Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:12:18 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, S. Carl King wrote:
> >What I suspect is that people get their
> >lightsource and then tailor their procedure (negatives, paper, etc.) to
> >fit.
>
> I agree that it works this way in most cases, and the bottom line is that
> excellent results can obtained with a wide variety of light sources (sun,
> mercury vapor bulbs, plate burners, BL tubes, super actinic, etc). So we
> adapt our working procedures to the light source and accept those
> conditions as our standard. However, for every process (can we presume
> there is an ideal negative for this process?) there should be an optimum
> light source. Unfortunately, anecdotal reports are often contradictory and
> not particulary useful in making this determination.
>
But if you can change concentration and get the given effect with a
different lightsource -- do we really want to know an "ideal" light source
for a given medium? For that we'd certainly have to try with every known
variable & then what if the manufacturer gets a new cow. I suspect also
that some reasons for anecdotal reports being contradictory is that
conditions are, too.
My college roommate's father was a baker, made a lot of money during WW2,
built a splendid new bakery, but the bread was never as good. After
checking & rechecking they decided the problem was years' accumulation of
yeast or something on the walls, now gone. OK, this is anecdotal, too...
but I don't see a way around it except factory conditions & even those
have real problems of "quality control," as we see.
Also, suppose you find the "ideal" bulb & people want to print several
processes -- I hardly remember to change the towels, let alone the
lightbulbs. My hunch, also, is that there's more variability than is
readily visible to you, because you're probably careful, systematic,
consistent, efficient -- and don't get all potential variations in your
practice. Or anyway, I do PRAY that you're wrong. The thought of one more
ideal in my life, one more set of parameters, well, I can't deal with
it when I'm still a wreck about CMY, to K or not to K...
But thanks for the very clear explanation, and apologies for possibly
putting you in harm's way with it.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:40