Believe it or not..

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Ornello, Apr 8, 2005.

  1. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    ...most of the questions surrounding technical matters can be solved by referring to Kodak or Ilford technical publications. Many disputes about what terms mean can be settled quite easily by going to the source materials rather than referring to someone else's interpretation. Several times this week I have introduced such material, only to be booed. Well, if you're going to use Kodak or Ilford terms, you have no better source for their definitions than those technical publications.
     
  2. John McCallum

    John McCallum Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    They have been know to be wrong (even about their own materials).
     
  3. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Now, you have a point there, but by and large they can be trusted.
     
  4. Nige

    Nige Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,126
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kodak and Ilford never sent me a copy.
     
  5. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    I have found that anectdotal "real world" experiences tend to be a better source of more relevant, applicable information.
     
  6. Bruce Osgood

    Bruce Osgood Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    2,612
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, N.Y.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I reluctantly join the thread, but just for a moment.

    Neither Kodak, Ilford or any manufacturer of photographic material has ever said there is only one 'right' way to use there product. ALL manufacturers, particularly in tech bulletins say in rather emphatic terms: your milage may vary. Nothing is dogmatic in photography -- that's why it's so great. What works for me may seem blasphemy to you. Only the likes of Scarpetti (Sp) think in terms of absolute.
     
  7. TPPhotog

    TPPhotog Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My view is that technical publications are guides under controlled conditions ... happily the real world is not a controlled environment.
     
  8. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I am referring pimarily to terms and measures, and how they are to be used. If you'll note, I say that in the opening post.
     
  9. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF

    I am referring pimarily to terms and measures, and how they are to be used. If you'll note, I say that in the opening post.
     
  10. chuck94022

    chuck94022 Subscriber

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    Los Altos, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually you don't say that in the opening post. At least, you say nothing at all regarding measures, you just mention terms.

    Trust in the manufacturer and forget about discussion? I guess we should all shoot at the manufacturer's stated ISO rating, and develop at the manufacturer's specified dilutions and times.

    OK! That makes things *much* easier! No more agitation discussion, No more stand development, no more N+1, N+2, N-1, or, well, N, for that matter. I don't have to figure out my N, because the manufacturer has done it for me! Great!

    No more test rolls, no more zone system, no more BTZS! I can just trust the in camera meter, because the manufacturer said it would work just right! Or just use the sunny 16 rule, because that's what's printed on the Kodak film box!

    Who'da thunk photography could be so easy?

    -chuck
     
  11. chuck94022

    chuck94022 Subscriber

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    Los Altos, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, I generally take the easy way out (Mike's approach I guess) and start with the manufacturer's recommended ISO. But I have recently started testing film to find my "personal" ISO, and I've started exploring development options (as indicated in other posts).

    As a result I believe I've expanded my repertoire, and it wouldn't have happened without visibility into various discussions on forums like this and from a variety of books.

    So I disagree if Mike's suggestion is that we forego discussion here and just get all our answers from the product literature, though I agree that they provide a very solid point of departure.

    -chuck
     
  12. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Absolutely correct.

    Photographic science is a science, which uses strictly defined terms. Most photographers use "layman's terms" which may on occasion be similar to the scientific terms. On other occasions they are only misleadingly similar.

    It is important to know what the correct definitions are, and the best (at least most easily available) source for that information is from the film manufacturer's publications.

    From another science, what is commonly called "granite" can be just about anything from gabbro to leuconorite (samples from personal experience), and which it is doesn't matter at all if you're paving your patio. But if you want to discuss geology you should start by learning the difference, and not repeating what the stonemason told you.
     
  13. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF

    I am discussing terms (measures), like 'gamma', 'CI'. G-bar', etc. Not film speed. Does everybody understand what I mean now?
     
  14. chuck94022

    chuck94022 Subscriber

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    Los Altos, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I presume this thread originated from some other discussion to which I wasn't privy. I agree that terms such as gamma, etc., should be used properly and appropriately. I just had no other context than the first post in this thread, which, frankly, sounded like a provocation. Perhaps you could provide a bit of the motivation for starting this thread, so that those of us who would like to participate intelligently can do so instead of resorting to sarcasm as I did in my previous post.

    If you are merely saying that folks should use the correct terminology in their discussions, then I believe it, um, goes without saying. What's to discuss?

    -chuck
     
  15. Ornello

    Ornello Inactive

    Messages:
    295
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    There was a long discussion (now closed) about CI and densitometers. What CI means is what Kodak says it means, not what Joe Schmoe's brother-in-law thinks it means. Kodak invented the CI to replace gamma, because (according to Kodak) not all films developed to the same gamma print well on the same grade of paper. Films developed to the same CI do print well on the same grade of paper, even though they may not print identically. The problem with gamma is that is measures only the straight-line portion of the negative, and good negatives use a good deal of the toe.

    This whole discussion got very heated, but nobody bothered to look up what Kodak says about CI, which is their term. I'm pointing this out for future reference.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2005
  16. Kirk Keyes

    Kirk Keyes Member

    Messages:
    3,267
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Chuck - nothing privy, just in the alt processing section. It's also the impetus of the thread that I started recently. I found it a very interesting thread.

    See http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14178

    Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com
     
  17. smieglitz

    smieglitz Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,941
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Location:
    Climax, Michigan
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Prolly Zone II and VII, respectively.

    I wish you'd stop being so silicate.

    Joe
     
  18. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Caro Ornello,
    la sua idea era stato migliore spiegato, se lei aveva scritto quei termini andavano essere coperto
    ciao