>Wrote Winsor Crosby:
>
>>1. I think I got so accustomed to seeing things polarized that I did not
>>notice how bad things looked through the viewfinder. If you are going to
>>look through anything in addition to your own corneas, then that thing
>>should be as neutral as possible unless you want an altered visual
>>perception to control your picture taking.
>
>Many of us have the problem that we do not see things -- we see what ought
>to be there. In other words, we see not the outside worlds but our own
>preconceived visual notions. And that is not an exclusively photographic
>problem. When the impressionist painters began to paint shadows blue, there
>was a general outcry. It was 'unnatural'! Didn't everybody know that shadows
>are grey?
>
>>2. Polarizers used without restraint are not suitable for general landscape
>>photography. They may be alright for producing a picture when you are
>>trying to achieve an artistic, but thoroughly unnnatural effect.
>
>There are no 'natural' colours, perspective etc. Visual perception is not
>an automatic mirroring of the outside world. If we saw only what our eyes
>saw, we would see precious little. We have in the back of our heads an
>image processing system which Photoshop cannot even begin to touch.
>Our final perception of the outer world is not 'natural' in any other sense
>than that it has been produced by natural selection -- i.e. it has a proven
>survival value.
>
>In the 'thirties there was a great debate on which focal lengths gave a
>'natural' perspective (brought about by the introduction of 35 mm cameras
>-- read: Leicas -- with interchangeable lenses). Which focal length saw 'as
>the eye sees'? (Answer: none.) And from which distance should you view a
>print of this or that size in order to get a 'natural perspective'? You
>guessed
>it: the self-appointed pundits declared that only the standard lens saw
>nature 'as the eye sees it'. Teles and wide angles -- especially 'super wide
>angles' such as the horrible 28 mm lenses -- were consigned to outer darkness.
>And then, with the introduction of colour film, the debate started again,
>now about 'natural colours'.
>
>It all boils down to this: We see with our brains. So it is quite simply a
>matter of taste. If you do not like the images you get with polarizers, that
>is, if you feel that they decrease your chances of survival and your Darwinian
>fitness, don't use them. But do not bandy about the word 'natural', please.
>Polarization is after all a natural phenomenon ...
>
>Vänliga hälsningar/Best regards
>Lars Bergquist
>Välkommen till/Welcome to ...
><http://www.bahnhof.se/~timberwolf/>
>
It is interesting to see what sets people off. It is especially interesting
here when my humble paragraphs were all about perception and invited
response. Regardless of orders given, I will probably continue to bandy
about any word I care to. :-) Thanks.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|