From: Randall Webb (randall.webb@lineone.net)
Date: 03/10/01-02:51:32 PM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey D. Mathias <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net>
To: alt-photo-process list <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Poor man's densitometer
>
> But it does hurt. It hurts ones ability to train their eye to read the
> densities, not to the number given by some device, but to the feeling of
> what must be right to produce desired results. A densitometer device is
> not needed at all to produce the finest photographs. It may be nice for
> plotting curves and studying the mathematics of density relationships,
> but this is far different from understanding the relationships of scene,
> film, and print. It is really only after one has mastered these
> relationships that the densitometer might prove useful, and then one
> realizes that the eye is more accurate anyway. (Try the two hole
> comparison method to compare a density to a known standard.) Working
> with a densitometer can easily prevent or hinder a novice from
> understanding the relationships of scene, film, and print because they
> become involved in understanding the densitometer instead.
>
> A corollary to your theory might be that the less capable one is, the
> simpler their equipment should be.
>
> --
> Jeffrey D. Mathias
> http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffrey.
That is what I meant to say but you put it more eloquently!
I once had a student who was let loose on a densitometer and spent three
sessions plotting the characteristic curve of HP5. When he had finished he
asked if it was OK and I said It seemed to look like the curve in the Ilford
technical sheet. And it did! He has now given up science and taken up
printmaking and is very good at it!
Randall Webb
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST