Digital BW, The Print

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05020802fuji_finepixf10z.asp

Fuji's stepping ahead of both of Canon and Kodak/Fuji's 4/3 (licensed
to Olympus) format, not to mention poor Nikon, with a sensor and
system that blows them away:

http://www.pbase.com/image/41762986

How about 1600ei without noticable noise in an aluminum bodied 6.3MP
P&S with superior optics?  Or .1 second shutter delay? 

Sayonara $1900 Leica Digilux 2: $400. 

http://www.pbase.com/image/41762986   1600ei

Imagine how incredible the next generation of Fuji DSLR will be. If
Fuji rolls them out soon, nobody will want 8MP prosumer dslrs for
Christmas.

Djon wrote:

>
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05020802fuji_finepixf10z.asp
>
>Fuji's stepping ahead of both of Canon and Kodak/Fuji's 4/3 (licensed
>to Olympus) format, not to mention poor Nikon, with a sensor and
>system that blows them away:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/image/41762986
>
>How about 1600ei without noticable noise in an aluminum bodied 6.3MP
>P&S with superior optics?  Or .1 second shutter delay? 
>
>Sayonara $1900 Leica Digilux 2: $400. 
>
>http://www.pbase.com/image/41762986   1600ei
>
>Imagine how incredible the next generation of Fuji DSLR will be. If
>Fuji rolls them out soon, nobody will want 8MP prosumer dslrs for
>Christmas. 
>  
>
The Fuji E550 that I have and the F810 use the same Super CCD but a 
slightly shorter zoom lens. The noise is low and the dynamic range 
good.  The E550 (at 12 MP setting) is better than the Olympus C8080 at 
400 ASA with less noise but the C8080 beats the E550 at 50/80 ASA.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilme550/page9.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilme550/page8.asp

The Fuji S3 isn't as competitive to the Canon DSLRs as the small Fuji's 
are to other compacts despite its APS size Super CCD. Could be that the 
Fuji technology and software works better on smaller sensor wells. Then 
that advantage will return in the higher resolution APS Super CCDs. If 
signal to noise was the only thing that's needed for a nice picture then 
we could use digital cameras with 3 pixels :-)

The Fuji E550s (and some other Fuji compacts) have the nasty habit of 
the zoom getting stuck midway when it gets out and touches your hand by 
accident.  I'm now a skilled owner that can get it right with a special 
twist of two fingers but I wonder how long the lens helicoils last.

Ernst

> >
> >How about 1600ei without noticable noise in an aluminum bodied 6.3MP
> >P&S with superior optics?  Or .1 second shutter delay? 
> >
> >Sayonara $1900 Leica Digilux 2: $400. 
> >
> >http://www.pbase.com/image/41762986   1600ei

> The Fuji S3 isn't as competitive to the Canon DSLRs  
 
Have you seen/made a direct comparison between S3 and any Canon?

I don't actually think Fuji's going to be a player in camera
sales..I'd assume they're going to continue to sell CCDs to other
camera brands (eg to Olympus). But the F10 suggests they may
revolutionize the market that way, either with 4/3 or some other
advanced system. 

  If 
> signal to noise was the only thing that's needed for a nice picture
then 
> we could use digital cameras with 3 pixels :-)

Right...there's optics, color, RAW, speed, viewfinder etc...BUT the
high noise above 200ei with all other digicams is a huge limitation.

Some 2005 P&S are already dealing with that using cheap image
stabalization, which allows low noise settings such as 200ei to be
effective in low light at slow shutter speeds.

SOMETHING, perhaps Fuji technology, will soon make low noise at 800 or
1600 manditory, terminating today's 8mp digicams.  

When 35 was king, no serious amateur would have felt limited in low
light situations...he'd just use Tri X, perhaps pushing it gently to
1200. At 1200 he wouldn't have produced significant "noise" (grain) if
he used conventionally accepted chems, such as Accufine. 
 
Ernst, your bad experience with Fuji zoom probably reflects Fuji's
limited ability to do good ergonomic design, the same kind of thing
that hurts S3 in the market. 

IMO for P&S cameras Leica has the best concept...not "zoom" but
multi-focus, clicking from 35 to 70 or whatever. Makes for better
optics and faster response.

This is my main point:

> 
> SOMETHING, perhaps Fuji technology, will soon make low noise at 800 or
> 1600 manditory, terminating today's 8mp digicams.  
> 
> When 35 was king, no serious amateur would have felt limited in low
> light situations...he'd just use Tri X, perhaps pushing it gently to
> 1200. At 1200 he wouldn't have produced significant "noise" (grain) if
> he used conventionally accepted chems, such as Accufine. 
>

Djon wrote:
> This is my main point:
> 
> 
>>SOMETHING, perhaps Fuji technology, will soon make low noise at 800 or
>>1600 manditory, terminating today's 8mp digicams.  
>>
>>When 35 was king, no serious amateur would have felt limited in low
>>light situations...he'd just use Tri X, perhaps pushing it gently to
>>1200. At 1200 he wouldn't have produced significant "noise" (grain) if
>>he used conventionally accepted chems, such as Accufine. 
>> 

But the link you give leads to a very noisy EI 1600 image, far noisier 
than I get with a Nikon dSLR. Not just that, but it's taken by a camera 
that lacks the most basic facility for photography, a viewfinder.

Which makes your point seriously blunt.

The Canon 350D looks like being a serious 8Mp camera though. And Acufine 
made some fantastic grainy Tri-X images. I can't believe you ever worked 
with either Tri-X or Acufine if you think the grain wasn't significant, 
it was beautifully sharp grain that made those pictures.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
photography.about.com
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Peter, it's not necessary to turn the discussion personal. It's better
to read skillfully for meaning. As well, Accufine used skillfully
produced exceptionally fine grain at 1200 with Tri X. It dissolved
grain...people that wanted grain used sharper developers, such as Rodinal.

I didn't say the F10 replaces DSLRs, but the technology of this $400
camera is ahead of the technology in any 8mp digicam. No review and no
example that I've seen suggests that any of the 8mp digicams begins to
approach the low noise of the F10 at 400ei, not to mention 1600. 

If you have a new 8mp digicam, good luck. But you know as well as I do
that one way or another it'll be an antique in ONE (count em')year. 

IMO the combination of Kodak and Fuji, as in the Olympus 4/3 chip, is
of real interest. Kodak has been making sensors literally decades
longer than any other "brand"...the first I ever saw were about 1978.

If Canon or Nikon want to sell physically smaller cameras they'll have
to go to 4/3 or square because the aspect ratio has to change if lens
diameter to get smaller...and smaller leads to faster focusing and
greater depth of field therefore sharper focusing etc etc etc. 

All of this suggests orders of magnitude design changes within a year 
IMO...and I think the SLR form factor will be abandoned completely.

To connect cataclysmic design change back to B&W prints, I suspect
some of the path involves a form factor similar to Leica's
non-zoom/multi-focal-length point-and-shoot. Lots of folks think the
Mamiya 7 is the ultimate handheld film camera, and that's a rangefinder...

There are millions of non-Ansel-aspiring B&W printmakers, people who
think more in terms of Duane Michaels or Sebastao Salgado, after all.

They might prefer something with a FAR better viewing experience than
any traditional SLR, not to mention DSLRs...and that's a bright frame
rangefinder view (coupled easily with autofocus or manual focus). It's
coming. 

> 
> All of this suggests orders of magnitude design changes within a year 
> IMO...and I think the SLR form factor will be abandoned completely.

If you consider pointing out that the image you put forward as having "a 
sensor and system that blows them away" is actually unsharp and noisy 
compared with those from the systems you were deriding, is personal, 
then I think you have a problem with the meaning of that term. Just look 
at the 'original' shot on the site you linked to, and the noise is 
pretty bad. I think considerably worse than the samples I've seen from 
the Canon 350D, though I don't own an 8Mp camera.

I'm sure others will come up with better sensors, but Fuji don't appear 
to have done so on this evidence. Take that personally if you like:-)

Like other photographers who shot Tri-X in the old days, I loved it for 
its sharp but very definite grain, and Acufin brought out those 
qualities well. Again, if you think I'm being personal pointing out that 
this is the case, its your problem, not mine.

At the moment the most likely direction of evolution of cameras seems to 
be into multi-purpose communication devices rather than in the direction 
shown by the F10. However I think we will see different devices for 
different needs, with cameras derived from current dSLRs such as the D2X 
still around in ten years time (and probably still compatible with 
current lenses), as well as pocketable devices that take pictures as 
well as working as a phone, accessing multimedia via the net, and more.

Regards

Peter Marshall
photography.about.com
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Djon wrote:

> Peter, it's not necessary to turn the discussion personal. It's better
> to read skillfully for meaning. As well, Accufine used skillfully
> produced exceptionally fine grain at 1200 with Tri X. It dissolved
> grain...people that wanted grain used sharper developers, such as Rodinal.
> 
> I didn't say the F10 replaces DSLRs, but the technology of this $400
> camera is ahead of the technology in any 8mp digicam. No review and no
> example that I've seen suggests that any of the 8mp digicams begins to
> approach the low noise of the F10 at 400ei, not to mention 1600. 
> 
> If you have a new 8mp digicam, good luck. But you know as well as I do
> that one way or another it'll be an antique in ONE (count em')year. 
> 
> IMO the combination of Kodak and Fuji, as in the Olympus 4/3 chip, is
> of real interest. Kodak has been making sensors literally decades
> longer than any other "brand"...the first I ever saw were about 1978.
> 
> If Canon or Nikon want to sell physically smaller cameras they'll have
> to go to 4/3 or square because the aspect ratio has to change if lens
> diameter to get smaller...and smaller leads to faster focusing and
> greater depth of field therefore sharper focusing etc etc etc. 
> 
> All of this suggests orders of magnitude design changes within a year 
> IMO...and I think the SLR form factor will be abandoned completely.  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> If you consider pointing out that the image you put forward as
having "a 
> sensor and system that blows them away" is actually unsharp and noisy 
> compared with those from the systems you were deriding, 

Peter, I'm not deriding systems, I'm just predicting that they're
already dead. Who actually believes that the slr form factor will be
relevant in the future? You don't, from what you said. I don't. 

I hope I didn't suggest that the F10 form factor or chip were the
future...I just meant to indicate that they were clear signs that
Canon and Nikon were at a dead end. Certainly neither company has a
low noise digicam above 200ei...but according to all reviews, Fuji
does. This is not surprising considering that Fuji and Kodak are
partners and are decades ahead of both Canon and Nikon in research. 

Back to Accufine for a moment. You evidently used it and found it
grainy. I used it and found it much less grainy than alternatives at
1200 ei, its sweet spot. 

What developer did you use back in days of yesteryear that was less
grainy with Tri X ?  Please specify. I always found Accufine soft,
grain dissolving.. I preferred sharp developers, such as Rodinal and
Neofin: many developers looked softer to me.

Djon,

I used a number of developers with Tri-X, including Acufine from Dr 
Harold Baumann, D76 at various dilutions, and Emofin. The best 
speed/grain compromise I found was from Emofin, a 2 bath developer (I 
also tried Diafine, which was I think similar.)

Back in those days - around 30 years ago - I used to belong to a camera 
club, and entered a 20x16 into a competition shot at EI 1600 on Tri-X 
developed in Emofin. The visiting judge held up the print, angled it to 
the viewing light for a closer look, then commented to the audience that 
it was good to see that there were still some workers using medium format!

However I didn't much like the tonal quality it gave, and also found it 
hard to get fully repeatable results with this or any other developer 
that was re-used and went over to using one-shot developers. Rodinal was 
interesting, giving great sharpness with prints up to around 13 inches 
wide from 35mm, but somehow then losing it on larger prints. Another 
one-shot developer I also came to like, particularly with TMax 400, was 
Johnson's Unitol (later made by someone else I think.) Neofin was the 
stuff in those ampoules wasn't it? I tried it without finding anything 
special unless you enjoyed breaking them - and they cost a small fortune.

However most of my more recent work on faster 35mm films has been with 
chromogenic films, with the only Tri-X being the very occasional 4x5.

Back to digital, what I've seen of results and reviews from the Nikon 
D2X have been pretty impressive, and certainly I think there is a good 
medium-term future for cameras with sensors around this size. Lenses are 
probably a more serious limitation than sensors in getting more from 
smaller cameras, although of course the two are very much linked.

The camera I'm hoping for in the relatively near future is a better 
version of a digital rangefinder, preferably with a Leica M mount. 
Certainly not one based around the Mamiya 7, which though a nice camera 
isn't in the same usability league as a Leica or Hexar. Its over a year 
since I took my Mamiya 7 out of the cupboard to take pictures with it.

And yes, the F10 sensor is impressive compared to the other tiny 
sensors. Perhaps it will be used in a better camera, or Kodak will 
incorporate some of that technology in larger sensors. But I suspect 
'months' or even a year or so rather than 'decades' would be more accurate.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Djon wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
> <petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> 
>>If you consider pointing out that the image you put forward as
> 
> having "a 
> 
>>sensor and system that blows them away" is actually unsharp and noisy 
>>compared with those from the systems you were deriding, 
> 
> 
> Peter, I'm not deriding systems, I'm just predicting that they're
> already dead. Who actually believes that the slr form factor will be
> relevant in the future? You don't, from what you said. I don't. 
> 
> I hope I didn't suggest that the F10 form factor or chip were the
> future...I just meant to indicate that they were clear signs that
> Canon and Nikon were at a dead end. Certainly neither company has a
> low noise digicam above 200ei...but according to all reviews, Fuji
> does. This is not surprising considering that Fuji and Kodak are
> partners and are decades ahead of both Canon and Nikon in research. 
> 
> Back to Accufine for a moment. You evidently used it and found it
> grainy. I used it and found it much less grainy than alternatives at
> 1200 ei, its sweet spot. 
> 
> What developer did you use back in days of yesteryear that was less
> grainy with Tri X ?  Please specify. I always found Accufine soft,
> grain dissolving.. I preferred sharp developers, such as Rodinal and
> Neofin: many developers looked softer to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

Rodinal was 
> interesting, giving great sharpness with prints up to around 13 inches 
> wide from 35mm, but somehow then losing it on larger prints. 

Light source. I found it incredibly sharp with a point light source
(volkswagen dome lamp powered by a Lionel train transformer, mounted
in a Durst 609 with coated condensers) :-) But that was a hassle of
course. 
 
> Johnson's Unitol (later made by someone else I think.) Neofin was the 
> stuff in those ampoules wasn't it? I tried it without finding anything 
> special unless you enjoyed breaking them - and they cost a small
fortune.

I worked for a dealer and bought ampoules cheap. More or less Rodinal
without the edge effect. Ultra sharp. Fun to break ampoules, something
like dangerous bubble wrap.

> 
> However most of my more recent work on faster 35mm films has been with 
> chromogenic films, with the only Tri-X being the very occasional 4x5.
> 
> Back to digital, what I've seen of results and reviews from the Nikon 
> D2X have been pretty impressive

Yes. D2X should be valuable until they start needing 22MP (Mamiya). 
I suspect Nikon needs to rely more on Kodak/Fuji in the future, which
suggests 4/3 in some mega size if they want to allow continued use of
current and historic Nikon lenses. If. 

... but I'll bet there will be fire sales on 8mp DSLRs in 2006.

 Lenses are 
> probably a more serious limitation than sensors in getting more from 
> smaller cameras, although of course the two are very much linked.

Leica's got lenses, some of the Nikons and Canons and Olympiii have
lenses, Fuji's evidently doing well..
> 
> The camera I'm hoping for in the relatively near future is a better 
> version of a digital rangefinder, preferably with a Leica M mount. 

Me too. But I don't want the gross Epson format.

> Certainly not one based around the Mamiya 7, which though a nice camera 
> isn't in the same usability league as a Leica or Hexar.

Mamiya MF equivalent digital prototype (or even product?) in 22MP
already exists, along with the RB/Hass 22MP back...and not as
expensive as Leaf. 

 Its over a year 
> since I took my Mamiya 7 out of the cupboard to take pictures with it.
> 
> And yes, the F10 sensor is impressive compared to the other tiny 
> sensors. 

THAT was my point. If they can do that in a pipsqueek camera they
can/will do more in a prosumer or professional camera ...1600 low
noise at 12mp for $400 is an order of magnitude advancement beyond
whatever else is available, unfortunate that reasonably fast and quiet
EI isn't available already for prosumers, though maybe I'd settle for
a Canon G6 for utilitarian reasons...if I wanted to invest in digital
at this point in development. Next year. 

Perhaps it will be used in a better camera, or Kodak will 
> incorporate some of that technology in larger sensors. But I suspect 
> 'months' or even a year or so rather than 'decades' would be more
accurate.

OK, I won't quibble. Kodak subsidary has been making sensors since the 
Seventies, that's decades, but advances do come geometrically faster
and faster. A 1978 year is probably a couple of weeks of 2005 year. Of
more significance than research/experience, Kodak's got the best brand
in existence when it comes to hooking American investment bankers into
photographic schemes.

> 
> Back to Accufine for a moment. You evidently used it and found it
> grainy. I used it and found it much less grainy than alternatives at
> 1200 ei, its sweet spot.
> 
> What developer did you use back in days of yesteryear that was less
> grainy with Tri X ?  Please specify. I always found Accufine soft,
> grain dissolving.. I preferred sharp developers, such as Rodinal and
> Neofin: many developers looked softer to me.
> 
> 
Whenever you mention a developer film combination you should also mention
the dilution because that¹s the third part of a very important trilogy.
film: developer: dilution

Acufine is thought by Dignam (an expert) to have 100 grams of sulfite in it
like a lot of solvent type developer formulas such as D76.
We all know what the grain looks like with D76 straight with roll film. Like
mush, mush as in mushrooms. A field of over ripe mushrooms at night under a
full moon. What we want is a beach of very fine very regular sand at high
noon.

All 100 grams of the sulfite which is a silver solvent are eating at each
hunk of grain when you use Acufine.
With 35mm or medium format roll film this is a big deal. Not good. Sheet
film it¹s less of one unless you are looking at prints as big as your wall
with a loupe.

Dilute 1:1 and you¹ve only got 50 grams of sulfite and your grain will have
something resembling an edge to it.
1:2 and it may start not looking like a solvent developer any more.
They may start looking like the results you get from not solvent developing
formulas but high resolution developing formulas. Such as Rodinal or even
better: Beutlers.

Plus with 1:1 or 1:2 dilutions with solvent developing formulas you start
getting nice edge effects because of the less amounts of developing agents.
Reducers.
To me it¹s almost like unsharp mask in digital. You really miss it when its
not there.

D76 or Acufine Xtol straight is apples and oranges away from when you start
diluting them 1:1 or 1:2.

Ansel said that any developer is usable as long as you dilute it right.
Or something like that. Sounds good though.

³it¹s not the developer it¹s the the water²

No that was Coors beer.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

True.  However, judging from his own efforts, Ansel's experience was
very light on the 35mm side. Another kettle of soup, so to speak.

Those of his students who shot 35mm (many of them) mounted them on
tripods, generally aped large format using D23 and slow films like
Adox KB14, wishing they had view cameras.

 In other words, he totally missed the boat on the virtues of
developers like Rodinal, fast films, flash, color, grain, and small
cameras in and of themselves. I suspect he'd have hated the French
impressionists if he lived in those days (almost did).

HOWEVER, something few know about Ansel: He was a decent industrial
photographer and a very good portrait photographer, his portraits
sometimes rivaled those of executive portrait specialists in Berkeley
and San Francisco.

> 
> Ansel said that any developer is usable as long as you dilute it right.
> Or something like that. Sounds good though.
> 
> ³it¹s not the developer it¹s the the water²
> 
> No that was Coors beer.
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OOh, me too! I want to see some cool, affordable, smallish
digital rangefinders with nice optical finders!

Djon wrote:

>
> To connect cataclysmic design change back to B&W prints, I suspect
> some of the path involves a form factor similar to Leica's
> non-zoom/multi-focal-length point-and-shoot. Lots of folks think the
> Mamiya 7 is the ultimate handheld film camera, and that's a rangefinder...
>
> There are millions of non-Ansel-aspiring B&W printmakers, people who
> think more in terms of Duane Michaels or Sebastao Salgado, after all.
>
> They might prefer something with a FAR better viewing experience than
> any traditional SLR, not to mention DSLRs...and that's a bright frame
> rangefinder view (coupled easily with autofocus or manual focus). It's
> coming.
>
> >
> > All of this suggests orders of magnitude design changes within a year
> > IMO...and I think the SLR form factor will be abandoned completely.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>