DEAR RICHARD, An off list question: When, around 1971, at RIT I took my graduate level course, also titled, "Theory of the Photographic Process" taught by Dr. T. H. James, we used the Mees and James version of the book. I noticed that you usually site the Mees version. Is there a reason you prefer that version to the later Mees and James? I have pulled it off my bookshelf and saw that I have may printed handouts from Dr. James in the book as well as a notebook that I wrote from his lectures. The only problem I had with that course was that I used to have to drink an extra cup of coffee because he taught it at 8 am!!! I was really interested in and excited by the information and Dr. James was a very nice person but he did speak in monotones. Only once did I need to snap awake in class to find him staring at me during the first week of the first semester to realize that extra caffeine would be necessary to avoid further embarrassment!!! In the past someone asked me if I might be willing to copy the notes and send it to them...was it you? CHEERS! BOB -----Original Message----- From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 1:14 AM To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Kodak vs Ilford At 09:50 PM 3/22/2008, you wrote: > I assume you are talking about Kodak Publication #5 >"Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films", it is definitely a definitive >work. The publication went through many upgrades with the edition released >in the 80's and 90's. Although I prefer the early #2 edition, there were >improvements and modernization in the information over the earlier editions >of the 60's and 70's. Also the price jumped from below $3 to $10.95 >"The Graphic representation of a typical photographic tone reproduction" >among other diagrams really clarifies the relationship between scene, lens, >film, and print. > Some factors that are harmful to photographic reproduction become apparent >with gross negative overexposure, they can difficult to print because of the >high density levels, also graininess increases, and sharpness decreases. > > Kodak stated "three stops of over exposure should be considered the >practical limit". In the later editions Kodak deleted this statement. > >I think what is wonderful about Black and white photography is the fact >that one can exploit the possibilities of the extreme latitude in exposure, >the wide range of films, development possibilities, choice of papers, the >possibility of manipulation during printing, and post treatments to produce >some really great images, or some real dogs. Who knows some dogs are mans >best friend. > >Jonathan Ayers [mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > This is the right publication. I think I remember the > statement about overexposure but this disagrees with the work of > L.A.Jones on which much of Kodak's recommendations are based. Jones > and his associates researched both minimum exposure and latitude. > The original ASA speed measuring was based on this work. Jones' > method was originally adopted by Kodak for its internal use. For a > time, in the mid 1950's, they published Kodak speeds. These were > about four times the ASA speeds. Unfortunately, when the ASA > adopted this method they introduced a fudge factor that effectively > halved the film speed resulting in somewhat overly dense negatives. > This was corrected when the ASA later adopted a modified version of > the later DIN method. Jones, in his original work, was trying to > find the minimum exposure that would result in "excellent prints" > as judged by a large jury. He found that increased exposure up to > many stops did not make much difference but that even small > underexposure would degrade the tone rendition. Supposedly, Kodak > insisted that the ASA add the fudge factor to insure that amateurs > got an image even though the error for most cameras lies on the > overexposure side. Minimum exposure was the criteria because film > has somewhat better sharpness and finer grain for relatively low > densities. This is less so for modern films but still true. Kodak's method was also opposite of the Zone system because it assumed a standardized development to a standard contrast and adjusting image contrast by choice of paper grade. The four-quadrant presentation of tone reproduction comes from Jones' work. A somewhat different presentation of the work can be found in _Theory of the Photographic Process_ C.E.K.Mees. This book is now quite expensive used but many libraries have it or can get it. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ============================================================================ ================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there. __________ NOD32 2967 (20080321) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.