Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:18 AM 3/15/99 -0500, you wrote: > This exchange risks starting a thread on "what is the ideal >exposure." However, I will say now that I believe this to be as much art as >science and they we may each approach "the ideal exposure" differently and, >except for chromes, have a different idea of what's right. We all have >different tastes in contrast, negative density, et alii, but I believe it is >all about getting a print that represents the photographer's vision. You are quite right, Buzz. But some people claim that their taste is for flat negatives with no shadow and gray highlights. When in reality, it's the fact that they don't know how to print. If a person has the competence, and I'm sure you do, to print to get what they want, that's great. But often I see a lot of work out there which is just dreadful because they don't know how to get a good black or white without screwing up the middle or the other end. Everyone needs a day of printing classes with someone like John Sexton. :-) Or just look at prints by Ansel Adams, and then look at their own prints, and see how far there is to go with quality. Not that everyone should print like Ansel Adams. Far from it. Most people will never come close! Including some "Beyond the Zone System" types. That's black and white. In color, it's easier in some ways. And much more difficult in others. There is no ideal exposure as you say. I agree. But it's a question of intention or accident. The better the exposure, the better the end result - and easier to print! Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Photography can light-up darkness and expose ignorance." - Lewis Hine 1904