It's a stance from which to start Bill, not a rule... and I suppose
that is what you mean as well.
When I have been in a position to make rules for groups of (military)
people, I have normally resisted the temptation. I would only find
myself breaking the rule and I have always reckoned that people can
make up their own minds according to the culture that I have set, to
what is right or wrong... and what will achieve the objective(s) that
I have set.
My objective (at present) is to take well exposed photographs, and to
print them so that I will be happy to send them to someone, hang them
on the wall or even sell them to someone of sensibility and
discernment (:>)). These photos will be well enough exposed so that
I merely make straight prints from them. Occasionally (:>)) there
may be a need to emphasize what I saw when I released the shutter,
but that somehow has not come out on the print. Then perhaps I will
give the sky a little more exposure, or hold another area back.
But my tutor, in the short time that he had me (he was charging £20
per hour), gave me a standard from which to work - such as for a
normal density print, try 10 secs at f8 (35mm neg) and move on from
there. And one of is standards, I don't bother with dodging or
burning. It may have been only for the day, but he had decided to
teach that to me. Having seen that what he does works, I will try it
for a while in the privacy of my own darkroom. But, when no-one is
watching, I may just move my hands over the print to see if a
sub-standard one can be improved ;-).
Now, I missed the significance of the bit about the handcuffs... oh I
get it! Now, should I use toner to emphasise the colour of the
steel???
:>)
Chris
At 09:26 -0500 4/10/01, Sue Pearce wrote:
I've been thinking (a slow process) about your teacher's attitude toward
dodging and burning. This is a great teaching tool. You will learn to
properly expose your film, or die. I think you will come out a better
photographer, but...
He's really fooling himself, if this is the way he does all his work, as he
is missing a lot of what could be on his negatives. The tonal range
available on different media is, well, different. Some more than less. The
greatest tonal range is captured on negative films. Reversal films capture a
smaller tonal range. Paper reproduces a smaller range. In effect, he is
modifying his lighting or processing to limit the tonal range to match his
paper.
But what about the Zone System, I hear you say? The whole point of the Zone
System is to match the tonal range of the subject to the film, to maximize
the information recorded. No one, Adams included, intended to make straight
prints exclusively. As one who has worked in several labs, I can tell you a
negative that allows a straight print is a very welcome negative, but no one
expects that from every neg. I have been led to believe that Adams' printers
frequently manipulated negatives more when printing alone, but Adams himself
was known to burn and dodge.
In other words, always try to get a negative from which you can make a
straight print. Just don't expect it.
Imagine the beauty of a print that shows a range from the rich subtle blacks
of a supple leather whip, to the brilliant highlights from a set of
handcuffs...oops, that's a student, not the teacher.
Bill Pearce
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, England.
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... a nascent photo library.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|