[rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
- From: "Marvin Wallace" <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:08:04 +0800
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
//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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
Be Just and Fear Not
--
Be Just and Fear Not
Other related posts:
