At 10:23 AM -0600 2/23/09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Mon, February 23, 2009 09:15, Gregory Fraser wrote:
>>Then, of course, you need to be clear about your ethics. Do you wish
to be perceived as having a
boring visual intention? Or as someone willing to jigger the situation
to make it more attention getting?
> Well we agree on that. I used to like Ansel Adams prints until I read
about how that unethical bastard was jiggering his prints burning here
and dodging there.
At least he was honest about it. _Examples_ is still a great book for
learning about photography, as is his Basic Photo series. And he admits
to that sort of jiggery-pokery repeatedly!
It's really interesting about Adams. How his vision changed as he
gained greater command of the tools, experimented with his chemistry,
explored new papers and worked with manufacturers to create tools he
thought he wanted.
But most interesting to me is how his concept of the image changed
not only with his maturing, but also with popular taste.
Personally, I like his intense blacks and nearly data-free whites.
But especially I like that he developed a whole system the purpose of
which was to permit him to achieve both those things - which to me
has got to be the challenge of what we call black and white
photography.
Again, as I tried to carefully hedge in my contribution to this
thread, using any tool honestly for interpretation of an image
capture, whether it's selecting the film according to its color bias,
the zone system in the darkroom, or your favorite RAW converter,
comes down to your ethic.
If you have none, shoot Automatic Mode and let the camera impose one on you!
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
