I am sorry to be so formal:
Message text written by INTERNET:CHPalmer@aol.com
>
Some members have commented that alt-photo-process has been slow recently,
so
I thought I would present this approach to printing to the group. Another
stimulus was the recent comments regarding whether questions of aesthetics
belong the alt-photo-process list. While this is strictly speaking a
technical description of my method of making prints, it unavoidably raises
the aesthetic issues which led me to explore this method. >
I , for one,welcome your notes on masking.
>This posting has in fact been sitting on my hard disk for quite a while;
but,
>I've been reluctant to present it to the group because of the
flame-warfare
>that has resulted from some similar questions in the past few months.
Such matters should never prevent you from making your contribution. But
it is worth remembering that flames can originate from those who claim to
be affronted.
You quoted Klaus as saying:
>> The conventional s-curve of silver halide emulsions is
>> WRONG and it remains wrong no matter how carefully one
>> reads Ansel Adams' books or any other publication on
>> silver halide sensitometry....
One thing that did come out of that discussion was that Klaus and Kuehn
were both wrong in terms of modern materials. This is on the assumption
that we are talking of the amount of information that can be got onto the
negative and onto the paper. Peter Marshall said that one could print more
than the eye can see onto silver gelatine paper. Then I disagreed but it
has been demonstrated to me since that I was wrong. The practical
demonstration was achieved through a combination of exposure and
development of the negative so that it would print onto the silver gelatine
paper without masking or digital manipulation. Whether one wishes to print
more than one can see is a matter of choice and objective. For
architectural record one may wish to do so but if one wishes to record what
one saw,given the limitations of the pupil and the retina, in terms of
atmosphere and feeling then such a range of tone and detail could, and
probably would, be quite inappropriate.
You also say::
> 1. Better separation of tones in shadows and highlights, in order to
compensate for the compression of these values that is inherent in the
long,
flat shoulder and toe of the Pt/Pd D/LogE curve;
<
Is the fact that one can obtain good separation of highlights and shadow
detail in Pt/Pd prints from in camera negatives with a density range of
over 2, by controlling the exposure and development of the negative and the
mix of the sensitiser, at variance with what you say,or are we just using
different means to achieve the same objectives ?
Can I say again how grateful I am for such a constructive contribution.
Terry King
----------