[pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:44:24 -0500 (EST)
From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:15:47 +0100
> 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.
Thanks, but I don't need your dogmatized instructions.
> 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.
That doesn't prove anything about what eyes are attracted to. It just
tells you what they remember they saw in a brief moment. There are
lots of lots of findings about visual system, eye movement system and
visual perception published by neurophysiologists and
psychophysicists. If you argue something is fact, I suggest you at
least check your arguments are consistent with what's already figured
out, or else what is the discrepancy and what possible explanations
can be made. Far fetched arguments stated as if it were a fact would
results in problems. (Though this is a common thing to find in
darkroom manuals and photography literature!)
You said "If one spreads 'half-truth' long enough, it will eventually
become the truth." Maybe this is what people *hope* but the reality is
that more and more truth is getting found, especially about neural
systems, and that kind of bullshit doesn't work as well any more.
--
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.
Other related posts:
