Development by Inspection

[mark lindsey]

I will only respond to the new points made, as it is getting tiring to repeat my claims and opinions and only get canned answers and denials without factual basis in return.

In my opinion Adams wins by far on number of images and quality of images. A matter of opinion is difficult to use as a "fact" to defend your case.

Zone system complicated? I don't think so, works fine for me.

I have never read anything by Adams that says that he claimed his way was the "only" way or the "right" way, please direct me to these statements or would this only be another attack used as a defense?

Yes Dan, this is art, but the creation of the negative and the print involve craftsmanship, and without complete control of my craft what is my end result? A product of my personal vision or just a happy accident?

I have no doubt that you can print wonderfull prints from dbi negs, but why complicate the process? If you want to simplfy your way of working why stop at contact printing like weston? At one time Adams was using an enlarger that used sunlight as its light source, go for it!

Why are we, as photographers, so afraid to use even simple technology to help achieve our vision or goals? Does anyone here think that artists of other mediums are this overwrought about this type of subject?

This one thing I will exhaustively state again is that I never stated that anyone shouldn't use this method, just don't tell me that it is more accurate, or less work. And please please don't tell me that just because you got rid of the use of a thermometer of a timer that this brings you any closer to the "art" of what you are doing. It's a bit over the edge dramatically and romantically.

[mark lindsey]

OK one more quick note.....

Its Lindsey not Lindsay, I am the photographer not the musician!

Why would you test any new developer with important negatives?

NO Dan I don't want to see the Jobo, I have no use for them because I feel that they complicate the process as well, and I see no real benefit coming from their use.

I don't really see the benefit of overdeveloping a neg. that was 5 stops underexposed in the first place.

No this isn't a perfect world, so this is a good reason to strive for less?

Ok, I'm done

[M.]

According to Mary Alinder, Ansel did actually perform DBI on Moonrise. After he did the D-23/waterbath thing, he determined the end point by inspection under a green safelight. So much for THAT theory!

[Michael Feldman]

In Adams' book "Examples, The Making of Forty Photographs" he spends about 2 1/2 pages of text explaining how Moonrise was made. Adams used 10 sequences of a water bath development with D-23 (30 seconds D- 23 and 2 minutes water for each sequence). He doesn't say anything about inspection in this book, but that doesn't mean that he did not do it.

Adams had to guess at the exposure because he couldn't find his meter and the scene was rapidly disappearing. He actually used his knowledge of luminance of moon to make the exposure. By the time he set up for another exposure the light was gone. After development he determined that the foreground was underexposed by a half-stop, and used intensifier (on the foreground only) to make printing a little easier.

[M.]

Considering AA's superb darkroom knowledge and technique, and that he knew he had an extraordinary negative which required really special developing, it would be surprising if he HADN'T used inspection to help determine the extremely nebulous end point.

[mark lindsey]

Wilhelm,

moonrise with dbi makes no sense whatsoever, Adams KNEW the luminance of the highlights, it was the shadows that he was worried about. Determining the length of development affects the highlights, and the area he was concerned about needed more exposure. In all of his references to Moonrise, I have never seen mention of using dbi or wishing he did, I do not consider Alinder to, in any way, to be an expert on photographic technique in any way, and I take that statement with a huge grain of salt based on the evidence that I have seen. (not to mention that it makes no sense).

so much for THAT theory!

also, because Adams had superb darkroom and techical knowledge was the exact reason he didn't need to do dbi.

like I said before, trying to use one out of 40,000 + images to say Adams needed dbi is pretty weak and desperate. even worse, the theory doesn't hold water.