Re: Flashing: was: Making sense of film curve graphs

Loris Medici wrote:

> MessageHi Kate,
>
> I wonder why A. Adams was using (or included in his book) pre-exposure
> but not post-exposure. If he was thinking it's the same thing, he
> should have mentioned that pre-exposure can be substituted with
> post-exposure. But somehow he doesn't mention this in his book. Of
> course, I'm not saying as Adams doesn't mention it, such a thing
> doesn't exist or everything that Adams said is correct - we know that
> it's not... especially when it comes to alt. processes ;)
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate Mahoney
> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:23 PM
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Flashing: was: Making sense of film
> curve graphs
>
>
> All paper has a threshold where image detail will start to show, and
> any exposure less than this will not give any indication that the
> paper's been exposed. Flashing the paper brings it up to the
> threshold. It is a curious idea that we can fog the paper without it
> showing but essentially that's what it is. And because it's just an
> addition of exposure, like burning-in, it can be done either before or
> after the main exposure. There really shouldn't be any difference!
>
> Cheers
> Kate

I don't have the book and therefore theoretically can not answer, but
maybe Adams just was afraid to spoil shots with post-flashing that he
made with his zone system?
taco

_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Tue Nov 30 14:40:44 2004