On 1/22/2013 1:24 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Perhaps Andrew could explain *this* use of "organic".
> I'm using the Oxford Dictionary's #4 definition:
>
> Denoting or characterized by a harmonious relationship between the
> elements of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art.
Well, I may have been wrong. Still, I've never seen a difference in lenses that
I would describe that way. Sounds more
Mad Ave. than meaningful.
I tend to think the 'elements' and their relationship are primarily in the
subject, and a matter of the photographer's
vision and composition, including choice of perspective, then in somewhat in
film, particularly when using B&W, with its
ability to change tonal relationships between elements. The effect of the lens,
beyond the effect of focal length on
perspective, has to be so minimal as to be visible only to those with very
special, imaginative vision.
I'm betting that with a subject where the perspective doesn't change, neither
you nor I could tell the difference in a
'blind' viewing between Zuiko 28/2 and 35/2 at different distances, such that
image size is the same in an 8x10 print,
or even 12x16".
Both were designed at the same time, by the same people, with the same
materials and resources available to them and the
same vision of what results should look like.
Sure, a Zeiss would look different, but more or less 'organic', especially as
defined above?
But I may not have been wrong, if Andrew chooses to weigh in with his
definition. :-)
No Artsy Bloviation Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|