 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Dear Romy ... posted by jj on March 24, 2001 at 15:41:49:
***You are … absolutely wrong.Well, and I am very comfortable to be in my wrong state. Read on.
***First, I get very reliable results both from 35mm and 120/220 at the labs I use, in fact I've shot test rolls, etc, at various times, and they are quite consistant….
You are very lucky to have this place. I hope you would be able to get the same result going through 80 rolls 220 dally. I wish… Unfortunately I made my statement not after “shot the test rolls” but after the setting and calibration many of the machines this “fully automated place” use and establishing and managing the number of the commercial labs. Yes, generally they produce the STABLE results.
***Second, the type of film, contrast, gamma, and saturation are indeed important in shooting situations EVEN IF THE LAB IS NOT GOOD.
Yes, it is correct. However, it is correct only if you use the development process as standard fixed parameter. Should you have an opportunity to understand deeper the underlying mechanism of development you would learn that the film quality, exposure and development methods are 3 connected, complex and flexible processes. So-called contrast, gamma, and saturation are not defined parameters of the film. They are measurements (most of the time marketing and not “completely” correct) how the film behaves under normal development and exposure condition. It’s it, but there is a lot of more to it…
***I have no idea why you've chosen to spread some really inaccurate rumours about photography and processing, but you're wrong.
OK
***As my MS is in fact in optical processing, I do in fact have a very good clue as to how to both test and evaluate processing and film results. In fact, I've done some res charts, colour balance (yes, I have a target, etc) and so on, and the negs are right on, with no special processing and no comment to the lab. It just comes out right.
Those accomplishments you mentioned I demanded from my employees who got paid less then $8/hour. It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the people I worked with but is dose say something about the value of our MS status. As a professional photographer and creator of number of developers and development techniques I assure you that there is a lot of room in “special processing” because there is no “standard processing”. There is only the correct correlation between the input conditions, the result and the method how you reach the best possible result.
***You DO notice that consumer films (i.e. gold, etc) are low on my list, because those FILMS are not consistant.
If you have chance try to get some film that people use in movie industry. You would be surprised and perhaps reevaluate the term “professional film”
***Btw, don't knock D76. If you KNOW that's what is going to be used, and how, you can get results that are as good as anything else. If you want, mail me privately and I'll point you to some scans of some D76 developed PanF, etc that there's nothing to complain about.
16 years ago I called D-76 “the great equalizer”. I did not mean the film. I meant the photographers. You just have been equalized. However, generally it is OK developer if you do not know better and spent too much time in school vs. a photography studio.
***For the record, I despise Microdol, the stuff you use from concentrate that I hated so much I don't remember the name, and I'm not real swell on Tmax except on Tmax film, either. Technitol is a pest, but Tech Pan is wonderful stuff IF the lab handles it well. On that point I will agree most don't, and most get far too much contrast. I don't generally shoot litho.
O man, I am sure you got a big party after your MS graduation….
Regards,
Romy the CatPS: Nice pictures… and of course they convinced me that you are all correct…
Follow Ups:
***However, it is correct only if you use the development process as standard fixed parameter. Should you have an opportunity to understand deeper the underlying mechanism of development you would learn that the film quality, exposure and development methods are 3 connected, complex and flexible processes. ***Boy, Romy, you take the cake for arrogance. If I *only* can use a commercial lab, then it's GOOD if I have a nice, stable process, and I can use the right film FOR THEIR PROCESS. This does not deny that if you happen to have a C41 setup, an E6 setup, and a full wet lab for B&W you can't do some neat things. Of course you can. The point you started with was a claim that information on what film to use was WORTHLESS. You're still dead wrong on that. Any lab that is close to calibration (and yes, I do know some aren't) will get the results most of us expect from RG100 or RVP or whatever. This means that film recs are entirely useful, because the emulsions are made for specific performance. All of your wailing about labs is wrong. Yes, someone may have to try to find a good lab. I had to. Anyone who cares will.
Your sliding from reliability (which is what your FIRST article addressed, and incorrectly) into custom development is simply trying to change the subject and engage in nice exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle to make a personal attack.
To the point of what film to use, NO AMOUNT OF FIDDLING WITH DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO TURN K25 into RVP, now, is it? NOPE.
(me)As my MS is in fact in optical processing, I do in fact have a very good clue as to how to both test and evaluate processing and film results. In fact, I've done some res charts, colour balance (yes, I have a target, etc) and so on, and the negs are right on, with no special processing and no comment to the lab. It just comes out right.
***Those accomplishments you mentioned I demanded from my employees who got paid less then $8/hour. ***
WHAT accomplishments, pray tell? I didn't mention any. Do you mean the Fourier Optics, or the high-speed optical autocorrelation system that could find the eye of a needle, or the what? The res charts are what I do now from the comfort of my own home, to check what my lab is doing to me, as was entirely clear the first time. Your kind of game-playing here is more fit for r.a.o.
***It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the people I worked with but is dose say something about the value of our MS status. ***
Look, I spent time fiddling with about 2 tons of hologram plates, etc. THAT is what I did for an MS.
Tell you what, set up a lithium deturide F-center imaging setup, make it work and show the accuracy and speed of the correlations it makes, and then you can tell me about what I did for an MSEE. Since you claim that your $8.00 an hour employee can do that, show me the employee. After you do that, expect me to find her a job at a bit more than $8.00 an hour, too.
Yes, I also had to use res charts, etc, and calculate from some rather inconvenient densiometer readings the way to get the LiD into the right sort of gamma to give me some decent output, but that is sort of secondary, isn't it? It's all part of doing the work.
***As a professional photographer and creator of number of developers and development techniques I assure you that there is a lot of room in “special processing” because there is no “standard processing”.***
"NO STANDARD PROCESSING?" Get real. Something I send to the lab here and to IPG come out within the noise level. If that's not standard, the word has no meaning.
Now, custom processing is indeed very nice, IF, and I repeat IF you have access to it. I don't, generally, unless I ship stuff far away, so I simply use the film the way it was intended for standard processing, and you know what? I can live with it and make good images.
Now, I am pleased that you are a professional photographer and formulary chemist. I don't doubt that you do good work, either. I do wonder why you're so hostile to the fact that labs can and do a standard thing, be it for C41 or E6 or even a FEW for Techpan.
Just bear in mind that when you use your colour-table optimized JPG, you can go to the patent office and find a few patents that (Lucent, I think) hold in my name on the subject of psychovisual tuning for texture, color, and frequency content, in several color spaces. I don't doubt that you do good work, but you are WAY out of line when you assume that the person you are addressing is ignorant.
I am NOT a line photographer, and I know that. I am, however, entirely capable of checking the results I get from a lab, and they are indeed consistant (for the labs I use more than once or twice, of course), and consistant enough that film recommendations make a great deal of sense.
*** There is only the correct correlation between the input conditions, the result and the method how you reach the best possible result.***
And if you have a nice, stable lab who does consistant work, you know what to do when you expose the film, eh? Isn't that the point, if you don't have access to custom processing? Now, there are days, especially when I'm doing B&W, that I wish I had good push/pull processing, when I've got way too much contrast, or none to speak of, but I don't. I cope. Of course it would be nice to have a darkroom in my basement, but I wouldn't use it enough to keep the chemicals fresh.
The state of small labs out there is NOT as bad as you make it out. Now, there are some that are, well, um, "wretched", indeed. The solution for such labs is to only give them one roll, once. And don't make that one valuable, make it your living room, using familiar lighting, etc, so you KNOW what you get back.
The issue of using the right film STILL matters, even if the person is using a really BAD lab (although I'd not do that twice). You'd hardly use RVP on standard people shots in a studio setting now, would you?
On the other hand, you just MIGHT use RVP in a rain forest when you want that lush green, eh? You'd hardly use 160NC, though, under most situations for that, yes? NHG-2? You'd think twice about Ultra 50, I bet, too.
Yes, recommendations DO have some meaning, now, you have to admit, don't you?
Once again, my cv is included. Pay some attention to the publication list.
JJ
Hey, JJ, cool it! Do not convert this talk into those audio conversations. Over there they think that they know what they are talking about... Here are some my comments if you insist...*** The point you started with was a claim that information on what film to use was WORTHLESS. You're still dead wrong on that.
The information on the film describes the films specification under the "standard" development. The word "standard" is artificial word, which was created in order to have a common denominator for the film evaluation, machines calibrations, and etc. The "standard" development dose not exists for capable photographers who do what they need vs do what is available. The standard development is an Industry term.
*** Your sliding from reliability (which is what your FIRST article addressed, and incorrectly) into custom development is simply trying to change the subject
It is not correct. The badly set machines, poor following the development instructions, disability (most of the time) the machines to handle the development parameters, the idiosyncrasies of the machine processing, and many other factors create the "custom development" (very far from the optimum for the givven film) which most of the time scrutinize the initial parameters of the film. (Assumingly the film is constant which is not true most of the time)
*** and engage in nice exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle to make a personal attack.
I apologies if you feel this way.
*** Now, custom processing is indeed very nice, IF, and I repeat IF you have access to it. I don't, generally, unless I ship stuff far away, so I simply use the film the way it was intended for standard processing, and you know what? I can live with it and make good images.
Well, you talk about your UPS problems I am talking that I designed (and evaluated the competitors) not just the developer solutions but also the entire lab methodologies. Would you like to chat with me about the development idiosyncrasies related to the character of the light in your enlarger?
*** I do wonder why you're so hostile to the fact that labs can and do a standard thing.
Of course they can do and should do. But when you use the A film and the lab fuck it up and give to you the result witch is more suitable to B film then it eliminates the necessity to "chose" the film to begin with. (it was my initial point) Look, you told the new Kodak color Portra has lower gamma and somehow more "pastel" then "gipsy" Fuji... absolutely correct. Overfry the Kodak with 1 stop and you get the same result("almost")in case of "standard development". How about if your film is one of the 1500 220-rolls that the lab do on Monday (after all those Saturday weddings and bar/bat-ceremonies ) and your film is cooking in the comlitly dead even slightly reanimated soup... Go and ask any wedding studio that shot over 100 jobs a year and you will understand the source of my skepticism. There is no "good film" (for folks who can not control the "standard process") but there is a film, which can tolerate the abuse of the lab... and this film is the "good" one.
*** but you are WAY out of line when you assume that the person you are addressing is ignorant.
JJ, absolutely not. There is no accusation of ignorance at all. I muck some of your statements... being myself: miserable Cat. Do not worry, many Audio Industry Professionals nave no idea what they talking when we talk about the playback systems. But it was music not photography... so we out of danger here in this conversation...
*** film recommendations make a great deal of sense.
O yes, what king film you use when you shot the buildings higher then 11 floors, on Friday, with Bogen tripod and absolute humidity 86.5 %? So, you do adjust that Vibroplane...highly sophisticated tool by the way. Have you heard the Stravinsky's symphony for two violoncellos and one vibroplane?
*** Of course it would be nice to have a darkroom in my basement, but I wouldn't use it enough to keep the chemicals fresh.
Just for fan. When I was 17 years old I developed one very interesting B/W developer (BTW way more superior that D-76) witch was mixed, and left for 11 years (accidentally). Five years ago I receive the email from the guys who found it and decided to use it (very serious person by the way). It crystallized but it perfectly operatable.
*** Yes, recommendations DO have some meaning, now, you have to admit, don't you?
Hey, JJ... good luck with that Vibroplane adjustments... You're all right! As NPR's Click and Clack said "The academia is the diagnosis for an entire life"... No hard feelings...I kind of quit the photography many years ago and now I'm just entertaining myself by barking on the nice people like you. It is OK. Just do not drive like my brother... Peace... and Meow...
Romy The Cat
While all are welcome at the Asylum, abuse of the rules will not be
tolerated. Consistent abusers will be banned from the site. Offenders will be issued an official warning with a "COOL IT" post by one of the moderators.
This means that all comments on the thread are to stop. The participants are to cool off or an automatic 7 day ban will be put in place to force them to do so. If this "COOL IT" post is persistently ignored on three different occasions, then the offender(s) will be permanently banned.
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.