From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/13/01-02:24:22 AM Z
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Tom Ferguson wrote:
> Yes, there are a few facts that gets discarded in the "intuition"
> discussions. One: if you work primarily on intuition, you must be able to
> afford the cost of many mistakes. Two: if you work primarily on intuition,
> you must be able to afford the time of many mistakes. Three: if you work
> primarily on intuition, you must be able to afford the years needed to build
> that intuition into a worthwhile tool.
Thanks Tom.
And let me add Four: If you work primarily on intuition, you have to be
able to afford the brain power, effort and *attention* so required. There
is absolutely no way that this intuition can be applied without effort or
distraction -- except by an accidental knack, or some higher order of
being of which I am not one. I've tried, when I was too rushed or tired
to climb upstairs from darkroom to the densitometer -- and ALWAYS WRONG !!
Getting the quick and correct data does NOT make me a copout or inferior
person -- or at least I don't feel that way. I feel competent and clever
to have gotten the right tools.
Nor do I see that the judging of negatives has one single thing to do with
being a creative artist, photographer, or even a good person. The ability
is a tic, like being able to wiggle your ears. It does not, I repeat not,
have ANY connection to esthetic or conceptual meaning in photography.
But this discussion reminds me of my first week in the darkroom a million
years ago, when I could NOT NOT NOT roll the 35 mm film onto the stainless
steel reel. Does anyone remember Joel at Camera Barn? I was ready to give
it all up when he sold me one of those wiggle-on plastic reels. It was a
cinch and I decided I might be a photographer after all... But the
attitude in some quarters was still and always, REAL photographers do it
with stainless steel. When I went to grad school the profs sneered.
> A "two punch-holed cards and 21 step table" densitoneter does just fine for
> some, I've never been terribly accurate with it.
It's very handy for some purposes, especially in a classroom where you're
explaining about matching emulsion scale to negative -- you print out the
21-step and then read the steps on the negative... the densitometer
wouldn't actually apply -- or be a detour.
> I have a good friend (a long time lurker on this list, yes I'm talking about
> you John) who has the "intuition" thing down. He can hold a neg up to the
> florescent fixtures in his studio ceiling and declare F8 at 16 seconds. A
> few minutes latter he will have a &%^#$ good silver print. He can also do
> this with studio flash lighting ("the voices say this should be F32....")
> It is reallllllly upsetting to watch ;-(
So does John think this -- what I'll call a *gift* -- makes him a better
*photographer*?
> But, these intuitions have taken him years to develop. I don't think "the
> voices" have been very accurate in his new endeavor, cyanotype printing.
Tell him that if he prints out a few 21-steps he can match them to his
negs and skip the intuition part.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST