Do you mean every black and white print, or every B&W Ansel Adams print? I'd
agree with the latter being the case, but not necessarily the former.
Look, maybe I don't take 14 paragraphs to explain my feelings and that is
part of my problem, but I feel AA was more of an artist than a photographer
because of all the 'artistry" that went into the job after the photo was
taken. The final print was _not_ the accurate depiction of the scene as shot.
The camera was just the _first_ tool he employed in getting to the final
result.
If a painter uses a trowel to get the paint on the canvas as his _first
step_, does that make him a mason?
George S.
Steve.Gullick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Every B&W print you see exhibited will have been manipulated to a greater or
lesser extent. Every one!!
The idea is not to make the picture more exciting, although it often does,
but to try to give a more real impression of what the scene was really like.
Film cannot record as much detail as the human eye so it has to be helped a
little.
< 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 >
|