>>
The apparent values in a photographic print or
negative can be quite different from the actual
physical densities. Part of this is due to the
fact that any value will influence the
appearance of another value it is next to.
Another consideration is that a particular value
may feel right for the context of a particular
image.
Knowing the density of a spot on a negative or
print is utterly useless. So too is any line,
curve, or number. These terms may be used to
talk tough, but that's not a photograph. A
d-logE curve will provide no information as to
how the photograph is seen or felt. A
densitometer will provide a useless number at
great expense. <<[Is the heresy? What is
necessary to understand how a photograph
feels?]>>
Getting an absolute black means nothing. Claims
are made that such-and-such is better because it
provides a blacker black (or "it's D-max is
better"). Black is not black. Even the deepest
shadow, even in the middle of the night, is not
as black as black, especially with the
platinum-palladium process. Let it be known
right here that if a blacker black is desired,
then one should try the gelatine silver
process. Different papers, as well as
variations in chemistry, will provide different
blacks. It would NOT be wise to select a paper
(or worse discard a paper) based only on its
blackest value (or D-max). And, surprise, the
blackest black in the print will never be the
blackest possible. (Note: If not surprised, a
good amount of printing experience must be at
hand.)
Zones like blacks are also misunderstood. A
zone is a zone. Not a particular value, a zone
is a range of values. By definition a zone has
been set to the range of values between the
relative end points of a one stop range of
exposure. The exact value is selected by the
photographer for that particular print. A zone
may differ in the next print or with the next
subject. Zones become useful in understanding
relative increments of exposure and development.
Might as well continue with a description of
whites. With the platinum palladium process,
many papers are available for selection. Each
paper will have its own white. Optical
brightening agents may alter the paper white.
The platinum-palladium process will not produce
a white as brilliant as a gelatine silver
print. If that's what is needed, print in
gelatine silver. It is thought that zone X is
paper white. This is not the case, especially
with pure palladium. Zones IX, X, XI, and XII
may be distinguished and still not be paper
white. The upper values are extremely important
to a print. Finding and using the proper
materials can make all the difference.
All one needs to know about the sensitometric
qualities of film and materials can be had by
making, fine tuning, and studying the Matrix
described in the next section. Notes of the
original scene at hand, the Matrix of negatives,
and the Matrix of prints all laid out upon the
table provide a wealth of information. From
these one can see the smallest amount of density
that will just separate a tone from the darkest
density in the print ("speed point", zone I).
It can also be seen at what density in the film
the print will stop exhibiting texture
("contrast", zone VIII) or just remain as plain
as paper base ("upper limit"). If the print
captures the quality that the photographer feels
then it must be right. So too, the negative may
be read as to containing such feeling.
Most importantly, the Matrix is based on a
subject of familiarity to the photographer,
enabling them to intuitively grasp the nuances
of the effects of exposure and development on
the materials selected. To see a photograph,
the photographer must know what the print looks
like, and what kind of negative produced that
print, and what kind of seeing lead to producing
that negative. This only comes through
experience and with much practice.
<<
The Matrix is basically an exercise to train
one's seeing and evaluation abilities. It is in
doing it that most is learned. The Guide gives
a step-by-step procedure for assembling a
2-dimentional matrix of negatives and prints
with axises of exposure and development. The
procedure outlines a rough Matrix, fine tuning,
and evaluation. A lot of materials are used
(although minimized) and the procedure takes a
great amount of time. Although sometimes I
wonder if I spend enough at it.
And, before all the scientists (or others) start
telling me about densitometry, know that I
worked as a physicist for eleven years
performing optical measurements. No equipment
can tell me what my mind sees and feels. And to
Judy S., I found your articles on step wedges in
"Post-Factory Photography" informative and
helpful. You may appreciate that I have now
modified my procedures to utilize the step wedge
and much of your procedures. It can be a most
quick and accurate method for normalizing the
Matrix whenever materials or process are
altered. And, once the step wedge is printed
and evaluated with the Matrix, the wedge becomes
calibrated. Calibrated not in the sense of
numbers or density values, but in the sense that
it becomes a calibrated tool to indicate what
conditions can produce the results desired.
However, the step wedge cannot replace the
evaluation of a complete image.
The step wedge and Judy's method can give
accurate information as to the values in a print
or negative, but apparent values are affected by
their surroundings. Recall using the hole
punched in paper to evaluate a value. Try
evaluating the value without the hole to
demonstrate the effect of the influence of
adjacent values. Density values alone cannot
inform as to the feeling or original seeing to
be represented in a print. However, once the
density values have been calibrated to a desired
result from evaluation of the Matrix, the step
wedge becomes a valuable tool. One must always
keep in mind the end result. Is it the
process? Is it an alternative process print?
Is it technical hoop-la? For myself the end
result is usually an image that might enlighten
one as to the interrelationships of
environmental space and culture.
Jeffrey D. Mathias