At 04:10 PM 1/25/1999 +0000, Giles you wrote:
>
>Yes, but was all that guff strictly necessary? If the film carton info
will work
>under all the conditions Mr Adams outlined, given the latitude of B&W or
colour
>print film I suspect it would, then I know which set of information I
think is the
>most impressive.
>
>Why would you give the impression of technical precision by giving more or
less the
>exact figure for the brightness of the moon in foot/candles - at sea
level! - and
>then just say it is brighter than that under other conditions without the
same level
>of technical accuracy? It almost smacks of someone trying hard to make
something
>sound harder than it actually is.
>
>I mean no offence and think Mr Adams was an extraordinary photographer.
>
>Giles
>
Giles,
I don't entirely disagree with you. My point in citing chapter and verse
on Adams' understanding of the luminosity of the moon was that he obviously
studied it carefully so that he was able to use it when he needed to on
"Moonrise: Hernandez." He was a disciplined and exacting individual.
Sometimes those qualities make you tedious; sometimes they help you make a
photograph people will not willingly forget. I don't know if the latitude
of films of the 1940's supports your assumptions, but even if it does,
precision in tonal placement on the sensitometric curve was what he was
after. Zone system guff.
Cheers,
Joel
< 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 >
|