Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,527   Online: 844
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295

    Believe it or not..

    ...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. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    They have been know to be wrong (even about their own materials).

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    They have been know to be wrong (even about their own materials).
    Now, you have a point there, but by and large they can be trusted.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,957
    Images
    1
    Kodak and Ilford never sent me a copy.

  5. #5
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    I have found that anectdotal "real world" experiences tend to be a better source of more relevant, applicable information.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  6. #6
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,418
    Images
    44
    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. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    My view is that technical publications are guides under controlled conditions ... happily the real world is not a controlled environment.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce (Camclicker)
    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.
    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. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    Mike,

    I too am often surprised at many photographers' willingness to accept expert "X" opinion as fact, but doubt the technical acumen of the manufacturers of their materials, and the "your mileage may vary" proviso seems to support the conclusion that the manufacturer's data is likely the most reliable, and not the other way around. That being said, I think it's important to remember that photography is a hobby, and swapping little tricks and secrets is not unlike trading baseball cards; it's part of the fun, and has no affect on the game itself.

    Jay

    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. #10
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ornello Pederzoli II
    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.
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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