On Saturday, June 29, 2002 at 4:22, Lee Penzias <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] archive slide scanning/A A" saying:
> RE: Archiving...
>
> I have to agree with those that plan to stay with their Kodachrome slides
> and lightboxes, viewers etc. The electronic age has brought many
> conveniences and certain advantages, but it's disposable nature serves
> commerce much more than the average individual. Both from a market creation
> and sales standpoint, and from the cost effectiveness of turning over newer
> hard and software by companies that use the products themselves in the
> course of their.
There is that churn, but new products allow more people to make better
images.
> I hear that when the new "high resolution" TVs hit the stores - at some
> point - your old set will be unuseable due to a change in the transmission
> type. Everyone has to buy.. a new tv.
Current TV transmissions are scheduled to cease in about 5 years, I think,
but this will probably be delayed. Digital TV transmissions take up less
bandwidth while having higher quality.
> Digital information recording, storage and retrieval products have
> and are going to change continually. And I'll continue to only buy
> them when they are dirt cheap, if I can help it.
Yep. And perfected.
> And ..... RE: Ansel Adams
>
> I don't have a problem with an "artist" producing a picture - or image - any
> way he or she pleases in order to produce a "work of art". But in the
> general sense to me; a portrait is a portrait, a landscape a landscape etc.
> I am more impressed with superb non-manipulated images than the manipulated.
> Playing with contrast, depth of field, using a filter or two etc to increase
> or enhance the impact of a photograph does begin to venture outside of
> "realism" when it is not merely to compensate purely scientific shortcomings
> of glass, camera and film over light, colors, etc.
I think all superb images have been manipulated to some extent, even
Capa's. Dodging and burning not only bring out details, they are also use
to subdue unwanted parts and improve the composition.
> To me, in a sense, there is a distinct difference between an artist and a
> photographer. I have been both - but I am usually (um .. usually!) quite
> clear when I take a photograph as to what the intention is; a photographic
> record - or a work of art. Of course there is the "art" of technique, much
> like the "art of fencing" or "the art of rifle shooting". In that sense all
> photgraphy is an "art".
There is a photographic movement to realism. Some think cropping is a
danger, and always include the negative's edges in their prints.
But my philosophy is, "Whatever works." I try not to lie, but who has not
spotted out real dust from their prints, or darkened an obtrusive part of a
picture?
> I had thought Adam's more "visual records" than anything else and to find
> out they were somewhat manipulated certainly changes things a tad. I have
> seen some tremendous works by various photographers taken in the mid to late
> 1800s - many landscapes included. I do not know of any of them playing with
> developing and printing techniques to alter "creatively" as opposed to
> recording accurately was was seen at the time - and they generally feature
> as historical records in historical museums, published works etc as opposed
> to being catalogued and displayed as "art".
Improving technology gives more manipulative capabilities. Enlarging paper
meant you could dodge and burn in a minute or two, when before you would
have to dodge and burn a POP contact print over 10-20 minutes.
Portraits, I think, suffered the most manipulation, as wrinkles were erased
by retouching. Enter the diffuser...
But I wouldn't say Steiglitz was a documentarian, or even Talbot. To them,
photography was a means to an image.
Tintypes and ambrotypes were not retouchable, but people added hand
colouring. BTW, the original Greek statues and friezes were coloured to
appear natural and real. It was the Romans who wanted them "classical"
white.
> Interesting revelation; now I have to go back and look at them all again -
> much closer!
--
--------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus-Documentation
--------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ottawa-photo-clubs
tOM Trottier, ICQ:57647974 http://abacurial.com
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
+1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.714
"The moment one gives close attention to anything,
even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious,
awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself --
Henry Miller, 1891-1980
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|