Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/9/07 6:08 AM, "Alastair Firkin" <firkin@ncable.net.au> typed: > > On 03/03/2007, at 1:34, Lottermoser George wrote: > >> The point I wished to make in starting this thread: >> Fine photographic technique requires that the photographer 'know' >> where s/he wants shadows and highlights fall on the negative, >> transparency and/or chip. This requires knowledge of how to control >> the shadows and highlights through the use of exposure and >> development of the material, whether chemical or digital. >> >> If Mark controls this by concentrating on perfect highlight >> placement for his process without concern for the shadows - that's >> fine - that's his technique and apparently he achieves the results >> he desires. >> >> I, as others, prefer, when using black and white film, to control >> shadows through exposure and highlights through development; unless >> the subject demands a different approach. >> >> What we want to avoid is over or under exposure and over or under >> development - implying errors - rather than fine technique. >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george@imagist.com > George you're making out like I've got these weird thing going which somehow works for me but the consensus goes your way. I don't think so. I think most people who shoot everyday and know what they're doing place their highlights. Expose for them. And this is common knowledge in the common literature and certainly in the field. If your highlights are placed or fall or are otherwise exposed too high on the curve you're screwed. End of story. This is not cryptical occult information. Its how photographs are made. Mark Rabiner 8A/109s New York, NY markrabiner.com