Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,875   Posts: 1,520,212   Online: 1225
      
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by smieglitz
    Stephen,

    Whether he is in error or not on the points you've indicated, I'm not able to judge but I suspect he will do his homework and reply appropriately.

    I made an error of assumption. Whether or not it has any practical importance I don’t know at this time.

    The issue is primarily this. Way back at the beginning of this thread I mentioned that I had not done any graphing by hand for years. I use the graphing plotter program for that. And the version that I use offers two methods for calculating slope, approximate CI and 0.1 over B+F. I assumed, having read Davis’s explanation of the two methods, that the 0.1 over B+F method was based on the Ilford B-Bar method. So very early on in this thread when you did a hand graph and found that “The calculations do appear to yield similar numbers for G-bar and CI,” I decided to test this myself using the plotting program with the data from a number of existing film tests to compare results with the approximate CI and 0.1 over B+F methods. What I found was what I reported, the calculations from plots using the two different methods gave equal values for DR and SBR, but the 0.1 over B+F method gave a slightly higher EFS.

    What I wrote is not gibberish, as Stephen so impolitely put it (which rather surprised me since he made a point in his first message to tell us that he was polite), but solid data that resulted from two different methods of determining slope. Yes, I appear to have made a mistake in assuming that the 0.1 over B+F method was based on Ilford’s method for determining average gradient, but the data nevertheless showed a slightly higher EFS for this method, which shows me that different premises for determing average gradient can result in different values for EFS. And if anyone is interested I will be happy to show all the details of my film testing and the curves that resulted from the two methods of determining slope.

    In looking at one of Stephen’s messages he appears to have criticized me both for finding some difference in the two methods, “suggesting a higher EFS approaches gibberish. These are methods to determine contrast – not speed, ” as well as for concluding that for all practical purposes there is no distinction between the two methods, “as for Sandy’s conclusion that there is no distinction between the two methods…well, that has just been shown to be wrong.”

    And, just for the record, Davis’ plotter does provide a method for establishing a personal speed point which is for all practical purposes the same as EFS, and this is one of the data sets one gets from plotting the curves.

    But more to the point. I am a practicing photographer much more interested in systems that allow me to expose and develop negatives with some degree of precision than in discussions of the theoretical aspects of sensitometry. And that is where the BTZS system comes in because frankly no one has provided a better system than Davis for exposing and developing with precision than BTZS. And it is also very clearly presented, a quality I admire greatly in writers.



    Sandy

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Stephen, I have no idea why you have taken it to become the defender of the weak on this forum, but it does not do your reputation any good to try and defend a position that is wrong by drawing all these graphs and writing page long disertations based on a false concept.

    The simple fact is that gamma average or CI (whichever you like to use) is defined by two points that have to be present. Remove any of those two points and you no longer meet the definition of CI. In the case of the blank film exmaple you are actually removing both points that define CI, the one above b+f and the one that defines development. Anybody that knows a little of sensitometry will know this is just plain wrong.

    According to you and il duche bag. if I am cooking a chocolate souffle it is the same if I just crack an egg, throw a piece of chocolate and put both in a dish and stick it in the oven to beating an egg white with sugar, carefully folding melted chocolate into the whites and pouring this mix into a container that has previously been greased with butter and then carefully put into an oven at 350 ºF. Trust me, the results and the taste will not be the same......

    On the subject of SBR, it would be nice of you actually quoted the author correctly before you tell us all that it is wrong and outdated. What Davis is talking about is illuminance range not luminance as you stated. There is a difference you know.

    As to why people are beating on Il douche bag, this thread is a perfect example of his kind of confrontational attitude that does not acknowledge any other opinion than his own. The author of this thread asked a simple question in hopes of getting answers that will help him understand how to use his recently acquired densitometer to better control his process. Instead of offereing helpful suggestions his responses are on the line of "why did you get a densitometer? it has no use." While he is entitled to his opinion, invariably every time he participates in a thread it become a shit slinging fest that at least in this forum is not tolerated by the rest of the membership.

    It would have been nice that with all your knowledge of sensitometry you would have actually answered his question and help the author of this thread instead of becoming the defender of the weak and downthroden. So far you have not written a single sentence that would help the person who initiated this thread.

    You're confusing a meaurement unit with what is measured. CI is a unit of measure. It measures contrast.

    A given negative may have no (measurable) contrast at all, but it may have been processed for a particular CI, and in that extended sense it 'has' a CI. If I process a roll of film for a given CI, but one of the negatives happens to be blank, it is no different from any other negative on that roll so far as degree of development is concerned, and CI is used as a way of measuring the degree of development. It's kind of like a reference point in geology. One refers to Pennsylvanian rocks that are not in Pennsylvania, because they were laid down at the same time.

    In other words, CI is used, as a practical matter, as a kind of shorthand expression, to represent a degree of development.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    No, you are the one confused and I do not plan to continue fieeding your idiotic trolls....

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    No, you are the one confused and I do not plan to continue fieeding your idiotic trolls....
    No respect, no respect at all....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails norespect.jpg  

  5. #75
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    On the subject of SBR, it would be nice of you actually quoted the author correctly before you tell us all that it is wrong and outdated. What Davis is talking about is illuminance range not luminance as you stated. There is a difference you know.

    So far you have not written a single sentence that would help the person who initiated this thread.
    I'm going to have to look into the intention of Davis' use of the term, but I am not optimistic. I think you might just be too deeply immersed into BTZS to be able to judge it objectively. Still, I'll be open minded, after all, we are talking about the difficult and confusing subject of photometry. BTW, the Focal Encyclopdia of Photography partially defines Luminance as "the property of a source or surface that most closely correlates with the subjective percept of brightness, which, due to adaptation and contrast effects of the visual system, cannot be used as a reliable measure."

    The person who initiated the tread said, "Can someone point me to a resource that might help explain how the CI is determined or perhaps offer a little Densitometery for Dummies..." So far, I have offered a number of reading suggestions including the original paper on the subject written by the people who invented Contrast Index. I've explained how flare should factor in. I've given the poster an equation to determine CI for different LSLRs, and I showed him graphically how it is supposed to work in relation to SLSR, the negative, and the print. I've corrected a long misused method of G-bar (there is no arc). I've given information on the origins and intentions for the different method parameters. In addition, I had a graph comparing CI, G-bar, and the Zone System approach. No offense, but I think I've written more to respond to the original poster than anyone else so far. Jorge, I think you might have been skimming over my posts.

    Sandy,

    If I misrepresented what you said, I apologize. I got "slope so it can't be developed to a given CI" stuck in my mind and went with it. As for finding a higher EFS when using a method of contrast determination...well that's not possible and has no relevance to contrast determination (as long as there is enough exposure to measure). They are two different methods. One method determines contrast and another speed. Perhaps there was confusion in the way it was written and the way I read it. Terming what you said was gibberish wasn't polite, I just got pissed off by your dismissive attitude from an earlier post. Maybe we should both practice more patience and understanding?

    As for the CI / blank film discussion, it's over as far as I'm concerned. What was meant to be a little fun thought got blown way out of control. If it's OK with you, let's make a fresh start of things - mutual respect, civility and all.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    I'm going to have to look into the intention of Davis' use of the term, but I am not optimistic. I think you might just be too deeply immersed into BTZS to be able to judge it objectively. Still, I'll be open minded, after all, we are talking about the difficult and confusing subject of photometry. BTW, the Focal Encyclopdia of Photography partially defines Luminance as "the property of a source or surface that most closely correlates with the subjective percept of brightness, which, due to adaptation and contrast effects of the visual system, cannot be used as a reliable measure."

    The person who initiated the tread said, "Can someone point me to a resource that might help explain how the CI is determined or perhaps offer a little Densitometery for Dummies..." So far, I have offered a number of reading suggestions including the original paper on the subject written by the people who invented Contrast Index. I've explained how flare should factor in. I've given the poster an equation to determine CI for different LSLRs, and I showed him graphically how it is supposed to work in relation to SLSR, the negative, and the print. I've corrected a long misused method of G-bar (there is no arc). I've given information on the origins and intentions for the different method parameters. In addition, I had a graph comparing CI, G-bar, and the Zone System approach. No offense, but I think I've written more to respond to the original poster than anyone else so far. Jorge, I think you might have been skimming over my posts.

    Sandy,

    If I misrepresented what you said, I apologize. I got "slope so it can't be developed to a given CI" stuck in my mind and went with it. As for finding a higher EFS when using a method of contrast determination...well that's not possible and has no relevance to contrast determination (as long as there is enough exposure to measure). They are two different methods. One method determines contrast and another speed. Perhaps there was confusion in the way it was written and the way I read it. Terming what you said was gibberish wasn't polite, I just got pissed off by your dismissive attitude from an earlier post. Maybe we should both practice more patience and understanding?

    As for the CI / blank film discussion, it's over as far as I'm concerned. What was meant to be a little fun thought got blown way out of control. If it's OK with you, let's make a fresh start of things - mutual respect, civility and all.
    Back to CI:

    Kodak clearly uses the term to refer to degree of development:

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4016/f4016.pdf

    It is much like saying that you develop your film to "N+1" or N-2", only with mathematical precision, as "N" can be quite different for different workers.

    With CI, you're measuring the slope of the line connecting two defined points (strict definition) but it is also used to mean what affects that slope: the degree of development.

    Kodak gives Contrast Index curves for various developers on its materials.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0458ac.gif

    Maybe Kodak is 'idiotic' for doing so?

    See also:

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi.../tib3115.shtml

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Thanks to all who have added comments..most have been very usefull.

    If anyone thinks I have ignored there reply's please forgive me, it was not intentional. Since some posters are at a different stage in their understanding and have attained a level of enlightenment beyond what my interest are, decided to filter this thread and read what was relevant to my level of understanding - My Thanks to you.

    There are those that can teach, and those with a great deal of knowledge, but have a problem presenting that knowledge to others. This thread is a good example of that IMO.

    At this time I am asking Sean to lock the thread before this becomes another catalyst for a flame war.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    BTW, the Focal Encyclopdia of Photography partially defines Luminance as "the property of a source or surface that most closely correlates with the subjective percept of brightness,

    Exactly, luminance refers to the preceived brightness of the subject, Illuminance refers to the light falling on the object. This is clearly explained in Davis' book and the basis of what he calles subject brightnes range.

    While you have given reading suggestions, they have been done in passing and were not specifically geared to explain in a simple way what is required for a beguinner. You have written all of this in an effort to defend an untenable position that blank film has a CI. All of this you have done it in such a complicated and convoluted manner that I would not be surprised anybody wanting to start learning sensitometry to acheive a better control would be put off and decided it was too much hassle. To what purpose does it serve to post graphics and curves to someone who is just strating and has no idea what they mean? Face it, you posted all this to show how much you knew, not in a sincere effort to help the original author of this thread.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    As for the CI / blank film discussion, it's over as far as I'm concerned. What was meant to be a little fun thought got blown way out of control. If it's OK with you, let's make a fresh start of things - mutual respect, civility and all.
    Stephen,

    OK, sounds like an excellent idea. The present path clearly has no productive end. However, there are a couple of issues I would like to pursue with you in private communications and if you are willing I would be appreciative if you would send your email address to me at sanking@clemson.edu.

    Sandy

  10. #80
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,547
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    thread owner has requested this thread to be closed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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