Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,235   Online: 835
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Bond does show some curves/data in the article to support what he's saying regarding contrast with long exposures. Are they accurate? I don't know.
    He does discuss film contrast, but doesn't present any data and those curves aren't film curves. They are exposure needed vs exposure indicated curves. I'm not questioning his findings (there's not enough information available to question even if I wanted), but film curves would have been nice. I know there's a real possibility that modern emulsion making has been able to reduced the effects of reciprocity. I was recently shown the Fuji Acros 100 data sheet. I didn't think it possible, but it said that the film didn't require exposure compensation up to a 120 second exposure.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-23-2012 at 07:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,104
    You're right - sorry I was remembering the graphs incorrectly.

    Re Acros, I ran my own tests on it and found the claim to be pretty accurate. It is a pretty unique film in that respect - but its characteristic curve is also unique compared to its Kodak and Ilford equivalents. Not necessarily good or bad, but quite different in areas of high exposure. These characteristics may either have been purposely designed into the film, or they might be a by-product of its reciprocity characteristics. Not sure.

  3. #23
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Following something blindly may be fine for some, but not everyone.
    Blindly following?

    Stephen, with all due respect , your arrogance is a bit too much sometimes. So keep pursuing another method of testing, and then another, and then another,..............until all possible outcomes have been analyzed and all possible "why" answers have been found, followed by some conclusion that may illuminate some awe inspiring point of minutia. No thank you. The ZS testing I do, contacted wedge and all , has proven quite valuable. Equating that with 'blindly following', I find, to be distasteful, but so be it. In this hobby, I accept things at face value, it should cease to be something that "works" before I spend time and money finding another way, so far that has yet to happen.

  4. #24
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,222
    I wasn't talking about you. Really Chuck, I wish you'd limit the discussion to the facts and not always resort to personal attacks. Ad hominem attacks have no place here.

    Argue the facts. What fact have I said that you disagree with? Anything from the film speed/exposure meter relationship thread? Anything from the Hiding in plain sight thread? Anything from Comparison of Reflectance from 18% and 12% Zone Models thread?
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-24-2012 at 02:43 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,584
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I don't understand what you mean.
    I was suggesting Zone III is as good a place as any to look for signs of consistent density.

    I think it has something to do with it being practical (that's the kind of density you would be dealing with pictorially), plus it puts you on the straight line, so you may be able to extrapolate "close" results better than if you were on the toe.

    Interestingly Todd-Zakia discuss using a density of 2.5 which I think is absurd. But then they give an example chart with the full family of densities, 0.2,, 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 plotted to 10,000 seconds.

  6. #26
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    I'm consistently tempted to simply reply "prove it" to many posts here on APUG.
    Cut out this kind of crap and other such similar comments and I'll leave you alone, conduct your analysis, talk about it, share it, I'm cool with that, but this stuff gets old and annoying when it's placed here and there in your posts, come off your pulpit, quit looking down your nose to those who just do the best they can with what they have-----I get sick of it and would tell you personally if I could. This kind of rhetoric, at least I feel anyway, can be a huge turn off to a newcomer to these forums, serves nothing but your ego and, despite what authority you may have on these subjects, nobody should feel they have to prove a damn thing to you when, maybe, they want to share something with the rest of us. I realize there's need for clarifications, I've no problem with teaching, no problem with enlightening, but you want to go beyond that and I guess I'm just too weak to let it slide past me. I've said my piece, no more, you can have the last word.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,104
    Hi CPorter, for what it's worth, what I've noticed in my few years on here, is that there are also people posting complete baloney in very authoritative ways. Esoteric, often completely incorrrect descriptions, techniques, etc lacking any reasonable basis, but posted in condescending, argumentative ways. Plainly put, there's a lot of bad information on here. That stuff annoys me way more than Stephen saying "prove it". Just my two cents.

  8. #28
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,222
    Unsubsantiated arguments are just opinions. If someone makes a claim, they should be able to support it. Sorry if it sounds condesending. It's not meant to be. To me supporting a statement is just part of a good argument. You know the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    It shouldn't get personal here. We shouldn't attribute nefarious motivations to people simply wanting to contribute. If someone disagrees with what someone else has said, they should address the topic and not attack the author.

    I love exposure and tone reproduction theory, but there's no one in my circle of friends who are interested. I bring up certain topics on Apug in the hopes of having a good discussion. I keeps me sharp, I learn a lot from doing it, and I hope I can occasionally bring something new to the forum or at least present something in a different light. I'm just trying to contribute to the photographic community with the hope of finding others with similar interests.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-25-2012 at 02:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #29
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    You know the say..."make love, not war" ? I say...stop arguing, go out, take a great picture, and print like there's no tomorrow!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin