On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT), John Robison
<omrobison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Just got to weigh in on this. Ask yourself everone,
>how many times have we all been very excited about a
>scene that you just took a picture of only to be let
>down when you pop the neg in the enlarger and run off
>a "straight print". "That's not what I saw!" is often
>my reaction. So what do we do? You go back and work
>with the neg, burning, dodging, a slight shift of the
>easel, a small change in density or contrast perhaps.
>I think even a "great photographer" would do this or
>have a great printer do it for him. When I first
>started learning basic darkroom work in the 70's
>maniplation of the final print was just part of the
>education. Just my $.02 John Robison
I agree with this. When you "savour" a scene (especially landscape of
which AA was the master) I'm sure there are psychological factors in
perception as well as physical (optical) ones. To begin with, the
eye's field of acute vision is quite narrow so that one scans the
whole scene to build up the whole. Even when looking at the central or
principal part of the scene, the eye's peripheral vision (although
extending at least 90 degrees either side) is almost secondary so that
the wide-angle print never looks the same as your original perception.
I only wish I could emulate the great prints of the undoubted master
of his craft. To this end I use medium format (Bronica ETRSi) a lot
with a wide angle (40mm) lens, but I can never recapture the "Adams
look" even with the much more advanced negative emulsions compared
with his days. Sigh!!
At least on my doorstep here in Wales, we have stunning mountain
scenery so I have no real excuse!
Regards
John Gruffydd (Mold, Wales, UK)
< 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 >
|