Very good points, Ken. Thanks for that, I agree entirely.
One thing I've started to do a few months ago is include a little bit more in the "exposure" field of each image entry than just our more usual "there was light involved". Which is funny, but doesn't help anyone wanting to learn.
I now include how I metered the image: spot, matrix, CW, where, did I use compensation, etc.
That is even better information, I reckon, than something like an exif dump of "firstname.lastname@example.org".
Which I can do to the scanned image with the F6, but is of no use to anyone wanting to learn of the decisions invlved in getting a given image.
That's the sort of thing I want to know, when I look at someone's image and I go "Wow! How do I get something like that?".
What was involved. Exposure and framing decisions, development choice, agitation, times, treatment of the negative if that be the case, how was it printed, etcetc.
In my case I don't have an enlarger setup at home, so I have to go with scanning and sending the results I like a lot out for enlarging/printing on Ciba or on a very good digital printer.
I'll add some comentary to my entry on the forum post as a start, maybe other folks might want to do that as well from now on?
I don't see any problem in sharing that type of information. After all this is a friendly assignment, not a life-enabling, income-producing activity!
Usual disclaimers apply: my $0.02, no animals were harmed while writing this, cat is purring away at my feet, etcetc.
Last edited by nsouto; 05-06-2012 at 05:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.