Judy wrote:
"Yes and no. There is an ocean of difference between "influenced the
photographer to push the button" and near-terminal tone mania. And the
thought that reproducing a scene is -- thought.
I have been dumbfounded, not to say drastically fuddled, at the recent
discussion parsing how many tones the Parker Roll Law says you can have of
the total available compared to the original heaviest density -- or
something. If all photography is is the most excruciatingly perfect
replication devisable by an indefatigable cadre of maestros, give me, um,
tap dancing."
Terry talking
I have been somewhat frustrated because all the 'experts' on the maths have
completely missed the point. They say that the human eye can see a far greater
range than the film can record, that is normal standard camera film. In those
terms that is indisputable.
I say that a scene, at one time from one point, can recorded on film with the
film recording far more than we can see because we do not have the opportunity
for the eye to scan and adjust and we are not physically capable of perceiving
contiguous brightnesses that differ by more than about seven stops. The film can
record those differences and a print can be made showing the detail beyond those
seven stops. I say that it can remove the mystery from the scene in that it is a
distortion of what we are capable of seeing. I asked what range the eye is
capable of seeing at one instant. The maths persons,somewhat patronisingly, keep
giving the answer to a different question to which we all already knew the
answer. Nobody seems to know the answer to the question I asked.
The parallel thread is whether you can get all the information from a brightness
range of more than seven or eight stops, onto the film at the same time and then
on to the paper without dodging and without burning in. I, and others,say that
you can, if you want to, with platinum but not with silver gelatine and that
that is why Ansel Adams wrote quite a lot about the zone system which is a way
of distorting the range of the film to accommodate the limitations of silver
gelatine paper. These distortions change the curve to the extent that it can no
longer represent the scene as we saw it; there are losses in the subtlety of
gradation and the way the gradation is recorded across the range. This does not
happen with platinum.
Peter Marshall says that you can make such a record on POP, others say you
cannot, over the full range of tones and challenged me to do so. As this is not
what I was on about, I did not take up the challenge.
All this is what it is possible to do to get the best results technically in
terms of both, repeat both, range and gradation. You do not have to, but to me,
if you have the opportunity to use a very expensive and beautiful process to
produce prints that lack subtlety of tone and gradation, then a element of
philistinism is entering into your practice, (impersonal 'you').
Judy says:
"What makes a photograph thrilling? Who are the most thrilling
photographers? I suggest those who interpret, twist, brutalize, press,
push, trash, exaggerate, or otherwise put a gloss on "reality" as you
yourself very well know. You think literal replication is good? Alt photo
doesn't mean "alternative"? "
Me:
I do all these things in a range of processes and revel in it. As we said once
before, it is inadvisable to generalise from the particular as exceptions can
alwas be found.
Judy
"Anyway, are your best photographs the ones that looked best to you in the
scene? "
Me:
Sometimes ! When I wanted them to.
Terry