Originally Posted by Ole
What! Speling misstakes hear? Say it ain't sew!
I get a nice stain with APX 100. Moor than other films? Don't no yett, butt it could bee.
One of the vital things lost since the deaths of Adams and Minor White has been their sense of perspective. Both teachers placed personal expression ahead of technical perfection, then introduced techniques appropriate to serving the visionary needs of photographers. In his Introduction to The Camera, Adams discussed visualisation, calling it "the foundation of this and all the projected books of (his) series". Visualisation, to Adams, "is to see (an image) clearly in the mind prior to exposure, a continuous projection from composing the image through the final print."
Originally Posted by TimVermont
He called it "an attitude toward photography rather than a dogma." He warned consistently that it was better to make a fuzzy picture of a clear idea " than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept."
In the past 20 years, there has been an astonishing general achievement in making dazzling images that are empty of all emotion, and of no value at all. There is no conversation today among writers, readers or practitioners that acknowledge the foundation of all of Adams' teaching, visualisation. Instead, there is obsession over technical virtuosity driven by a literalist dogma of what constitutes a 'good picture' or proper technique.
Neither Adams, White, nor any truly good teacher ever allowed ideology to limit their students' picture making, BUT taught appropriate methods to support personal vision with the necessary technique. Today, however, we witness jihad on those who would defy the narrow minded certainties of limited technical approaches, usually based on the magical properties of certain materials, equipment, or a superstituous approach to sensitometry.
I have to commend Sandy King on his willingness to share his data, presented clearly and generously, and to let folks make of it what they will. He follows the intelligent and open hearted tradition of photography propounded by Adams, unlike those who would limit the practise of expressive photography to rote formula and meaningless technical orthodoxy and correctness.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
An excellent post, as always.
What? Duex is not Norwegian?
Originally Posted by Ole
Just FYI, older articles in photo journals report that gelatins with different 'hardness' or Bloom Index, were used for controlling contrast. I see no indication of this. What I do find is that lower BI gels actually harden up more than gels of higher BI, but coat differently due to viscosity, so things are not so simple.
Early T-Grain films could not be made in 120 and 220 size. The reason was that the tight turns in the 120 and 220 backs caused grain cracking and fog in the emulsion. The emulsion was too stiff and the path was too curved and the grains were 'broken' by mechanical stress. Addition of softer gels, polymers and humectants helped cure the problem IIRC.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
So Let's Get Our Good Teachers Talking About Necessary Technique
My reference to Adams was simply to set a baseline of time and method. A discussion of visualization/ pre-visualization deserves a thread of it's own.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
If there are new methods that reduce the learning curve for paper and films -"necessary technique"- I'd like to know about them. Executing my personal vision will have to change once my stocks of no longer available film and paper run out. I suspect many reading APUG are in the same condition.
Originally Posted by avandesande
Perhaps this is one reason that more moderm emulsion designs could lead to relatively less staining?
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com
Thanks, Ole. I saw I had the Pryo in there! I thought, "Mon Dieu", did I spell duex wrong - for just a second! Or did I?
Originally Posted by Ole
I must have missed something on the first thread. I don't think the point was if Tmax stains or not but rather does it actually make a difference with Tmx100 sheet film.
So directly, is there a legitimate, compelling reason to change over from D76/ Xytol/ TmaxRS to a staining pyro developer for Tmax Tmx100 sheet film?
Will the stain mask reduce the apparent grain?
Will the stain mask work with the built-in U.V. blockers?
Will it raise the apparent sharpness with an edge effect?
Will it raise the film speed?
Will it soften the toe or introduce a shoulder?
Is it actually worth changing over if one does not use a pyro developer?
I'm fine with the Step 21 densities, they are suitably close for me to make a comparision here.
Originally Posted by Jorge
I do find that perhaps Step 1 was perhaps not the best choice to use as the densities for it are all above 2.00. I thought we were discussing the use of staining developers with VC papers as that was what Mr. Simmons was using in his examples. If so, then I find the behavior of most any developers at a neg density of 2.00 to be pretty moot. Afterall, we're we chiding Simmons about not having better matched his development in his past tests. And I would expect part of this to be matching the film development to the Log Exposure Range of the printing paper. Do the films in these examples match the LER or "normal" silver paper?
Perhaps I'm not sure which printing process we are talking about - if it is regular or VC paper, then I would guess that CI of the developed film should be around 0.6 or so and have a LER of a bit over 1.00. Do the films in these example match some particular paper? If Azo, then what, LER around 1.6? That's probably a better match to Sandy's data.
I understand that the films will different linearities, but I suggest that the density ranges of the Vis data be better matched and have similar CIs. We don't need to match every single Step for each film to make this comparison.
Just want to make sure we are comparing apples and apples here.