Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll have the same thing he's drinking. SonC In a message dated 2/2/2005 7:13:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, chandos@cox.net writes: Parts of this discussion regarding color puzzle me. First off, would any of us willingly part big money for lenses that we knew in some fundamental way failed to transmit the spectrum faithfully from the subject to the film or sensor? We talk on the LUG constantly about lens signatures and the various attributes of different emulsions, but it seems to me that these conversations invariably assume that there is such a thing as "normal" color and that we can reach a broad consensus as to what it is. Otherwise it's patently nonsensical to speak of rendering "flesh tone" as "naturally" as possible; yet there've been numerous conversations on the LUG about this very subject. Second, it's not clear to me wherein resides the logic that color representation is necessarily in thrall to "artistic" license; to argue, in effect, that "because color is subjective, I [the artist] am free to represent the visible world however it suits me, or to reduce it to absurdity: because you see red and I see red and never the twain perceptions shall meet, I'll represent it as green. I'm reminded of a line from the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty in which he imagines "a sky so blue that only blood could be more red." I think we all are comfortable, however, with an astonishing range of saturations (hence the frequent discussion about different emulsions). Eggleston and Parr seem to inhabit a world of hyper-saturated color, presumably because they both 'see' the world that way and, most important, they expertly deploy film technologies to convey that vision to us, but I never question that they know what they are about. When I view an image in which there's no discernable aesthetic point (I am aware this will strike some as inflammatory) that invites me to linger on the effect of mismatching film to light, where the contemplation of yet another nacreous complexion (of the sort one associates more with the autopsy table than with any organism that still takes nourishment) yields no sudden frisson (such as took place, I must say, the first time I spent any time with Parr's work) the first thing I ask myself is: "is this photographer even aware that this effect will strike the reasonably informed viewer as a technical deficiency?" I examine the composition perhaps more carefully than it otherwise deserves, and, should it, too, fail to yield, then I conclude that this is the work of someone who is either not technically proficient in the craft (whether film or digital) or indifferent to its subtleties. In the former case, I feel that I'm obliged (energy permitting) to return what I've learned here and elsewhere and to talk about what I see. In the latter case, I follow Henry Adams' dictum that next to good humor, silence is best. I don't wish to rope Doug Herr into a discussion that he has not voluntarily joined, but I would be curious to know how he feels about the accurate reproduction of color. Cheers! Chandos Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane ?galit?, libert?, crawfish