On May 2, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>
>
> Exactly, which is what I was saying about the difference between
> Chris's two prints; she increased the perceived DMax and lost some
> of the tones.
>
What I can't quite picture is how you would get the negative that
created the "uncurved" print; I've never seen a digital negative like
that, that is too dense in the shadows and not dense enough in the
highlights; my experience with lots of different kinds of digital
negatives is that you're much more likely to get the opposite:
negatives that are too dense in the highlights and not dense enough
in the shadows, making a print that's too contrasty (shadows blocked,
highlights blown out) rather than not contrasty enough like Chris's.
But that just goes to show how individual the experience of
calibrating a digital negative is, and how different our printers are
etc etc etc.
At any rate, the kinds of arguments I've got over time suggest to me
that people think I'm saying that no negative ever needs a correction
curve, which of course is ridiculous and not what I'm saying, or have
ever meant. Your negative needs to print the values as you want
them, and if it doesn't, it needs a curve. Obviously Chris's negative
here needs a curve, otherwise the highlights will print too dark and
the darkest areas too light. And when I have a negative that blows
out the highlights and blocks the shadows, I too need a correction
curve for the negative; this rather goes without saying. The only
thing that I'm arguing against is the blanket statement that every
negative always needs a curve, which is as ridiculous as saying no
negative ever needs a curve.
Katharine
Received on 05/02/06-05:43:18 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 06/23/06-10:10:52 AM Z CST