Sorry Paul but I think you missed the point. Jorge has been insisting that the approach that Steve and I use was imprecise and demonstrated sloppy technique. He then presents an example of his method that (even Sandy basically agreed) demonstrated sloppy technique. Steve was not being hypocritical in pointing that out. It was plain as day. I pointed it out too. It was glaringly obvious (though I am willing to give Jorge the benefit of the doubt that these numbers were pulled out of the air for discussion purposes). Your love of Steve Simmons is clouding your judgement.
Perhaps I missed the point, but I think not.
Steve has been more or less continually posting, advocating for acceptance of "a softer approach".
Ignoring for a minute the issue of Jorge picking example figures out of the air, Jorge then describes his practice, where he groups film for development taking into account the ability of his printing process to accomodate a range of negative contrasts.
Simmons then proceeds to jump all over him.
And yet, Simmons wrote these words: It would make more sense to me to present this more 'scientific' approach as one way but also to allow for the possibility of a softer approach. It feels like a little too much dogma sometimes about the right(one and only way) to do things.
But Simmons doesn't seem to do much 'allowing for the possiblity of a softer approach' when he interprets Jorge's words as and proceeds to try to stuff them back down Jorge's throat.
Horsehooey to that. He's a hypocrite, and if you think my opinion on this is clouded by my opinions of Steve I'd suggest that perhaps you and Steve being good buddies is more likely to cloud your judgement that my low opinion of Steve's personality is likely to cloud mine. At the very least, I appear to have the facts on my side.
Are Zone system and BTZS style development controls useful? I happen to think so, even when printing on VC paper - but I've actually done TESTING to come to that opinion, concluding that in some cases abandoning development controls and adjusting VC paper contrast gives a different tonal distribution.
In a case where the worker has demonstrated that the tonal differences are neglible and where the contrast control is sufficient to hit the window of contrast control of the printing process, I'd argue strongly that development controls should be relaxed in favor of convenience when processing film - just as Jorge advocates and practices.
Being precise and scientific does not mean that you need to adjust the development time of each individual sheet to within fractions of a second - it means that you test the system, determine how much resolution of development time is needed to control your process, and then set your system up accordingly. Jorge appears to have done this testing - and has made the admirable decision to not go pointlessly increasing his labors when he can simplify, reduce his labor, and maintain control of his process. It sounds to me like Jorge is AVOIDING exactly the sort of obsessive, destructive, slavish worship of technique that everyone has been saying interferes with attention to Art, and instead has balanced his approach in a sensible and workable way, carefully balancing convenience against control.
That's what the scientific method is about. Steve, however, sees fit to lecture Jorge with "Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft. "
It may be that Steve has experimental evidence to back up his assertion that Jorge's practice is inadequate and 'undoes all his claims of precision or love of craft". If he has the evidence, then I'd suggest it would be interesting if he shared it here, to back up his claim.
If he doesn't have the evidence, then it appears to me that he owes Jorge an apology.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks