Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/03/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Not Buying M8
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Wed Mar 12 09:01:58 2008
References: <200803112106.m2BL1vlN089110@server1.waverley.reid.org> <1205299901.47d76abdf119f@panthermail.uwm.edu> <a3f189160803112243g20652942j2def6e2256b8c733@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20080312104332.03966c90@pop.med.cornell.edu>

I find this discussion quite interesting, not so much for the film  
vs. digital aspect; as the capture/integrity/expression aspects.

On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Chris Saganich wrote:
> The shutter doesn't conclude the vision Sonny.

When discussing transparencies; or the purest sense of perfect  
photographic technique with visioning value placement, composition  
and decisive moment on the film negative or positive - - the shutter  
does conclude the vision. The score has been written.
Everything done after that relates to performing the score.

>  Concept of vision is brought into the processing in order to  
> reproduce the reality that was experienced.

Here we move from the pure image capture to the subjective world of  
perceived reality and the enhancement there of. The very choice of  
B&W or color film (not to mention which color film) all move towards  
the painterly, the interpretive, the expressive and further and  
further from the "real."

> If the image is altered by introducing painterly aspects then there  
> is a  conceptual commingling where the artist is attempting to  
> purge the reality from the image because they can't deal with it or  
> something.

I'd submit that removing motion, applying the still frame to 2  
dimensional paper, whether in black & white, fuji color, velvia,  
kodak gold or whatever other emulsion has already conceptually  
commingled and purged - 'tis only a question of degree. And that will  
always be subjective.

> Totally different from dodging and burning and contrast  
> manipulation.  What is the artist bringing attention to, the  
> reality of the subject or his/her handwork?

Always both. Always form and content. The viewer decides if it works;  
if it moves one to feel and or appreciate what the photographer has  
expressed.

> The classic example is Adams use of value control both in the  
> camera and in the darkroom.  His intention was to get far away from  
> the painterly concepts.

I believe that Adam's extreme concentration on value control is quite  
literally brings the painterly concepts to photography - not in the  
pictorial sense - but in the control of technique intrinsic to the  
medium in question.

Fond regards,
George
george@imagist.com
www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07





Replies: Reply from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] Not Buying M8)
In reply to: Message from amr3 at uwm.edu (amr3@uwm.edu) ([Leica] Not Buying M8)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] Not Buying M8)
Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] Not Buying M8)