[LRflex] Re: Old Slides

Creativity is a key word; I'd rather agree to this.
That why I like the compositions in "Breaking Photography".
Phileicangenieux
John Scocca wrote:

>On Jun 14, 2006, at 12:51 PM, David Young wrote:
>  
>
>>When it comes to 'manipulation', particularly with digital, I use a
>>simple rule.  Anything that you can do in a wet darkroom, is fair
>>game with digital.
>>
>>You can tilt the easel to correct converging verticals and rotate the
>>easel to correct tilted horizons.
>>You can dodge and burn to lighten and darken areas that need help.
>>You can change contrast grades in paper and alter the colour balance
>>in colour printing.
>>You can even eliminate some distracting background elements by very
>>selective exposure.
>>
>>So, to my mind, all these things are fair game in digital processing.
>>
>>What I do not agree with is the substitution of entire backgrounds,
>>the insertion of new elements (people, furniture, buildings) or the
>>relocating of them within a shot for 'better' composition.  These and
>>other radical manipulations, which are not possible in the wet
>>darkroom, should be avoided, at all costs by the ethical photographer.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, let me tell you a little tale.  Long ago, a friend of mine  
>convinced me to take a photo course offered by the Baltimore Camera  
>Club.  The instructor was Edward Bafford [ now deceased] who had some  
>recognition as a pictorialist.  Now at the time the reigning  
>pictorialist photographer in Baltimore was A. Aubrey Bodine, who  
>worked for the Baltimore Sun and for others as well; his daughter  
>Jennifer maintains a website for his work and sells prints to  
>order.   Bafford was somewhat jealous of Bodine, as just about  
>everyone in the area was, and  the classes  regularly featured  
>detailed descriptions of just how Bodine [and Bafford and any other  
>skilled pictorialist] made award-winning pictures.   The artifices  
>that those people used in the darkroom would put photoshop jockeys to  
>shame.  The transplantation of clouds was the simplest of the  
>tricks.  They used paper negatives, scribbled on the backs of inter- 
>prints with pencil, charcoal, or crayon , and made unsharp masks by  
>hand.  A picture of a skipjack sailing the Chesapeake might have  
>dramatic clouds and a flock of Canada geese added in for effect.  And  
>part of the trick was to make a negative which  could be used to  
>produce contact prints of the 'adjusted' picture -- the original negs  
>were in the file drawers to contribute to other pictures as needed.   
>I was and am completely unable to reproduce these effects -- there  
>was no hands-on work -- but I did learn not to believe photographs,  
>even when the negative was available.
>
>so the bottom line is that your restrictions in the end don't  
>restrict very much- those geezers could take a dull shot, jazz it up,  
>and produce a negative that  could stand up to scrutiny and that was  
>as 'synthetic' as the most off-the-wall photoshop montage of our  
>day.  Some things don't change....
>
>cheers,
>John Scocca
>
>
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
>    http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>  
>


------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: