hansbeckert said:
Rodinal certainly does it well. Even though I'm not always pleased with the grain there is something about Rodinal that grabs your attention.
hansbeckert said:Actually, all developers provide this effect, but some more than others.
Art Vandalay said:Rodinal certainly does it well. Even though I'm not always pleased with the grain there is something about Rodinal that grabs your attention.
Aggie said:No what you are doing is attacking rodinal. Evidenced by every single recent thread dealing with it you come on and blast it.
Art Vandalay said:PS if you want to have one of the most frustrating evenings of your life just ask Hans if he thinks photography is art.
Art Vandalay said:And all I'm saying Hans is that there's something that I like about the way Rodinal develops my films.
If you are such a Know it all, Why can't you get the hint that no one is going to change because you are going on more and more ignore lists. Soon you will be talking and posting to just yourself.hansbeckert said:Have you used any other acutance-type developers? Rodinal does look good UNTIL you compare it to the others in the same product category.
hansbeckert said:I still don't follow you. The methodology is clearly stated. Whatever you're try to say, it has nothing to do with this test or with 'science'. I am a philosophy major and I do well understand the scientific method.
Aggie said:If you are such a Know it all, Why can't you get the hint that no one is going to change because you are going on more and more ignore lists. Soon you will be talking and posting to just yourself.
Most I know who study philosphy also know enough to recognize people are different therefore going to do different things. I personally like PMK and HC 110. Because of you I would never try a developer you have endorsed.
Ed Sukach said:The methodology is poor. That's all *I'M* tyring to say.
You understand the "scientific method"??? So far from what I've seen --- you don't. You are sure fooling me ...
Let's see ... I have no valid criteria - so I'll squint at a few negatives, projected on a screen ... I'll give this one --- oh ... a "3", that one a "2" ... that one a "3" ... and then I'll average all these values, and get 2.8560340563. That's a LOT of decimal places, so it must be "accurate." Yeh, right ...
*SUBJECTIVE* That means "Not Scientific". What does it take to get through to you??
hansbeckert said:Hmmm...no. I'm simply trying to say it's not all it's cracked up to be, and that its popularity has more to do with its cheapness and longevity than its image charcteristics.
Art Vandalay said:It's amazing that you seem to have your pulse on the heartbeat of the photographic world but yet you've totally ignored what most on here have said. The longevity is just a bonus to the majority on here. Developers are cheap and I don't think there's many starving students on this site, yet they love the look of Rodinal and have said so in many different ways. I think you really need to start learning from others because you are missing the boat by a mile.
In answer to your question about trying other developers in the same class the answer would be no. I've only tried Rodinal, D-76, X-tol and Accufine. But the one thing that I noticed about this site is that most are chemical freaks and have tried many developers, films and different combinations. Yet you chose to just brush their opinions aside. Why is this? Why are you trying to tell these intelligent, committed people what they are really feeling about Rodinal?
Art Vandalay said:I haven't used the ignore button on him because in some ways it's entertaining to see him make a mockery of himself
No my friend is time to use the ignore list, trurst me if anyone is deserving of it is this buffon....Mateo said:OT
I'm a bit of a country bumpkin so could someone define Troll for me. If I didn't like Rodinal, I would answer the original question by saying: I don't care for it. Nothing more to be said. But something seems fishy about a philosopher who hasn't been here a month and would probably offer imperical evidence of why white is not a good color to paint the outside of your house.
Back on topic
Guess it's time to dust off the Rodinal and try it again.
Art Vandalay said:Please, everybody who has hit Hans with the ignore button have a look at his posting in the Standard Gallery. See the proof of his proclamations. You'll learn something.
Maybe Sean can add a forum for the delusional. I'm sure a auto response of, "You are great, We are not worthy!" can be added to appease him.Art Vandalay said:I haven't used the ignore button on him because in some ways it's entertaining to see him make a mockery of himself
Aggie said:Maybe Sean can add a forum for the delusional. I'm sure a auto response of, "You are great, We are not worthy!" can be added to appease him.
hansbeckert said:What will they learn, George, I mean 'Art'. Did you always want to pretend to be an architect?
Art Vandalay said:Actually I always wanted to pretend to be a philosopher
What will they learn? That your photo is quite flat in appearance and average in every sense of the term. It's unfortunate though that we are trying to compare images, from scans that have been horribly compressed. It's a bit futile.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?