Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:52:10 -0800
>In a message dated 1/20/99 10:59:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>sgshiya@redshift.com writes:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> I read a negative with my Weston Densitometer once every so often, but
>after
>> I 'get the idea' I go on to simply dip and dunk, slosh and dry.
>
>Steve,
>
>>From your mention of "simply dip and dunk," I assume you were talking
about
>silver gelatine print?
No, I was talking about the silver gelatin negative.
Moreover, with a loupe and a light, I can see the information in the 'dark'
highlight areas of the negative, then have to test for the resolution,
right? Then it remains, with my knowledge of formulas and chemicals,
limitations of such -- I know which papers will render detail and which
won't -- I can only imagine this holds similar with Pt/Pd ... once you get
the hang of it.
I'm amused by this conversation regarding proofing prints. It proves the
difficulty to make a good proof; and I always upheld it was as collectable
as a 'good amature' print of some person who gets lucky.
Seperation of status from here remains on the ability of the amature to
duplicate that which we find from keeping notes and duplicating the lessons
learned thus get paid for performance. Ten matching proof prints is a part
of a collection, to my way of thinking.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43