I'VE PLACED MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE READING EASIER.

Paul, you've gone off the deep end:

1. Your tests show virtual identical results in tonal distribution (of
the film and papers you tested) when devlopment of film is reduced
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

2. 35MM FILM BENEFITS FROM REDUCED DEVELOPMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR
NOT.

Again, you have no basis for claiming that this is 'unlikely'. The
ONLY evidence you offer runs counter to that claim.

IT IS NOT MY PET THEORY. IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED. I OFFERED A QUOTE
FROM A KODAK PUBLICATION. HERE IT IS AGAIN:

"The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. It is usually true, however, that a low gradient in the
negative material and a correspondingly high gradient in the paper is
more favorable than the alternative combination."

QUIT SAYING THIS IS MY PET THEORY.

I DON'T NEED TESTS KODAK MADE THOUSANDS OF THEM.

MY DATA ARE FROM KODAK. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO LISTEN THEM?

BUT YOU DIDN'T 'CAREFULLY AVOID GENERALIZING ON THE BASIS OF VERY
LIMITED TESTING'. PRECISELY THE POINT: YOU SAID: 'It seems unlikely
that the results here can be generalized to other films, film
developers, etc."

THE CORRECT THING TO SAY IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE RESULTS
CAN BE GENERALIZED. BUT THE POINT IS THAT ALL THE DATA YOU HAVE
SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT REDUCED DEVELOPMENT (WITHIN REASON, OF COURSE)
IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO TONAL DISTRIBUTION. AND THE QUOTE FROM KODAK
AFFIRMS THAT IS IS BENEFICIAL. THAT'S WHY I POSTED IT.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE A ZONAZI. YOU'LL DO ANYTHING TO PROMOTE YOUR
AGENDA OF VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO
SCIENTIFIC BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR IT.

I DID NOT. READ MY POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU
CANNOT EVEN READ.

I DID NOT DO SO.  READ MY POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO
PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.

I DON'T HAVE TO. YOU ALREADY DID ME THE FAVOR. KODAK DID IT TOO.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE ON YOUR WEB PAGE. I QUOTED IT BY COPYING
AND PASTING.

BUT THAT'S FALSE. I QUOTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM YOUR WEB PAGE. READ MY
POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.

READ WHAT KODAK AND MANY, MANY OTHER SOURCES HAVE SAID ON THE ISSUE.
HERE'S A QUOTE FROM KODAK, IMMEDIATELY BELOW.

"It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.
In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the
print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible,
regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures
were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same
contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade.

There are exceptions, of course. The "majority" of outdoor subjects in
the tests mentioned previously included about 85 percent of
picture-taking situations, such as portraits, landscapes, and
architectural pictures taken in sunlight, in shade, and on overcast
days. The remaining 15 percent of the scenes had, for the most part,
large and very deep shadow areas which comprised an important part of
the subject. It was these latter scenes which the majority of
observers thought were best printed on a paper one grade softer than
normal. Thus, even for subjects with a long scale of brightnesses, it
was found satisfactory to develop the negative as though for a normal
scene and to let the range of paper grades compensate for the unusual
nature of the subject. In other words, the varying lighting conditions
may demand the use of a paper grade other than No.2 for best results.

However, unusual subjects in which heavy shadows may either be present
or actually predominate the scene are usually treated differently by
professional photographers than they are by amateur photographers. The
professional uses fill-in flash illumination, whereas the amateur does
them without the benefit of supplementary illumination. The flash
converts an "unusual" subject into a "normal" subject, and as such
requires a normal negative development and will print on a normal
grade of paper.

The degree of negative development for some subjects naturally depends
on the photographer's "artistic intent." For example, suppose he were
to photograph a sailboat at anchor during foggy weather. If it is
thought that the fog lends a desirable pictorial effect to the scene,
then it can be reproduced as the eye saw it with a normal negative
development and a print on No.2 grade paper. If, on the other hand, a
clear record picture of the boat was the photographer's object, and
the exposure could be made only under a fog condition, then the
negative should receive more than normal development to compensate for
the contrast-reducing action of the fog particles. In this case,
overdevelopment of the negative is desirable only if a print from a
normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade would contain
insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the desirability of
reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and because of the
wide control over contrast possible with various paper grades, it is
highly advisable for the professional photographer to develop the
great majority of his negatives to the same gamma.

A sensible approach to planning a standard photographic technique,
including the degree of negative development, is to strive for a
negative that will print best on a normal grade of paper. Although
there is no necessity to confine oneself to anyone gamma if several
paper grades are available, it is only logical to aim for No.2 paper.
If this is done successfully, the printing problem is simplified by
using one grade of paper for most negatives. At the same time, the
photographer is protected on both sides of normal by papers with
greater or less contrast capacity, should an underdeveloped or
overdeveloped negative accidentally result.

Kodak processing recommendations for film are generally based on the
use of diffusion-type enlargers, or on contact printing which results
in prints of approximately the same contrast, everything else being
equal. Obviously, these same processing recommendations should be
modified by a reduction of 15 to 20 percent in gamma to suit
condenser-type enlargers if prints of the same contrast are to be
obtained.

Individual preferences are shown in a survey made of several
individual newspapers and the principal news photo services. The
results showed that films were developed to gammas ranging from 0.62
to 1.18, with an average of 0.85; that Kodak Developer DK-60a was the
most popular of the developers, although a number of others were used;
and that developing times ranged all the way from 4 ½ to 8 minutes.
The photographers who preferred the lower range of gammas used
condenser enlargers. The ones who developed films in the intermediate
range used tungsten-source, diffusion enlargers, and those using the
highest gammas employed mercury-vapor enlargers. In a similar manner,
commercial and, to a lesser extent, portrait photographers also modify
the basic development recommendations according to individual
conditions.

(From: Negative Making for Professional Photographers, Eastman Kodak,
1956.)

THAT'S FALSE. I QUOTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM YOUR WEB PAGE. READ MY
POSTING AGAIN, CAREFULLY. YOU'RE SO PREJUDICED YOU CANNOT EVEN READ.