You can think whatever you wish Eric, but in my 56 years of making and exhibiting photographs, what I said is the general attitude of observers that I have encountered from exhibits, workshops, slide shows, etc. I may be incorrect from your and a few others on this list's viewpoint, but that is but a pittance compared to the whole.
Jim At 02:19 PM 12/6/2006 -0500, Eric Goldstein wrote:
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 one 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
