't replaced it for me...

Neofin, Acutol, FX-39, Xtol, TEC, Acu-1, etc.....


Jim is right, Rodinal has a look of its own. Michael you have to stop
talking from theory. We have too much book talk here but much less
experience. Go and try things instead of wasting your time replying to
every single post on NG.



I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

(Jytzel) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
Right. Rodinal has been surpassed, but some people still use it in
ignorance of the fact that it has been superseded...


By what? Rodinal has a quality and characterist of it's own. D-76 or
Microdol haven't replaced it for me...

Neofin, Acutol, FX-39, Xtol, TEC, Acu-1, etc.....


Jim is right, Rodinal has a look of its own. Michael you have to stop
talking from theory. We have too much book talk here but much less
experience. Go and try things instead of wasting your time replying to
every single post on NG.



I do try things. I'm working on a project right now, documenting old
crumbling factories in my city. I have used a variety of films on the
project, just to get to know some of the newer emulsions better.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"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.

Fortunately, photography is one field in which the basics do not
change, and products evolve rather slowly. Tri-X has been around 50
years. D-76 is 76 years old(!). (Pyro is far older than that.) Many
films and papers only recently discontinued had rather long lives. The
replacements (when they have been replaced) are often only subtly
different. Only by getting to know materials and equipment over a long
period is the attainment of a high degree of proficiency possible.

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.

I do understand EXACTLY how yellow stain works with VC paper. The
point was that Pyrogallic acid's main virtue is its performance with
standard graded (blue-sensitive) papers, wherein it enhances printing
density without increasing metallic density. Its performance
characteristics with VC papers are precisely the opposite.

By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro?

No, but I have seen pyro negatives.


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!

No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.

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...

What about a man jumping over a puddle? Is that great image? The light
isn't even interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/ar...i=5 070&8hpib

At least 'waffle boy' has some drama in the lighting and in the hat
shading his face.

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.

My refusal to indulge the 'folklore' approach must irritate many
people.

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?

I can, but the intelligence of photographers is so low that only by
using profanity can I expect to get through to them.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"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.

Fortunately, photography is one field in which the basics do not
change, and products evolve rather slowly. Tri-X has been around 50
years. D-76 is 76 years old(!). (Pyro is far older than that.) Many
films and papers only recently discontinued had rather long lives. The
replacements (when they have been replaced) are often only subtly
different. Only by getting to know materials and equipment over a long
period is the attainment of a high degree of proficiency possible.

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.

I do understand EXACTLY how yellow stain works with VC paper. The
point was that Pyrogallic acid's main virtue is its performance with
standard graded (blue-sensitive) papers, wherein it enhances printing
density without increasing metallic density. Its performance
characteristics with VC papers are precisely the opposite.

By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro?

No, but I have seen pyro negatives.


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!

No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.

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...

What about a man jumping over a puddle? Is that great image? The light
isn't even interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/ar...i=5 070&8hpib

At least 'waffle boy' has some drama in the lighting and in the hat
shading his face.

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.

My refusal to indulge the 'folklore' approach must irritate many
people.

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?

I can, but the intelligence of most photographers is so low that only
by using profanity can I expect to get through to them.

I present the following scheme to help you understand this point:

Q Range Classification
70-80 Borderline deficiency
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
10-20 Idiot
below 10 professional photographer

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"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.

Fortunately, photography is one field in which the basics do not
change, and products evolve rather slowly. Tri-X has been around 50
years. D-76 is 76 years old(!). (Pyro is far older than that.) Many
films and papers only recently discontinued had rather long lives. The
replacements (when they have been replaced) are often only subtly
different. Only by getting to know materials and equipment over a long
period is the attainment of a high degree of proficiency possible.

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.

I do understand EXACTLY how yellow stain works with VC paper. The
point was that Pyrogallic acid's main virtue is its performance with
standard graded (blue-sensitive) papers, wherein it enhances printing
density without increasing metallic density. Its performance
characteristics with VC papers are precisely the opposite.

By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
Pyro?

No, but I have seen pyro negatives.


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!

No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.

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...

What about a man jumping over a puddle? Is that great image? The light
isn't even interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/ar...i=5 070&8hpib

At least 'waffle boy' has some drama in the lighting and in the hat
shading his face.

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.

My refusal to indulge the 'folklore' approach must irritate many
people.

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?

I can, but the intelligence of most photographers is so low that only
by using profanity can I expect to get through to them.

I present the following scheme to help you understand this point:

Q Range Classification
70-80 Borderline deficiency
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
10-20 Idiot
below 10 professional photographer

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


.............

: By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
: Pyro?

: No, but I have seen pyro negatives.

What does that prove??

: 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!

: No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.

: 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...

: What about a man jumping over a puddle? Is that great image? The light
: isn't even interesting!

It's your decisive moment image. In any case it's better then any of your drek.


: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/ar...i=5 070&8hpib

: At least 'waffle boy' has some drama in the lighting and in the hat
: shading his face.

It was a waste of film. On the positive side it's made for good laughing stock
for a lot of people.

: 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.

: My refusal to indulge the 'folklore' approach must irritate many
: people.

Actually it's your idiocy that irritates many people.

: 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?

: I can, but the intelligence of photographers is so low that only by
: using profanity can I expect to get through to them.

--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


.............

: By the way, answer the question. Have you ever used
: Pyro?

: No, but I have seen pyro negatives.

What does that prove??

: 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!

: No, it is not 'less toxic than Dektol'.

: 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...

: What about a man jumping over a puddle? Is that great image? The light
: isn't even interesting!

It's your decisive moment image. In any case it's better then any of your drek.


: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/ar...i=5 070&8hpib

: At least 'waffle boy' has some drama in the lighting and in the hat
: shading his face.

It was a waste of film. On the positive side it's made for good laughing stock
for a lot of people.

: 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.

: My refusal to indulge the 'folklore' approach must irritate many
: people.

Actually it's your idiocy that irritates many people.

: 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?

: I can, but the intelligence of photographers is so low that only by
: using profanity can I expect to get through to them.

--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: 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.

The fantasies are yours. You need to prove that they're correct.

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

Your proof of this is??
--




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