[pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:15:47 +0100
On 12/16/04 2:31 AM, "Ryuji Suzuki" <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:44:13 +0100
>
>> We are just talking about good work prints here.
> [...]
>> Of course, I'm talking about traditional fine-art photography. These
>> rules may not apply for all areas of photography.
>
> I didn't know that in your book traditional fine-art photography is
> based on good work prints.
I don't know what my book has to do with this, but my standard procedure is:
1. Test strip for important highlight exposure.
2. Test strip for important shadow contrast.
3. Make an initial full-sheet work print.
4. Make test strips for local exposure and contrast optimization (dodging,
burning, variable contrast printing.
5. Make a final full-sheet work print.
6. Optimize the final print with bleaching or other controls.
>
>> The tool which provides the finest control is more likely to get the
>> job right.
>
> I don't know about that. I wouldn't trust a tool that can't come to
> the ballpark before getting to fine tuning, trimmings, pointless fancy
> or whatever. Fine tuning is something that comes after everything is
> within the range of fine tuning.
>
Rough exposure test strips (+/- 1/3 f/stop) get you into the ballpark; fine
test strips (+/- 1/12 f/stop) get you on target. Not a problem, really.
>> Manipulative controls like dodging and burning are a completely
>> different matter and come later.
>
> Those should come early because they are more powerful tools than
> talking about 1/12 stop difference in exposure.
Don't use dodging and burning before the base exposure and contrast is
right. Make sure, you have a foundation before you build the rest of the
house! This approach eliminates frustration.
>
>> Well, eyes are attracted by light, and that's where the print
>> observer looks first. What you think of being dominant in your
>> pictures might not be seen first, if it remains in the midtones. In
>> that case, make sure the highlights are interesting enough to keep
>> the viewer involved, or they may never get to the good bits.
>
> Are you saying there is no style of photography where highlights are
> only secondary to more important midtone?
>
> Also, you said "eyes are attracted by light" --- Is that an assertion
> or a fact?
Fact! As I said before, cover one of your pictures, show it to someone not
familiar with it, uncover it briefly and ask them what they saw.
As Ray pointed out, they are also attracted by contrast. A single black tree
will attract attention on a snowy field. However, light has the eye's
preference. Cover up a grayscale and uncover it briefly. Everybody will
detect the fact that it was a grayscale, but most will admit that it was the
light side, they looked at first.
>
> While I agree exposing for highlight is a good strategy in some cases,
> I don't think this system can be universally superior to other ways. I
> tried to understand your reasoning but I found more disagreements.
If we try to understand, we'll find a way. If we don't, we'll find reasons.
> --
> Ryuji Suzuki
> "Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
> ==============================================================================
> ===============================
> 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.
Other related posts:
