On 4/13/2018 10:31 PM, Philippe wrote:
You don’t take a picture, you make it
I'll pretend that this is a test. The answer is St. Ansel.
I particularly like his analogy of negative and print to score and performance.
I remember standing in front of two prints from 'Moonrise, Hernandez, NM'. The straight print was flat and
uninteresting. If it weren't famous, I'm sure people would walk right by it in a gallery or museum. The "performance"
was striking, powerful, engaging, and so on.
I think about the Raw files from my cameras in the way he thought about
negatives.
Having been led my MikeG into wandering about in my old Moose Monday column, I ran across one of my conclusions, after a
discussion about vision, in another column: <http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=1>
"- Superficial similarities aside, a camera is nothing like the human vision system. Any idea that the image as captured
by a camera is somehow purer than one adjusted to reflect the way the photographer saw the subject, and possibly the
image being created, is logically suspect."
Make It Come Alive Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|