Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]kyle cassidy wrote: > > >My wife was watching and after seeing him dodging and altering the negs, > >and hearing the narrator say that the finished product was highly > >manipulated and often much different than the original subject, which if > >seen as taken might be quite plain and boring. > > > >She then commented, "I am disappointed. I don't think that's right -- > >after all, you keep telling me you wanted the Leica and that wonderful > >lens so your photos would have that beautiful glow and be truly > >representative of what you saw. Explain this to me!" > > > >Help!!! ;-) > > > >Ted in Olalla > > easy ted. artists don't merely represent the world around them, they change > it to fit their view. as we've seen in the past, a forensic photographer or > a crime scene photographer or many types of scientific photographers need to > represent what is actually there. this goes for news photographers as well. > adams was none of those. he was an artist who happened to use a camera. the > final image was manipulated to show it "as it should have been" not as it > was. > > kc > Ansel used heavy filtration when shooting to alter and enhance that view as well. The black and white world as first altered with deep red or green filters is not what you see when you stand there. Why should it be? Why not have a landscape be as dramatic as possible? Unless you book is called "The Banal Landscape." We want skies to not just NOT be washed out. But have some dramatic darker tones and texture in them. VERY much what you don't see when you stand there unless you had dark Polaroid sunglasses on. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html