From: TERRY KING, 101522,2625
TO: Peter Marshall, INTERNET:petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk
DATE: 29/05/96 00:42
RE: Copy of: Re: Density
Peter
My answer on albumen was much the same. You have probably seen it on the list by
now. I hope that you have already seen my further comment on density.
It is not just a matter of theory. To me there is something exciting about
setting up a camera, choosing a mid point and knowing that I am going to get
three and a half to four stops on either side and that those are going to
transfer straight onto the platinum. Beyond those three and a half stops I know
that there is detail because it is on the negative. But I also know that it was
in deep shadow, and such deep shadow that it could not be seen without going
into the shadow so that one's eyes could become adjusted. It was Richard Ingle I
asked if he could see that shadow detail from within the area of bright light.
Neither of us could.
My own pt/pd print of the scene was printed straight and reproduced the range I
had seen and perceived. The print has a sense of mystery arising from the
contrast of the bright light in the body of the church and the dimly percived
detail in the shadows under the tower. Later I saw Richard's print that included
those details that neither of us could see but which were on the negative. I
believe that he had developed his film in pyro and using his skill as a printer
he had masked and dodged and burnt in until the contrast range had been
flattened and the dim detail revealed. His photograph was not of the scene we
had seen but a manipulation of it. It was a very fine piece of silver gelatine
printing but, to me, the mystery had gone.
This was a shared practical experience of something that you say is, in theory,
impossible. I am becoming used to being told that things are impossible when I
have been doing them every day for years. Maybe that is why like bumble bees so
much.
Terry