View Camera magazine discussion group + More PMK kerfuffle

[steve simmons]

The View Camera magazine discussion forum will be up and running by Aug 2. It will be open to anyone who wants to participate with the following rule

Disagreemnts are fine as long as the post is respectful and professional. The ugly, snide, and caustic remarks too often seen in these grouips will be deleted and repeat offenders will be blocked from posting.

And, all spam will be deleted.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

And, all spam will be deleted



You mean spam like..."view camera will be openning a discussion forum"?

or spam like....."Camera arts has an article this month on...."?

This kind of spam?....hmmm........I guess what is good for the Goose is not so good for the Gander, uh?

[Gem Singer]

What the heck is a discussion roup???

[matthew blais]

Thank you for the post Steve.

[Peter Collins]

Again, thanks, Steve. And your frequent posts are a far cry from "spam!" They are helpful, considerate, and even collegial.

[Frank Petronio]

Aren't magazine editors suppozed to no how two speell?

[Charles Hohenstein]

Frank, I don't know if you were serious, but I agree: magazine editors _should_ know how to spell. The spelling and proofreading problems in View Camera drive me nuts. They're my only complaint about the magazine (well, except maybe for that substituted article on Pyrocat-HD).

[steve simmons]

They're my only complaint about the magazine (well, except maybe for that substituted article on Pyrocat-HD).>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We have added an extra layer of proofreading so the number of such problems will decrease.

What was your problem with the article?

steve simmons

[Jean-Louis Llech]

Frank,
A few years ago, one of my teachers used to say :
"A typist is a person to which a writer gives a text with spelling mistakes and who adds typing errors."
After the death of Frederick W. Taylor, with the help of God and data processing, the two people have been replaced by a single one ! ;>)



Jorge,
I know very good drugs against gastric hyperacidity, as some US spammers send some ads to me each day. Do you need some ones ?

[John Cook]

Would like to join your roup, but I no longer ubscribe. ;0)

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Thanks Steve, I am looking forward to it.

[Tim Curry]

Steve,

Pyrocat-HD does not contain hydroquinone. Where did this information come from with respect to the specific chemical ingredients? Who did this research? When will a correction be printed to "correct the record"? Sandy King has gone to great lengths to create and refine this developer, it just seems the correct information is his due.

[Frank Petronio]

Can't we just make fun of spelllling errors and forget the Pyro Wars?

[steve simmons]

Steve, Pyrocat-HD does not contain hydroquinone. Where did this information come from with respect to the specific chemical ingredients? Who did this research? When will a correction be printed to "correct the record"? Sandy King has gone to great lengths to create and refine this developer, it just seems the correct information is his due>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can correct that info but it will not change the results.

steve simmons

[Jay DeFehr]

It might change the results for those naive enough to take your published information at face value. Besides, it's just simply good editorial practice to print corrections of errors of fact. In the future you might consider a disclaimer along the following lines:

"View camera magazine, it's editor and staff make no claims of competence, due dilligence or fairness in our reporting of testing of materials, equipment or processes. Any losses secured by the adoption of our recommendations should be considered entirely coincidental to your subscription and or purchase of View Camera magazine, and in no way the responsibility of this publication, its editor, or its staff. To secure the maximum benefit from this publication, it should be handled carefully, by one corner (latex or nitrile gloves are recommended) placed in a metal container well clear of any buildings or other structures, and destroyed by fire. Failure to heed these recommendations could result in confusion and general dissatisfaction, which can be transmitted to others either verbally, or by direct physical contact with the magazine. Please use this product responsibly."

[steve simmons]

I have already stated w will correct the misstatement. However, as I said, the results are the results. In my testing of PMK and HD with FP4+ and Tri-X I prefer the PMK for the following reasons

- better shadow detail/higher film speed

- higher high values and more delicate tonal separations in the high values

- slightly sharper results but with slightly more visible grain.

steve simmons

[Nick Morris]

Hello Steve, I just the other day bought from my local bookstore the latest issue of View Camera. I have been buying the magazine on and off for a number of years, generally only buying those issues that contained articles of interest. Lately, I seem to be buying the magazine more regularly. That's not to say I like everything about the magazine, but I will contact you directly with my specific views concerning the content of the magazine. However, I did want you know that I have learned a lot about LF photography from the magazine, and that I like having available a publication dedicated to LF photography. So, thank you for all that you and the people at View Camera do to keep it going. Likewise, discussion groups continue to be a valuable resource for learning and for just sharing the mutual enjoyment of LF photography. Ain't life grand?

[sanking]

Steve,

Congratulations on getting the View Camera site up. I am certain it will be a good contribution to the large format community.

However, regarding reactions to your article in View Camera regarding PMK and Pyrocat-HD let me point out that there are seveal recent threads where there has been some serious discussion of this piece. In particular some have expressed the idea that your methodology is inadequate to reach some of the conclusions you reached and expressed as fact. That is my opinion as well. But you, and anyone else who may be interested, can read for themselves the comments in the following threads.

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499000.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7997

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html

Rather then voice your opinions on this thread, which was begun to advertise your web site, which I applaud, why not join the discussions on the previously enjoined threads, or indeed, start a new one on the topic? I belive there are a number of persons highly competent in film testing interested in engaging with you in reasoned discussions of your tests and conclusions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,
I know very good drugs against gastric hyperacidity, as some US spammers send some ads to me each day. Do you need some ones ?



Sure send them over, I will send you my spam for Viagra.....

[Charles Hohenstein]

Steve Simmons wrote:

"I have already stated w will correct the misstatement. However, as I said, the results are the results. In my testing of PMK and HD with FP4+ and Tri-X I prefer the PMK for the following reasons . . ."

But you already knew what you preferred before you began the test, and you were the one doing the evaluation. The bias built into such a test protocol is inevitable. To be meaningful, this kind of test has to be double-blind--the evaluators shouldn't know which developer they are looking at. Would you be interested in the results of one of those Pepsi challenge taste tests if the samples were marked Coke and Pepi?

[Chad W.]

I will miss these threads, they are very entertaining to read.

[QT Luong]

To celebrate the event (Steve, don't forget to announce on photo.net too), we will tolerate all "entertaining" replies this time, however, as pointed to by Sandy, discussions of developers would be best done in the existing threads.

[Ralph Barker]

Congratulations on getting the discussion forum going on the VC site, Steve.

I'd like to suggest a slight variation in your rules, however. Most of the objections to many of your posts, and the resulting flame wars, seem to be based on the fact that your posts appear, to the uninitiated, to be thinly veiled adverts for one or both of your magazines. Usually, such ads are contrary to the rules or guidelines of the forum where posted, and as such, are considered "rude" by Internet protocol and "social standards".

Thus, in the interest of detente, I'd propose that you allow owners or participants of other forums and owners of other magazines a certain number of years of free rein to post ads for their forums and/or publications on the VC discussion forum. Naturally, you'd be obliged to cease making linkless pointers to the VC site elsewhere, otherwise the need for reciprocation would be never-ending.

Sound like a good idea?

[Gem Singer]

Me too, Dan.

[Ralph Barker]

Dan - I think almost all of us appreciate the fact that Steve publishes a magazine devoted to large format. I could be cynical and say, "God knows we've been reminded often enough of that fact," but I won't. While I agree with the essence of much of what you say, I would offer alternative views on several points.

In the publishing world, "success" is measured in profits, as in most businesses. A "successful" magazine is generally considered to be one that generates in excess of $20mil/year in profits. The magazine of which I used to be the editor in chief, a niche tech pub serving a market segment of about $40 billion./year, only drew in a couple of $mil/year in profits (even though we were the only magazine serving that market), so we were closed down by the publishing house. I might be wrong (hooray to Steve if I am), but I suspect VC and CA fall considerably short of either number.

While I could easily be wrong, my view is that Steve is a large-format photographer who started publishing a LF-centric magazine at just the right time. It seems that where he runs afoul of many of his critics, is that he does several things wrong. First, he steadfastly refuses to explore, understand, or conform to the social norms of the venues in which he advertises his publications for free on someone else's dime. Secondly, he steadfastly refuses to conform to conventional posting norms within those venues in which he advertises for free. Third, he seems to ignore most, if not all, of the editorial and publishing standards that have become standard around the world over the last few centuries. Thus, his style as a publisher/editor (in the real publishing world, those two positions are never occupied by the same person) ruffles feathers on several fronts. He seems intent on publishing his personal opinions as fact, rather than opinion, and those opinions often run contrary to those of greater technical expertise. Thus, as an editor/publisher, he invites additional criticism.

Truth is, the LF market is so small, in publishing terms, that, by conventional publishing measures, it supports exactly less than one publication. As such, as long as VC occuipes that space (to Steve's credit), no other potential publishing effort is going to attract the $5-$10 million in venture funding needed to do a competing start-up printed magazine that might conform to typical industry editorial standards.

My observation has been that numerous people, myself included, have offered guidance and suggestions over the years, both as to Internet etiquette and common editorial procedures, along with suggestions for the events (and underlying procedures) at the LF conference. All seem to have been rebuffed. Hence, I suspect that most people offering suggestions have simply become too frustrated to offer further assistance.

The sad part, in my opinion, is that wiith the right approach, and the right editorial policies, Steve could probably double or triple the subscription base to VC. That, in turn, would prove to the LF manufacturers that there really is a market for LF, and entice them to provide more and better products and support.

Let's face it, compared to other markets, we're decidedly "small potatoes". Our only chance is to seem at least as large, and as vibrant as we really are. Unless we do, virtually all of the supporting manufacturers will be feverishly planning their market exit strategies.

[Michael Jones]

Dan:

Ditto. Others come and go, but for 15 years Steve and View Camera have been there for the large format photographer.

Mike

[Peter Collins]

It is a credit to View Camera magazine and those passionate about large format work and art photographs that this discussion, sometimes polite, sometimes rowdy, usually with humorous jabs, goes on.

And publishing is like Sysiphus' work--rolling a stone uphill. Steve deserves credit for his work. I am one who appreciates it.

One guy's opinions.

[steve simmons]

The View Camera forum is now up and running. Go to

www.viewcamera.com

remember, posts must be professional. Any that are not will be deleted. Repeat offender will be blocked.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So you wont be advertising your magazine in these forums any more? Awesome!...

[steve simmons]

Relax Jorge, I will still be active on other forums. I would not want you to be the only expert!

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Relax Jorge, I will still be active on other forums. I would not want you to be the only expert!



Even if you are active, I would still be the only expert.



So what happened to showing your negatives to anybody who asks? As usual backing down on your word uh?



Ah, and what happened with posting...what is it you said...ah yes here we are...:



The ugly, snide, and caustic remarks too often seen in these grouips will be deleted and repeat offenders will be blocked from posting.

I guess is fine for you to come here and be snide, but not in your web site, uh?



ah men....keep it up, shows your true nature.

[steve simmons]

I have the negs and will show them anytime someone wants to see them. Will you show yours?

You are not an expert. That article you tried was so bad and so full of holes and incomplete info that I was shocked you even sent it in. You failed to provide easily read charts, you failed to provide exposure and developmnt info on the images you provided, you took an N-2 situation for PMK (maybe the others as well but you would not provide the info) for a test. This is a specialized situation and should not have been used as a test (at least without calling it a test for N-2 situations and treatments), you destroyed the negs so no one can see them to check your claims, no one who we showed the prints to agreed with your evalations, you became verbally abusive to anyone who criticized you or challenged your material.

The way you submitted the material raised so many questions about your procedures that the whole piece was suspect. I checked with friends involved with scientific publication and told them how you sent the material and they wold have rejected it immediately for their publications.

You acted as though the test procedures were based on Phil Davis' techniques but I saw in a recent discussion that you tried ordering a new copy of Davis' book and did not even know enough to order the most recent edition. Instead you got a 20 year old edition because you did not know what you were ordering.

I know you will respond and I know you will ignore these comments and launch into another diatribe against me and View Camera magazine.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You acted as though the test procedures were based on Phil Davis' techniques but I saw in a recent discussion that you tried ordering a new copy of Davis' book and did not even know enough to order the most recent edition. Instead you got a 20 year old edition because you did not know what you were ordering



LOL...I have had my book for ten years (2nd edition), dont need another one, and Phil was kind enough to send me his spanish translation for me to give to a friend, (the 3rd edition). Once again as I said before, you are a liar who makes up stories to make up for your ignorance.



LOL...look, let say I am ignorant and did not know what edition to order (Oh and please provide the link for all to see and verify what you say is true), what does that matter? I kept my word, I sent the article to whoever wanted to see it, immediately, I sent you an article, yet here you are promising to provide your negatives and so far, you have not kept your word. I have made it easy for you, DJ volunteered to make the evaluations, Sandy agreed, what are you afraid of? Perhaps of looking more foolish than what you already have?



Oh, and BTW, once again, what happened with no posting side or offensive remarks? Seems this should apply to everbody but you.....:)

Oh and diatribes against you and VC?..nope, just the facts m'am....

[steve simmons]

My offer stands. I will show the negs to anyone who wants to see them. I stated that I wuld have the negs anywhere I appeared in public. That offer still stands. Show me where I agreed to send them to people. However, I never promised to send them and have them out of my hands. You have extrapolated once again.

Now, will you show your negs to anyone? You can't because as soon as your results began to be questioned you destroyed them (or so you claim). No one with any set of ethics destroys orginal research material which removes the possibility of anyone checking your result. My negs are available. Yours are not.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I never promised to send them and have them out of my hands.



That is true, you never promised to send them. But then, seeing them while you are in a conference is of not much use, what are you afraid of? certainly they will be better treated than people handling them at a conference. DJ is a very respectable member of this forum, as well as Sandy, I am sure they would take very good care of your negatives. C'mon, why dont you agree to settle this once and for all, what is the matter? no courage to stand behind what you write?



As to my negatives, I could use the same excuse you use, come here to Mexico if you want to see them...lol...but I dont need to hide behind excuses or tell people I never promised to have them out of my hands. Dont worry though, my opening is on Saturday and I will have plenty of time after that, I will make new ones that I will be glad to send to anybody who requests them you see I am not afraid of someone proving me wrong, unlike you.



BTW, where is that link where you say I did not even know what BTZS edition to buy? When I misquoted someone, I corrected my mistake, seems you dont have the character to do the same.

[sanking]

"My offer stands. I will show the negs to anyone who wants to see them. I stated that I wuld have the negs anywhere I appeared in public. That offer still stands. Show me where I agreed to send them to people."

I agree that you did not state that you would send the negatives to another party but I would encourage you to do so as a way resolving the questions that have been raised by your article. DJ, who has agreed to evaluate the negatives, has no agenda and is an experienced user of pyro developers. And since he also knows and uses sensitometry he can evaluate the negatives in a way that was not done in your testing and thereby address the main issues, i.e. do the comparsion negatives have the same printing contrast. If they do, your conclusions would be completely justified.

What do you have to lose? His tests might validate your conclusions. And even if his conclusions disagree with yours the issue will have been resolved fairly and you can reasonably say that you have taken the high road in an attempt to resolve a matter about which there is legitimate dispute.

Thanks for your consideration.

[steve simmons]

I will show my negs when you show yours. I did not have Gordon Hutchings review your article because you would have cried foul with justification. To now refuse to show your negs and then demand that I send mine to someone who has publically questioned my magazine's integrity is simply one of your games - to add an artifical demand after the fact to try and discredit me.

I stand by my original offer which is what I promised to do. You can't show your negs because you destroyed them. Making a new set raises the possibility of falsificaton. Given your obfuscation with the original article I have no hope of an honest approach now.

sorry Jorge, you have no leg to stand on. I have not hidden my evidence and I will show it as I originally promised.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I stand by my original offer which is what I promised to do. You can't show your negs because you destroyed them. Making a new set raises the possibility of falsificaton. Given your obfuscation with the original article I have no hope of an honest approach now.



LOL...well see, that is the one advantage of having curves and data, I can duplicate what I have done. Who is to say you do not show any other kind of negatives, or even negatives you made later to bolster your claim...sorry, but this kind of accusations works both ways, I say you dont have any negatives that show your conclusions are accurate. Most likely the Pyrocat HD negative is underexposed and you are afraid to show it.



Admit it, you using me as an excuse not to provide proof of your work. So what if my negatives are not available, it is not my article the one published, I dont have to keep them. Or did you think that because they were part of an article written for you that they were so precious that I will never part with them?...lol....You, on the other hand have a responsibility to show proof, that is if your rag was a real "Journal"



Funny, you complain about people attacking you and being nasty, but you seem to be able to like dishing it out, without being able to take it.



BTW, I am still waiting for that link where you say I did not know what edition to buy of the BTZS. Show it to me, or what, is this one more of your lies to change the subject?



Oh! one more thing, since you have used all these forums for free to advertise your magazine, I am sure you wont have any problem with me announcing my rebuttal article in your forum, right?

[QT Luong]

I did not have Gordon Hutchings review your article because you would have cried foul with justification. To now refuse to show your negs and then demand that I send mine to someone who has publically questioned my magazine's integrity is simply one of your games

In the opinon of this research scientist,
the paragraph above highlights a misunderstanding of the reviewing process.
An honest and competent reviewer is perfectly able to give an impartial evaluation of work that
runs contrary to his own. In fact, the job of the editor of a scientific journal is to find a varied
panel of reviewers for each article, one that is likely to give several perspectives.
It doesn't help to have a neutral reviewer if he is not competent. It could very well be that Gordon Hutchings would have been a better reviewer than the one who was chosen, because of his expertise in
developers.

[Frank Petronio]

LensWork's forum runs nicely...

[Jonathan Brewer]

I direct this to no one in particular, but this does seem to be a 6 step technique

step 1.....Insult and bait step 2.....Accuse whoever takes the bait of starting the insults.

step 3.....Namedrop your pals into the conversation and suggest that whoever has taken the bait has wounded their honor

step 4.....Keep fanning the flames until someone on your side joins the attack, which insures that his pals respond to defend him.

step 5.....After three days and 100 plus posts of insults, hatred, and hard feelings, duck out claiming you will not be a part of this foolishness.

step 6.....Days later tell everybody how you were only minding your own business when you were attacked personally and had no choice but to straighten out the 'buffoon'.

[sanking]

"In the opinon of this research scientist, the paragraph above highlights a misunderstanding of the reviewing process. An honest and competent reviewer is perfectly able to give an impartial evaluation of work that runs contrary to his own. In fact, the job of the editor of a scientific journal is to find a varied panel of reviewers for each article, one that is likely to give several perspectives. It doesn't help to have a neutral reviewer if he is not competent. It could very well be that Gordon Hutchings would have been a better reviewer than the one who was chosen, because of his expertise in developers."

I completely agree with QT on this. And in fact, during the original discussion of this matter in June I in fact suggested that either Gordon Hutchings or I could have provided a better review of Jorge's article than the person who was actually chosen.

Let me add something else to this discussion, however. In retrospect the title I gave to the original thread was inappropriate because it did indeed suggest that I was questioning the integrity of View Camera magazine. And I apologize to Steve Simmons for doing that, especially in public. And for the record want to also add that I have never suggested or implied that Mr. Simmons fabricated data. In fact, I am confident that his tests reflect what he honestly believes to be a fair evaluation of the materials.

What I really meant to question was the fairness of the review process. Steve asked Jorge to do the article, in a thread on this forum by the way, and after Jorge did a look of work it was summarily rejected after review by someone with no experience at all with pyro developers. I read Jorge's article and did see some problems with it but it was far from unsalvageable, at least in my opinion and I have a fair understanding of the issues involved. For that reason, and especially since Steve Simmons had asked Jorge to do the article, I felt that he should have given him an opportunity to clean it up. I do believe there is something wrong with the way View Camera reviewed Jorge's submission but the method followed appears to simply be part of the culture of the way the magazine does its business and does not reflect any lack of integrity.

My involvement in this matter was certainly not motivated by the fact that Jorge's article was pro-Pyrocat. In fact, people who have read the two articles would probably actually agree that Jorge's piece was actually less pro-Pyrocat than what appeared in View Camera, which in fact was fairly neutral.

[Kirk Keyes]

Steve Simmons wrote, "I will show my negs when you show yours."

Are we playing "Doctor" now???

QT wrote, "In the opinon of this research scientist, the paragraph above highlights a misunderstanding of the reviewing process. "

QT - that is a big part of the problem - View Camera is not a scientific journal and we really shouldn't expect it to follow the practices of one. I am one of the people that have read both Jorge's article (without any photos though) and also read the critique by Kirk Gittings that was sent back to Jorge with the article. I actually feel that the critique had several valid points that Jorge could have addressed.

I do feel that Jorge has the start of an interesting article, but that it does need some work. But I would suggest, as you do, that View Camera do send out technical articles to several people for reviews and with suggestions for further work that they feel needs to be done before an article be printed. I don't believe that was done in this case. But really, it is Mr. Simmons perocative to do what ever he wants...

[steve simmons]

Jorge's article was rejected becasue of cocerns that I had and concerns of two other reviewers. I did not name the second one becasue Jorge became so vulgar and abusive to the first/. To disagree is one thig but to respond as Jorgedid was complety uncalled for. I did not want to subject another reviewer to Jorge's abuse. Jorge has no one to blame but himself for his behavior.

To keep everything clean I did not askGordon to review Jorge's article becasue it might have seemed inappropriate for the creator of PMK to review an article by someone who favors HD. The reverse would be true as well/

To claim that the first reviewer was not familiar with pyro developrs misses the point. He has 30+ years of teaching, making black and white prints, and he has looked at the work of every black and white master of the 20th and 1st centuries. A good print is a good print. Jorge's were not good by anyone's opinion. The fact that he used an N-2 situation and did not tell anyone until he got caught does not show honesty and openness. He should have been forthright about this and he was not. To then destoy the negs and hide the evidence of his claims is at best curious. To then claim that I am hiding by not agreeing now to do something I never agreed to do in the first place is a word game.

Jorge's behavior in this entire situation has no integrity at all. I made a promise and I will stand by what I agreed to in the first place.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Once again, it seems Simmons has been successful in avoiding responsibility for his words and made this issue about me or what I wrote.



who cares what I wrote? How good or bad the article was, whether I still have the negatives or not. All that is past, he rejected the article and I moved on. Frankly, it is unimportant.



Now he is being asked to provide proof of his published article, and instead of saying "fine, I will do so" he says "I will when Jorge does." What kind of BS is this? I am under no obligation of providing any proof, what I wrote was not published! If the article had been published and subsequently people had asked to see the negatives, it would have been cause of concern and doubt if I was unable to do so, but since it was not, and I had no more interest or need for the negs they were destroyed.



Once again, do not make this about what I wrote. It is unimportant, off topic and immaterial. What is important is that the publisher/editor of a supposed "Journal" is refusing to provide examples of his work, This is the real question, not what I did or failed to do, or if I have the negatives or not, or if I even made them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

To claim that the first reviewer was not familiar with pyro developrs misses the point. He has 30+ years of teaching, making black and white prints, and he has looked at the work of every black and white master of the 20th and 1st centuries. A good print is a good print. Jorge's were not good by anyone's opinion. The fact that he used an N-2 situation and did not tell anyone until he got caught does not show honesty and openness



uh huh, if you had read the article you would have been able to see that right away. As a matter of fact, I have never said I did an N-2 developement. Show me where I said so! So, no I have not been "caught" as you say, and this is nothing more than another of your lies to change the subject. As I said, who cares what I wrote? It is not my article on print, yours is. I am not under any obligation to provide proof, you, on the other hand, are obligated if what you say is true. Funny, you accuse me being false, yet you are doing the same thing. I am now more than ever sure you dont have anything good to show, this is why you are so reluctant to provide the negatives and are using me as an excuse not to do so......

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

A good print is a good print. Jorge's were not good by anyone's opinion



Kind of hard to make prints with fictitious negatives, no? So which is it, I made print from imaginary negatives? lol....of course they were not good prints, they were proof prints, un manipulated, as I said bubba, anytime you want to put your prints against mine I am available.

[Hans Berkhout]

I think it's time for the psychiatrists to step in. Or erase this farce.

[Kirk Gittings]

Pyro makes you crazy.

[sanking]

"Pyro makes you crazy."

Kirk, I think you are right. Perhaps some of us need to use more D-76 and Rodinal and a lot less Pyro. This kind of discussion sure shows the need for some kind of reality check.

[Kirk Keyes]

Kirk, Pyro doesn't make your crazy. We were all like that before any exposure to pyro!

And I would like to voice the opinion that these so-called "farces" not be erased. I think threads like this need to be kept around as a public record. The participants did not seem to have any issues with making statments in a public forum when they made them. It just excuses bad behavior if threads just disappear.

Kirk Keyes

[steve simmons]

You exposed FP4+ at an EI of 32 in broad daylight. Why did you do this? What was your normal time for FP4+ in PMk and how long did you develop the neg you printed for the artcle? Did the 4 sec include a correction for reciprocity failure? You do't seem to want to provide any hard info. But since you've hidden the negs by destroying them no one can verify your results!!!!

Again, three knowedgeable people thought your article was poorly done. Three strikes and you were out. If you had done some thing close to worthwhile it could have been improved. Yours was not and could not.

steve simmons

[neil poulsen]

I knew that I should check this thread. It seems to be a sensitive topic. This thread could become as destructive as the last thread on this topic.

With this in mind, please be extra careful in what you say. Sometimes, something that's said in a rash moment may seem OK at the time, but can reasonably be seen as insulting, etc., to others. Phrase what you say in civil and respectful terms. Focus on the objective aspects of what you want to communicate.

Usually, it's not the content that causes a problem, it's how it's expressed. Please be careful.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You exposed FP4+ at an EI of 32 in broad daylight. Why did you do this? What was your normal time for FP4+ in PMk and how long did you develop the neg you printed for the artcle? Did the 4 sec include a correction for reciprocity failure? You do't seem to want to provide any hard info. But since you've hidden the negs by destroying them no one can verify your results!!!!



Once again, you are trying to make this about my article, it is not, it is about yours. Mine was not published, your is in the rag you call a "Journal."



BTW, I am still waiting for the link to the post where I am asking what edition of the BTZS I should buy, and the post where I got "caught" saying I developed N-2. Or were these fabrications to confuse the issue that it is your negatives people are asking for, not mine?



Admit it, you dont have good negatives and are afraid to show them....:)

[steve simmons]

My promise was to make my negs available or public inspection when I apeared at cnferences, trade shows, etc. I will honor that promise. I have my negs Jorge.

After being confronted by numerous people about the quality of your work, the poor quality of the prints, the appearance of some type of streaking or fixer problm on your PMK print you suddenly claimed to have destroyed the negs so no one could inspect your work. As I have said before no one worth their salt destroys original research data unless they are trying to hide something.

This is not just about your article or mine. This is about your basic integrity to continue atacking something when your own efforts ware so sad and badly done. To question someone else's efforts when yours were so much less is hypocritical. To claim the expertise you seem to want to try and grab while doing such a badly done article is hypocritical. Your techniques were questioned by myself and others (not just the reviewers) and you bobbed, ducked and weaved insted of being open ad honest about what you did. You continue to bob and weave rather than put the info out there You are now claiming to be putting your article up on a web site and offering a rebuttel to my article I just think the broader context of your efforts should be available for public scrutiny as well.

steve simmons

[Larry Gebhardt]

A shortcut to the forum (unless Steve moves it) http://www.viewcamera.com/forum/

[Annie M.]

There seems to be a great tradition of quibbling, squabbling and childish bickering throughout art history. Michaelangelo's nose was broken when he was sucker punched in an argument over painting. Monet was so incensed over the comments of one art critic he challenged him to a duel hoping for the satisfaction of impaling him with a sword.... there has been bare knuckle fighting and scuffling in the dust of the great plazas.... wrestling under tables of French cafes... artists pushing other artists into various rivers, lakes and oceans... and my personal favourite... the hidden rotting fish.... the olfactory annotation that is difficult to ignore!

I concur with Mr. Keyes on the issue of erasing these farces. Cleansing the forum of these threads distorts the human reality. It is real life.... and I find a certain value in knowing the parameters of personalities as they manifest themselves here.... (except the showing of puddings... I personally think there should be no showing of puddings!)

Life is short my charming darlings..... be kind to each other.

[neil poulsen]

You know, I don't see any point in continuing this thread. It can only go in one direction. I hate seeing the LF forum misused in this fashion.

This thread is frozen. Any subsequent posts past this message will be deleted.