Christian Skofteland wrote: > > Keith; > > What type of film do you use to record "exactly" what your seeing? > Different films render the colors of that scene differently and your choice > is already "distorting" reality. Some could say that you are manipulating > your audience with your choice of film.
I use whatever film I chose to put in the camera for the day. You're being way too picky about this. I know what you're saying, but I don't make a thesis out of making some images of whatever I'm trying to record. I'm not being paid for it -- I'm trying to _enjoy_ photography. If I became a pedant about the whole thing, it would cease to be enjoyable. To me. > By the way, did you crop out (with > lens choice) that ugly garbage pile to the right of your idyllic pastoral > landscape? Most likely, as I wasn't trying to record a pile of cow pies, merely the pastural setting. Unless, of course, that's exactly what I did have in mind. It IS part of reality, truth be known. I zoom with the lens or by walking closer to or further away from my subject all the time, because the final frame should represent when my mind felt when I looked at that scene. If I'm good enough to do that, that is... I usually put a lot of energy into my photographs, so as to have it record just what I was seeing/feeling. > Or, by using a different lens did you include it to "manipulate" > your audience with the stark irony? Oh, who knows... The final piece of art is less what the artist felt when recording it, than it is all the machinery clanking around in the viewer's head. They'll look at it with the colored glasses that represent their own particular experiences, and not even know they put a slant on it. > Every photograph you make is a scene rendered the way you want it, showing > your audience what YOU want them to see and in the manner you want them to > see it in. Yeah, pretty much, but then, at the instant it was captured, it DID represent what I saw, and it's not been manipulated to mis-represent anything, either. > As Bill said, photography is not about realism or reality, it is about what > you want to portray, how you want to portray it. True. Proof enough of that is when I see the prints from the film images I recorded. I don't use a custom lab, so my photograpy rarely represents what I remember seeing and trying to record. That's why a lot of my shots get thrown away. They were too dark or too light or didn't have any shadow detail that I recall seeing, or....it goes on and on. I don't know how to fix that, using commercial labs for developing and printing. > Christian Skofteland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm in the process of learning how to use my digital camera. And Photoshop. When I get more proficient, maybe I will be more consistently able to make an image show what I thought I saw when I saw it. keith whaley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:23 AM > Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round > > > In just those few words, William, you've fingered a whole new > > philosopical discussion! > > > > What you say may be true for some aspects of photography, but for an > > image recorder like me, I try to record exactly what I'm seeing and > > experiencing at the time, with the least amount of distortion of fact as > possible. > > Making the photo a slice of reality as *I* saw it is easily 90% of the > effort. > > > > Else, why take the shot? > > > > keith whaley > > > > * * * > > > > William Robb wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way > round > > > > > > , because photography is all about realism and > > > > nothing else. > > > > > Wheee!! > > > The last thing photography is about is realism. > > > > > > William Robb > >
