Sandy wrote:
> And there is the crux. We determine to test either, a) the material,
> or b) the material given certain parameters, i.e. "in real life."
>
> But, since "in reality" there is no "real life", other than multiple
> options from which we choose *one*, "what do we test?
>
> Testing film in the camera seem intuitively correct, and it works
> reasonably well in practice, but for comparing EFS and CI with
> different films this method is for all practical purposes useless.
True, but unless one is making shadowgrams or characterizing film for use
in making contact duplicates, it seems to me that the least useful of these
multiple options is the contact option. Isn't the whole reason we test
these things individually to allow each of us to use the full dynamic range
of the materials (or, alternatively, a selected portion thereof), and to
predict what we're going to get before we make the exposure? It doesn't do
me much good to know that a perfectly flare-free lens would put the shadow
under a tree in Zone II if the lens I'm using is going to elevate it to
Zone III-2/3.
Or, put another way: I can get the same result by using an "ideal" film
characterization and mentally correcting for flare after metering, or by
adjusting my characterization so that it accounts for the flare of the
equipment I'm using. The latter seems easier to me.
As an abstract exercise (especially for someone who, like me, occasionally
whips up his or her own negative emulsion for fun), it's interesting to
know what the film does, on its own. But when I load my holders, I'm after
the most direct understanding of what my negatives are going to look like
when they come out of the Jobo, and rolling all of the relevant practical
factors into the material characterization gives me this.
Best regards,
etienne
Received on Thu Nov 11 00:16:27 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:32 AM Z CST