Fine grain liquid developer?

[tlitody]

...and that subject. Otherwise I agree completely.

Cheers,

R.

It'll work well for most subjects. Roger, in his ignorance, fails to see that it is only a fine tuning from the manufacturers standard development which works well for most subjects. That seems to have gone right over his head. I guess that what happens when you try to be too clever for your own good and talk in riddles. You confuse yourself.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It'll work well for most subjects. Roger, in his ignorance, fails to see that it is only a fine tuning from the manufacturers standard development which works well for most subjects. That seems to have gone right over his head. I guess that what happens when you try to be too clever for your own good and talk in riddles. You confuse yourself.

"In my ignorance" and "too clever for my own good," eh? And where are the riddles?

Yes, it will work for all subjects with about the same subject brightness range, but I find it hard to believe that you are saying that an uninterpreted reading of (a) a misty morning and (b) harsh tropical sunlight, straight from the meter, will always work.

Then again, what are you calling 'fine tuning'? EI variations of a factor of two (EI 100 to EI 200 for the same film), and development variations of +/-20%, strike me as a bit more than 'fine tuning'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

"In my ignorance" and "too clever for my own good," eh? And where are the riddles?

Yes, it will work for all subjects with about the same subject brightness range, but I find it hard to believe that you are saying that an uninterpreted reading of (a) a misty morning and (b) harsh tropical sunlight, straight from the meter, will always work.

Then again, what are you calling 'fine tuning'? EI variations of a factor of two (EI 100 to EI 200 for the same film), and development variations of +/-20%, strike me as a bit more than 'fine tuning'.

Cheers,

R.

Once again trying to be too clever for your own good. I never said anything of the sort. If you had read what I said you would have seen
"Its only when you start photographing in difficult lighting that things get tricky but you'll soon get a feel for that and make adjustments on the fly to your metering and or development to compensate."

 

[RichL]

Dang folks shoot a 50th at 5.6 and let the lab take care of the rest of it. Not dising anyone but I chuckle when reading posts like this one. Being more darkroom oriented than camera oriented I often do go by my first sentence. Not that I can't or won't use a meter and all but with the latitude of most films and range of papers and developers you almost have to try to mess up.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Once again trying to be too clever for your own good. I never said anything of the sort. If you had read what I said you would have seen
"Its only when you start photographing in difficult lighting that things get tricky but you'll soon get a feel for that and make adjustments on the fly to your metering and or development to compensate."

You might want to consider the following:

Neither you nor I always expresses himself perfectly.

I may not be quite as stupid, ignorant or 'too clever for my own good' as you assume.

At least I try always to be civil, even if I sometimes fail. You are currently beng bloody rude.

(Most importantly) the OP is, on his own admission, not very knowledgeable about this, so airy statements about 'getting a feel' for things and 'making adjustments on the fly' are of limited usefulness.

I can only assume that you felt mortally offended by my comment, "...and that subject." I freely admit that I could have phrased it better (see point 1, above), and that it might have been much better to say, "For any subject with a similar brightness range."

If you had corrected me on that, I would have apologized for not making myself clearer. Instead, you chose to continue with personal insults. In the original post, I was trying to extend an olive branch, by agreeing with the vast majority of your post, except when it came to the question of subject brightness ranges.

Personally, I don't regard misty mornings or harsh contrasty sunlight as either unusual or difficult, hence my original comment. For that matter, if I'm shooting in Greece I habitually develop the film for 15% less than if I'm shooting in Scotland, and Japanese members of the ISO standards committee lobbied for a lowering of the ISO standard contrast (about 0,62) because it was too contrasty for use in Japan.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

You might want to consider the following:

Neither you nor I always expresses himself perfectly.

I may not be quite as stupid, ignorant or 'too clever for my own good' as you assume.

At least I try always to be civil, even if I sometimes fail. You are currently beng bloody rude.

(Most importantly) the OP is, on hs own admission, not very knowledgeable about this, so airy statements about 'getting a feel' for things and 'making adjustments on the fly' are of limited usefulness.

I can only assume that you felt mortally offended by my comment, "...and that subject." I freely admit that I could have phrased it better (see point 1, above), and that it might have been much better to say, "For any subject with a similar brightness range."

If you had corrected me on that, I would have apologized for not making myself clearer. Instead, you chose to continue with personal insults. In the original post, I was trying to extend an olive branch, by agreeing with the vast majority of your post, except when it came to the question of subject brightness ranges.

Personally, I don't regard misty mornings or harsh contrasty sunlight as either unusual or difficult, hence my original comment.

Cheers,

R.

No, you are trying to be a smart arse by mis quoting me. I said adjust in 1/3 stop increments. You suggested I said 100 to 200 which is a whole stop. I said 15% you said 20%. That is ignorant in my book. If you find that rude then don't try to be a smart arse when its not necessary then I won't be rude.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, you are trying to be a smart arse by mis quoting me. I said adjust in 1/3 stop increments. You suggested I said 100 to 200 which is a whole stop. I said 15% you said 20%. That is ignorant in my book. If you find that rude then don't try to be a smart arse when its not necessary then I won't be rude.

Dear Tlitody,

It was not my intention to be rude, nor to be a smart arse. I did not intend to quote you about 1/3 stop increments: my point was meant to be that different people can rate the same ISO 125 film at 100 to 200 without being wrong, and that variations f +/- 20% in dev times are quite normal.

Once again, I apologize for not making myself clearer, but if you refuse to accept the apology I suspect that the only possibility is to put you on ignore. If you dislike me as much as you seem to, I suggest you do the same for me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

Dear Tlitody,

It was not my intention to be rude, nor to be a smart arse. I did not intend to quote you about 1/3 stop increments: my point was meant to be that different people can rate the same ISO 125 film at 100 to 200 without being wrong, and that variations f +/- 20% in dev times are quite normal.

Once again, I apologize for not making myself clearer, but if you refuse to accept the apology I suspect that the only possibility is to put you on ignore. If you dislike me as much as you seem to, I suggest you do the same for me.

Cheers,

R.

You just can't help yourself can you. Now you try to twist what you said before which quite clearly said "by factor of 2" with no reference to 125 film. Go ahead and do me favour, put me on ignore.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Tlitody,

Done.

Cheers,

R.

 

[icamp]

Well, actually, yes. First of all, the mid-point on an ISO calibrated meter should correspond to around 13%, though that's a trivial correction. Second, many good meters have more than one index: typically, shadow, mid-tone and highlight. Some have still further indices for subjects with a short brightness range and for those with a long brightness range. I take it from your response that you did not bother to check the link about 'over' and 'under' indices.

Why would I Google the Zone System? The Zone System is a subset of sensitometry, over-simplified in some ways, over-complicated in others, and laden with jargon. I much prefer books that explain the underlying sensitometry. But if the Zone System works for you, fine. As you say, pretty much any metering system can be made to work if you understand what you're doing. Even for those who don't, latitude can cover a multitude of errors, especially if they try to err on the side of overexposure (as most Zone System users do), so as you say, why worry?

Cheers,

R.

Roger..read my posts before you comment.. i did not ask you to google zone system..but as you mention it ..try..you might learn something!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger..read my posts before you comment.. i did not ask you to google zone system..but as you mention it ..try..you might learn something!

All right, I'll re-phrase it. Why would ANYONE Google the Zone System?

I've read the AA books, for the first time over 30 years ago, and some of the Zonie exegeses. I really don't think there's anything much for me to learn about it. It's a poor subset of sensitometry, with one stroke of genius, the naming of Zones.

How many non-Zone books have you read about sensitometry and exposure? Because I've learned a damn' sight more from those than from AA's sometimes wndy prose.

Cheers,

R.

 

[icamp]

All right, I'll re-phrase it. Why would ANYONE Google the Zone System?

I've read the AA books, for the first time over 30 years ago, and some of the Zonie exegeses. I really don't think there's anything much for me to learn about it. It's a poor subset of sensitometry, with one stroke of genius, the naming of Zones.

How many non-Zone books have you read about sensitometry and exposure? Because I've learned a damn' sight more from those than from AA's sometimes wndy prose.

Cheers,

R.

If my last post was "below the belt" i apologize for that ..its not healthy for the discusion.
For the record..i am not a fan of AA ,dont consider myself as an expert in the zone system or sensitometry..but i do test for personal EI..know how to expand and contract for brightness range .
I had the pleasure to see prints by Michael Kenna at the Photographers Gallery in London UK in 1985..his prints started at $300 (i still have the price list) i was so impressed i went straight to FOYLES book shop and buy The Neg by AA..that was the start of my journey to making better photographic prints
so i read the book 25 years ago.
Thats it..im done!

 

[bwcolor]

This thread has been a good read for the sake of learning, but the expressed anger is a bit much. I applaud Roger for keeping his cool and being civil.

 

[robklurfield]

I bought a copy of The Negative not quite 30 years ago. The prose was so windy that I never got all the way through it. Well, on a archaeological expedition in my own cellar I unearthed the darned thing last week. I've picked it up again. It's still windy (and, from all those years in my basement, a little musty and dusty, too). Let's see if I make it through cover to cover this time.

Personally, there's enough that I don't know that I'm sure, if I can find the patience, I will learn plenty, though as Roger rightly opines, I'm not sure that AA's approach will have much practical impact on how I work. Anyway, it's good to have one's mind provoked from time to time with some challenging tome. If that doesn't work, it will surely have the desired soporific effect at bedtime. I feel a snore welling up in my throat already.

(Not denigrate AA in way, as I certainly haven't scratched the surface of any of the technical things he mastered.)

All right, I'll re-phrase it. Why would ANYONE Google the Zone System?

I've read the AA books, for the first time over 30 years ago, and some of the Zonie exegeses. I really don't think there's anything much for me to learn about it. It's a poor subset of sensitometry, with one stroke of genius, the naming of Zones.

How many non-Zone books have you read about sensitometry and exposure? Because I've learned a damn' sight more from those than from AA's sometimes windy prose.

Cheers,

R.