From: Pam Niedermayer (pam_pine@cape.com)
Date: 03/10/01-08:33:13 AM Z
You could just as easily say it hurts to use scales when formulating
chemicals, since it hurts your ability to judge the proper proportions
by sight, reaction, weight in hand. There has to be a starting point
when learning a new process, especially when stumbling along by
yourself. So you get that starting point, which at least provides some
sort of output, then you can work from there. There is just no way
that it can hurt to say "hmmm, that shadow is a little blocked, wonder
why...." and work your way back. It just doen't hurt to get a density
reading of the shadow area, it's a measurement with which you can
work. If you know enough, you could also work from just knowing that
it's about 1/3 stop too blocked, therefore you should vary this
developer by n, that time by x, and on and on. But when you're new to
a process, you don't know enough.
However, that said, I personally tend to be impatient with all the
measurement taking, prefer to take a more intuitive, visual approach;
so a densitometer is something I'd never spend money on, just wouldn't
use it enough. But it takes me a longer time, I think, to be able to
produce consistent, repeatable negatives and prints.
Pam
Randall Webb wrote:
>
> ----- 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
> >
-- Pamela G. Niedermayer Pinehill Softworks Inc. 600 W. 28th St., Suite 103 Austin, TX 78705 512-236-1677 http://www.pinehill.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST