> And as long as we are on the subject, why be obsessively
>technical and avoid the use of contrast control altogether as Terry King
>has mentioned at length. It seems to me that perhaps the we are priding
>ourselves on the fact that the patient may die but at least he goes down
>the tubes in perfect metabolic condition . More specifically , it seems
>reasonable to me that the aesthetics of the print and its content should
>supercede the technique in expressing it. I would always prefer a handsome
>print even though technically unperfected to a crappy one done well.
> Food for thought!
I , like Judy, have said for years that just because everybody else does it, or
it says so in all the books, does not make it right.
My comment on making prints using the right negative does not arise from a
purist approach, blessed are the purists for they are always wrong, but simply
because it is easier and quicker and more efficient and less expensive that
way.
It has the added bonus of producing prints with good clean gradation without
the unpleasant and ugly grain that contrast controllers bring.
But if people want to use inefficient techniques to produce muddy, or to quote
Stephen, 'crappy', prints on papers that will not clear properly, I am sure
their freedom to do so is built into the Bill of Rights.
Terry King