   |
David --
David --
I suppose abandoning the densitometer in favor of the eyeball does seem to be a contradiction, considering the emphasis we place on objective measurement early in the procedures, but I think I may disagree with your statement that a negative that produces a good print may still be a lousy negative, technically. This may be nothing more than a semantic difference but I would define any negative that prints easily (that is directly, without more than minor dodging) and produces a fine print, as a very successful negative in all respects — including the technical.
As far as I'm concerned also, minor variations in printing time are insignificant if the resulting print is satisfactory. I can think of several reasons why printing times might vary harmlessly (flare is an obvious one) so insisting on a standard MPT seems a little arbitrary. Even the concept of "maximum black" is somewhat questionable because fogging a paper sample under bright light to provide this standard will, in all probability, cause the paper to solarize and provide a "black" that's significantly less than "maximum."
It probably does seem incongruous for me to advocate objective analysis of the capabilities of films, papers, and developers, and then appear to encourage "winging it" in the field but we have to recognize that at best our control is somewhat limited and there's not much point in fretting about it. The weakest link in the process, by far, is the photographer; and no amount of laboratory precision can make up for the almost inevitable errors that all of us can make in visualization and metering.
So we do the best we can. The BTZS testing procedures will provide the best information available about materials' behavior; the Plotter and Matcher software (great learning tools!) illustrate graphically the effects of process variations and gradation and provide for extensive "what if" investigation; and the ExpoDev and PowerDial encapsulate all these data and take care of the calculations involved in determining exposure and development.
All of this has only one purpose, and that is to make using the tools and materials as reliable and painless as possible so the photographer in the field can concentrate on making great images without having to worry about technical details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
