mark_lindsey

I think maybe you are looking for n- dev.? check the book again and

make sure of what you want--I used to to tmax 100 in hc 110 but don't

recall my times. I will have to check and get back to you.

hc 110 gives the tmax neg mushy big grain in my opinion, I've used it

for a long time, but then tried tmax rs and wouldn't go back for

anything--nice, crisp and sharp. I say stick to the tmax rs and adjust

your times to suit you.

its what you don't know about that will hurt you. as careful as we all

may be, accidents happen. if you don't occasionally wash your screens-

-just in case--you may contaminate prints for a long time. and that is

even more sloppy, wouldn't you say?

<p>

yes, household bleach is the best for removing fixer contaminants

doesn't anyone use wooden clothspins anymore? they have always worked

for me....

this goes way back, its an attitude that I find throughout this and

other forums, and your right, I should chill out---its not worth my

time....

I can see for myself from his work that it is not true. its funny to

me how everyone holds weston up as a god, yet ignore the fact that he

had great respect for adams as an artist and a human being. both adams

and weston talked of the other as being the better artist.

<p>

I know that to berat adams is the "fashion", especially amoungst those

who need to have the appearance of being "all knowing" and "modern",

but the most common trait is the lack of any substance in their work.

<p>

Weston wouldn't even let those who he considered to be uncreative

cross the threshold of his door--Adams was a good friend and always

welcomed, I doubt that most of you "intellectuals" who talk the big

talk here would even get onto the driveway.

because this statement,"as his work was basically a repetion of old

themes after 1950", is bs.

<p>

Mark

Brett actually decided that only he could print from his own negatives

when he witnessed a showing of edwards work that was printed by

several different people and even some prints that were only to be

work prints. the look, feel and quality of the prints varied enough

to, I think anyway, convince him of this point of view.

yes Weston was an amazing photographer, now you need to educate

yourself on Adams.

in "the negative" Adams states that there have been variations in the

concept of the scale of zones--for modern materials he choose the "0"

to "X" scale. (eleven zones) pg xi in the introduction.

<p>

also on page 50 you will see a tonal representation of the scale....0-

x....eleven zones.

Wilhelm,

<p>

moonrise with dbi makes no sense whatsoever, Adams KNEW the luminance

of the highlights, it was the shadows that he was worried about.

Determining the length of development affects the highlights, and the

area he was concerned about needed more exposure. In all of his

references to Moonrise, I have never seen mention of using dbi or

wishing he did, I do not consider Alinder to, in any way, to be an

expert on photographic technique in any way, and I take that

statement with a huge grain of salt based on the evidence that I have

seen. (not to mention that it makes no sense).

<p>

so much for THAT theory!

<p>

also, because Adams had superb darkroom and techical knowledge was

the exact reason he didn't need to do dbi.

<p>

like I said before, trying to use one out of 40,000 + images to say

Adams needed dbi is pretty weak and desperate. even worse, the theory

doesn't hold water.

OK one more quick note.....

<p>

Its Lindsey not Lindsay, I am the photographer not the musician!

<p>

Why would you test any new developer with important negatives?

<p>

NO Dan I don't want to see the Jobo, I have no use for them because I

feel that they complicate the process as well, and I see no real

benefit coming from their use.

<p>

I don't really see the benefit of overdeveloping a neg. that was 5

stops underexposed in the first place.

<p>

No this isn't a perfect world, so this is a good reason to strive for

less?

<p>

Ok, I'm done

I will only respond to the new points made, as it is getting tiring

to repeat my claims and opinions and only get canned answers and

denials without factual basis in return.

<p>

In my opinion Adams wins by far on number of images and quality of

images. A matter of opinion is difficult to use as a "fact" to defend

your case.

<p>

Zone system complicated? I don't think so, works fine for me.

<p>

I have never read anything by Adams that says that he claimed his way

was the "only" way or the "right" way, please direct me to these

statements or would this only be another attack used as a defense?

<p>

Yes Dan, this is art, but the creation of the negative and the print

involve craftsmanship, and without complete control of my craft what

is my end result? A product of my personal vision or just a happy

accident?

<p>

I have no doubt that you can print wonderfull prints from dbi negs,

but why complicate the process? If you want to simplfy your way of

working why stop at contact printing like weston? At one time Adams

was using an enlarger that used sunlight as its light source, go for

it!

<p>

Why are we, as photographers, so afraid to use even simple technology

to help achieve our vision or goals? Does anyone here think that

artists of other mediums are this overwrought about this type of

subject?

<p>

This one thing I will exhaustively state again is that I never stated

that anyone shouldn't use this method, just don't tell me that it is

more accurate, or less work. And please please don't tell me that

just because you got rid of the use of a thermometer of a timer that

this brings you any closer to the "art" of what you are doing. It's a

bit over the edge dramatically and romantically.

Mr. Smith, I just returned from your website and I read your article

on printing, I wonder why you don't take as much precautions with

your negatives as you do with your prints?

<p>

which is easier to do over if unusable?

<p>

You use a metronome for prints, why on earth would you not print by

inspection , surely it would be easier to do for prints rather than

negatives?

<p>

it seems to me that this so called simplification of neg. dev. has

only shifted more complications to your printing sessions.

good answers defending dbi?

<p>

sorry, I haven't seen any, all I have seen are comments that not only

blast through the myths of dbi but also uncover the silly viewpoints

dbi'ers have of those of us who oppose it.

<p>

<p>

I am sure that weston and adams both had unruly negatives, the big

difference was that adams strived to perfect his prints, and it

shows.Adams printed to achieve prints that met his high standards,not

the standards of someone who counts how many dodges and burns he

might make.

<p>

<p>

Moonrise--have you ever read the amazing amount of knowledge,

intuitiveness and speed it took him to produce this image, to

simplify all of this by saying that if he had dbi his problems would

be solved is an insult to all concerned. the man was in control of

the negative from the beginning, the one concern he had was the

amount of light falling on the foreground crosses, he states that if

he had known the crosses were of such low value, he would have given

them another half stop of exposure and then would have controlled the

values of the moon with development---so just giving more development

would have maybe given him more highlights in the crosses, but it

would have given him a burnt out moon--so much for that

theory...later he selenium intensified the area to make printing a

bit easier. Adams shot over 40,000 negs, is this the only one you can

use to make your point (which was not made)

<p>

<p>

"develop 8-12 at a time"...

<p>

so what, I do that all the time with 4x5 in trays and used to do it

with 8x10, and no, I don't have damage problems.

<p>

<p>

like I said before, do it if you like it, but don't b.s. those of us

who know its not as accurate, etc., etc.,and still again, can't you

defend your methods without attacking the methods of others?

I'm not sure how expensive boat resin is, but I used a waterproof

outdoor paint (guaranteed to me that it wouldn't leak) can't remember

what brand it was, will dig it out of the basement,but back to the

subject, was very cheap compared to stainless, and I have never had a

single problem with it.

first off let me say that I indeed have no problem with anyone using

this method, however, when I see statements like,

<p>

"Development by inspection is the only wat to go",

<p>

or

<p>

Works for him--but, alas, he

does not inspect. How can anyone not want to inspect,

<p>

or

<p>

"Why? To appease your puritan work ethic? If D.B.I. works, and it

does, and it's easier, why make "a

bunch of tests"? You have to re- test your system continuoosly to

make sure it stays in calibration,

no?"

<p>

I just have to respond!!

<p>

there are plenty of people, famous or not, who don't dbi--throwing

names around is a waste of time.

<p>

its a myth that all zone system practioners do nothing but test---I've

used tmax for 10 plus years and have tested it twice, when I first

started using it, and when I recently changed my choice of dev.. when

I see any type of change or drift occuring I simply adjust my dev.

times. retest for such a small change? absurd.

<p>

Wilhelm,

<p>

dbi may eliminate temp variation,but it also eliminates total control-

--I use a thermometer and get temp control and total control.

<p>

I also can do simultaneous development of different exposures of film.

<p>

this method may make people "feel" as if they have more control, but

in reality it is a myth.

<p>

I would be willing to bet that A Adams negs were generally much easier

to print than Westons, allowing him more time to go out and shoot!

40,000+ negs does make a statement.

<p>

Sean, the issue with moonrise was an underexposure problem, not an

underdevelopment problem, and if Adams had the same view as weston on

control in the darkroom, he would have never even gotten the shot.but

I guess you would use one out of 40,000+ negs to justify your point of

view--seem alittle desperate?

<p>

I am somewhat stumped by those that claim it is so much easier to

inspect than use a timer/temp method--Dan says that he doesn't have to

use the timer anymore, but still uses the thermometer, then while he

goes through all the motions that he describes to dbi, I am simply

sitting there watching my timer waiting to pull my negs---and I do

more work in the darkroom????????? this fad will probably fall to the

wayside just as that jobo and the 30 sec. fix---eh Dan?

<p>

I wonder about how really loyal you all are to this method when I see

statements that say that anyone who doesn't use this method are

constant testers who always write everything down and never actually

produce a photograph.---when you can justify a method without

attacking another you may convince me.

<p>

Jeff,

<p>

no I don't hang negatives on the wall either, nor do I like to relive

a mistake everytime I print, so I try to come up with the best

negative I can without resorting to "good enough".

<p>

<p>

Like I said earlier, if you like to do it, more power to you, but

please don't tell me its easier or better, or as/more accurate,

because then you are fooling only yourselves.

"Before you jump right in and develop valuable negatives by

inspection, you might want to run a test. ", this is from the above

mentioned article. judging from this and comments made here by other

posters there is just as much testing (if not more involved) than

with non-inspection.

<p>

again I am still waiting for someone to tell me what, if any, are the

advantages to this method?

ps

<p>

I also can "make adjustments as I go".

sorry, I just don't buy the notion that dbi is very accurate. Your (no

one in particular) idea of accurate may be very different than mine. I

would have to see it to believe it. and don't show me with a film you

have used for years, show me by picking up a film you only know the

asa for and do it with that---only then would it be true dbi.

<p>

oh my god! testing once rather than sweat over every single developing

session to try to see densities by a dim green light? how silly--

better yet how about when I do multiple time development for normal/n+

/n-

<p>

since when did anybody get more accurate than a densitometer?

<p>

please don't throw names at me, it means nothing...

<p>

the end....thanks for coming to my show :)

also think about how high your waste per roll will be if you only roll

6 exp on each. probably 50 % of each total roll will be leader or

taped onto the reel!

"There is no simpler and consistent way to process film and paper than

the Jobo systems"

<p>

you've got to be kidding