Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What flare in which corner? Do you guys know how AP photographs worked? They came in over the wire and were recomposed at the paper; that print then is kept in a library (at some papers) until being digitized, probably in like 1997, badly; you're so far from whatever the original was to discuss its sharpness is silly. If the image came last week from AP directly that too is how it would have survived; it's only marginally possible that anyone worked with the original print again after it went out over the wires in 1976. But I suspect this was in the Times' library and then digitized because I believe AP's photo library was sold to Bettman or Getty at some point so if the image had been bought last week it wouldn't have said "AP" I don't think. I could be wrong on that front however. In any case you ain't looking at it like human bein' . A thousand more technically correct headshots wouldn't reveal the man in quite this way, or at all, and I happened to look at a lot of them in the wake of becoming interested in this photograph. He was superficially a dull man and not easy to "find" but this picture does -- in part by getting (literally) underneath him. It's beautifully composed. Nathan I figured out the "flare" you indicated. If that were flare it would mean the trash can was on fire. It's not flare; it's damage to the print. The light's coming fron entirely the other direction. You guys better not go to the HCB show at MoMA. A lot of his pictures aren't so sharp either. On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM, slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov at charter.net>wrote: > It's from the very worst period in photography, when the 35mm SLR > manufactures jammed the public with their trash. > S.d. > > > On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > > > That was my reaction to it as well. Unsharp, lots of flare in the corner. > > > > Nathan > > > > Nathan Wajsman > > Alicante, Spain > > http://www.frozenlight.eu > > http://www.greatpix.eu > > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2010, at 6:57 AM, slobodan Dimitrov wrote: > > > >> You're kidding, right? > >> It's a hideous image! > >> S.d. > >> > >> > >> On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > >> > >>> This picture ran on the front page of the New York Times the day after > >>> Stevens announced his resignation. They still have it on the lens > blog. > >>> It's an uncredited AP photo. I like it a lot, I think it's a great > >>> photograph. I wonder what others think, and, specifically, what size > lens > >>> people think it was taken with. I'm thinking 35mm or even 28mm and > cropped > >>> but I don't know nothin'. > >>> > >>> People's reactions would be of great interest to me. > >>> > >>> Here's the url: > >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/09/us/20100409-stevens-slideshow_index.html?ref=politics > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >