Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton


> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:46:33 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:tonal range
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  I think I _will_ have another go at Norman K's
> site.  Last time I was there it was mostly over my head, but it's been
> a year or more.

I think if you come from a darkroom background then the points he makes
would click faster than it took for me because I had never seen a
"characteristic curve" for photographic paper for example.  So I thought
"gamma-this and log-that" would actually be stuff you would be broadly
familiar with, that's all.

> 
> Re my workflow:
> 
>> This is quite hit or miss and if something doesn't fit they way you
>> would like you are stuck - you are not able to explore your
>> creativity!
> 
> I think you are making a huge assumption here - how can you possibly
> know what my experience is?  After nearly 4 years now I have learned
> enough about how it works to do whatever I want to do.  I can scan
> negs or work up new digicam images and get whatever effect I'm after,
> in a relatively short time.  I have quite a good practical working
> knowledge of the system - I just don't express it in formulas and
> engineering terms.  I use the PS densitometer, but I have it set to
> display RGB units - I think in RGB units and S-curves.  I have very
> precise control over my images and prints, and get what I want.  I
> feel no limitation on my creativity.  I can move a point on a curve by
> 1 RGB unit and see a difference in the print.  The only limitations I
> bump into come from the materials themselves.  For example, UT7
> doesn't get quite as good a Dmax as BO.  So please do not assume that
> this simple workflow does not give good, precise and consistent
> control.
> 
> I understand the concepts you are espousing, and don't disagree with
> them.  But I think it is a mistake to assume the someone who doesn't
> approach it that way will make poorer quality prints or have more
> difficulty or less consistency (or whatever).

Sorry I think I misunderstood or rather did not read properly your original
post.  What I meant was that if you use Same as Source and can only try
different ink or paper it does become a little hit or miss in the sense you
might never be able to realise your pre-visual creativity.  I now reread
your post and see that you do control your workspace as a means of
engineering the result you strive for.   Please accept my apologies!
> 
> 
>> We are all busy people but if you love your craft or hobby I think
>> you would be well rewarded taking the time to understand the
>> technical aspects of its implementation -
> 
> No doubt.  I am continually eager to learn more (why else would I have
> been following this thread?) and will go back to NK's site to have
> another look.
> 
>> and particularly tying
>> together your existing knowledge of the darkroom environment to its
>> digital equivalent.  They really are very very similar with
> identical 
>> principles 
> 
> Yes, I have found exactly that.  It's one reason why the simple
> workflow is so satisfying - because even though the digital stuff is
> completely different, I can still think creatively/conceptually in a
> nearly identical manner.  It's really great.
> 

My point was simply that the digital stuff is actually exactly the same, not
different.

> 
> 
>> I would suggest the knowledge is already there but the connections
>> to the new work area have not been made.
> 
> Another dangerous assumption - I think I have made some very solid
> connections.  I would guess that if you could somehow take my thought
> processes as I work, analyze them, and express them in engineering
> terms, you might find something very close to your concepts.  I'm just
> choosing to come at it from a different direction (or you might say
> that my connections have been made to a different plug <g>).  In my
> workflow article #4 I have attempted to describe the effect of the
> hidden translation layer and how to work with it, but it's not
> expressed as formulas and logarithms.  It's more like "push it here
> this much and it will bulge out over there that much".
> 
> It's true that I'm working with a "black Box", as you say.  But if I
> have figured out the black box to the point where I can make it do
> what I want, easily, quickly and consistently, can anyone tell the
> difference in the final print?
> 
> I hope you understand I am not suggesting there is no need for the
> technical knowledge or approach.  I have very much enjoyed following
> your discussion with Paul and have learned a lot.  I'm sure I will
> benefit as I gain more technical knowledge.
> 
> I just don't want you to think that the simple workflow cannot produce
> extremely fine results.  There are LOTS of people for whom a more
> technical approach is beyond comprehension, at least in the beginning.
>  I get, almost daily, email from people who have found my web site who
> thank me for "saving" them after they struggled unsuccessfully with
> other approaches.
> 
> I hope you will carry on with your work and continue to report your
> findings.  I'm learning a lot.

Sorry once again as it seems I did not express myself in the manner I
intended.  What I learnt from Norman's site was that principles and
processes at work in the dark room (the contrast ratios of film and paper
etc) are exactly the same as the digital world (ink on paper and gamma etc).
This is what I meant about connecting the two.  If I had been a darkroom
photographer used to looking at film curves and the characteristic curves of
various papers to understand how I might realise my creativity, I would have
found the material discussed by Norman to be very comforting (albeit tough
on the brain at first!) as I made the transition to digital.  It is all
exactly the same stuff!  This is what I meant by connections.  So if someone
said to me that they had years of darkroom experience but the gamma-this and
log-that made their eyes glaze over I would say that they haven't recognized
that they already know this stuff and that gamma (ie contrast) and log are
terms that they have come across and used already.  And hence I would
encourage them to go back to the material in sensible bites and try to make
the connections.  That's all.  No offence intended!

(BTW the only maths you need to know is that if the relationship between two
variables is exponential, ie a bowed curve, then the log of each will plot a
straight line (ie be linear) As a result, people often find it easier to
look at and express these things in their log form because the difference
between two straight lines is easier to visualise than looking at two curved
lines.)

Steve