Dr Flash wrote:
>Aunt Annie's wedding dinner photo really is amazing on many levels.
>There is no way the DOF could be so great on a large format camera
>unless the camera was capable of tilt or swing. Also, given the small
>apertures of a large camera, the slow speed of film of the day and no
>apparent subject motion I would have to assume that flash was used.
First of all, I believe that the photograph is consistant with a quality 4x5
camera of the time. 8x10 was certainly used, but almost exclusively for
contact-prints. 4x5, even on the films of the day, was capable of
tremendous detail and smoothness. The edge-to-edge sharpness indicates a
reasonable aperture and a tilted lens to increase the DoF.
>However, I can't find much indication of that in the shadows although
>there certainly is some (see, especially, the lower left corner).
>Another amazing point is that I can't find anyone blinking. I can find
>a few women not looking at the camera who may have their eyes closed but
>no one looking at the camera whose eyes are not open. Makes me wish I
>could talk to that photographer.
I'm stewing on the lighting too. It looks barebulb, but there are telltails
of flash-powder. In the 100% view, you can see the lady's arm/hand move.
She may have flinched during the exposure, but this may be the clue that it
was flash-powder, because the duration of the flash lighting would have been
extensive.
No eyes closed? I'm more inclined to believe the photo was touched-up.
(Editing didn't begin with Photoshop).
Regardless, it is an amazing photograph and one which I'm not so sure I'd
have a clue how to replicate today and achieve the same level of quality.
AG
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|