I think that Garth has a certain point here. How well
an image captures a visual scene accurately and how
well it captures the *impression* or *mood* of the
scene are two different things. I'm sure that most of
us are familiar with the experience of taking a
picture of an absolutely stunning vista, and then
getting the prints or slides back and thinking that
they just aren't as impressive as you remembered it.
For example, excluding technical errors (focus, DOF,
exposure) an 8x10 print (slides might be a bit better
in some cases) just can't have the same visual impact
that standing on the top of a 14,000 foot mountain
has, no matter how well it is composed or executed.
I would like to be able to capture the moment when you
finally step over that last false peak and reach the
summit and you gasp from the sheer impact of the
sight. An accurate representation may not necessarily
capture the days of hiking, sore feet, or altitude
sickness that are all part of the experience.
To me, extra saturated films are just one way to
capture that stunning beauty. A photo is merely a
representation of that scene, and in some ways it has
to make up for its defficiencies as a picture to
capture a scene beyond a few visual elements.
Marten
This discussion and something I saw somewhere else seem to come together.
Eyesight is an engineering marvel. Think about it. Our eyes have an
automatic iris. automatic focus. an aspheric lens, a curved image
surface, a nearly 180 degree field of view, a chemical image
intensifier, and binocular vision. We look at the bright part of the
scene and the eye closes down and records it in memory. We look at
the shadows and the iris opens and records it in memory to be added
to our other impressions. Same for focus in all the various depths
that draw our attention.
While our eyes are not perfectly color corrected, our brain processes
out the errors,inverts the images and merges multiple images.
Photoshop in the brain.
The best a photograph can do is to serve as a memento of that
experience, that is, a two dimensional object that will remind one of
the original. I might also be used to suggest that experience to
someone who has not seen it, but who will be limited by his own
experiences to relate to it. If the photographer is an artist he can
use the medium to create an object that stands on its own worth with
varying connection to the original reality. But no photograph looks
like the original subject.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|