> >Nobody is disputing that. The question I have been asking is how wide a
> >brightness range can we perceive if we are at a single point and do not
move
> From it. No matter how much we scan, if an area is on zone 9 and the area
next
> >to it is on zone 1 and we are looking at them both at the same time we
will not
> >be able to see the detail in zone 1 although both can be recorded on
film. If
> >we
> >wish to record the scene as we saw it we would not include the detail
from both
> >the extremes in the print.
>
> What you say is completely true, but we do not "see" real life that
> way. The brain integrates a "image" from the eyes shifting and focusing on
> the scene. In this way the image formed has a huge dynamic range of
> brightness. When making a print to try to express a full range of tones,
we
> are trying to recreate that mental image.
>
> Both of you are completely correct!
> mjc5@psu.edu
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that I made more or less exactly this same
point somewhere near the start of this debate. Probably not!
It is probably not worth correcting yet again a number of other
misconceptions or misquotes; this dead horse has been flogged well past
extinction. For any who are still interested it is all in the archive.
Or, in a more practical sense it is all in the prints. Find good examples of
platinum, carbon and silver gelatine prints (of course in the original) and
study their strengths and weaknesses. Make your own and compare them with
each other and these good examples.
Just to pick up one little local point from Terry King. If you go to the
Royal College of Art you are better off not wasting your time on such things
- just make sure your work would look ok on the front page of a newspaper!
Peter Marshall
Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/cgi-uva/cgiwrap/~ds8s/Niepce/peter-m.cgi