 |
 | 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 / September 2003FAQ for Home Darkroom?
Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. I have been scouring the net trying to find out a comprehensive FAQ on home b/w photography. For example, what are the bare necessities for starting a dark room? Should I go with a VC or a condensor Enlarger? FYI, I will only be using this for b/w Any help would be great. Thanks guys and gals! ultralightbackpacker@ihatespamyahoo.com wrote: > Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a > few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. > > I have been scouring the net trying to find out a comprehensive FAQ on > home b/w photography. For example, what are the bare necessities for > starting a dark room? Should I go with a VC or a condensor Enlarger? Check out both of Ilford's and I think Agfa's website. They have simple instructions. While neither will teach you everything they will point out the basics. Prices are so low today for used equipment you can get very good enlargers for less then you would think. In fact prices for high quality enlargers are so low I would strongly suggest avoiding the low end stuff. The price difference won't be enough to notice and when you consider how long an enlarger can last the difference is even less. You don't mention what format you're looking at but get an enlarger capable of at least medium format. Avoid anything that isn't complete. Nick  Signature"It is a mistake, however, to assume that the Zone System therefore 'does not work' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use is somewhat different." Adams _The_Negative_ > Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a > few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks guys and gals! There are several questions that need to be asked at this point. 1. What are your goals? Merely to make some snapshots? To produce fine B&W enlargements? You'll need to decide how much you want to spend on lenses and other items. The better lenses can run into several hundred dollars new, though some are available on e-bay. If you're going to get serious, you'll need really good enlarging lenses. I can recommend some if that's what you want to do. 2. If you want the very best results from 35mm film and you are a patient, careful sort of person, the choice is condenser. Bear in mind that scratches and dust will be more prominent. To use a condenser enlarger, you should develop your film a little less. This will give you better sharpness and finer grain, and allow you to make bigger enlargements before the image looks bad. The type of head (condenser or diffusion) affects the print contrast (and sharpness to a small degree) but the reduced development that condensers make possible makes a big difference on 35mm film. 3. On the other hand, many people use diffusion enlargers with a color head, for B&W. This is done more by professionals than by serious amateurs, because pros want to get the easiest good results rather than the very best possible, and condensers are often too much trouble for them. Certain films are easier to use with diffusion than with condensers, and are used more by professionals who print color alongside their B&W. The bare necessities include an enlarger, a lens for each format you plan to use, a good safelight, perhaps some variable contrast (VC) filters to use with VC paper, trays, a good grain focuser, and an enlarging timer. For film developing you'll need some tanks (I prefer Paterson) and reels, and a good thermometer. Please see below. >> I have been scouring the net trying to find out a comprehensive FAQ on >> home b/w photography. For example, what are the bare necessities for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >1. What are your goals? Merely to make some snapshots? To produce fine >B&W enlargements? Basically some hobby playtime. For the most part just some nice b/w of my newly born son, and as he progresses through the stages. I do alot of backpacking, and perhaps some landscape photo's if I feel up to lugging some equipment on the hikes. I don't think I will ever go beyond an 8x10, and that is pushing it. 20 years ago, I won many award of zoo animals prints (you know the field trips), but merely only a few were 8x10 prints, so I can't see myself getting to serious about it. >2. If you want the very best results from 35mm film and you are a >patient, careful sort of person, the choice is condenser. Correct, 35mm is what I plan on shooting. If I handle the negatives carefully, will the condensor do the job? I don't plan on having the best darkroom layout as I will be dealing with a 4' x 6' layout (with sink, the prior house owner was some sort of rock polisher). >Bear in mind >that scratches and dust will be more prominent. To use a condenser [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >degree) but the reduced development that condensers make possible >makes a big difference on 35mm film. I don't recall what types of lamps I used in high school, but I don't recall seeing scratches, but if I had a trained eye, I am sure they would be there. I guess it is a compromise; neat and articulate get a condensor or little lazy with more error correction get the VC lamp? >3. On the other hand, many people use diffusion enlargers with a color >head, for B&W. This is done more by professionals than by serious >amateurs. Based on this, the best possible image you can aquire is based on the Condensor (not vc or dichroic) and a very nice lens? Thank you for your help! > Please see below. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Correct, 35mm is what I plan on shooting. If I handle the negatives > carefully, will the condensor do the job? While I prefer cold light heads, a condenser enlarger will definately do the job -- an identical job to be exact. You just need to develop most films 30% less, and TMax type films about 20% less. You will have to test to see what is best for your situation, but you would need to do that anyway unless you have WalMart do all your processing for you like so many photojournalists do. Too bad Gene Smith no longer teaches "Photography Made Difficult" at The New School. He was one photojournalist who spent a lot of time in the darkroom. > I don't plan on having the best darkroom layout as I will be dealing > with a 4' x 6' layout (with sink, the prior house owner was some sort [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a condensor or little lazy with more error correction get the VC > lamp? With careful processing and use of new film cassettes, you should never have scratches on your film. A little hardener in the fixer can reduce the chances if it is a problem. I have used both condenser (with opal bulb: semi-diffuse you might say) and cold light heads. This freedom you supposedly get from the need to touch out dust and scratches depends on how sloppy you are willing to be. I find that a diffuse dust mark is just as ugly as a sharp one: in either case, you can fumble about with retouching or you can save time and clean the negative, apply no-scratch if necessary, and make a new print. >> 3. On the other hand, many people use diffusion enlargers with a >> color head, for B&W. This is done more by professionals than by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thank you for your help! Good lens is almost as important as a good negative. If you have crappy negatives, it hardly matters what enlarging system or what paper and developer you use. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 7:35am up 12:20, 3 users, load average: 2.27, 2.30, 2.24 >Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a >few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thanks guys and gals! I have a copy of Paul Light's FAQ , The Basic Darkroom FAQ, posted to my site. With Paul's permission of course. I am also working on my own FAQ but currently I'm rather busy with 2 children and a new home. Of course I will be glad to answer any questions you may have if you care to email them to me. Regarding the issue of VC or condenser, that's really a non-issue as you can use filters with a condenser enlarger. What you probably mean is diffusion vs. condenser and this really isn't much of an issue according to some who have compared the final results though. I personally believe their is simply due to the difference in the light projection versus the infusion of light through the emulsion. I intend to test for myself when I have the time as I now have a condenser head for my 23CII XL. By the way, regarding basic equipment and such, consider getting an enlarger at least one size larger than you think you will _ever_ need. I personally never really thought I'd get into large format photography and in fact used 35mm's for roughly 15 years even though I started with a Kodak folder from the 30's. Now I own 2 - 5X7 cameras along with 4X5 Zone VI and Speed Graphic cameras. Next, buy the best glass you can afford. Bar none. This is an investment in your images. A marginal lens can be pretty damaging to the tonality and detail of your print. Lastly, and I'll qualify my next few statements by saying "In My Opinion", do not overly-enlarge your images. This is simply the largest mistake that most make. 35mm really should not be enlarged beyond 6.5 X 9.5. 6X4.5 = 11X14, 6X7=16X20, 4X5=20X24. Again, that's all in my opinion and many will point to Sebastio Selgado and others who enlarge their images to 20X30 and even larger for exhibition prints. It can be done but I seriously question the justification for doing so. I'd much rather see a wonderful small image than a "OK" large one. Contrast a Selgado against an Evans for the sake of a comparison. Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com > >Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a > >few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.com John: With the best lenses, films, and techniques, 14x enlargements of 35mm films are quite good. But in general, the idea that you want to make HUGE enlargements al the time is probably to be discouraged. Sometimes I see exhibits of 35mm work in art shows, etc, and the prints are under 5x7 size. That's too small. For exhibition, 10x14 inch prints should be standard. If one's technique isn't sufficiently refined to make good 10x prints, it needs improvement. >> >Around 20 years I did some b/w photography in my high school lab for a >> >few years. I was thinking of getting back into it. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >If one's technique isn't sufficiently refined to make good 10x prints, >it needs improvement. Forgive me, everyone; I can't help myself! Michael you are , right in the quoted message, talking down to one of the most prolific and incisive posters in this newsgroup. John has been here for years of fine service to the group and provided a lot of wit. You sound both ignorant and patronizing. Think about it. You are just digging your hole deeper in full public view. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >If one's technique isn't sufficiently refined to make good 10x prints, > >it needs improvement. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > view. > Robert Vervoordt, MFA I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. I was saying that: Don't make 'em too big Don't make 'em too small I've seen tendencies both ways over the years. I do not always know the history of every one here, nor can I be expected to. You seem to make light of someone (me) who has 35+ years of experience and considerable accomplishments acknowleged by others. I'd be more careful than that if I were you, even if I don't have an MFA. I've assisted people with doctorates teaching photo classes whose knowledge about B&W was thin at best. I had to correct/qualify almost everything he said, which I did with him in private. He has been a dean of a major university, and is now a part-time pro photographer. To his defense, he has never studied photography formally that I know of. He has great skills as a teacher, but as I said he hardly understands the least technical details of what goes on in photography. The knowledge he's picked up is mostly second- or third-hand. I don't work professionally in photography because I choose not to, (my degree is in philosophy, and I do have several other interests) and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. And by the way, I've published at the doctoral level in semiotics: http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html I also have designed typefaces based on Roman Latin inscriptions: http://www.fontcraft.com/scriptorium/roman/ and yes, this I am the same Michael Scarpitti The Semiiotica articles were debunking translation errors and urban legends surrounding Kantian texts. I got flack from some people when the first one came out. Aquila was upset, he told me, at first, but then he read it carefully and realized I was right after all. He said he really had not put all that much effort into it. We have communicated occasionally. I am quite accomplished in several areas, so please reconsider your thoughtless and intemperate comments. > and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and > obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. Pot, Kettle, Black. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and > > obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. > > Pot, Kettle, Black. My experience on this ng has only confirmed that opinion. > > > and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and > > > obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. > > > > Pot, Kettle, Black. > > My experience on this ng has only confirmed that opinion. And the reason you hang around here is? You only confirmed the statement about you... >> My experience on this ng has only confirmed that opinion. > >And the reason you hang around here is? That everyone pays attention to him ? Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com > > > and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and > > > obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. > > > > Pot, Kettle, Black. > > My experience on this ng has only confirmed that opinion. Likewise. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank >> and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and >> obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. > >Pot, Kettle, Black. Hmm, I missed that one. I guess my heart's not tin this, as I'm not paying enough attention to these diatribes any more. Good going, Greg for spotting it. He does have "Foot in Mouth" disease, as this shows. Robert Vervoordt, MFA Hmm, now writing fiction? >> >If one's technique isn't sufficiently refined to make good 10x prints, >> >it needs improvement. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >I am quite accomplished in several areas, so please reconsider your >thoughtless and intemperate comments. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Hmm, now writing fiction? Which means what? Are you calling me a liar? >> Hmm, now writing fiction? > >Which means what? Are you calling me a liar? I didn't read it carefully,; I was just commenting on the tone. Robert Vervoordt, MFA <snip>> > I don't work professionally in photography because I choose not to, > (my degree is in philosophy, and I do have several other interests) > and mostly that is because photographers tend to be egoistic and > obnoxious pricks. I don't want that image. Mr. Scarpitti, Although you may not work in photography professionally, I assure you that the image you project quite clearly into this newsgroup, is that of a truly egoistic obnoxius prick. Wow, what an accomplishment! You did not even need to work as a pro photographer to become one. Natural talent? > And by the way, I've published at the doctoral level in semiotics: Aha! An educated idiot. > http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.fontcraft.com/scriptorium/roman/ BFD > and yes, this I am the same Michael Scarpitti The one that the FBI is looking for? > The Semiiotica articles were debunking translation errors and urban > legends surrounding Kantian texts. I got flack from some people when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am quite accomplished in several areas, so please reconsider your > thoughtless and intemperate comments. I couldn't care less. Have a nice day ;-) Mike Sullivan > <snip>> > > I don't work professionally in photography because I choose not to, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > did not even need to work as a pro photographer to become one. Natural > talent? When I joined this group, I ruffled a few feathers by insisting that scientifically sound procedures be followed in evaluating results and recommeded practices, precisely because of the fact that photography is beset by numerous mythologies, and has a serious tendedncy to accept ludicrous hypotheses, such as "Kodak/Agfa/Ilford has taken lots of silver out of Tri-X/Brovira/Ilfobrom", etc., to name just one. I have made it a point to do research and perform experiments and comparison tests on various materials and equipment, guided and supplemented by reading authoritative sources (such as "The Science of Photography" by Baines/Bomback). Among the targets of my experiments is the method for obtaining the highest quality images from 35mm film. The experiments and tests I conducted with various films, developers, and lenses showed clear and definite differences that could be explained on basic principles: 1. Film developed less is sharper and finer-grained 2. Condensers generally give more contrast than diffusion light sources 3. Compensating development gives good shadow contrast and restrains highlight density and contrast* (*Conclusion: Combining 1, 2, and 3 is the way to get the best results with 35mm B&W film.) No amount of argument, by anyone under any conditions, will change these facts. You might as well argue with the wind. Why, then, should I pay the LEAST attention whatsoever to ANYONE who denies these facts of physics? Does that make me obstinate? No. I simply am conveying the facts of the matter to the group. I cannot help it if anyone chooses not to believe, based on some mythology or voodoo, or personal bias. I don't care. There is no room for compromise about physics. Physics is a science, not an opinion poll. And the behaviour of photographic materials is described by the laws of physics. The behaviour of light, chemistry, and matter is involved in photography. Nothing else. Those who wish to deny ANY of the principles I have enunciated are asked to run comparative tests to disprove anything I say. I'm still waiting. > > And by the way, I've published at the doctoral level in semiotics: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Mike Sullivan >><snip>> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > supplemented by reading authoritative sources (such as "The Science of > Photography" by Baines/Bomback). Many of us would agree, and have found the work of Dr. Richard J. Henry invaluable in this respect. He, too, was troubled by the mythology and old-wives' tales in photography and did a very thorough analysis of some of these. As a trained research chemist he devoted a small fortune for specialized test equipment, such as a Zeiss computerized microdensitometer for granularity and resolution measurements, to verify or disprove many of these myths. He wrote the book, "Controls in Black and White Photography" and saw it through two editions before he died. > Among the targets of my experiments is the method for obtaining the > highest quality images from 35mm film. The experiments and tests I > conducted with various films, developers, and lenses showed clear and > definite differences that could be explained on basic principles: > > 1. Film developed less is sharper and finer-grained With older films, developing longer in high sulfite developers gave the appearance of finer grain, but, especially for 35mm films, the images appeared less sharp. With modern thin emulsion films there seems to be much less change of these things with shorter development times. > 2. Condensers generally give more contrast than diffusion light > sources No argument with that, but since it is possible to obtain exactly the same printing contrast with anything from point source illumination to fully diffuse (e.g., typical dichroic heads or typical cold light heads) by adjusting development times. > 3. Compensating development gives good shadow contrast and restrains > highlight density and contrast* If compensating developers worked as usually claimed, they would not affect shadow contrast at all. They would reduce highlight contrast. My own experience with compensating developers was at variance with this. It raised the toe region of the negatives by extending the toe giving an apparent increase of film speed by about one stop, but did not affect the highlights at all. The only way to improve shadow contrast with the typical long toe films these days is to expose more to get the shadows up onto the straight line part of the film curve. Fortunately, modern films mostly do not have a shoulder in any practical density levels, so the highlight contrast is not degraded as it was in pre WW-II films. Panatomic-X was the only film I ever ran into with serious highlight contrast failure due to the shoulder coming in at about Zone VIII 1/2 or so. > (*Conclusion: Combining 1, 2, and 3 is the way to get the best results > with 35mm B&W film.) > > No amount of argument, by anyone under any conditions, will change > these facts. Have you published your test methods and documentation of the results as, for example, Dr. Henry has? Because until you do, no one will consider your claims to be facts. > You might as well argue with the wind. It does feel like that sometimes lately. > Why, then, should > I pay the LEAST attention whatsoever to ANYONE who denies these facts > of physics? Which of those three claims are facts of physics? > Does that make me obstinate? No. I simply am conveying the > facts of the matter to the group. I cannot help it if anyone chooses [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > asked to run comparative tests to disprove anything I say. I'm still > waiting. Are the three claims the facts of physics, or are they principles? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 3:20pm up 4:42, 3 users, load average: 2.15, 2.17, 2.08 > >><snip>> > >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > or disprove many of these myths. He wrote the book, "Controls in Black > and White Photography" and saw it through two editions before he died. I read it. It's very good, but flawed. I did note, however, that he showed prints to observers, and given a choice between diffusion and condenser enlargements, no-one preferred diffusion prints, some preferred condenser prints, and some had no preference. This flies in the face of those who claim diffusion is superior. > > Among the targets of my experiments is the method for obtaining the > > highest quality images from 35mm film. The experiments and tests I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > appeared less sharp. With modern thin emulsion films there seems to be > much less change of these things with shorter development times. For any given film/developer combination, graininess increases with devlopment time. This is unalterable. > > 2. Condensers generally give more contrast than diffusion light > > sources [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fully diffuse (e.g., typical dichroic heads or typical cold light heads) > by adjusting development times. Why would we want to do that, given point 1? That's the point of knowing #1 and #2: that we can keep dev times down and still get good print contrast. > > 3. Compensating development gives good shadow contrast and restrains > > highlight density and contrast* > > If compensating developers worked as usually claimed, they would not > affect shadow contrast at all. They would reduce highlight contrast. They can do do both, depending on their composition. > My > own experience with compensating developers was at variance with this. > It raised the toe region of the negatives by extending the toe giving an > apparent increase of film speed by about one stop, but did not affect > the highlights at all. Which devloper? >The only way to improve shadow contrast with the > typical long toe films these days is to expose more to get the shadows > up onto the straight line part of the film curve. Fortunately, modern > films mostly do not have a shoulder in any practical density levels, so > the highlight contrast is not degraded as it was in pre WW-II films. You want to keep the highlights in check. That's the whole point. > Panatomic-X was the only film I ever ran into with serious highlight > contrast failure due to the shoulder coming in at about Zone VIII 1/2 or so. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as, for example, Dr. Henry has? Because until you do, no one will > consider your claims to be facts. See: Edge of Darkness by Thornton. He's done precisely that. > > You might as well argue with the wind. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which of those three claims are facts of physics? #1 and #2. > > Does that make me obstinate? No. I simply am conveying the > > facts of the matter to the group. I cannot help it if anyone chooses [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Are the three claims the facts of physics, or are they principles? >> > 1. Film developed less is sharper and finer-grained > >> > 2. Condensers generally give more contrast than diffusion light >> > sources <snip> > That's the point of >knowing #1 and #2: that we can keep dev times down and still get good >print contrast. You've claimed, ad naseum, that one should always develop 35mm film to print well on grade 3 paper. Your claim is that using a condensor enlarger allows one to develop less for a given print contrast than a diffusion enlarger. If so, though, why don't you claim that developing to print on #4 paper on a point source enlarger would be even better, since then you could get away with even less development? Hence, you'd have finer grain and even higher sharpness, or in your words are you going to deny the laws of physics? My guess is that you'll say that considerations other than finest grain and highest sharpenss are sometimes important for a print, and hence you wouldn't want to generally do what I've just outlined. This would be a fine response. The problem would be that those same considerations (tonal seperation, exposure safety factor,... or whatever) might very well apply to the technique * you* suggest. If so, though, then your categorical statement is at best a generality. Finest grain and highest sharpness are not necessarily the most important characteristics of a fine photograph. >See: Edge of Darkness by Thornton. He's done precisely that. You've repeatedly appealed to Thorton's "authority" to answer criticism. However, you don't believe him on a number of issues yourself. Firstly, you despise anyone who shoots landscaped without using large format. They're lazy, according to your prior posts. Thorton shoots landscapes with medium format, the lazy bumb. Secondly, you denigrate staining developers as unreliable, and yet most of Thornton's negatives are developed in his own staining developers. He even sells them, the piker. Thus, according to you, Thornton's not such an expert after all. If so, then your appeals to his authority are not only hypocritical but completely ineffective. Personally, I like quite a bit of Thorton's work. Nonetheless, I don't consider him, nor anyone else for that matter, an argument ending authority on photography. Even the best practitioners can make mistatkes. -Peter De Smidt > >> > 1. Film developed less is sharper and finer-grained > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to print on #4 paper on a point source enlarger would be even better, > since then you could get away with even less development? There's a point of diminishing return, including excessive speed loss. All development is a compromise. Using one grade higher is generally sufficient to get a noticeable improvement. > Hence, > you'd have finer grain and even higher sharpness, or in your words are > you going to deny the laws of physics? My guess is that you'll say > that considerations other than finest grain and highest sharpenss are > sometimes important for a print, and hence you wouldn't want to > generally do what I've just outlined. Correct. Also, it can be difficult to determine exactly what #3 is, anyway. All I know is that most of my negs print well on approximately #3, some do better on 4 (mostly for aesthetic reasons) and a few do OK on #2 or 2 1/2. >This would be a fine response. > The problem would be that those same considerations (tonal seperation, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are not necessarily the most important characteristics of a fine > photograph. the 'most important', yes, but not exclusive considerations. You don't really gain anything by going further down in time. > >See: Edge of Darkness by Thornton. He's done precisely that. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using large format. They're lazy, according to your prior posts. > Thorton shoots landscapes with medium format, the lazy bumb. 'Bum'. > Secondly, you denigrate staining developers as unreliable, and yet > most of Thornton's negatives are developed in his own staining > developers. He even sells them, the piker. Thus, according to you, > Thornton's not such an expert after all. If so, then your appeals to > his authority are not only hypocritical but completely ineffective. I don't 'denigrate' staining devlopers, not at all. I simply point out they have charactersitics thast make them very hard to use if you switch between graded and VC papers. I also don't think they're best for miniature format work. That does not negate at all what he says about conventional developers and condenser enlargers, which is demonstrated on the pages of his book. Those correspond ___exactly___ to my experience. You'll note his praise for the Focotar enlarging lens, too. I own the Focotar-2. > Personally, I like quite a bit of Thorton's work. Nonetheless, I > don't consider him, nor anyone else for that matter, an argument > ending authority on photography. Even the best practitioners can make > mistatkes. But his tests are very well executed. That's what makes them authoritative, not the fact that he's Thornton. Without the tests, he would merit no more credence than anyone else. His test results confirm my results and agree with other works I've read. > -Peter De Smidt |
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.