Digital BW, The Print

Clayton, et al: Here Here!  

This is not "Rocket Scientology".  What almost all of
us care about is how the picture LOOKS.  If numbers
and instruments can help us get it to look right
and/or reduce the time it takes for us to get it right
again - great - if not, who cares.  If,as in this
case, numbers and instruments are a detriment - throw
them overboard as so much flotsam and jetsam.

Clayton, thanks again for all your useful teaching as
you share your knowledge gained empirically about what
works for you to make pictures that look good to you. 
And since you have also shared your images, and offer
inexpensive samples - we have a profound sense for
what your "looks good" means.

Respectively yours,

Michael J. vendrell, MD

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
> >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking
> at the 90K and 
> >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant
> to be a big 
> >difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a
> small difference 
> >between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that
> the shadows are 
> >"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch
> is not 
> >significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2
> says they are 
> >meant to be bunched at the ends.
> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers
> who now do digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal
> aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to
> plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere
> decided that GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values
> are supposed to be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the
> shadows are
> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up
> (and not because
> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their
> prints).  It just so
> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues
> and printer
> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the
> primary problem that
> people have been struggling with for the last
> several years.  It's
> been a universal complaint.
> 
> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I
> (and countless
> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge
> is the best way
> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it
> does.  I don't care
> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided
> should be the ideal
> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is
> based on over 20
> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in
> the most
> efficient manner I can.
> 
> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting
> produces the most
> well separated dark zones and the darker settings
> compress them.  When
> the darker settings are used, it forces us to
> compensate for the
> compression with our image adjustment curves or
> profiles or whatever
> method is used, which often means greater
> manipulation of the original
> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do
> the greater chance
> of negatively affecting the final result (combed
> histogram, etc).  In
> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best
> prints while
> requiring less work and manipulation.  
> 
> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends"
> then no thanks, you
> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to
> have blocked up
> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone
> as "hung up" who
> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com