The Nail That Stands Up Will Be Hammered Down.
Perhaps there might be a grudging acceptance that a different point of view is not necessarily grossly inferior.
(If there has been an official dogma pronouncement, forgive me. I have been away.)
What one sees in the developer tray might very well be what one sees on the wall.
It all depends on what you believe, and how you work,
and how one integrates and manages the variables that make expressive work POSSIBLE.
With papers like Elite and Portriga, and others before them,
it was possible to judge highlights and shadows to a nicety,
and practice Factorial Development as Adams discussed.
This is not dark magic, but simple craft. See David Vestal.
If this violates your personal belief system, I apologize.
Do what works for you. I learned to print over a long period, a long time ago.
What works for me, works for me.
Responding to Suzanne's question, I answered honestly.
Working with Ilford's MGs is different than working with any other papers I have ever worked with.
There is no choice but to develop to a given time, fix, and turn on the lights.
It is a lovely paper. It is a pain in the neck.
I will use it until I run out of it, be thankful I have it,
and hope that I can lay hands on a sufficient quantity of goodness-knows-what
that lets me work the way I prefer to work, the way I am capable of working.
I wonder sometimes how Edward Weston was so massively productive
without benefit of all the fancy toys we litter the darkroom with today.
Trusting his eyes, and his judgement. How quaint, how primitive !
I wonder how a violinist can compensate for a room's humidity
and changing temperature of his fiddle,
or the shifting acoustics of a hall,
and still play with perfect intonation, and great expression.
