[rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree

Well done, Marvin :)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Gene-I agree.
>
> Marvin.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Gene Johnson
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:04 AM
>
> *To:* rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
>
>
>
> 35mm film has a useable area 24mm wide x 36 mm long, give or take a little.
> So, it is a bit on the long and narrow side. Roughly a 2:3 aspect ration in
> the viewfinder. Your image can be made from as little or as much of it as
> you like.  I completely agree with the necessity of composing in your
> viewfinder.  That is a very important part of what separates photographers
> from everyone else with a camera.  But to conclude that the finished image
> MUST be the same size and shape as what you see in your viewfinder is to be
> a slave to our equipment. Your "vision" need not include everything on the
> negative.  Sometimes, we make something greater by taking away from it what
> is not needed.  I'll agree that the small size of 35mm negatives pushes us
> to be efficient with the use of film area. No problem there.  But if a
> waterfall or a nude fits a 4:5 aspect ratio more aesthetically than a 2:3
> then why not print what we "see" instead of what the camera "sees"?  What
> I'm arguing for here is your artistic freedom.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Gene, if that's your wish-go for it.
>
>
>
> As for the statement of emotion it was a reply to an earlier post.
>
>
>
> I don't think one is limited to any particular aspect ratio, I also think
> we need to slow down and think about this a little, as 4 x 5 is quite
> different to 35mm.
>
>
>
> As a caveat, one's idea about the quality of their own photography, in
> order to be cohesive-surely must have an external frame of reference,
> otherwise how can one judge?
>
> Marvin.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Gene Johnson
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:35 AM
>
>
> *To:* rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
>
>
>
> You're serious. My ideas about my own photographic competence is based
> solely on the quality of my prints.  This isn't an emotional discussion for
> me. I simply fail to understand why you insist that you are limited to the
> aspect ratio or image size dictated by your negative.  It is completely
> irrational.  If we take to the field with an 8x10 viewcamera, and take with
> us backs of different sizes, we achieve by using a smaller back EXACTLY the
> same thing that we achieve by cropping an image from the larger negative.  I
> would like to emphasize the word "exactly".  Because it is.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> I think we should keep in mind that there is a distinction between, crop
> and
> image management. Adams, talked freely about image management, which was a
> corrective procedure for such things as converging verticals, cropping per
> se he did "not" as a rule.
> My teachers told me to crop with the camera and it has remained great
> advice
> to this day.
> I suspect that this is such an emotional subject because it challenges the
> individual's ideas about their own photographic competence.
> Marvin Wallace.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Brick
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:05 AM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
>
> I agree with Marc 200% on this. Maybe even 300%!
>
> Living on the West (left) Coast, near Ansel Adams' home, as I was
> growing up, photographing along the coast, I would meet-up with Ansel.
> We were acquaintances. I have seen many of Ansel's proof prints (first
> prints from a 4x5 or 8x10 neg), full frame. Not only does his final
> display prints from these negs not look anything like the first proof
> print, they are all CROPPED!
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as being able to produce the perfect
> composition with a fixed focal length camera system. Perhaps there are
> situations where you have scads of space fore and aft allowing
> appropriate movement for that perfect composition. But this is very
> rare. There is always a river, cliff, tree, building, freeway,
> whatever, in the way and my SL66 is sans zoom. So I crop! As does
> everyone else that I know. Although I suspect there are a lot of folks
> in SFO that don't crop! Maybe even Marin!
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Marc James Small wrote:
>
> >
> > Wow.  Trust me on this, the Dag guys didn't crop.  Trust me, every
> > photographer since then has cropped.  I have seen a lt of historic
> > negatives and have then seen the prints made from them:  they were
> > cropped.
> >
> > Cropped photos are life.  I cannot comprehend the sort of anal-
> > retentive mindset which demands that all pictures be printed full-
> > frame.  It just does not work that way.  Any one who has spent time
> > in a dark room has experienced the process of just HOW to crop a
> > decent negative.  A lot of poor pictures produce a great cropped
> > image.
> >
> > Marc
> >
>
> ---
> 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
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
> __________ NOD32 2094 (20070304) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> ---
>
> 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
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Be Just and Fear Not
>
>
>
>
> --
> Be Just and Fear Not
>



-- 
Be Just and Fear Not

Other related posts: