Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,851   Posts: 1,582,856   Online: 820
      
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 91
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Thanks Jorge, Even higher than I thought!

    By the way, your film CI is probably off, as I did not give you any exposure information, so I'll take that calculated result with a big grain of salt. I most likely did not meet the exposure conditions that Phil recommends.
    I would not know Kirk....

  2. #42
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    It seems that there are actually two discussions going on here.

    First, how is a subject of low SBR metered and interpreted? Incident metering requires more experience to deal with the nuances of relatively low contrast. Reflective metering may have an advantage in that there is less interpretation required, assuming that shadow values and high values are large enough to measure (spot meter).

    Second, how much exposure and development are necessary to get a firm print in this situation? How is the film developed after exposure to yield a scale sufficient to make the print fit the photographer's intent and pre-visualization? Fortunately, there are several methods available to evaluate this scenario, zone system, BTZS or a wild guess based on prior experience.

    I propose a test. Someone please take a picture, develop and print it. List the SBR, zone numbers or foot candles measured to evaluate the exposure. Project a range of values, then process to a given target value. List the film, developer and whatever numbers will show that theory and practice can be effective. Finally, print the film showing the results in a finished print. (Mike Pry's "early" BTZS pond picture comes to mind at this point, well done Mike) This would illustrate the question in terms more readily understandable than the jargon being bandied about.

    I know this is not nearly as exciting as talking about it, but please gentlemen, some civility is in order. It is possible to have a discussion without the personal rancor shown in some of these posts. "Deliver us from ego" is still a nice prayer. tim

  3. #43
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    "Is familiarity with a particular pritning paper a prerequisite to entry into the photographic elite?"

    No, but an in-depth understanding of it is certainly a good start. tim

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by noseoil

    I propose a test. Someone please take a picture, develop and print it. List the SBR, zone numbers or foot candles measured to evaluate the exposure. Project a range of values, then process to a given target value. List the film, developer and whatever numbers will show that theory and practice can be effective. Finally, print the film showing the results in a finished print. (Mike Pry's "early" BTZS pond picture comes to mind at this point, well done Mike) This would illustrate the question in terms more readily understandable than the jargon being bandied about.

    tim
    You are on....

  5. #45
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Any paper but toilet paper.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Well the results of my knowledge are posted......anybody else wants to back up their claims with a final print?

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    You're so macho, Jorge.

    Jay
    Uh huh....just what I thought....c'mon big boy, put your money where your mouth is....dont tell me you are just like MS, all hot air....

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    uh huh........well I think this is settled.....

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Sandy the questions in your post here indicate to me that you (and probably many others) are having a disconnect between the act of measuring the CI of a piece of film, and developing that piece of film to a predetermined CI. They are two different acts.
    Kirk,

    My connect is with the literature. I have looked carefully at the definition of CI in quite a number of technical books, including several devoted entirely to sensitometry, in order to better understand the issue, and I can find no example where the term CI, when defined, is not associated with a slope or gradient, which clearly shows that it is a result, not a process.

    Even in cases where the term is used to in such a way that might suggest that it is a control or index number for processing, subsequent explanation always makes it clear that that CI is something to be obtained, not the process itself. I could agree that the phrase "to develop film to a given CI" describes a process, but the phrase does not redefine the meaning of CI. It describes only the reality of the phrase itself as something that takes place. And even within the context of the phrase in question the literature reaffirms the definition of CI itself as a result, i.e. a slope or gradient that defines two different points of density. Blank film, unless it is unevenly fogged, can not have two different points of density; it can not have a slope or gradient. But if you see differently we will just have to agree to disagree and let others conclude what they will.

    In any event there has been much to much obsessing on this subject, so with that in mind know that this is my absolute last message on CI, at least within the specific context of this discussion. But thanks for the civil discussion, and at least I dodged some of the bullets whizzing around in this thread.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 04-14-2005 at 09:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Well the results of my knowledge are posted......anybody else wants to back up their claims with a final print?

    Jorge,

    I had the opportunity to view both an example of your work and also an example of another photographer (who shall remain unnamed) pertinant to this thread in the traveling portfolio. I must say there is no comparison. Your print was outstanding. I wish that I could say the same about the other print. However, in good conscience I cannot do that. I was absolutely dismayed at what I saw in the other print, to be completely honest.

    A "quick study" apparently does not equate to good prints. There is a vast disparity between "talking the walk" and "walking the talk". In other words anyone can spout jargon...not many can turn out good work.

    As I have found in my life's experience...there has been nothing that has caused me more trouble as when I thought that I knew something when in fact, as I later found out, I didn't have a damned clue.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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