[rollei_list] Re: Ford motor and Rolleiflex

  • From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0500

I think these comments don't deal with the fundamental roll of the
photographer. It is irrelevant what the original light in the scene
was. If the photographer wants to depict a scene as reality, then any
light he presents that is plausible will work for the reasons Jim
describe. If the photographer wants to present a more dramatic
depiction which aesthetically departs from reality, then he can go
blue or orange or violet or yellow, as long is it works. Yes, the
image must stand on its own, but plausibility is not necessarily the
point...

Take a look at the racing series recently published in Studio Photography:

http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=2113

I am not holding this series up as a paragon of excellence, but merely
as an example of a clear departure from reality and plausibility which
works creatively.

As for Jim's statement that the shots are way too blue, that they must
be corrected, and that all observers will agree with his
pronouncement, I say Jim, I and some others on this list are living
proof that you are wrong! This is a matter of taste and opinion, not
absolute judgment.


Eric Goldstein

--

On 12/6/06, Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yep, I have to agree with that. Living in South Cal. is a bear on
contrast control. If onbe has to be there to explain the image, for
quality or content, then that image has failed. A successful print is
a stand alone print. Unless it's an essay, and even then....

Slobodan Dimitrov
http://www.sdimitrovphoto.com/



On Dec 6, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Jim Brick wrote:

> At 07:33 PM 12/5/2006 -0300, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:
>
>> but the things were blue that afternoon really.-
>>
>> Carlos
>
>
> Carlos,
>
> As a photographer, you have to realize that the people looking at
> your photographs were not/are not at the place and time that the
> photograph was made. People are simply looking at your photographic
> result. You cannot, therefore, always exhibit photographs in the
> same 'light' that they were taken. While in a situation, such as
> deep shade, one's brain does a marvelous job of correcting colors
> and densities so that things look reasonably normal. Take a
> photograph under these circumstances, using color film, will result
> in photographs with a bluish cast. When you look at the resulting
> photographs, your brain may see it as you took it. Show it to some
> who was not there, thus having no frame of reference, that person
> will say "the photographs are way too blue."
>
> Take photographs of sunrises, sunsets, night street scenes,
> interiors, people have -in their mind- what color these photographs
> should be and therefore everything is pretty much OK.
>
> Your originals are way too blue Carlos. Correction is absolutely
> necessary before showing your Ford motor photographs to people
> other than yourself. Slobodan is correct.
>
> Eighty percent of my photography is color transparency. And nearly
> 100% of that I print on Cibachrome. Living on the coast of
> California, much of my photography is along the ocean (many times
> overcast or foggy) and in the deep redwood forest. Often very cool
> in color temperature. Rather than correcting in my enlarger, I
> correct on the film by using filters ranging from KR1.5 to KR6. I
> also teach photography (one-on-one private students and workshops)
> therefore the transparencies that I project must be corrected.
>
> I started serious photography in 1950. My first 'real' camera was a
> Rolleicord III (I now know that thanks to you Carlos.) Ektachrome
> was the E3 process then and I processed all of my Ektachrome in our
> home kitchen sink. Talk about blue... living along the CA coast and
> photographing with Ektachrome. I learned early how to warm-up my in-
> camera originals with filters. I tried all of the Wratten warming
> filters and found that I like the KR... series much better.
>
> IMHO,
>
> :-)
>
> Jim
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: