SchwinnParamount said:
In other words, he's not asking for the range in order to bind himself to it. Rather, he may be more interested in where the lines are so that he may move his crayon point outside of them.
If that's all he wants, this should be easy. To find the lines, go look at original prints of the masters. Go see prints by Edward and Brett Weston, AA, Paul Strand and a host of others that just about everyone would have to concede are great prints. Then go look at prints at the local high school to see the other end of the spectrum (if those are all great, too, then you have no taste - I'd recommed going digital). Then look at prints by people who have gone outside the line, both technically and visually. Go see prints that are hand-painted, toned, lith, alternative processes, bizarre paper surfaces (like matte<g>). See what floats your boat and go for it. Just don't be surprised when the world does not beat a path to your doorstep to see your work.
After 15 years and all that, you'll end up with an 8x10 contact printing on AZO (or it's replacement).
Drawing outside the lines is fun, but only when you're 4. If you're really good, you'll re-define where the 'line' is but that happens once in a century or so.
As soon as you see yourself going down the path that ends up with you being a lone hermit in a log cabin in Maine, embittered because the world did not recognize your genius, go buy an 8x10, photograph landscapes, print on AZO and go for full tonal range prints. Checks will start showing up in the mail and you'll be able to afford new socks again.
Oh yes, I can't sign off without at least one shot across the bow of the 'relativistic' crowd. You'll get nowhere by thinking there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' - just look at where they ended up. Frankly, there is a lot of prints out there that do suck and I don't care if that print expressed what they felt at the time they took the picture or not. If the print sucks, it sucks.
BTW, you don't have to experience a 'feeling' at the time you took the picture and then have that constrain you when you make the print. A lot of people (including the greats) discover images afterwards in the darkroom as they go thru a pile of un-printed negatives. It is possible to plan out an image when you make the exposure so that you end up with a negative that will print a certain way and make a specific image when printed (prevision\previsualize), but you don't have to actually feel anything (except the dreaded fear that overcomes you on the drive home when you realize that you opened up 2 stops instead of closing down 2 stops on that great shot of the <fill in the blank here> on your last day after an expensive trip to <fill in the blank here>).
"
When I print, I usually like it just a little less constrast than most people. Is that too weird? I see a lot of great photos and I think the contrast is right on. But when I print and I'll make one that I *THINK* is constrasty for most tastes, but then I wind up making one less constrasty for my taste.
"
My answer is, make up your own mind for goodness sake. Try making several prints with differing contrast, hang them on the wall and eventually you'll decide which you like most and then print that way. If you photograph for yourself, who cares what others think. If you care about popular opinion and want to end up on the cover of <fill in the blank>, then you'll have to worry about feedback and adjust accordingly to satisfy other people's taste.
If I were to offer one word about printing, I'd say don't let the printing process get in the way of displaying the image. When people look at your prints, you don't want them to say 'hey, it's a lith print' or 'hey, that was too contrasty'. You want them to say, 'hey, nice image'. If all they come away with is thinking you did a cool job of some process - that ain't good. It isn't about the printing, it's about the image. You need to get good enough at printing so that the technique does not show up, but rather the image shines thru the technique.
-Mike