Judy may well have said said:
>>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.<<
But Judy is wrong to infer that because one may, in certain circumstances, wish
to get the most out of a process, or understand how a process works or how we
perceive what we see, that one has to stretch a process to the full every time.
Nobody is suggesting that all photography should be the most excruciatingly
perfect replication devisable. And one should remember that successful tap
dancers have to do it very well indeed.
Judy is setting up an aunt sally.
"I think I will print this out and post it on the wall of my darkroom.
Or, better yet, on the walls of all the darkrooms at schools and
universities that teach photography..."
Are you suggesting that students should not understand what they are doing, and
that they should not have the creative choice to use the medium as they wish,
which technical competence would give them.
You may have seen the comment by one of Britain's leading photographers that the
photographic work of its leading post graduate school led him to believe that
both the students and the academic staff might be better off if they were to
seek employment in other fields. That is his view. I make no comment.
Terry King