Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,518   Posts: 1,572,207   Online: 988
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Stephen,

    No, you have not proven me wrong on anything, though I at least have been gracious enough to recognize that I might be wrong on some things. You, on the other hand, appear to be so high on your own arrogance that I suspect you have to get up on a ladder to scratch your ass when it itches.

    A little click of ass kissers who have joined in a mutual admiration society? Jorge and I, for example?

    So Stephen, just a thought. Any chance that you might be wrong on this blank film thing? And let's always return to that, shall we, as the thread that brought us together?

    Sandy King
    Kodak defines 'CI' in such a way that it can indeed be applied to blank film, as it represents a degree of development.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Gamma.jpg  

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    So Stephen, just a thought. Any chance that you might be wrong on this blank film thing? And let's always return to that, shall we, as the thread that brought us together?Sandy King
    Sandy - I started this thread. Perhaps instead of asking Steve if he is wrong on this issue, perhaps you could tell me where I went wrong.

    While I wait for your analysis, I think I'll go surfing for some good porn to masturbate to. (Sorry about the bad grammar.)

    Kirk

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    Jorge, the correct CI can only be determined by developing a standard test negative. When using any other negative you are assuming that they will be developed to the same CI by the same processing. It doesn't matter what scene, SBR or whatever you have captured on that negative - or even whether it has been exposed at all.

    It takes 2 points to determine a slope, but any one exposure will correspond to one density.


    AH, but there is the rub Ole, this thing that you are assuming. The reality of it is very simple, I will send you a blank negative and you will tell me to what CI I developed it, you can send me a negative you have made and I will tell you what CI you developed it. Lets see who gets closer......

    I also disagree that the "correct" CI has to be determined by a standard test negative. While I am sure Il douche bag will disagree, we do our "own" CI every time we expose a piece of film to a step wedge with known density gradient.

    There comes a time when talking about theoretical ideas has to yield to the reality....Arguing that a piece of blank film has a CI just because it was "assumed" it was developed as the test strip done before IMO is ludicrous.

    In the end some might enjoy this kind of pseudo intellectual discussion...I dont, I think I have explained as well as I can what I mean, I leave you all to hash this out.

    Here is hoping we get the "Ignore this thread" button soon....

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    The reality of it is very simple, I will send you a blank negative and you will tell me to what CI I developed it, you can send me a negative you have made and I will tell you what CI you developed it.
    Hi Jorge!

    I didn't mean to imply that a lot of usefull information could be derived from a blank piece of film developed to a particular CI. And you are right, you cannot determine the CI of a processing run merely from a blank sheet of film. I beleive I said that in my orginal post. I would be a fool to argue otherwise.

    Steve did point out that one can determine the base+fog level from that blank sheet of film. That's about all.

    But the sheet is still associated to a particular CI.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    No Sandy, I disproved your point. Read the whole thread over again, particularly those entries you didn't write yourself.

    Or go and find a textbook in basic calculus.

    Or just look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

    Ole,

    I already read the whole thread. It stated, and I quote:

    "The opinion was stated several times in the other thread that a sheet of blank film cannot have a CI. In defending this opinion, it was said that the film must have at least two areas of exposure in order for the film to have recieved a development of a certain CI. I disagree with the opinion - CI is not dependant on exposure, and therefore a blank sheet can and will have whatever CI (or gradient or gamma or...) that it was processed to."

    My position remains very clear. If we adhere to established standards of definition of CI there must be a gradient or slope. A point is neither a gradient nor a slope, at least not by any definition that has to this point been used to define CI.

    On the other hand if you fellows want to make up the language rules or philosophy as you go along that is another matter.

    Sandy

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    AH, but there is the rub Ole, this thing that you are assuming. The reality of it is very simple, I will send you a blank negative and you will tell me to what CI I developed it, you can send me a negative you have made and I will tell you what CI you developed it. Lets see who gets closer......

    I also disagree that the "correct" CI has to be determined by a standard test negative. While I am sure Il douche bag will disagree, we do our "own" CI every time we expose a piece of film to a step wedge with known density gradient.

    There comes a time when talking about theoretical ideas has to yield to the reality....Arguing that a piece of blank film has a CI just because it was "assumed" it was developed as the test strip done before IMO is ludicrous.

    In the end some might enjoy this kind of pseudo intellectual discussion...I dont, I think I have explained as well as I can what I mean, I leave you all to hash this out.

    Here is hoping we get the "Ignore this thread" button soon....

    CI means what Kodak says it means: it's their term. There is no 'correct' CI, any more than there is a 'correct' speed of a tennis ball crossing the net. Where did you get that notion?

    CI (gamma, G-bar) represents a degree of development. Kodak says so, in so many words.

    You can't 'disagree that the "correct" CI has to be determined by a standard test negative.' There is no 'correct' CI, and the only way to measure CI is with a process control strip. You can't disagree with Kodak's definition, any more than you can disagree with the length of a mile. A mile is a defined term, and you have no say in the matter. CI is a defined term. Contrast can be measured any way you want, but Contrast Index is a term defined by Kodak.

    You are a very confused person, Jorge.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    You have all gone absolutely insane.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,064
    Does any of this really matter?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by psvensson
    You have all gone absolutely insane.
    Nope. 'Insane' is a legal term. You mean 'mad'. You want to express it this way: "You have all gone absolutely mad."

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard
    Does any of this really matter?

    That depends....

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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