[pure-silver] Re: WEBLOG
- From: "Adrienne Moumin" <photowonder2010@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:20 -0500
Ryuji, I created a login & PW but can't figure out how to post stuff. What
am I missing?
Thanks,
Adrienne
***************************************
Please, please shake some booty on the dance floor. You look great in those
pants and we totally spy you tapping your foot up against the wall, flower.
If the beat moves you, then rock it.
from "nonsense nyc," 12/31/04...and their list of rules for New Year's Eve
(and for life).
>From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: pure-silver digest users <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: pure-silver Digest V2 #18
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:17:03 -0500 (EST)
>
>pure-silver Digest Mon, 17 Jan 2005 Volume: 02 Issue: 018
>
>In This Issue:
> [pure-silver] Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
> [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental....
> [pure-silver] Reflection step wedges differ..
> [pure-silver] Re: New color head "discoveries"
> [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
> [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
> [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
> [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
> [pure-silver] Re: Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long po
> [pure-silver] Re: Reflection step wedges differ..
> [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
> [pure-silver] Re: Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long po
> [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
> [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
> [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
> [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:32:26 +1100
>
> > Silver halide crystals are indirect gap semiconductors.
> > Did you know that?
>
>I didn't actually. This fact has sparked my interest to
>read more about the physics behind photographic emulsions.
>
>After I googled (yep a new English word if you didn't know!
>Past tense of what used to be a noun, but is now a verb -
>google) these terms, I came across the following interesting
>read about why silver halide is so unique in it's properties
>for photography.
>
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/975608492.Ch.r.html
>
>
>regards
>Peter Badcock
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Koch, Gerald" <gkoch02@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:52:10 -0500
>
>Certain other metals form light sensitive compounds. All are far less
>sensitive
>than the silver. However, iron compounds are sensitive enough to be used
>in
>various alternate printing processes such as platinum printing, cyanotypes,
>kallotypes, etc.
>
>Jerry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Peter Badcock
>Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:32 AM
>To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [pure-silver] Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
>
>
> > Silver halide crystals are indirect gap semiconductors.
> > Did you know that?
>
>I didn't actually. This fact has sparked my interest to
>read more about the physics behind photographic emulsions.
>
>After I googled (yep a new English word if you didn't know! Past tense of
>what
>used to be a noun, but is now a verb -
>google) these terms, I came across the following interesting read about why
>silver halide is so unique in it's properties for photography.
>
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/975608492.Ch.r.html
>
>
>regards
>Peter Badcock
>================================================================================
>=============================
>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.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Reflection step wedges differ..
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:53:38 -0500
>
>Anyone know the target reflection densities of the Agfa step wedge? I'm
>comparing one side by side to Stouffer's (both are 21 steps), and step 1 is
>distinctly different between the two. On Stouffer's wedge, Step 1 looks
>paper white (whiter than my papers, anyway); on Agfa's, Step 1 is Zone
>VIII
>reflectance to my eyes.
>
>I'm assuming Stouffer's Step 1 is close to its specification of 0.05
>density, but it's not calibrated. I'm also assuming Agfa's Step 1 is close
>to 0.1, because its density does appear to be between Stouffer's #1 (.05)
>and Stouffer's step 2 (.15).
>
>I wonder if anyone has advice about which step to use to determine paper
>scale: Agfa Step 1 or Stouffer Step 2, or something else? If I had a
>reflection densitometer it wouldn't be an issue. Using my eyes alone, I'm
>tempted to use Agfa Step 1 as the best Zone VIII reflectance.
>
>BTW, anyone know why Stouffer begins at 0.05 and then jumps to 1.5---
>doesn't that completely jump over the usual density of Zone VIII, or 0.1
>that most of us are interested in?
>
>Thanks.
>
>J.R. Stewart
>Leesburg, VA
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "jayers" <jayers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: New color head "discoveries"
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:30:13 -0800
>
>Your mention of having three grades (grade2 plus 2 grades, above grade
>2) from a dichroic filter head is interesting. I wonder if other users
>are also only seeing 3 contrast grades? Also I would be curious are you
>plotting these grades, and what IDmin., IDmax you are getting from the
>paper you are using.
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Champagne
>Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 2:52 PM
>To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: New color head "discoveries"
>
>Well no I haven't calibrated my enlarger but I have checked its out of
>the box calibration against what is given for my enlarger by ilford on
>the datasheet which comes with a box of ilford paper.
>it says for G2 use 45Y + 24M combined. This is equivalent to an ISO
>grade 1 filter(or ilford G1 filter). If I calibrate my neg development
>for normal printing against these filter settings then I get good film
>speed and an available increase in contrast from these G2 values which
>is greater than if I were to calibrate my neg development against 0
>filtration or Ilford G2 filtration. Hence my original question.
>
>incidentally I have also checked all the given settings of combined Y+M
>for the other grades and the given setting for G3 is damn close to a
>true ISO grade 2.
>Therefore if I were to calibrate my negative dev to an ISO grade 2 I
>would only have available 2 higher grades of paper contrast using
>dichroic filtration. However, because I calibrate to the given G2
>setting which actually corresponds to an ISO G1 I get contrastier
>negatives which compensates(the negative scale fits the paper) and gives
>me a full 3 grades of available higher contrast to use on my Dichroic
>head should I need them.
>This is the equivalent of calibrating to an ilford G2 filter(not my
>dichroic head) and then having a further 3 grades of ilford contrast
>available.
>
>In a nutshell, if you calibrate your standard dev against dichroic
>filtration which corresponds to ISO grade 1 then the available increase
>in contrast available to you on a dichroic head will be around 3
>grades..
>
>Whether you might actually want to do that is a purely subjective
>decision based on whether you prefer longer or shorter toe and shoulder
>in your prints.
>I do it and am happy with my prints.
>
>I was just curious if other people did this or had observed this but
>since Kodak and some other manufacturers don't seem to publish combined
>filtration settings I guess other people don't use their dichroic
>filtration that way. The question then becomes irrelevant to them.
>
>
>At 14/01/2005 15:39 -0800, you wrote:
> >Bob, if you use the PC filters, either Ilfords or Kodaks, they are
>balanced
> >for exposure so as one changes from -1 to 3.5 (filter label) there is
>no
> >need to change exposure. When changing to 4 and up simply increase
>exposure
> >by one stop.
> >
> >But when someone uses dichroics ..there is only one M filter and one Y
> >filter. To go from 10M to 100M more filter is added to the light path
>which
> >reduces energy and requires more exposure. This is called a
>subtractive
> >system. Ilford made an MG 500 head enlarger that is additive. Blue
>and
> >Green light is used and by pushing PC buttons on the controller the
>computer
> >adjusts the light output to balance exposure between the two lamps so
>paper
> >exposure remains constant.
> >
> >What I hear you saying is you have calibrated your subtractive enlarger
>so
> >that you always have equal exposure by balancing the amount of Y
>against the
> >amount of M required. Unfortunately M is a much denser filter and to
>make
> >this system work you will limit yourself to a small range in the lower
>to
> >center of the LER range. Then as your bulb ages you will need to
> >recalibrate.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rob Champagne" <app@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:39 AM
> >Subject: [pure-silver] Re: New color head "discoveries"
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Well no I'm not referring to log numbers at all. I've been through
>the=
> >> numbers game and I have a densitometer and can do numbers if
>required but
> >I=
> >> much prefer the practical evaluation method. The best way to do that
>in
> >my=
> >> opinion is by using the AA method of adjusting neg development based
>on=
> >> printing the 11 square patches as illustrated in the negative. I
>have a=
> >> template I cut from mountboard which fits an 8x10 piece of paper. I
>just=
> >> print my zone 0 thru 10 test negs onto a piece of paper using my
> >standard=
> >> print developer etc at the given figures for G2 Y+M on my enlarger.
>If
> >the=
> >> shadows aren't separated enough then I use some more film exposure.
>If
> >the=
> >> highlights need pulling back I reduce development. The result is
>that I=
> >> know that my negs fit exactly onto a G2 setting and any
>discrepancies
> >can=
> >> be adjusted with contrast control on the enlarger. There is no need
>for=
> >> number ranges. =20
> >> Once again, it all depends on what enlarger filtration(if any) you
>use to=
> >> calibrate your neg development. Problems may arise if you use both
> >graded=
> >> and VCpaper but thats your choice, i.e. you calibrate for one or the
> >other=
> >> with or without filtration.
> >> Obviously you can do your calibration to how ever many stops of range
>you=
> >> like, eg 8, 9 or 10 etc.
> >>
> >> And yes, I know AA says paper batches vary from batch to batch so he
> >didn't=
> >> like calibrating to paper, but they are going to do that regardless
>of
> >what=
> >> your neg dev is calibrated to, so using an arbitrary paper batch
>(i.e.
> >the=
> >> paper batch you have to hand) to do your calibration on, is no worse
> >than=
> >> not calibrating to an arbitrary log range which you have to first
>work
> >out=
> >> to know what it is anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >> At 13/01/2005 18:55 +0100, you wrote:
> >> >I assume you are talking about the log exposure range, when
>referring to
> >> >numbers from 0.6 to 1.8.
> >> >Well, log ER 0.6 is about grade 4.8, log ER 0.8 is grade 3.5 and log
>ER=
> >> 1.55
> >> >is grade 0. A log ER of 0.8 is a bit low, but otherwise, you are not
>all
> >> >that far off workable conditions.
> >> >
> >> >As Richard said, dedicated VC filters get the most contrast range
>from VC
> >> >papers, but I argue that you don=B9t need that. If I could only get
>grade
> >1=
> >> to
> >> >3.5 from my color head (I do actually get 0 to 5), I could still
>print
> >98%
> >> >of my negatives. Sometimes I use a VC filter 5 to burn-in some local
> >areas,
> >> >but otherwise, the extended contrast range of filters is true but
> >> >over-rated. And using a hard-contrast filter in addition to a color
>head
> >is
> >> >actually very convenient, since it avoids resetting the dials.
> >> >
> >> >I don=B9t see a real problem here.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ralph W. Lambrecht
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 1/13/05 1:39 AM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Well, my Omega Chromega Dichro DII came in last weekend and I've
>begun
> >> >> testing. with VC papers. First VC I've printed in 20 years.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> I've been using metol glycine based Ansco130 paper developer
>(modified
> >by=
> >> AA
> >> >> and without hydroquinone).That's where I started. Problem is, the
> >hardest
> >> >> contrast I was able to get with 0Y/170M was about 0.8 on Forte
> >Polygrade=
> >> V
> >> >> (boy is that paper really blue!!) and about 0.6 on Kodak Polymax
>Fine=
> >> Art.
> >> >> The softest contrast comes in about right at 1.8 (polymax) and 1.4
> >> >> (polygrade).
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Glycine is a much softer developer.. is that why I'm able to get
>no
> >more
> >> >> than ISO ~3.5 on the VC papers... do the emulsions require
>stronger
> >> >> developers for satisfactory development? I tested my graded papers
> >under
> >> >> white light exposure, developed them in A130, and acquired the
>right=
> >> scale.
> >> >> I developed all the test prints at 6x factorial so I would think
>that=
> >> would
> >> >> be sufficient, and I was able to get max black.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> I ran an Ansco 120 test last night. The test prints look better,
>but=
> >> haven't
> >> >> read them yet.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Also, I learned that both of these paper are very sensitive to the
> >Thomas
> >> >> safelite... I ran a screening test and at 5 minutes exposure I got
>fog=
> >> that
> >> >> appeared as Zone VI reflectance.. So, I move the safelight, unplug
>it,
> >or
> >> >> change papers to one less sensitive, and retest. Such is life.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> J.R. Stewart
> >> >> Leesburg, VA=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >>=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >> =3D=3D=3D
> >> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=
> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>3D=3D
> >=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>D=3D=
> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >> >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.=20
> >>
> >>
> >=======================================================================
>=====
> >=================================
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >=======================================================================
>======================================
> >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.
>
>========================================================================
>=====================================
>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.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:57:26 -0800
>From: Eric Maquiling <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>
>On 01/16 19:59, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > >
> > >> from there.
> > FWIW, the original post decoded exactly as shown in he
> > quoted text here. Are you sending in HTML perhaps?
>
>Me? Don't think so. I read mail on a *nix termimal. Only plain,
>unadulerated, pure ascii :)
>--
>Eric
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Nick Zentena <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:10:32 -0500
>
>On January 17, 2005 11:57 am, Eric Maquiling wrote:
> > On 01/16 19:59, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > > >> from there.
> > >
> > > FWIW, the original post decoded exactly as shown in he
> > > quoted text here. Are you sending in HTML perhaps?
> >
> > Me? Don't think so. I read mail on a *nix termimal. Only plain,
> > unadulerated, pure ascii :)
>
> I think the issue is Freelist. I've seen it happen with some of my
> emails
>but
>not with others.
>
> Nick
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:03:25 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
>From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:32:26 +1100
>
> > > Silver halide crystals are indirect gap semiconductors.
> > > Did you know that?
> >
> > I didn't actually. This fact has sparked my interest to
> > read more about the physics behind photographic emulsions.
>
>If you understand a bit of material science stuff, you'll probably
>enjoy reading this:
>
>Tan, Y. T. 1989. Silver halides in photography, MRS Bulletin, May
>1989. 13--40.
>
>Also, for the process of latent image formation, etc.
>
>Hamilton, J. F. 1988. The silver halide photographic process. Advances
>in Physics, 37, 359--441.
>
>Tani, T. 1995. Photographic sensitivity. (Oxford series in optical and
>imaging sciences, vol 8.) New York: Oxford University Press.
>
>But these are highly specialized publication, I have to warn you.
>
>For more easy introduction to science of photography in general, I
>highly recommend:
>
>Mitchell, E. N. 1984. Photographic science. (I think it was from Wiley)
>
>This book was written as a textbook for a general science elective
>course at an undergrad level. The author is an expert in silver halide
>physics. It's out of print but there are many used copies circulating
>at $20 or less.
>
>--
>Ryuji Suzuki
>"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:06:16 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
>From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>From: "Koch, Gerald" <gkoch02@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide [was Fogged New Oriental.....]
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:52:10 -0500
>
> > Certain other metals form light sensitive compounds. All are far
> > less sensitive than the silver.
>
>During 1980s people at major manufacturers found many other metal
>compounds that were light sensitive and they had at least single digit
>ASA speed.
>
>There are several practical non-silver materials in current use as
>well. (light sensitive polymers, etc.)
>
>--
>Ryuji Suzuki
>"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:29:17 +1100
>From: Barrie Bunning <barrieb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long post]
>
>Greetings Peter; Which State of OZ do you live, Barrie B, Melbourne .
>At 01:44 PM 17/01/2005, you wrote:
> >G'day folks.................. Snip........................
> > I am currently trying to decide whether this
> >fog is heat related (due to surface shipping reasons - from
> >US to OZ), or developer related (since I am using a
> >relatively =91active=92 developer). I suspect the former,
> >but for peace of mind and as I clutch at a few straws, I
> >want to run my situation past this mailing list.
>
>
>
> >regards
> >Peter Badcock
> >=============================================================================================================
> >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.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>barrieb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx{ Melbourne , Australia }
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:35 +0100
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Reflection step wedges differ..
>From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>The target value for the Agfa Step wedge 1 is 0.1 density. I use 0.09 as a
>target for Zone VIII. Consequently, using the Agfa step 1 gets you very
>close.
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 1/17/05 4:53 PM, "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if anyone has advice about which step to use to determine paper
> > scale: Agfa Step 1 or Stouffer Step 2, or something else? If I had a
> > reflection densitometer it wouldn't be an issue. Using my eyes alone,
>I'm
> > tempted to use Agfa Step 1 as the best Zone VIII reflectance.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:17:27 +1100
>
> > I think the issue is Freelist. I've seen it happen
> > with some of my emails but not with others.
>
>I think I know how it happens. For whatever reason, I
>edited a couple of messages in MS word before copying and
>pasting the text into my (web)mailing program. This process
>must include different ASCII/MIME codes for the text which
>gets wrongly decoded by the freelist software. I discovered
>that plenty of other posters to freelists have experienced
>problems with what's called "quoted printable" text as well.
>
>regards
>Peter Badcock
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long post]
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:23:10 +1100
>
> > Greetings Peter; Which State of OZ do you live, Barrie B
> > , Melbourne . At 01:44 PM 17/01/2005, you wrote
>
>G'day Barrie.
>I live in NSW (New South Wales for non Aussies)
>I recently posted my bio to the list
>//www.freelists.org/archives/pure-silver/01-2005/msg00293.html
>
>regards
>Peter Badcock
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:25:40 +1100
>
> > But these are highly specialized publication, I have to
> > warn you.
> >
> > For more easy introduction to science of photography in
> > general, I highly recommend:
> >
> > Mitchell, E. N. 1984. Photographic science. (I think it
> > was from Wiley)
>
>Thanks Ryuji,
>
>would there be anything I could cut my teeth on on the 'net?
>
>regards
>Peter Badcock
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:41:03 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
>From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Silver Halide
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:25:40 +1100
>
> > would there be anything I could cut my teeth on on the 'net?
>
>Sorry to tell you the truth but the internet has more crap than good,
>and a lot of good stuff are only available on paper or subscription
>only web sites.
>
>I wish everything was on the internet but the reality is very far from
>it. Good library search engines, good online editions of journals and
>databases are the best tools when it comes to research but the online
>journals often cover only recent dates and I often have to run to
>libraries and put money into xerox machines to get a copy of articles,
>etc. Very often, I spend hours searching databases and come up with no
>concrete info as to where to look next. An email to a competent
>librarian, with all bits of incomplete reference info, can sometimes
>find exactly what I was trying to find. I wish I could digitize her
>brain to put into my hard drive.
>
>Knowledge is expensive, despite how it should be.
>
>--
>Ryuji Suzuki
>"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:07:12 -0800
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:17 PM
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>
>
> >> I think the issue is Freelist. I've seen it happen
> >> with some of my emails but not with others.
> >
> > I think I know how it happens. For whatever reason, I
> > edited a couple of messages in MS word before copying and
> > pasting the text into my (web)mailing program. This
> > process
> > must include different ASCII/MIME codes for the text which
> > gets wrongly decoded by the freelist software. I
> > discovered
> > that plenty of other posters to freelists have experienced
> > problems with what's called "quoted printable" text as
> > well.
> >
> > regards
> > Peter Badcock
> >
>
> FWIW, the current pure-silver configuration is set to
>convert HTML attachments to plain text. It is also set to
>strip out non-text MIME attachments.
> Quoted-printable can be set so that the original
>characters appear. This choice is NOT activated so QP should
>be converted correctly. QP is a way of expanding the number
>of characters beyond those possible with plain ASCII.
> Since several list members (including me) report seeing
>the same thing it appears to be an artifact of the freelists
>machine.
> Is this a minor or major problem to others on the list?
>
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, CA, USA
>dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:11:57 +0100
>From: Georges Giralt <georges.giralt@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
>
>Hi Everybody !
>May I add my 2¢ ?
>As for caracter encoding, there is an international norm called the ISO
>8859.
>As we are Westerners, we should all use ISO8859-1 (or ISO8859-15 which
>is the same but with the Euro ( ? ) sign) <--- awaiting to see how it
>shows on Freelist ;-)
>If you use this encoding, all readers and display program will work OK
>as this is an international standard, agreed upon by every contry in
>this world...
>Hope this helps !
>Richard Knoppow a écrit :
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:17 PM
> > Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Test msg #1 of 2, please ignore
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I think the issue is Freelist. I've seen it happen
> >>>with some of my emails but not with others.
> >>
> >>I think I know how it happens. For whatever reason, I
> >>edited a couple of messages in MS word before copying and
> >>pasting the text into my (web)mailing program. This
> >>process
> >>must include different ASCII/MIME codes for the text which
> >>gets wrongly decoded by the freelist software. I
> >>discovered
> >>that plenty of other posters to freelists have experienced
> >>problems with what's called "quoted printable" text as
> >>well.
> >>
> >>regards
> >>Peter Badcock
> >>
> >
> >
> > FWIW, the current pure-silver configuration is set to
> > convert HTML attachments to plain text. It is also set to
> > strip out non-text MIME attachments.
> > Quoted-printable can be set so that the original
> > characters appear. This choice is NOT activated so QP should
> > be converted correctly. QP is a way of expanding the number
> > of characters beyond those possible with plain ASCII.
> > Since several list members (including me) report seeing
> > the same thing it appears to be an artifact of the freelists
> > machine.
> > Is this a minor or major problem to others on the list?
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>--
>Ce message est constitué d'au moins 50 % d'électrons recyclés.
>Aucun électron n'a été blessé ou forcé d'aucune manière
>pendant l'écriture de ce message. S'il vous plaît aidez nous
>à conserver nos ressources, recyclez vos électrons !
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of pure-silver Digest V2 #18
>********************************
>
=============================================================================================================
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.
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] Re: WEBLOG
