Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
My answer would be the quote from my boss "we sell pictures not curves". He meant that we got hard data via curves which were then compared to pictures so that we could optimize a product with some scientific basis.

One of the basic methods is shown by Mees in his chart on "first acceptable print" compared to a sensitometric curve.

Boo Hooooo, my EG&G Sensitometer failed last night.

I understand how you feel. Once mine failed and I was gut-wrenched until I realized the plug had come out of the socket on my extension cord.

Just so you know, this discussion has practical applications. I have a picture I am discussing on LFF that I can analyze in light of this discussion.

I rated TMY-2 at EI 64 for this exposure, which places the negative well into the "Over" category. Because TMY-2 has a very long straight-line, I am still at least three stops camera exposure below the shoulder on the negative. Sensitometrically, this is a printable pictorial negative. This is why I say markbarendt could push the "Over" vertically on the print. That's what I did. But as I said before, the idea is interesting and the graphic simplicity still illustrates what might happen 5 stops over what I did (If I actually did hit the shoulder)... Or maybe homebrewed emulsion will shoulder easily.

Just based on Stephen's recent preferred rendering chart I can see that my idea to reprint on Grade 3 might be valid. Grade 2, here, gives me preferred 0.28 for Zone VII (sky) and 0.11 for Zone VIII (Mammoth Mtn. in back, right) but too light rendering of 0.67 for Zone IV (Red Cone). So I will try printing on Grade 3 to bring down the Red Cone. I have a darker print where Red Cone looks great, is 1.09, and that is correct for Zone IV. In other words, this picture validates the chart and the chart is useful to suggest possible improvements to the picture.