FotoDave@aol.com
Date: 05/26/00-12:09:19 AM Z
> I have had no difficulty
> scanning a properly made negative and prefer it to results of scanning a
> print. The film offers much more information.
Agree. A print has limited information compared to the negative. Also, the
characteristic of the curve of the paper comes to play. That's why I said it
was best to scan positive (not print).
> > ... We might [not] need all 80
> > values for the highlight, but you can see it is certainly more than 10
> > "zones" that you have.
>
> I was saying 10 tones per Zone.
Yes, and I was saying 80 values (or tones) ***per zone*** for highlight!!!
> All the tones are
> presented simultaneously in the image and subtleties easily
> distinguished. The situation is very different from that of music where
> a definite set of notes provides complete control.
You are exactly right in saying that many tones are present simultaneously.
The situation, however, is very *similar* in music (as light and sound are
the same thing, just different range of electromagnetic waves). In music, the
tones are not that definite. For example, we all know that middle C has a
certain frequency, but that is just the main frequency, many other harmonics
exist when you hit the middle C of a keyboard, and that is also the reason
why when you play the same note with piano, with guitar, or with flute, or
with trumpet, they sound different. The major frequency is the same, but
there are different harmonics and resonances that are present at the same
time.
Music is presentation of waves in time. Photograph is presentation of waves
in 2-dimensional space, and light in general is presentation of waves in
3-dimensional space. I am glad that you mentioned about this presence of
different tones. Many people don't realize this.
> Not exactly true. Limitations of the film make it impossible to get the
> exposure and contrast and correct negative densities. Even the masks
> will not get it exact, but do get it closer.
Agree. However, we are mostly conditioned to think of controlling negative
through exposure and development time only. Though it has been mentioned, not
much technical control is mentioned about other controllable factors like
flashing and compensation. Flashing controls the low density (I avoid to call
it shadow or highlight because it depends on whether it is negative or
positive). Compensation controls the high density.
These are all the controlling factors that I use: exposure, flashing,
development time, compensation (dilution + agitation), with that, one can
place zone 1, zone 3, zone 7, and zone 9 almost independently (as opposed to
the common control where one place zone 1 and develop for zone 7) - so a very
good negative can be achieved according to the need of the process, at least
if the original scene has "normal" contrast.
But of course I agree that masking can be used to achieve the effect or even
better effect. I use masking sometimes too but not that much simply because
in gum or direct carbon, one can use multiple printing as the control.
Now I'd better go to sleep. I don't know what's going on with me tonight. Too
much coffee in the day time, I guess.
And oh, the traveling portfolio 2000A will be sent to you today (Friday).
Dave Soemarko
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST