"Jeffrey D. Mathias" <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>SNIP<
>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. >SNIP<
Here we agree completely. But, it is one of the reasons I find using a
quick and easy densitometer or visual match to a step wedge of value when
looking at negatives. It gets me to my first work print much faster. The
gear tells the hard truth, the eye can be fooled.
>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.<SNIP>
"Knowing the density of a spot on a negative or print" is the wrong way to
produce a work of art. BUT... It is VERY valuable in learning your
materials AND valuable in producing your first WORK print with a minimum of
time and expense. Hey: I often print in platinum. As much as I like
Richard & Melody .... I don't want to pay for their next home ;-)
Note that I said "WORK" print. Once you (I) have a work print, and we are
again looking at a positive, creativity and feelings should be our ONLY
guide. Zones, density readings, and step wedges are worthless after that
point.
>Getting an absolute black means nothing. Claims are made that
>such-and-such is better because it provides a blacker black<SNIP>
>
>zone is a zone. Not a particular value, a zone is a range of values..
<SNIP>
>
>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)<SNIP>
>
>No equipment can tell me what my mind sees and feels.<SNIP>
>
>One must always keep in mind the end result. <SNIP>
We can see in the above comments the battle between technical and creative
thinking in alt photo. What other art form uses the degree of equipment
and chemistry we do in creating a final creative work?
My belief has been that an alt photo ARTIST needs two things: enough
science & technique to work efficiently (more science doesn't hurt, but may
not help) and the ability to "firewall" the scientific apart from the
creative thinking.
Note that I capitalized "ARTIST" above. One of my "pet peeves" is the
"right brain" crowd denigrating people who's interest lies partially or
completely in research or teaching. These people add a great deal to our
alt photo world. AA's partner in creating the zone system was Fred Archer.
Anyone know his images?? John Pouncy is often credited with creating Gum
Printing. Anyone have an original Pouncy hanging in their living room??
But, does anyone doubt that their research had more impact on the photo/art
world than 95% of the people on this list will??
Anyway ...... I'm off topic and long winded (who me??).
The two needs of our artform (technique and creativity) have sadly divided
our community into two often warring camps. We have the techno geeks with
handheld computers and dull / predictable images printed just perfect. Then
we have the Diana camera / slash & burn print crowd who can barely control
their images / materials. We need a little of both. Aside from a very
small group of elitist art patrons, people do want a high degree of quality
/ craft in their artwork purchases. The Starn Twins don't play well with
the public at large!
So here is my suggestion on handling all this technical material. Don't be
afraid of it. It is like a musician practicing scales, we too need to
practice (and practice is rarely exciting). Use all this knowledge freely
to improve your work. BUT ... consciously turn off that part of your brain
and allow the creativity to take over when you are shooting or working on
"keeper" prints. We truly need to embrace both types of thinking.
tomf2468@pipeline.com (Tom Ferguson)