On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You have a Zuiko shift, do you not? The use of lens and back movements
> to correct this kind of distortion dates back to very early in
> photography. Had Nathan used such means to correct it pre-exposure,
> would that be better? Is it less acceptable when done in post?
My apologies if you took my remarks personally, or as a rejection of
PP. I was really having a dialogue with myself.
I immediately noticed the convergence in Nathan's photo
http://www.greatpix.eu/Other/Sometimes-I-use-film/7590141_XFqsu#766329144_GQaJo-O-LB
and thought I would probably have done what you did to "correct" it
had it been mine. Then I immediately questioned that response. I
often question myself whether this is an aesthetic judgment or a type
of compulsiveness. I sometimes do it because I don't want someone
else to point it out, as though I fear the perception of a lack of
awareness more than the aesthetic effect itself. It sets up a
"technique vs. art" dynamic that ends up making me out of sorts.
I have this dialogue with myself all the time, as I often cannot
resist leaving things that are probably good enough as they are.
There is no need to accept shortcomings of lenses or decisions at the
time of shooting. The shortcomings can provide the spice of variation
to a degree, especially fixed shortcomings like perspective
distortion, and the uniformity of PP can result in a sameness and
blandness of result. Photography can lose its historical connection
to realism.
So how to make the "shortcomings" of lens distortion work for me?
C.H. Ling posted dozens of photos from a trip to Europe several years
ago which showed an intelligent and pleasing handling of convergences
and I believe I would rather master that one skill than a hundred PP
techniques. Nevertheless, it should not be an "either/or" imbalance,
but a "both/and" balance.
I would argue that a lack of symmetry is what is often most disturbing
about WA shots, but when the symmetry is pleasing, I at least feel OK
with quite a bit of slant. Other PP techniques that I often feel
slave to are highlight/shadow renderings, as though less than a
perfect contrast range will not do, with no white allowed to venture
beyond a Zone VIII and no black beyond a II-III -- in effect, where no
characteristic is allowed to be more important than another. I am
often stunned and thrilled to see a photo I like that isn't "perfect"
-- it's usually a high key one, something I never do -- that has
actual blown highlights! and I don't mind it!
In the end, I'm still championing Nathan's version as is, warts and
all. But it's an emotional reaction to the photograph, in this case,
not a rejection of PP. I'm too far gone for that.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|