Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,676   Online: 949
      
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Doesn't Davis use "average gradient" or G-bar, not "average gamma"?

    And if Davis is graphing development time vs. average gradient, as well as dev. time vs. SBR, and dev time vs. N, then SBR is directly related to average gradient or N-development values. They are correlated through development time.
    Didnt I write you could plot gradient vs sbr? did I in any way say they were not correlated in any way?

    Does everything have to be a pissing match with you?......

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    I said: "You CAN develop film to a given SBR, just as you can develop film to a given CI."



    OK - but then Davis equates SBRs with G-bar (simplified CI) in his book and software. Look at the graphs he produces with it. Each film plot can display the G-bar value along with the associated SBR.

    So is Davis wrong in placing these labels on his graphs? I think not - as he knows that in his system, a particular G-bar IS directly related to the SBR of the original scene.



    I'll get back to you on this.



    This is splitting hairs. It all really depends on your quality control as I described above. And does it really matter if you are off by a couple of 0.01 CI from your intended target CI?? And if you got achieved a CI that is slightly different than your target CI, then how can you say your blank film got a CI of zero, which you have.



    What?? "No reality beyond its realization?" CI is a measurement of a property of film development. Please - let's not start discussing "reality" and "realization".

    Kirk,

    This matter is closed for me, at least so far as it involves the merits of the case. If others want to continue the discussion with you that is their business.

    However, please note that what Davis says in his book is absolutely irrelevant to the definition of CI, and equally irrelevant to whether or not a blank piece of film can have a CI, and also irrelevant to the concept of "developing to a given CI." CI was an established concept in literature of sensitometry well before Davis published the first edition of Beyond the Zone System. So for your discussion of the meaning of CI what Davis may or may not have written about the relationship between SBR and G-Bar is irrevelant, as is my opinion as to whether what he wrote is right or wrong.

    Sandy

  3. #63
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Kirk,

    However, please note that what Davis says in his book is absolutely irrelevant to the definition of CI, and equally irrelevant to whether or not a blank piece of film can have a CI, and also irrelevant to the concept of "developing to a given CI." CI was an established concept in literature of sensitometry well before Davis published the first edition of Beyond the Zone System. So for your discussion of the meaning of CI what Davis may or may not have written about the relationship between SBR and G-Bar is irrevelant, as is my opinion as to whether what he wrote is right or wrong.

    Sandy
    Kirk, I believe that exact phrase ,"developing to a given CI" was used in the authoritative paper published in the peer reviewed journal – Journal of Photographic Science Engineering.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-14-2005 at 01:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Donald, artistic ability and technical knowledge are two separate things. Please don't confuse one for the other.

    Kirk, I certainly didn't confuse the two...but possibly you could elaborate on why one would not use technical ability, if it was in fact present, to produce work that evidenced technical proficiency. I would like to hear your reasoning on this.

    Beyond that my discussion with you on this matter is finished. I guess that you and I will have to agree to disagree. I imagine that should not be a new experience for you.

  5. #65
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Kirk, I certainly didn't confuse the two...but possibly you could elaborate on why one would not use technical ability, if it was in fact present, to produce work that evidenced technical proficiency. I would like to hear your reasoning on this.

    Beyond that my discussion with you on this matter is finished. I guess that you and I will have to agree to disagree. I imagine that should not be a new experience for you.
    I don't think it's Kirk's responsibility to explain the concept of civility. Instead, maybe Don should look into some anger management classes and lots of sensitivity training.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    I don't think it's Kirk's responsibility to explain the concept of civility. Instead, maybe Don should look into some anger management classes and lots of sensitivity training.
    LOL.....this from a guy sending insulting e mails.....

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    I don't think it's Kirk's responsibility to explain the concept of civility. Instead, maybe Don should look into some anger management classes and lots of sensitivity training.
    Stephen,

    LOL ...this is really rich...coming from you...LOL If you care to...now, please understand this is a suggestion only, you might find it helpful to examine some literature dealing with psychological projection.

    I will say that you have made some improvement because this time you didn't use the four letter word beginning with F in addressing me and you didn't email me, yet... I strongly encourage you to keep up your efforts because the results may surprise you. LOL

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Donald, Stephen, Jorge - if you would like to continue your off-topic discussion, please feel free to do so, in another thread.

    And Donald, if you would like to start a thread on "but possibly you could elaborate on why one would not use technical ability, if it was in fact present, to produce work that evidenced technical proficiency", I would be really happy to join in on it. But keep in mind, I said "artistic ability and technical knowledge".

  9. #69
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    You're right Kirk. It's not worth it. I've deleted my response.

    ___________________

    Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-14-2005 at 03:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    Kirk, I believe that exact phrase ,"developing to a given CI" was used in the authoritative paper published in the peer reviewed journal – Journal of Photographic Science Engineering.

    I am perplexed as to why you believe this comment contributes to the discussion? The issue of whether the phrase "developing to a given CI" exists in the literature has not been in question, either in the previous thread or this one. So far as I can recall no one has claimed that the phrase does not exist in the literature. I certainly have not, and in fact I alluded to it in at least one previous message in this thread, for example where I wrote: “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.”

    Sandy



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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