Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,765   Posts: 1,484,083   Online: 944
      
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke
    THANKS HANS FOR POSTING THIS.

    People can argue interpretations all day but it's good that you spent the time to post the reference.
    Ah yes, the reference, a possibility of some experimental data. Let's see:

    The authors describe this document as a survey, as such, it does not purport to describe a set of controlled experiments and their results. That is good, because the survey has:

    No discernable experimental design.
    No control samples
    No objective standards
    Developer dilutions (some are given, some are not)
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  2. #22
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Resolution is really a characteristic of the film. "Fine grain" developers work by diffusing the grain edges, to make the individual grains less noticeable... a "fine grain EFFECT" at the cost of acutance, or "sharpness".

    In the end, whether of not a film-developer combination is ACCEPTABLE - or preferable - is an aesthetic decision - up to the photographer - along with many others.
    Maximum resolution is a characteristic of the film. It can, however, change with the developer. In my tests for the article "Salt to Taste" for Photo Techniques, I don't remember the issue, I compared the same film in D-23, D-23 with added sodium chloride, Rodinal with and without added NaCl and with added sodium ascorbate and found differences in resolution that were readily apparent, even though I did not measure them in lines/mm. The most satisfactory to my eyes of the ones I tested was the Rodinal 1+50 + 4 g/l sodium ascorbate.

    I agree that it's the photographer's choice, but I think it should be an informed choice. I think also that the same film-developer combination will not be suitable for all purposes.
    Gadget Gainer

  3. #23
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    The way the study was conducted is described in the article. It was quite exacting. Please read in its entirety.
    You were right ... I hadn't read the entire report. I have now. Published in 1968, it still is of some interest.

    Now ... objectivity. I did read where they assured the reader that although they didn't quite know how to report the results .. they we still *very* accurate. While this may or may not be true, as far as this article goes, it can be (from experience - it usually IS) a sign that the writer/s are not completely confident in their work. Be that as it may ...

    From Column 7 - Graininess"

    "... Photographs are designed for visual viewing, and the actual criterion of obtrusiveness or otherwise (??) of grain must therefore be based on visual and subjective determination."
    Subjective, not Objective. To me, "subjective" always translates to, "In My Opinion." Further, it claims that magnification, using microscopes, was not feasible, so the viewing was done with the image from a slide projector. Interesting ... but ??? was the "grain" of the screen receiving the image a factor? - And I can't help but wonder why microscopes were "not effective".

    The writer might also do well to research the Agfa data sheets for their film, where objective measurements of grain are given ... in terms of "u RMS".


    In short, reading the entire article has not changed my opinion of the validity of the data.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    You were right ... I hadn't read the entire report. I have now. Published in 1968, it still is of some interest.

    Now ... objectivity. I did read where they assured the reader that although they didn't quite know how to report the results .. they we still *very* accurate. While this may or may not be true, as far as this article goes, it can be (from experience - it usually IS) a sign that the writer/s are not completely confident in their work. Be that as it may ...

    From Column 7 - Graininess"

    "... Photographs are designed for visual viewing, and the actual criterion of obtrusiveness or otherwise (??) of grain must therefore be based on visual and subjective determination."
    Subjective, not Objective. To me, "subjective" always translates to, "In My Opinion." Further, it claims that magnification, using microscopes, was not feasible, so the viewing was done with the image from a slide projector. Interesting ... but ??? was the "grain" of the screen receiving the image a factor? - And I can't help but wonder why microscopes were "not effective".

    The writer might also do well to research the Agfa data sheets for their film, where objective measurements of grain are given ... in terms of "u RMS".


    In short, reading the entire article has not changed my opinion of the validity of the data.

    Yes, the 'graininess' is to a small extent subjective and imprecise. That's why they assign a range of values to some films. But even with these limitations, clear winners and losers emerge. If the question is asked:

    'Is Rodinal a good choice for high speed films?', I would say the answer is 'generally, no.'

    Rodinal is not the best among the non-solvent developers. I believe the Paterson developers Acutol and FX-39 far surpass it.

  5. #25
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Rodinal is not the best among the non-solvent developers. I believe the Paterson developers Acutol and FX-39 far surpass it.
    ... So, your idea and mine of "Best" are not the same. The revelation of that bit of information doesn't exactly turn my world upside down.

    Obviously our ideas of a "clear winner" are not the same either.

    Just don't use the word "proof". I break out into hives when I read that word.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    ... So, your idea and mine of "Best" are not the same. The revelation of that bit of information doesn't exactly turn my world upside down.

    Obviously our ideas of a "clear winner" are not the same either.

    Just don't use the word "proof". I break out into hives when I read that word.

    I prefer non-solvent developers (the class into which Rodinal falls) to solvent ones (D-76, etc.) for my work. Among these, Rodinal ranks VERY low in several of the most important areas by measurement and by eye. What more remains to be said? So, I prefer developers of the Rodinal class, but Rodinal is one of the worst in its class.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    ... So, your idea and mine of "Best" are not the same. The revelation of that bit of information doesn't exactly turn my world upside down.

    Obviously our ideas of a "clear winner" are not the same either.

    Just don't use the word "proof". I break out into hives when I read that word.
    Can you say 'clear loser'?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
    Ah yes, the reference, a possibility of some experimental data. Let's see:

    The authors describe this document as a survey, as such, it does not purport to describe a set of controlled experiments and their results. That is good, because the survey has:

    No discernable experimental design.
    No control samples
    No objective standards
    Developer dilutions (some are given, some are not)

    So what? The procedures are valid for the kind of testing this is.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    593
    Images
    21
    So is this the same "Hans Beckert" who was thrown off photo.net because he insisted on pizzing all over the discussion forums?

    http://www.photo.net/shared/communit...user_id=836377

    If so, he's also worn out his welcome as "Michael Scarpitti" on both photo.net and the Google photo groups. Since joining yesterday, Hans, you've managed nearly 50 posts, mostly claiming that Rodinal is overrated. Please relieve yourself elsewhere.

  10. #30
    Max Power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Aylmer, QC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    598
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101
    So is this the same "Hans Beckert" who was thrown off photo.net because he insisted on pizzing all over the discussion forums?

    http://www.photo.net/shared/communit...user_id=836377

    If so, he's also worn out his welcome as "Michael Scarpitti" on both photo.net and the Google photo groups. Since joining yesterday, Hans, you've managed nearly 50 posts, mostly claiming that Rodinal is overrated. Please relieve yourself elsewhere.
    Sorry for the stupid question...But on the other thread I guessed that Hans Beckert was Sir Michael from the Ilford group...
    He's not really, is he???
    Max Power, he's the man who's name you'd love to touch! But you mustn't touch! His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you mustn't fear! 'Cause his name can be said by anyone!

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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