> Ron and Klaus
>
> By overcomplicating the issue we missed the three basic points :
>
> 1. The camera often records differently from the way we perceive.
>
> 2. That it is for the artist to decide whether one or the other or a
> combinination of both appears in the final print.
>
> 3. Both platinum and silver gelatine can be used to present the information at
> '2' if suitable negatives are prepared.
Terry, Thank you for focusing the discussion. I do not disagree with your
three points. I want to "complicate" the matter by adding other points.
1. What I found Klaus raising in his posting and what I tried to describe
in mine is to show how the different ways in which we notice things
(shadow or detail) makes a scene more suited to platinum or silver
gelatine. The first of my three points then is HOW WE NOTICE detail and
mass within what you refer to as perception.
2. Suitability between platinum and silver gelatine has to do with the
DURATION OF SEEING: needing no more than a glimpse for platinum, but
requiring a stare for silver gelatine. I wonder whether this is a rule,
and if so how can it be broken for aesthetic purposes?
3. Over the past few weeks discussions under this topic have dealt
mainly/exclusively? with perception of light in reference to the
capability of tonal ranges of different processes. There are other
considerations. I am saying that we may want to recognize that OUR WAYS
LOOKING AT OBJECTS AND A SCENE DIRECTLY EFFECT OUR CHOICE OF A PROCESS.
Some are more suited than others. " Artistic choice" begins in how we see
the world around us.
ron