Thank you Steve and Tina. I hope at least some of my prints lives up to your statements.
The comments raised a couple of issues for me.
Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> ... The level of detail and gradation even in the shadows of the print is simply stunning.
I do, indeed, like detail-rich images. I probably would have gone large format except that the Brooks Institute staff felt that given my backpacking, and need for loading film in changing bags in the wilderness, I'd go nuts with dirt and spots on the negatives. This was before the ready-loads. So, I went with medium format and the finest film I could find. In general I have followed the standard that we humans can see 5 lp/mm at normal viewing distance and that 3 lp/mm will look sharp is a display print. Working from the print size back through the workflow to the image capture device allows one to fairly objectively analyse what is enough. Medium format film was effectively the only way to do this with roll film.
I like to have everything sharp. Thus the first medium format camera I bought after my market test show in 1981, where I got the Brooks feedback, was a Rollei SL66. The SL66 was the only medium format camera with a tilt that would allow more control of the focus plane, effectively extending depth of field in many landscape situations. The Cambria Surf shot utilized the SL66 tilt with the 150 mm Zeiss lens. Digital tools allowed me later to move to rangefinders for better wide angle performance because I could then use multiple focus points and stack the images.
While detail will not make a badly composed image look good, lack of enough detail will often make an otherwise good composition much less than it could have been. A painter friend makes outstanding wine bottle labels, but her wall display prints look way better on the internet than in person. Some of my images make very nice cards, but I don't enlarge them further.
With respect to the gradation, from just a technical point of view, I don't do anything special. I always have tried to use all the dynamic range the medium has -- from paper white to good dmax. But,I think most of us use the "levels" tools to do that.
> ... Paul's matt paper (HPR) print exuded deeper blacks, ...
We B&W types really obsess about our dmax. I think, however, it ends up being something where what is needed varies a lot with the display conditions. HPR has a great dmax. Epson Hot Press Natural is another paper that does almost as well. Arches Hot Press has a dmax that is less, but on the wall in normal lighting even B&W prints comment on the good dmax. Here, once you have "enough" for the circumstances, it's the image and how its printed that makes the main difference.
With respect to what it is about an image that gives the feeling of depth of gradation, or whatever the image conveys, the difficulties of analyzing and describing them become much more difficult. Yesterday I was in an artists' meeting where the subject was the language of art criticism. My gut reaction to most is that it's governed by the old saying, "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS." On the other hand, on a less cynical note, much of the issue comes down to our "linear" written language being inadequate to describe or "translate" a medium of visual communication.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com