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
