I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

[Corran]

You didn't really answer the question, but it doesn't really matter anyway. The technical abilities of a film with exotic techniques are not really applicable to day-to-day image making, and my question was based on a very specific type of scene I see/print a lot of, and obviously I've posted scans/prints of same many times here. From what I understand and can see with my negatives, after 10 years of practice and experience with T-Max 100, I get where you are coming from and I think it's why some people don't like T-Max 100, especially with T-Max developer - but I think with careful and proper exposure/development, it's still a beneficial bit of engineering and will result in better highlight retention (on the print) compared to traditional films when used properly.

[Pere Casals]

Let me be specific, fp4 records some 6 stops overexposure, with normal development, add 3 stops latitude in the shadows for total 9 stops, perhaps 10.

If wanting more, do N-

[Drew Wiley]

Have you EVER actually printed anything in a darkroom, Pere?

[Pere Casals]

Have you EVER actually printed anything in a darkroom, Pere?

I started printing in the 1980s, in high school. Last two years in the high schooI was also teaching new students.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, you keep making one ridiculous statement after another. Probably most people on this forum know that some VC papers include a third emulsion component. But if the way you phrased it were true, split printing would be impossible. And if blue light exposed all the emulsion layers, no serious yellow or green sensitive layer would even be present, because that blocks blue light, at least to a significant extent, and visa versa. In fact, it would be impossible to obtain high contrast, and what you'd get would be muddy density in every portion of the image. You might want to rethink that.

[interneg]

1) There are 3 emulsions in a VC paper, not 2.

Nope: it can be as few as 2, as many as 5. May be a single layer & with the dyes heavily ballasted etc, or 2 layer coating, again with ballasts etc. Very little of each dye is used (to prevent staining), supersensitisers are key. Most current emulsions are high to very high chloride content.

Before machinegunning AA you may need to go back to the photo school. Ansel knew his tools, it looks you don't.

Aye, right.

I spend most of my time having to explain to and teach people that Adams' approach is only one (limited) mode of many. Your obsession is clearly detrimental to you learning the most basic techniques properly, instead getting yourself wound up in silly statements that immediately demonstrate your near total lack of useful experience.

Don't tell me that you ignore the Alan Ross Masking way... This is the most powerfull wet printing tool we have today.

All he did was popularise/ formalise what people have been doing for about as long as masking techniques have existed. It's a useful technique, not a fetish to obsess over.

[Drew Wiley]

The equivalent of Alan's technique can be found in graphic arts manuals going back to the 1940's or even earlier. It can be combined with other masking techniques if desired. Bringing in Chris Burkett is irrelevant to this thread. Other than the common denominator of certain punch and registration equipment, and maybe a few film choices, Ilfochrome masking has little in common with masking for black and white printing, or even for other color media. This is just another example of how inadequately informed generalizations actually confuse the present subject. Although Alan was one of AA's assistants, you won't find any useful info on the subject from AA himself. Even though he was surrounded by neighbors and friends who routinely did masking for sake of dye transfer printing, AA apparently never seriously tried it. I personally appreciate how he developed the Zone System; but it's just one Swiss Army knife in a far bigger tool kit. Those who make a religion out of it are welcome to do so; but I'm not one of them.

[Pere Casals]

Drew and interneg, it looks you have not still tried the Alan Ross way, even it's possible you ignore what it is...

[Drew Wiley]

I was doing it before I ever heard of Alan Ross. It was just a minor part of my own suite of masking options. I'm equipped to do far more sophisticated and precise masking than what Alan describes, though his approach is commendable for its simplicity in black and white applications when people are on a limited budget.

[interneg]

Drew and interneg, it looks you have not still tried the Alan Ross way, even it's possible you ignore what it is...

If you are trying to duck the substantive questions hanging over your claims with more whataboutery about the computer derived masks coloured for VC papers which Ross describes - again, nothing new, just a popularisation/ digitisation of techniques that have been around for a long time - it's just that BW sectarians often seem rather ignorant of the techniques that evolved for creative colour printing.

Unlike you, I have done plenty of long edition printing & masks of the sort described by Ross etc can make things faster & less error prone - which was why he adopted/ adapted them. Outside of this, & unless your photography has evolved to a point where routine masking of BW film is critical to your expressive needs, you should be concentrating on getting the basics of exposure & processing (and the reasonable limits thereof) sorted and clear in your mind & practice, rather than attempting to rectify fundamental errors by extreme means.