From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:24:41 +0100 > In general it wouldn't matter which side of the tonal range one exposes for > if the other side is controlled by paper contrast, assuming that both > approaches lead to the same result. However, we need to remind ourselves > that exposure can be fine-controlled down to 1/12 f/stop, where contrast > control is usually in rough 1/2 grade steps. Consequently, there are some > good reasons to pick the highlight side in most circumstances. I don't understand it. Why that makes highlight more preferred exposure target? Also, do you try to fit the entire scale of negative into the range of the paper by manipulating contrast? If you shoot something in the shade of otherwise bright sunlight scene, and if you do this, the print may retain enough details everywhere but the main subject in the shade will be very dull and boring. I would not use contrast control as the primary scale-range squeezing tool. Such goal can be achieved with burning, dodging, bleaching and intesifying. Yes abusing contrast control can minimize the need for these manipulations. Also, I wouldn't care much if some highlight of the background is blown out in that example. So, "don't care" about extreme ends as long as main subject is printed perfectly is yet another option. > 2. In most images, the highlights form the dominant pictorial content. Why > select an image of lower priority to pick the point of fine-control? Really? In most of my images, dominant pictorial content is often in midtones. -- 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.