Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,097   Posts: 1,612,642   Online: 861
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    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

  2. #12
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ornello Pederzoli II
    ... 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. ...
    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.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022
    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

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

  4. #14
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    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

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022
    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
    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 Ornello Pederzoli II; 04-08-2005 at 10:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022
    I presume this thread originated from some other discussion to which I wasn't privy.
    -chuck
    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/forum42/14178-densitometery-contrast-index-ci.html

    Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

  7. #17
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,903
    Images
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    ...from gabbro to leuconorite...
    Prolly Zone II and VII, respectively.

    I wish you'd stop being so silicate.

    Joe

  8. #18
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    Caro Ornello,
    la sua idea era stato migliore spiegato, se lei aveva scritto quei termini andavano essere coperto
    ciao
    Quote Originally Posted by Ornello Pederzoli II
    I am discussing terms (measures), like 'gamma', 'CI'. G-bar', etc. Not film speed. Does everybody understand what I mean now?
    Mama took my APX away.....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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