Believe it or not..

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

...most of the questions surrounding technical matters can be solved by referring to Kodak or Ilford technical publications. Many disputes about what terms mean can be settled quite easily by going to the source materials rather than referring to someone else's interpretation. Several times this week I have introduced such material, only to be booed. Well, if you're going to use Kodak or Ilford terms, you have no better source for their definitions than those technical publications.

John McCallum · Apr 8, 2005

They have been know to be wrong (even about their own materials).

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

John McCallum said:
They have been know to be wrong (even about their own materials).

Now, you have a point there, but by and large they can be trusted.

Nige · Apr 8, 2005

Kodak and Ilford never sent me a copy.

Flotsam · Apr 8, 2005

I have found that anectdotal "real world" experiences tend to be a better source of more relevant, applicable information.

Bruce Osgood · Apr 8, 2005

I reluctantly join the thread, but just for a moment.

Neither Kodak, Ilford or any manufacturer of photographic material has ever said there is only one 'right' way to use there product. ALL manufacturers, particularly in tech bulletins say in rather emphatic terms: your milage may vary. Nothing is dogmatic in photography -- that's why it's so great. What works for me may seem blasphemy to you. Only the likes of Scarpetti (Sp) think in terms of absolute.

TPPhotog · Apr 8, 2005

My view is that technical publications are guides under controlled conditions ... happily the real world is not a controlled environment.

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

Bruce (Camclicker) said:
I reluctantly join the thread, but just for a moment.

Neither Kodak, Ilford or any manufacturer of photographic material has ever said there is only one 'right' way to use there product. ALL manufacturers, particularly in tech bulletins say in rather emphatic terms: your milage may vary. Nothing is dogmatic in photography -- that's why it's so great. What works for me may seem blasphemy to you. Only the likes of Scarpetti (Sp) think in terms of absolute.

I am referring pimarily to terms and measures, and how they are to be used. If you'll note, I say that in the opening post.

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

jdef said:
Mike,

I too am often surprised at many photographers' willingness to accept expert "X" opinion as fact, but doubt the technical acumen of the manufacturers of their materials, and the "your mileage may vary" proviso seems to support the conclusion that the manufacturer's data is likely the most reliable, and not the other way around. That being said, I think it's important to remember that photography is a hobby, and swapping little tricks and secrets is not unlike trading baseball cards; it's part of the fun, and has no affect on the game itself.

Jay

I am referring pimarily to terms and measures, and how they are to be used. If you'll note, I say that in the opening post.

chuck94022 · Apr 8, 2005

Ornello Pederzoli II said:
I am referring pimarily to terms and measures, and how they are to be used. If you'll note, I say that in the opening post.

Actually you don't say that in the opening post. At least, you say nothing at all regarding measures, you just mention terms.

Trust in the manufacturer and forget about discussion? I guess we should all shoot at the manufacturer's stated ISO rating, and develop at the manufacturer's specified dilutions and times.

OK! That makes things *much* easier! No more agitation discussion, No more stand development, no more N+1, N+2, N-1, or, well, N, for that matter. I don't have to figure out my N, because the manufacturer has done it for me! Great!

No more test rolls, no more zone system, no more BTZS! I can just trust the in camera meter, because the manufacturer said it would work just right! Or just use the sunny 16 rule, because that's what's printed on the Kodak film box!

Who'da thunk photography could be so easy?

-chuck

chuck94022 · Apr 8, 2005

Actually, I generally take the easy way out (Mike's approach I guess) and start with the manufacturer's recommended ISO. But I have recently started testing film to find my "personal" ISO, and I've started exploring development options (as indicated in other posts).

As a result I believe I've expanded my repertoire, and it wouldn't have happened without visibility into various discussions on forums like this and from a variety of books.

So I disagree if Mike's suggestion is that we forego discussion here and just get all our answers from the product literature, though I agree that they provide a very solid point of departure.

-chuck

Ole · Apr 8, 2005

Ornello Pederzoli II said:
... Many disputes about what terms mean can be settled quite easily by going to the source materials rather than referring to someone else's interpretation. ...

Absolutely correct.

Photographic science is a science, which uses strictly defined terms. Most photographers use "layman's terms" which may on occasion be similar to the scientific terms. On other occasions they are only misleadingly similar.

It is important to know what the correct definitions are, and the best (at least most easily available) source for that information is from the film manufacturer's publications.

From another science, what is commonly called "granite" can be just about anything from gabbro to leuconorite (samples from personal experience), and which it is doesn't matter at all if you're paving your patio. But if you want to discuss geology you should start by learning the difference, and not repeating what the stonemason told you.

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

chuck94022 said:
Actually you don't say that in the opening post. At least, you say nothing at all regarding measures, you just mention terms.

Trust in the manufacturer and forget about discussion? I guess we should all shoot at the manufacturer's stated ISO rating, and develop at the manufacturer's specified dilutions and times.

OK! That makes things *much* easier! No more agitation discussion, No more stand development, no more N+1, N+2, N-1, or, well, N, for that matter. I don't have to figure out my N, because the manufacturer has done it for me! Great!

No more test rolls, no more zone system, no more BTZS! I can just trust the in camera meter, because the manufacturer said it would work just right! Or just use the sunny 16 rule, because that's what's printed on the Kodak film box!

Who'da thunk photography could be so easy?

-chuck

I am discussing terms (measures), like 'gamma', 'CI'. G-bar', etc. Not film speed. Does everybody understand what I mean now?

chuck94022 · Apr 8, 2005

I presume this thread originated from some other discussion to which I wasn't privy. I agree that terms such as gamma, etc., should be used properly and appropriately. I just had no other context than the first post in this thread, which, frankly, sounded like a provocation. Perhaps you could provide a bit of the motivation for starting this thread, so that those of us who would like to participate intelligently can do so instead of resorting to sarcasm as I did in my previous post.

If you are merely saying that folks should use the correct terminology in their discussions, then I believe it, um, goes without saying. What's to discuss?

-chuck

Ornello · Apr 8, 2005

chuck94022 said:
I presume this thread originated from some other discussion to which I wasn't privy. I agree that terms such as gamma, etc., should be used properly and appropriately. I just had no other context than the first post in this thread, which, frankly, sounded like a provocation. Perhaps you could provide a bit of the motivation for starting this thread, so that those of us who would like to participate intelligently can do so instead of resorting to sarcasm as I did in my previous post.

If you are merely saying that folks should use the correct terminology in their discussions, then I believe it, um, goes without saying. What's to discuss?

-chuck

There was a long discussion (now closed) about CI and densitometers. What CI means is what Kodak says it means, not what Joe Schmoe's brother-in-law thinks it means. Kodak invented the CI to replace gamma, because (according to Kodak) not all films developed to the same gamma print well on the same grade of paper. Films developed to the same CI do print well on the same grade of paper, even though they may not print identically. The problem with gamma is that is measures only the straight-line portion of the negative, and good negatives use a good deal of the toe.

This whole discussion got very heated, but nobody bothered to look up what Kodak says about CI, which is their term. I'm pointing this out for future reference.

Kirk Keyes · Apr 8, 2005

chuck94022 said:
I presume this thread originated from some other discussion to which I wasn't privy.
-chuck

Chuck - nothing privy, just in the alt processing section. It's also the impetus of the thread that I started recently. I found it a very interesting thread.

See (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

smieglitz · Apr 8, 2005

Ole said:
...from gabbro to leuconorite...

Prolly Zone II and VII, respectively.

I wish you'd stop being so silicate.

Joe

titrisol · Apr 8, 2005

Caro Ornello,
la sua idea era stato migliore spiegato, se lei aveva scritto quei termini andavano essere coperto
ciao

Ornello Pederzoli II said:
I am discussing terms (measures), like 'gamma', 'CI'. G-bar', etc. Not film speed. Does everybody understand what I mean now?

Believe it or not..

Ornello

John McCallum

Ornello

Nige

Flotsam

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

TPPhotog

Ornello

Ornello

chuck94022

chuck94022

Ole

Moderator

Ornello

chuck94022

Ornello

Kirk Keyes

smieglitz

titrisol

Believe it or not..

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency