Carl Weese (cjweese@wtco.net)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:15:27 -0500
<If you reach a point that you can look at a proof print, can't you
survive
<at that same level of expertise and determine the value of a negative
by
<looking at the negative?
Steve,
It's interesting that several people have approached my question about
proofing as a matter of determining the *technical quality* of the
negative.
For me, proofing is actually a very different matter. The proof for me
is a necessary step in answering the great question-- in the phrasing of
my favorite teacher David Vestal-- "is it a picture?"
As for reading a negative and understanding whether it's a picture or
not, I'd paraphrase David to say opinion on this can be divided into two
camps, those who think they can do it, and those who know they can't.
Every time I talk myself into thinking I can read a negative, I just
need to make a few proofs to prove I can't.
Perhaps because I spent 25 years shooting color transparencies for
reproduction, working mostly on location with no possibility of
reshoots, the technical aspect of shooting b&w film strikes me as a
piece of cake and I don't suppose more than one in a hundred of my
negatives has exposure problems. I lose far more to film buckling,
slipping tripod legs, the occasional scratch or giant dust kitty. But
the big thing I want from a proof is the ability to review the image and
decide whether it's really a picture worth printing.---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43