From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/10/01-05:22:18 PM Z
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Pam Niedermayer wrote:
> 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.
Pam, I'm so glad you said that because I haven't got time (after all that
legal publishing) to do it justice and you've done it better anyway. But
permit me to add (tho I fear to be accused of platinum bashing), the
operation of gum printing, unlike some other processes which do proceed in
more or less a direct line, is affected by not only every factor, but
every factor with every other factor and its grandmother, often in ways
*contrary* to lay-person "logic" and the "literature."
I disproved a number of shibboleths and old codger's tales that hurt
users, NOT by intuition, but by watching how the process responded to
*measured* and *controlled* density. This isn't a matter of esthetics or
soul, but getting a handle on what's actually happening so when you get
visual and intuitive you have more than hunt and peck going for you.
> 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.
However, as I recall, Pam, you're a large-format printer, in which case a
densitometer might be useful for trouble shooting, but not major. In
making enlarged negatives, on the other hand, when you have a profile of
the range that works, if you don't use some kind of measuring device at
the test strip stage you're tying one hand behind your back. (When I
introduced the 21-step -- another measuring device other than *feel* --
into teaching, my students instantly leapt to a higher plane, much
higher.)
Also, if you're trying to tailor a particular kind of negative, or set
thereof, for a particular print strategy, to insist on eyeballing not
measuring is .... the hard way.
I too get madly impatient with making negatives. I HATE it & get in a
tangle trying to seduce a computer to do it for me -- but even with the
computer, a densitometer to measure neg print-out tells how you're doing.
I can sort of estimate, but why should I? Like I can tell if it's cold
outside, but I like to know the temperature. I can tell if it's evening,
but nice to know the TIME. Etc.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST