More thoughts on the Semi-Stand process

Photo Engineer · Aug 16, 2005

Sandy, that is what I have been saying. The micro-contrast has nothing to do with the macro-contrast. It seems that you agree with me after all!

I'm also interested to see all of the discussion about the zone system. The zone system is merely another way of expressing an H&D (sensitometric or characteristic) curve. And this curve, whether in the zone system or as a measure of density vs LogE is the way you measure contrast on both a macro and micro scale.

Perhaps you should re-read my messages as well.

PE

sanking · Aug 16, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Sandy, that is what I have been saying. The micro-contrast has nothing to do with the macro-contrast. It seems that you agree with me after all!

I'm also interested to see all of the discussion about the zone system. The zone system is merely another way of expressing an H&D (sensitometric or characteristic) curve. And this curve, whether in the zone system or as a measure of density vs LogE is the way you measure contrast on both a macro and micro scale.

Perhaps you should re-read my messages as well.

PE

PE, I was not aware that I ever indicated that I did not agree with you in terms of the important distinction between micro-contrast and macro-contrast. Micro-contrast results from adjacency effects which can indeed be measured by the knife-edge test, and the figures that are derived can be provided as accutance numbers.

Where I disagree with you is in the feasibility for ordinary folk, even those who are very inclined to test film as I am, to carry out these tests. I absolutely don't believe it can be done with a scanner, for example. However, if you can provide working information to show how it is possible to take measurments of micro-densities with a scanner and convert those values to accutance values I would certainly be very interested in knowing the details.

And BTW, are you aware of any accutance data for specific film and developers published by any of the major players such as Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, etc. I am not aware that developers have ever been promoted via the use of this kind of information.

In the end, however, accutance is but one of the factors that weigh into what we call sharpness (along with resolution, macro-contrast, etc) , and there is only one way to evaluate sharpness, with the human eye. That is why the ultimate test of a developer is not a resolution or accutance test, but the sharpness of a print at some given size as evaluated by a human being.

Sandy

Photo Engineer · Aug 16, 2005

Sandy, yes, I stand corrected on the matter of your agreeing/disagreeing. Sorry.

I do feel that it can and should be tested, but I must admit that I have never applied myself to it at home. I have been told by some experts that a canner can be adapted to serve as a microdensitometer. I should add though that knife edge images are not commonly used but rather slit exposures. Both positive and negative slit exposures are often used to obtain appropriate measure of sharpness and fill in. This is often reported as MTF or Modulation Transfer Function.

You are right that the human eye can judge which picture is sharper, but the human eye and brain can sometimes be fooled as to their judgment. One example is stated in my quote of Gainers post above. He tested macro contrast and changed development to match those values, apparently before comparing prints, and this is what can cause a person to step into a situation that leads down the wrong path. We may never know what conditions were between those extremes of identical macro contrast. I think that is to the point here. The two conditions with unmatched macro contrast might have revealed identical micro contrast and a useful position to be in for printing with a potentially longer tone scale with a sharper image. The prints were apparently never made or compared, as the macro contrasts were not equal. Instead, the process was changed until the macro contrasts matched. Then the comparison was apparently made. That is my point here.

As for sharpmess and grain of Kodak developers, this data is measured for all films. IIRC, all films are tested in D76 for release. Other developers are compared to D76 as the standard for speed, grain and sharpness. This data is internally relied upon, but is not released, only the release reference developer is used for the data on films.

I really don't know why this is, but that is another good point you raise. The statements in Kodak publications about grain, speed and etc, regarding developers are all taken against D76 but are given in subjective terms not given quantitatively even though that data exists.

PE

noseoil · Aug 16, 2005

Kodak is just doing a CYA. They would never admit that a "neophyte" like Sandy might have come up with a superior actinic developer for use with many different films and processes. Kodak is in business to sell Kodak. Sandy is in "business" to improve photographic quality and contribute to the community of photographers, not to toot his own horn (in my estimation, only). tim

P.S. Sandy, sorry for the editorial comments about your work. I don't know of too many people who are actively trying to improve photography for photography's sake, do it selflessly and then share the results so graciously. I tip my stout to thee, sir.

sanking · Aug 16, 2005

noseoil said:
Kodak is just doing a CYA. They would never admit that a "neophyte" like Sandy might have come up with a superior actinic developer for use with many different films and processes. Kodak is in business to sell Kodak. Sandy is in "business" to improve photographic quality and contribute to the community of photographers, not to toot his own horn (in my estimation, only). tim

P.S. Sandy, sorry for the editorial comments about your work. I don't know of too many people who are actively trying to improve photography for photography's sake, do it selflessly and then share the results so graciously. I tip my stout to thee, sir.

Thanks. I really appreciate your generous comments.

Especially in light of the current feedback on the Soap Box.

I guess no matter what you contribute it is never good enough for the "most pure," if you have defectiive digital gene.

Sandy

gainer · Aug 17, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Sandy, yes, I stand corrected on the matter of your agreeing/disagreeing. Sorry.

You are right that the human eye can judge which picture is sharper, but the human eye and brain can sometimes be fooled as to their judgment. One example is stated in my quote of Gainers post above. He tested macro contrast and changed development to match those values, apparently before comparing prints, and this is what can cause a person to step into a situation that leads down the wrong path. We may never know what conditions were between those extremes of identical macro contrast. I think that is to the point here. The two conditions with unmatched macro contrast might have revealed identical micro contrast and a useful position to be in for printing with a potentially longer tone scale with a sharper image. The prints were apparently never made or compared, as the macro contrasts were not equal. Instead, the process was changed until the macro contrasts matched. Then the comparison was apparently made. That is my point here.

PE

I don't know how you came up with this assessment of what I did. You certainly did not read the article I wrote for Photo Techniques.

The original post by Steve Sherman raised questions of macro response to stand development. I stated that I had found no difference in macro (H&D curve) response when the same or nearly the same overall contrast was obtained with or without agitation. I did not refer to the response to a step input when I said characteristic curve. That response and the H&D curve are different animals. I doubt that very many of us have the equipment and expertise to find the Modulation Transfer Function, a Fourier Transform of the response to a unit impulse, of film. We can all compare images of step density wedges visually or with ordinary densitometers. If two developers or two developing techniques give the same H&D curve, we can still look for differences in the step response which we see as acutance. But differences in acutance will not help compress a wide range scene onto narrow range paper. It is the macro difference that will do that. I made no statement about differences between acutances of stand and agitated development because those differences, if they exist, were not pertinent to the example Steve presented.

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2005

Patrick, the response to a step input, the characteristic curve, the H&D curve and the zone system are all different names for the same thing, and that is the response in density of a film or paper to a stepped exposure in increments of 0.15 or 0.3 log E. They are plotted or sensed by the eye as a change in density vs exposure.

These exposures may be macro or greater than 1000 microns in width or micro which is usually taken as 1000 microns and smaller in width. Both types may be plotted as density vs log E yielding a measure of macro and micro contrast or they may be interpreted by the eye as the tone scale of the photograph.

The fourier transfer of the micro densitometry over all line widths will give MTF. In a way, this is a numeric representation of sharpness.

You said "I did some characteristic curves with and without agitation. Since the purpose was to find the effect of no agitation vs agitation, I used the same developers in both cases. I found that the developing times had to be 40% longer to get the same contrast index for each of two developers. In neither case was there any significant difference in shape of the curve."

You made no comment about sharpness and that was exactly my point. We know you changed development to match macro contrast, but know nothing about the print results at any of the conditions.

Now surely you know that not all of us have read your article and therefore the comments you make directing us to it are not useful here. Your comments must be taken within the context of this thread just as mine must be. Since the comments above relate to sharpness and stand or semi-stand development, then that is the context we have to work with. We have no information on how any process condition affected sharpness or micro contrast.

That is the only point I wanted to make.

PE

fhovie · Aug 17, 2005

I understand "accutance" I wonder if the word accutance has been usurped by "micro contrast" I used to use PMK in a motorized drum. I was happy with the results but did wish I had more accutance. I then started filling the tank all the way and using normal inversion development. The accutance (apperent sharpness/edge effects) improved. Then I tried partial stand development, there was a slight increase in accutance and an increase in film speed. Both are benefits.

These benefits are not realized with all developers. I have not observed increased accutance in developers that use TEA. TEA seems to be great with PH and blocking oxidation but it is not any kind of silver solvent. The edge effects seem to require the action of some kind of silver solvent to move silver to the edge for a build up. So XTOL gives pretty good accutance and very fine grain. PC TEA and Pyro 510 do not seem to help accutance much at all no matter what I do. They do not erode accutance like Microdol or D76 or D23. So sharpness is not degraded - but no increase in sharpness due to enhanced accutance. So I have wandered down the path of fine grain/accutance tradeoffs and I keep coming back to PyrocatHD. I will probably try Hypercat before long. Although I like the convenience of the TEA developers - I will likely use up what I have and then relegate TEA to the printing tray only - where it is extremely wonderful stuff!

gainer · Aug 17, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Patrick, the response to a step input, the characteristic curve, the H&D curve and the zone system are all different names for the same thing, and that is the response in density of a film or paper to a stepped exposure in increments of 0.15 or 0.3 log E. They are plotted or sensed by the eye as a change in density vs exposure.

These exposures may be macro or greater than 1000 microns in width or micro which is usually taken as 1000 microns and smaller in width. Both types may be plotted as density vs log E yielding a measure of macro and micro contrast or they may be interpreted by the eye as the tone scale of the photograph.

The fourier transfer of the micro densitometry over all line widths will give MTF. In a way, this is a numeric representation of sharpness.

You said "I did some characteristic curves with and without agitation. Since the purpose was to find the effect of no agitation vs agitation, I used the same developers in both cases. I found that the developing times had to be 40% longer to get the same contrast index for each of two developers. In neither case was there any significant difference in shape of the curve."

You made no comment about sharpness and that was exactly my point. We know you changed development to match macro contrast, but know nothing about the print results at any of the conditions.

Now surely you know that not all of us have read your article and therefore the comments you make directing us to it are not useful here. Your comments must be taken within the context of this thread just as mine must be. Since the comments above relate to sharpness and stand or semi-stand development, then that is the context we have to work with. We have no information on how any process condition affected sharpness or micro contrast.

That is the only point I wanted to make.
PE

It appears that there are many other articles you have not read, if you are limiting yourself to those you happen to have on hand.

You are dead wrong about the H&D curve and the response to a step input being the same thing. The response to a step input can be used to find the frequency and phase response, provided you can assume that the system you are testing is linear. The H&D curve can be found by measurements of a continuous density wedge, but not from the response to a single step, no matter how micro your densitometer is. I have never heard anyone proclaim that the photographic system as we know it can be treated as a linear system.

In my article in PT I showed pictures of the same scene with a split comparison showing the pictorial effects of what we usally call bromide drag. You would not find any visible difference in acutance in those 8X10 enlargement from 35 mm negatives. If you are what we used to call a "Grain sniffer" who goes around a gallery looking for grain and proclaims any picture in which he cannot find grain a good picture, maybe you will find a difference due to agitation or lack thereof alone. If there is a difference due to different developers, you will be able to say only that the difference is there.

The situation with regard to acutance is about where the situation was with audio system compensation years ago. The trick was to make up for lack of frequency response by lead-lag compensating RC networks. The one-tube, single-ended audio amp in department store radio and record players could sound pretty good if you didn't crank the volume up too much. Most of my musician colleagues didn't pay much attention to them except sometimes for practice purposes. Once you have sat in the middle of the real thing you know you'll never hear the same sound coming out of a box.

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2005

According to Mees, "The property of a photographic material that leads to pictures having good screen definition is commonly referred to as sharpness". However, he admits that this is a subjective concept. Therefore the edge effect measurement (knife edge exposure) is now applied to the term sharpness in the quantitative measure. However, maximum gradient (maximum 'contrast') and average gradiant (average 'contrast') do not correlate with percieved sharpness either.

The subjective or percieved sharpness is termed acutance and is the average of gradiants obtained from these knife edge exposures.

It depends on this average and the density scale of the film.

In all cases, there is apparently a linear relationship between acutance and sharpness as shown by many researchers, but one is quantitative and the other is qualitative. However, it cannot be derived from the characteristic curve of the film.

The ability of a film to record fine detail is called resolving power. This is a third way of looking at this and it uses the slit exposures.

All of these are bound up together.

Oh, and for Sandy King, Mees publishes plots of resolving power vs gamma for 3 developers.

PE

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

fhovie said:
I understand "accutance" I wonder if the word accutance has been usurped by "micro contrast" I used to use PMK in a motorized drum. I was happy with the results but did wish I had more accutance. I then started filling the tank all the way and using normal inversion development. The accutance (apperent sharpness/edge effects) improved. Then I tried partial stand development, there was a slight increase in accutance and an increase in film speed. Both are benefits.

These benefits are not realized with all developers. I have not observed increased accutance in developers that use TEA. TEA seems to be great with PH and blocking oxidation but it is not any kind of silver solvent. The edge effects seem to require the action of some kind of silver solvent to move silver to the edge for a build up. So XTOL gives pretty good accutance and very fine grain. PC TEA and Pyro 510 do not seem to help accutance much at all no matter what I do. They do not erode accutance like Microdol or D76 or D23. So sharpness is not degraded - but no increase in sharpness due to enhanced accutance. So I have wandered down the path of fine grain/accutance tradeoffs and I keep coming back to PyrocatHD. I will probably try Hypercat before long. Although I like the convenience of the TEA developers - I will likely use up what I have and then relegate TEA to the printing tray only - where it is extremely wonderful stuff!

I can not provide any useful information on any of the specific developers you mention other than Pyrocat-HD. However, in developing the formula for PMK Gordon Hutchings experimented with a number of different reducers in superadditive combination with pyrogallol, and came to the conclusion that phenidione and ascorbic acid decrease edge effects as their concentrations are increased. On p. 55 of the Book of Pyro he writes: "while phenidone and ascorbic acid are more super additive with pyro than metol, this research [described as "estensive tests including microscopic analysis"] shows that phenidone, and particulary ascorbic acid, decrease edge effects . . . "

As you perhaps know, much of my own preliminary testing of Pyrocat-HD was done with pyrocatechin + metol, although I later settled on pyrocatechin + phenidone for the standard formula. However, and I have made this observation many times, with normal agitation patterns the metol variant of Pyrocat-HD is sharper than the phenidone version. In adding ascorbic acid to the mix, i.e. pyrocatechin + phenidone + ascorbic, I have observed what appears to be a further slight decrease in sharpness. The solution is much more energetic but the down side of a slight decrease in sharpness is the main reason I don't recommend the addition of ascorbic acid to Pyrocat-HD except in cases where one needs an especially energetic developer.

Sandy

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

jdef said:
Sandy,

when you introduced your Rollo-TEA formula, which contains both phenidone and ascorbic acid, you claimed for it sharpness similar to PMK or Pyrocat HD. Why the inconsistency?

Jay

What is the basis for your suggestion of inconsistency?

I simply reported the findings of Gordon Hutchings, which are documented, without further commentary.

Then I reported my own findings with respect to the metol and phenidione version of Pyrocat-HD, which have been stated before, many times.

That is all I said. The suggestion that I have been inconsistent is obviously reading more into my statements than was said.

Sandy

Jorge · Aug 17, 2005

sanking said:
I can not provide any useful information on any of the specific developers you mention other than Pyrocat-HD. However, in developing the formula for PMK Gordon Hutchings experimented with a number of different reducers in superadditive combination with pyrogallol, and came to the conclusion that phenidione and ascorbic acid decrease edge effects as their concentrations are increased. On p. 55 of the Book of Pyro he writes: "while phenidone and ascorbic acid are more super additive with pyro than metol, this research [described as "estensive tests including microscopic analysis"] shows that phenidone, and particulary ascorbic acid, decrease edge effects . . . "

As you perhaps know, much of my own preliminary testing of Pyrocat-HD was done with pyrocatechin + metol, although I later settled on pyrocatechin + phenidone for the standard formula. However, and I have made this observation many times, with normal agitation patterns the metol variant of Pyrocat-HD is sharper than the phenidone version. In adding ascorbic acid to the mix, i.e. pyrocatechin + phenidone + ascorbic, I have observed what appears to be a further slight decrease in sharpness. The solution is much more energetic but the down side of a slight decrease in sharpness is the main reason I don't recommend the addition of ascorbic acid to Pyrocat-HD except in cases where one needs an especially energetic developer.

Sandy

Since you are interested in semi stand developing, wouldnt it stand to reason that using the Metol variant with Pyrocat HD would be of greater benefit when using semi stand since it produces sharper negatives?

Which brings me to the question, have you done any testing with resolution charts? I am just curious, but I cant help to think that every time people say their negatives are sharper I always want to know sharper in relation to what?
A resolution chart, another negative, what?

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

jdef said:
Sandy,

if I read more into your post than was intended, I appologize, but I do find it puzzling. It's not as if you have no personal experience with TEA-based developers containing pyrogallol, ascorbic acid and phenidone. You recently wrote me that you were preparing an article on your Rollo-TEA formula for publication , so why would you defer to Hutchings if you've done your own research that is more relevant to the developers in question? From a reader's perspective, it seems that you are suggesting, through your citation of Hutchings, and comments about the differences in Pyrocat HD and Pyrocat+, that you believe that ascorbic acid and phenidone degrade sharpness in pyrogallol and catechol-based developers. That would appear to contradict your claim for Rollo-TEA of sharpness similar to PMK and Pyrocat HD. If I've made unreasonable inferences, I hope you'll clarify your position.

Jay

First, I am indeed saying that the addition of ascorbic acid to the Pyrocat-HD formula (which results in pyrocatechin + phenidione + ascorbic acid) appears to degrades sharpness, when agitation is the same in the comparison. I don't have any good documentation of this at the time but I am personally very convinced it is true.

With respect to pyrogallol + phenidone + ascorbic acid I am only suggesting that the combination may degrade sharpness, not making claim that it is so.

However, I recently developed some 20 or so sheets of 12X20 film, FP4+, in Rollo-TEA, and while the negatives are great, they do not appear to be quite as sharp as my Pyrocat-HD negatives. For this reason I plan to make some further modification to the Rollo-TEA formula before finalizing it. I have some ideas about this, just don't know if it is possible to implement them with TEA, which imposes its own pH requirements.

Sandy

df cardwell · Aug 17, 2005

Jorge said:
Since you are interested in semi stand developing, wouldnt it stand to reason that using the Metol variant with Pyrocat HD would be of greater benefit when using semi stand since it produces sharper negatives?

Which brings me to the question, have you done any testing with resolution charts? I am just curious, but I cant help to think that every time people say their negatives are sharper I always want to know sharper in relation to what?
A resolution chart, another negative, what?

What have you found, based on YOUR experience ?

Jorge · Aug 17, 2005

I dont do semi stand development, but I thought it was a good question. Most of the time I dont take well to smart ass responses so please put me in your ignore list.

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

Jorge said:
Since you are interested in semi stand developing, wouldnt it stand to reason that using the Metol variant with Pyrocat HD would be of greater benefit when using semi stand since it produces sharper negatives?

Which brings me to the question, have you done any testing with resolution charts? I am just curious, but I cant help to think that every time people say their negatives are sharper I always want to know sharper in relation to what?
A resolution chart, another negative, what?

I think the primary advantage of the metol version is with normal agitation. When you do stand development the phenidone version is already so sharp that more sharpness might not be very pictorial. Understand that very pronounced adjacency effects might not be desirable.

That said, one could probably increase agitation slightly with the metol version and get equivalent sharpness. I am guessing, for example, that four agitation cycles with the metol version would give similar results to semi-stand agitation. And the advantage could be more even development.

As for resolution charts, yes I have done some testing. In fact, lots of it. I have done the testing and compared the results with D76, D76 1:1, PMK, Pyrocat-HD, etc. using both normal dilutions and very dilute solutions for extreme minimal agitation. What have I learned from this? First, second, third, one must be extraordinary meticulous in this type of testing, since such things as minor difference in T dimension of film holders can have a dramatic impact on results.

I have also looked at the results form this resolution testing with a microscope, and with scans of the lppm charts. You learn from this, but there are always anomalies lurking in the background.

Could I actually prove anything from this testing. Yes, I could prove that PMK (1:2:100) and Pyrocat-HD (1:1:100) are sharper than D76 1:1 and Rollo-Pyro , when agitation type is similar. The difference is small, but clearly there. I could not prove that Pyrocat-HD is sharper than PMK, or the reverse.

In the end the best test for sharpness, IMHO, is to make an enlargement of 4-8X with the comparison developers, keeping everything as similar as possible, and then have human being evaluate the results from some specified distance.

Sandy

df cardwell · Aug 17, 2005

" I dont do semi stand development, but I thought it was a good question. Most of the time I dont take well to smart ass responses so please put me in your ignore list."
__________________
Jorge Gasteazoro.

I thought it was a good question, too.

Since the only real evidence we have with semi-stand processes is either anecdotal or casually empirical, I thought possibly you had something from your experience to share in the conversation.

Please accept my apology for the offence.

Jorge · Aug 17, 2005

Apology accepted. I asked King this because he seems to be always tinkering with his developer and making all these tests. So I thought he might have done something like this. I am a one developer guy, I test once and stick with it while it works for me. As long as I get the results I want I pretty much stay away from messing with what works for me.

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

jdef said:
Hi Sandy.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad I'm not imagining things, and there is indeed an inconsitency between your initial reporting on Rollo-TEA, in which you claimed it was as sharp as PMK and Pyrocat HD and your present reporting. As this thread well illustrates, quantitative sharpness determinations are difficult to make, and most of us rely on our own qualitative analyses. For my part, I find both 510-Pyro and Hypercat to produce sharper negs than Pyrocat HD, given a similar agitation scheme. I have a theory as to why this might be true, but no means to quantify my results. There are a few variations on my 510-pyro formula that I've been meaning to test, but the truth is that it works so well as-is, I haven't been highly motivated to run the tests. I have, instead been working on a coffee-based developer for those who want to try a staining developer, but aren't comfortable with the relatively toxic pyrogallol or catechol that are used in most staining developers. This developer is also very sharp, but has many disadvantages compared to more traditional staining developers.

Jay

Jay,

Perhaps you are not familar with the concept that in life people are not held forever to opinions they held in the past. I am of the opinion that when a person quits growing and changing it is because they are dead. You seem to often initiate conversations with me by referencing prior statements. Well, please understand that I am not now where I was when those statements were made, and since this is not politics, I don't expect to be held to account for them. And I will extend you the same courteous.

I don't know anything about your 510-Pyro formula because I have not tested it. However, I am on record with the opinion that it is a pretty elegant formula. However, you will have to go a lot of steps to prove that it is sharper than PMK and Pyrocat-HD. The differences, whatever ther results, are not gong to be very great, and your testing methods must be on ther order of flawless.

Sandy

gainer · Aug 17, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
According to Mees, "The property of a photographic material that leads to pictures having good screen definition is commonly referred to as sharpness". However, he admits that this is a subjective concept. Therefore the edge effect measurement (knife edge exposure) is now applied to the term sharpness in the quantitative measure. However, maximum gradient (maximum 'contrast') and average gradiant (average 'contrast') do not correlate with percieved sharpness either.

The subjective or percieved sharpness is termed acutance and is the average of gradiants obtained from these knife edge exposures.

It depends on this average and the density scale of the film.

In all cases, there is apparently a linear relationship between acutance and sharpness as shown by many researchers, but one is quantitative and the other is qualitative. However, it cannot be derived from the characteristic curve of the film.

The ability of a film to record fine detail is called resolving power. This is a third way of looking at this and it uses the slit exposures.

All of these are bound up together.

Oh, and for Sandy King, Mees publishes plots of resolving power vs gamma for 3 developers.

PE

Go find a good text book on system analysis and learn what is meant in the system analysis language by Step Input, Unit Impulse, Modulation Transfer Function, Linear System and other terms. A linear relationship between the subjective perception of sharpness and any physically measurable character of an image has no bearing on whether, given a set of H&D curves, you can determine the Modulation Transfer Function. Visual perception itself is logarithmic with thresholds and other deviations from linearity. Sharpness is not directly related to resolution, although it is true the the greater the resolution, the less need for artificial sharpness from adjacency effects. Go to an art gallery and see how many works recognized as great paintings have edge effects.

sanking · Aug 17, 2005

jdef said:
Sandy,

there's no need to get sarcastic. I quote you because I find that paraphrasing a person often leads to unecessary confusion and the introduction of bias.

Jay

I was not being sarcastic at all. Rather, I attempted to give an honest and objective answer to your question. In return I get this BS.

You are now on my permanent ignore list.

Sandy

noseoil · Aug 17, 2005

OK FOLKS, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

Here is Steve's first sentence, which started this thread. "It occurs to me some don?t realize the full potential of the Semi-Stand process, like most photogs, myself included we get caught up in the mechanics and technical side and loose sight of the creative possibilities."

At work today I was in the bathroom washing my hands as one of our workers came in. He had a rather small water cooler with him (perhaps 2 gallons). It was empty and about 14" tall. He removed the lid and proceeded to place it in a bathroom sink. He paused, looked at it, realized it wouldn't fill in a small sink (6" deep at most), removed it, replaced the lid and looked over his shoulder sheepishly as he went out the door.

I think Steve and Sandy both made fine points here. Sandy has said that the best way to see a sharp film is to print it and look at it. Steve has said that the technical aspects of this discussion were out of hand before any posts were made. I cast my vote with them. Pardon me while I retreat to the bathroom to stroke my own ego. I have this water cooler I need to test. tim

P.S. Group grope everyone.

Jorge · Aug 17, 2005

noseoil said:
Pardon me while I retreat to the bathroom to stroke my own ego.
.

You know this can cause blidness, right?

P.S. Group grope everyone.

ewwww....not after you stroked your ego....yuck....

noseoil · Aug 17, 2005

Yes, and I don't have hairy palms. tim

More thoughts on the Semi-Stand process

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency