previously written:
I bet it's the lab's work that's saving his ass. Does he process the film?
Does he make the prints? It doesn't matter, really. If he, and others,
want to skirt by and rely on the labs and computers to get good prints,
that's their business. That's the new way to do things. I'm just an old
fart who believes that getting it right in the camera means better results
over all.
I don't know what PP of A is, and that he sometimes wins awards is
irrelevant. The national Cheese Council once gave an award to Velveeta.
Velveeta is a "good enough" cheese <LOL>
I'm coming into this thread late, so I hope I'm not missing some important
piece of info.
I had a membership in the Ct. chapter of the PPofA for about 5 years back in
the 90's. The monthly print competitions were of exceptional quality work as
most serious competitors were looking for regional or national points for
their work. So they spent the $ to have them properly printed and mounted. I
remember in this thread something being mentioned about not using a meter. I
have worked with photographers who were aware enough to be able shoot
without using a meter and be able to get an easily printable negative. Color
negative film has a lot of latitude towards overexposure and may actually
print better overexposed by a stop. So while the case may be made that
properly exposing a negative may be the prudent way to photograph, it does
not necessarily translate into a better quality print. Any print, even with
the most painstakingly exposed negative, will benefit from the services of a
highly skilled master printer. The tools, and how one chooses to use them,
is secondary to the goal, the finished print.
My 2 ยข
Butch
