That I can do.Originally Posted by Donald Miller
That really wasn't *my* definition of "depth", though. I see "depth" as the impression of including a third dimension. The most striking example of this that I've seen is in a collage of prints done on Ilford's "portfolio", printed from IR (Konica 750) negatives. These give a definite impression of a "stereoscopic" image - without the viewer. I've contemplated and studied these for some time now ... I'm still not sure *why*.
But ... having the different densities falling close to where they *should* be --- uh ... "Tonal Fidelity"?