 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / December 2004How to develop over-exposed film
You must over-develop it. The common approach of reducing development of over-exposed film leaves you with very low contrast and a poor-looking print. By over-developing it, you get some contrast back. True, the neg will be very dense, but the prints will have better contrast. This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! Except that you were one of the worlds best printers...THAT one will stand the test of time as being the most incorrect statement to ever cross the bandwidth of the net! Over exposed and over developed negs actually REDUCE contrast and if you knew anything about B&W, you would know that. Sheesh, try and get SOMETHING right once in a while. BTW, I'm STILL waiting for that print you promised about 3 months ago to show your "talent". Guess we both know you have none. > This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! (said softly) - Please use quoting, otherwise your post hang unsupported in the air to look like mad ravings. > > This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! > > (said softly) - Please use quoting, otherwise your post hang unsupported in > the air to look like mad ravings. Oppsy. sorry about that. New to the new Google format. > This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! > Except that you were one of the worlds best printers...THAT one will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > BTW, I'm STILL waiting for that print you promised about 3 months ago > to show your "talent". Guess we both know you have none. Development controls contrast. Longer development means greater contrast. Overexposure causes loss of contrast. Increasing development of overexposed negatives will offer better contrast than underdevelopment of overexposed negatives. Try it and see. uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote: > > This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! > > Except that you were one of the worlds best printers...THAT one will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Try it and see. No sh.t Sherlock. But you get to the point, very quickly, that the increased dev. benefit doesn't work, and in fact decreases your contrast. With over exposed negs the best is to pull it a little...how much depends on how over it is. Next is continue with normal development. Worst is your suggestion. Now THOSE are facts, and I've got several hundred thousand rolls of development under my belt to back it up. >Development controls contrast. Longer development means greater >contrast. Overexposure causes loss of contrast. Increasing development [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That might work (1) if the slope of the film curve was a straight line indefinitely and (2) you did not have to deal with reciprocity failure when printing from an overdense negative. 1. The real world limitation is that virtually every film develops a shoulder a couple of stops above the standard range of stops for which a negative is usually developed. Overexposure pushes the film in the direction of the shoulder to begin with and overdevelopment pushes it even farther in that direction. This itself reduces contrast. The corollary of your advice would be to underdevelop underexposed film. That won't work because the stops will all be pushed into the toe of the curve. So the traditional advice to underdevelop overexposed film is the only way to compensate so as to keep the negative's density range in the straight line part of the typical film curve. 2. Besides being a real pain to deal with on the enlarger [focusing, length of exposure to obtain an image], overexposed, overdeveloped negatives strain the paper's reciprocity failure limits. When dealing with long exposures - 2+ minutes - there is also the concern about fogging from the safelight, a risk which may require the exposure to be done without the safelight on. Francis A. Miniter Please, ignore the troll. : That might work (1) if the slope of the film curve was a straight line : indefinitely and (2) you did not have to deal with reciprocity failure : when printing from an overdense negative. : 1. The real world limitation is that virtually every film develops a : shoulder a couple of stops above the standard range of stops for which a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : the only way to compensate so as to keep the negative's density range in : the straight line part of the typical film curve. : 2. Besides being a real pain to deal with on the enlarger [focusing, : length of exposure to obtain an image], overexposed, overdeveloped : negatives strain the paper's reciprocity failure limits. When dealing : with long exposures - 2+ minutes - there is also the concern about : fogging from the safelight, a risk which may require the exposure to be : done without the safelight on. : Francis A. Miniter  SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Over-development will indeed add contrast to an over-exposed film. Now the total density may be uncomfortably high, but hey, it's not my fault you over-exposed it. After processing, reduction in a sub-proportional reducer is called for. Development does not cause 'shouldering'; that's inherent in the film itself. The traditional advice to under-develop the overexposed film is hogwash. Overall density is indeed lower, but contrast can be almost non-existent. >Over-development will indeed add contrast to an over-exposed film. Now >the total density may be uncomfortably high, but hey, it's not my fault >you over-exposed it. Excuse me, but you started this thread. >After processing, reduction in a sub-proportional >reducer is called for. Too risky to understake deliberately. Also will not work if the values have been pushed into the shoulder region. a s contrast will be too low. >Development does not cause 'shouldering'; False and fails to account for the toe problem in the underexposed-underdeveloped scenario. You have not thought this through. >that's >inherent in the film itself. > The limits are inherent in the film, but whether you reach them or not is a matter of development. Since one can overdevelop to the point of complete development, your implication that shouldering is solely a matter of the film is patently false. I do conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. You started this thread and have fed nonsense into it without any reference to basic development information. No contributor to this newsgroup can be so lacking in basic knowledge about typical film curves. Francis A. Miniter It all depends on the amount of over-exposure and the type of developer, as well as the film type. NOW you're backpeddling and trying to qualify your first incorrect posts on the matter. Give it a rest, will you? And quit stalling and make that "master" print you said you were going to do 3 months ago to show me your "excellence". Man you can stir up a lot of hot wind! Are you the cause of El Nino? > It all depends on the amount of over-exposure and the type of > developer, as well as the film type. Actually, more concentrated developing agents and additional bromide are good too. FAM had written the following which was omitted by MS: || The limits are inherent in the film, but whether you reach them or not is a matter of development. Since one can overdevelop ||| to the point of complete development, your implication that shouldering is solely a matter of the film is patently false. || I do conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. You started this thread and have fed nonsense into it ||without any reference to basic development information. No contributor to this newsgroup can be so lacking in basic ||knowledge about typical film curves. >It all depends on the amount of over-exposure and the type of >developer, as well as the film type. > > Simply false and unresponsive to the comment above. Please direct your answer to the comment and to the following questions. 1. Do you acknowledge the existence of toes in the typical curves of developed film? Yes or No. 2. Do you acknowledge the existence of shoulders in the typical curves of developed film? Yes or No. 3. Do you know what a "shoulder" is as the term pertains to typical film curves? If so, please define. 4. Do you know what a "toe" is as the term pertains to typical film curves? If so, please define. 5 . Can you point to the illustration of a shoulder on a Kodak or Ilford website? 6. Do you advocate the underdevelopment of underexposed film? Yes or No. 7. If the answer to #6 is no, then how do you reconcile the contradiction in your position, since overdevelopment of underexposed film is designed to move the SBR stops recorded away from the toe of the curve so as to increase contrast? You may use reference works to support your answers. Please cite them appropriately. Francis A. Miniter Please direct your answer to the comment and to the following questions. 1. Do you acknowledge the existence of toes in the typical curves of developed film? Yes or No. Of course. 2. Do you acknowledge the existence of shoulders in the typical curves of developed film? Yes or No. All films have them, but some go on and on and on for quite a while...TMY, for instance... 3. Do you know what a "shoulder" is as the term pertains to typical film curves? If so, please define. Of course, but increasing the concentration of developer will raise the D-Max 4. Do you know what a "toe" is as the term pertains to typical film curves? If so, please define. Yes, the threshold of exposure is not linear. It begins slowly and begins to increase its slope as the exposure is increased until a sort of uniformity of response is achieved: the so-called 'straight-line' portion. 5 . Can you point to the illustration of a shoulder on a Kodak or Ilford website? http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0507ac.gif 6. Do you advocate the underdevelopment of underexposed film? Yes or No. No. Why do you ask? Nothing can be done for underexposed film. 7. If the answer to #6 is no, then how do you reconcile the contradiction in your position, since overdevelopment of underexposed film is designed to move the SBR stops recorded away from the toe of the curve so as to increase contrast? The reverse is not true. In the case of overexposure, depending on the H&D charactersitics, a very long-scale film (such as TXP) will tolerate a great deal of over-exposure. Most of the time, however, one is developing film for considerably less than that which will yield D-Max. You may use reference works to support your answers. Please cite them appropriately. "Under-development manifests itself by the film lacking contrast, although there is a fair amount of detail everywhere. The darker parts of the negative-the sky, or a white collar in the case of a portrait-will be only a medium grey tone instead of a dark grey, approaching black. Over-development is recognisable by an excess of contrast. The thin (shadow) areas will be full of well defined details- the half-tones will be strongly rendered-while the dark (highlight) parts of the negative will be so opaque and harsh as to be practically unprintable unless the softest grade of printing paper be used (see page 278). In these two examples, I have assumed that the film was correctly exposed. Let me now describe the combinations of errors that can arise. Under-exposure and under-development will produce a thin ghost-like negative in which there will be no shadow. detail at all (under-exposure) and in which the darkest silver deposit will be only a light grey (under-development) Not much can be done with this negative. Over-exposure and under-development give us a negative in which all the available details are visible, but in which the darkest deposit is still only of a light colour. In consequence this type of negative appears to be unbelievably "fiat" and devoid of contrast, and, although not lacking in actual detail, it is at present quite unprintable. There is, however, hope for this one. Under-exposure and over-development usually result in a negative which appears very "brilliant" to the eye. (If the fault is not severe the negative will appear "pretty" and promising, but will produce a disappointing print.) This negative will have very little detail in the deeper shadows; but the less intense shadow areas will be full of good strong contrasts, the half tones will be strong to brilliant and the highlight areas well defined and rather "hard". Over-exposure and over-development: the last one of the series is easily recognised by its thick muddy "dense-all-over" appearance. A good image is undoubtedly there, but, because of the excessive exposure, it is buried underneath a good deal of unwanted silver. Because the film has been over-developed the contrasts between the tones (which would otherwise have been somewhat flat) are quite adequate; and the negative is capable of yielding a passably good print provided a long enough exposure be given." From: "35mm Photo Technique" HS Newcombe, 11th ed., Focal Press. Francis A. Minite >6. Do you advocate the underdevelopment of underexposed film? Yes >or No. > >No. Why do you ask? Nothing can be done for underexposed film. It seems to me from what I can remember taking a RIT Photo Science course, there is really no such thing as over or under exposure or over or under development. The main reason for this is the development itself gives over 1 million or more times amplification of the undeveloped image. So anywhere within that amplification, one can concider an image correctly exposed and developed vs the amount of given exposure. These density values are sometimes recorded as hard data and then sometimes just a visual required result of the photographer. Larry > Please direct your answer to the comment and to the following > questions. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > "35mm Photo Technique" HS Newcombe, 11th ed., Focal Press. > Francis A. Minite For what it's worth, Newcombe wrote in 1946. Stroebel et al., Basic Photographic Materials and Processes (1990) p. 100, considers the effect of overexposure and overdevelopment (Figure 4-18B) and concludes that overdevelopment results in a typical curve that is too steep and which contributes to a shoulder that blocks highlights and upper midtones. Mees, The Theory of Photographic Processes (Rev. Ed. 1954), pp. 870-872, discusses the problem of fog with overdevelopment. "For most photographic materials, the value of fog is relatively low for the shorter development times but grows at an increasing rate as the development time is extended." Horenstein, Beyond Basic Photography: A Technical Manual (1977), p. 27, recommends decreasing development by 20% for a one stop overexposure, and decreasing development by 40% for a 2 stop overexposure. "Overexposing and underdeveloping guarantees shadow detail, lowers contrast, and will reduce negative graininess by reducing density in the highlights." All of this points toward underdevelopment or, at worst, normal development, but never overdevelopment of an overexposed negative. Francis A. Miniter An underdeveloped overexposed negative will be thinner, to be sure, but may be far too flat. It's contrast that's the issue. >An underdeveloped overexposed negative will be thinner, to be sure, but >may be far too flat. It's contrast that's the issue. > > Ansel Adams, in The Negative, (I don't have it in front of me) considers that and says that it can best be handled by altering contrast at the printing stage. Francis A. Miniter >An underdeveloped overexposed negative will be thinner, to be sure, but >may be far too flat. It's contrast that's the issue. > > One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be flat (depth of field is reduced) and there is nothing you can do in development to alter that. Francis A. Miniter I have texts that contradict that. In general, the idea is to use a higher concentration of developing agent, more pot. bromide, and lower Ph. > One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot > remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be > flat (depth of field is reduced) and there is nothing you can do in > development to alter that. Pretty blanket statement they make. The question becomes how much? 1 stops or 5 over? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot >> remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pretty blanket statement they make. The question becomes how much? > 1 stops or 5 over? It is going to take a lot more than five stops over the minimum good exposure to get to see the shouldering people are talking about here - try 10 stops. I did a simple latitude test last weekend using a 20 exposure roll of APX 400 on which I made 19 exposures of the same moderately contrasty scene one stop apart. I did a few contact prints tonight, and there is very obvious compression on the last one (around 14 stops overexposed), but surprisingly little on the 10 stops overexposed negative. The experiment was easily worth the $1.99 roll of film. You don't have to believe my results, you can try it for yourself. Contact printing the denser negatives takes a bright light and some patience. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > >> One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot > >> remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Peter. That was my point in asking, and I felt its non realistic that someone given to watching what they do, to have the described effect happen. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 On 12/15/2004 5:51 PM Peter Irwin spake thus: > I did a simple latitude test last weekend using a 20 exposure > roll of APX 400 on which I made 19 exposures of the same [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yourself. Contact printing the denser negatives takes > a bright light and some patience. How dare you, sir? Don't you realize this is the Room for Speculation, Conjecture and Wild-a.s Guesses? The Room for Empirical Tests and Repeatable Results is across the hall and down three doors. David "gratuitous smiley-- :)" Nebenzahl SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > > One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot > > remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pretty blanket statement they make. The question becomes how much? > 1 stops or 5 over? How could over-exposure affect depth of field? I thought depth of field was basically a function of the lens opening (assuming a given focal length)? Although if depth of field was reduced by opening up the lens, that could result in over-exposure if not compensated by increasing the shutter speed. >> > One of the texts I read last night (and from the office I cannot >> > remember which) stated that once a negative is overexposed it will be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > How could over-exposure affect depth of field? You are right - DOF is not effected by exposure. DOF is strictly an optical property. > You are right - DOF is not effected by exposure. DOF is strictly an optical > property. Bye Bye Troll. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > How could over-exposure affect depth of field? I thought depth of field was > basically a function of the lens opening (assuming a given focal length)? > Although if depth of field was reduced by opening up the lens, that could > result in over-exposure if not compensated by increasing the shutter speed. I am not the one that made the initial statement. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 From: "35mm Photo Technique", by HS Newcombe, 11th ed., Focal Press "Under-development manifests itself by the film lacking contrast, although there is a fair amount of detail everywhere. The darker parts of the negative-the sky, or a white collar in the case of a portrait-will be only a medium grey tone instead of a dark grey, approaching black. Over-development is recognisable by an excess of contrast. The thin (shadow) areas will be full of well defined details- the half-tones will be strongly rendered-while the dark (highlight) parts of the negative will be so opaque and harsh as to be practically unprintable unless the softest grade of printing paper be used (see page 278). In these two examples, I have assumed that the film was correctly exposed. Let me now describe the combinations of errors that can arise. Under-exposure and under-development will produce a thin ghost-like negative in which there will be no shadow. detail at all (under-exposure) and in which the darkest silver deposit will be only a light grey (under-development) Not much can be done with this negative. Over-exposure and under-development give us a negative in which all the available details are visible, but in which the darkest deposit is still only of a light colour. In con- sequence this type of negative appears to be unbelievably "flat" and devoid of contrast, and, although not lacking in actual detail, it is at present quite unprintable. There is, however, hope for this one. Under-exposure and over-development usually result in a negative which appears very "brilliant" to the eye. (If the fault is not severe the negative will appear "pretty" and promising, but will produce a disappointing print.) This negative will have very little detail in the deeper shadows; but the less intense shadow areas will be full of good strong contrasts, the half tones will be strong to brilliant and the highlight areas well defined and rather "hard". Over-exposure and over-development: the last one of the series is easily recognised by its thick muddy "dense-all-over" appearance. A good image is undoubtedly there, but, because of the excessive exposure, it is buried underneath a good deal of unwanted silver. Because the film has been over-developed the contrasts between the tones (which would otherwise have been somewhat flat) are quite adequate; and the negative is capable of yielding a passably good print provided a long enough exposure be given." > I do conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. You > started this thread and have fed nonsense into it without any reference > to basic development information. No contributor to this newsgroup can > be so lacking in basic knowledge about typical film curves. Glad someone more moderate than myself stated it! What it boils down to is he does not like photography or for that matter those of us that do. I came to that conclusion many moons ago. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : I do conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. You : started this thread and have fed nonsense into it without any reference : to basic development information. No contributor to this newsgroup can : be so lacking in basic knowledge about typical film curves. He's a troll that went out on a troll. The sooner we all start to ignore him the sooner he'll go away. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com * *ScarpettiKnowsNothing wrote: *> This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! *> Except that you were one of the worlds best printers...THAT one will *> stand the test of time as being the most incorrect statement to ever *> cross the bandwidth of the net! *> *> Over exposed and over developed negs actually REDUCE contrast and if *> you knew anything about B&W, you would know that. Sheesh, try and *get *> SOMETHING right once in a while. *> *> BTW, I'm STILL waiting for that print you promised about 3 months ago *> to show your "talent". Guess we both know you have none. * *Development controls contrast. Longer development means greater *contrast. it is true for certain time, after that dmin rises so much that the contrast goes down *Overexposure causes loss of contrast. incorrect; overexposure causes increased density. depending on a film, it MAY cause change of contrast, but MAY NOT. *Increasing development *of overexposed negatives will offer better contrast than *underdevelopment of overexposed negatives. Inceasing dev time for overexposed film does not make sense at all. The film should be developed normally, fixed and washed then ASSESSED by eye. Then bleached in soln containing acidified copper sulfate and sodium chloride (common salt). Washed, dried - then try to print. If OK, stop. If not OK, redevelop in soft working developer under control (until density/contrast are acceptable) Bleached negs, image formed by AgCl have more details than those formed by metallic Ag, can be successfuly printed. If you prfere, redevelop to desired contrast/density, refix and wash. I'll give you one good advice once given to me - an experiment is better than speculation. Try it and see. * *Try it and see. MOST of the time moderately severe overexposure will result in flat negatives when coupled with normal development, and useless negatives with reduced development. Reducing development will produce a thinner negative to be sure, but it will only exacerbate the low contrast and is not a good approach. Increasing development will add a little contrast. Reducing the final result will then allow for a thinner negative, just as you point out. A sub-proportional reducer is the way to go if normal development is used, a proportion reducer if over-development is used. I'm getting some new enlarging equipment. After that. > I'm getting some new enlarging equipment. After that. They just keep coming and coming and coming...the excuses that is. Wake me when you finally decide to do it, although I might be dead at the rate you are going. I had not planned on this. The evenness of the illumination of the condenser is not quite right. The center is a little too hot. I'm going to try another head, and mess with the bulb a little. I had not planned on this. The evenness of the illumination of the condenser is not quite right. The center is a little too hot. I'm going to try another head, and mess with the bulb a little. oh brother. Give it a rest. > I had not planned on this. The evenness of the illumination of the > condenser is not quite right. The center is a little too hot. I'm going > to try another head, and mess with the bulb a little. OK, Alexis, what were you drinking last night? Nothing. You? > OK, Alexis, what were you drinking last night? I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore him. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Has it worked yet? Not that I've seen. Some poor newb is gonna see that and go to it and get more false info. Can we let THAT happen? > I thought you wanted to help get rid of the troll. If you do ignore him. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ------------------- > fwp@deepthought.com Alexis, are you there? Not when you wrote this, no. I DO have a life you know. What did you want? > Alexis, are you there? : Has it worked yet? Not that I've seen. Some poor newb is gonna see : that and go to it and get more false info. Can we let THAT happen? Yes it did work and it worked well. Then people started to responding to him and it stroked his ego. A newbee will ask a question and get ten answers that are close and one out in left field. It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out that the answer out in left field is most likely a bad one. The newbe lurker will also figure out the truth in a hurry. Unfortunately, the newbie who actually tries what I say for himself will find out that I am right... Unfortunately for you, the newbie who actually tries what I say for himself will find out that I am right... > Unfortunately for you, the newbie who actually tries what I say for > himself will find out that I am right... Then perhaps you could reply to my post of 12/10/2004 @ 3:54 pm. I have been curious about your silence in that regard. For your convenience, I append the whole post below. Francis A. Miniter > Development controls contrast. Longer development means greater > contrast. Overexposure causes loss of contrast. Increasing development > of overexposed negatives will offer better contrast than > underdevelopment of overexposed negatives. > > Try it and see. That might work (1) if the slope of the film curve was a straight line indefinitely and (2) you did not have to deal with reciprocity failure when printing from an overdense negative. 1. The real world limitation is that virtually every film develops a shoulder a couple of stops above the standard range of stops for which a negative is usually developed. Overexposure pushes the film in the direction of the shoulder to begin with and overdevelopment pushes it even farther in that direction. This itself reduces contrast. The corollary of your advice would be to underdevelop underexposed film. That won't work because the stops will all be pushed into the toe of the curve. So the traditional advice to underdevelop overexposed film is the only way to compensate so as to keep the negative's density range in the straight line part of the typical film curve. 2. Besides being a real pain to deal with on the enlarger [focusing, length of exposure to obtain an image], overexposed, overdeveloped negatives strain the paper's reciprocity failure limits. When dealing with long exposures - 2+ minutes - there is also the concern about fogging from the safelight, a risk which may require the exposure to be done without the safelight on. Francis A. Miniter : Then perhaps you could reply to my post of 12/10/2004 @ 3:54 pm. I have been : curious about your silence in that regard. For your convenience, I append the : whole post below. The post he made is a troll. Please ignore him. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > The post he made is a troll. Please ignore him. Frank you sound like a broken record :-) Or is it guilt from all those angry exchanges of the past ;-) Anyway whether people ignore him or reply (0 concern of mine), my suggestion seems to work best for me, kill filing the drip. Its either that or reward him when he behaves (once in a vast while). Ignore his ill behavior, but whatever works. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > The post he made is a troll. Please ignore him. : Frank you sound like a broken record :-) Or is it : guilt from all those angry exchanges of the past ;-) I never got angry. It was all good clean fun. When I get angry I get nasty and mean. :-) : Anyway whether people ignore him or reply (0 concern of mine), my : suggestion seems to work best for me, kill filing the drip. Its either : that or reward him when he behaves (once in a vast while). Ignore his : ill behavior, but whatever works. The problem with the killfile is that the posts are interesting and I like to read them. It's the flame wars that result that get old and hard to resist getting involved in. The kill file also doesn't block the replies. If you don't want me to get involved in protracted flame wars with the troll ignore him. :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com >The problem with the killfile is that the posts are interesting and I like to read them. You like to read troll-spew ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email : >The problem with the killfile is that the posts are interesting and I like to read them. : You like to read troll-spew ? He's funny. :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com >Anyway whether people ignore him or reply (0 concern of mine), my >suggestion seems to work best for me, kill filing the drip. Yep. If everyone would simply assign him to the bozo bin, he's choke on his own fetid stench. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > The post he made is a troll. Please ignore him. Maybe we could all add that to our sig lines as a standard disclaimer for posting to the usenet,...something like: This post is in response to a known troll, although this is the expressed opinion of myself, many surely agree. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 The question is what can you do with an overexposed negative to get the most contrast (assuming that's what is needed): 1. Under-develop it 2. Develop it normally 3. Over-develop it Answer: 3 Please, ignore the troll!! : This is the most useless and incorrect dreck you have posted to date! : Except that you were one of the worlds best printers...THAT one will : stand the test of time as being the most incorrect statement to ever : cross the bandwidth of the net! : Over exposed and over developed negs actually REDUCE contrast and if : you knew anything about B&W, you would know that. Sheesh, try and get : SOMETHING right once in a while. : BTW, I'm STILL waiting for that print you promised about 3 months ago : to show your "talent". Guess we both know you have none. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.