Geez Scott, why do it with the big clunky gear The botanical garden has so many interesting perspectives including high up, will you be able to lug all that gear into the right perspective? Anyway sounds like a fun assignment.
Maybe Diwan will show up with his super 8 then...
I'd love to but I don't have a digicam with video, not even on my phone.
Cool, how about taping it for youtube.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I think I remember that comment by AA, although if it was in the interview I saw, I did think that the interviewer was leading him on a bit.
I suppose the big question is: will a landscape photographer working in colour media ever have a reputation as lofty as his? Or will his successor(s) keep faith in b&w. Time will tell. I suppose that colour has risen to the very top (or at least close to the very top) in almost every other genre of photography.... but perhaps not landscape.
Thought provoking for sure. I can't begin to get too deep about it but what AA said once comes to mind. Paraphrasing, he said that he could control color to a certain point until it became obviously unreal. With black and white, although it can be presented as very unreal, it may not be obviously so, at least to the lay person. The degree of tonal manipulation can be quite extreme, but it more easily becomes lost in translation when taken in context with shape, form, space, and texture. Whatever it is, you are right, it just works.
Thanks for the comment, Finn. Yes, I agree of course that we do view prints with the full benefit of cone vision. Nevertheless, I wonder if our response to a b&w scene might be conditioned. Because the brain may associate dehued scenes with night (or perhaps even dreams?), might this association affect how we interpret a dehued image?
Here is an image that got me thinking along this track some time ago. Just a simple image at the end of a roll of film.
Now, to me, this image evokes moonlight illumination. But actually, it was taken in high noon light, with infrared film. That set me off wondering: what are the cues in colour and tone that affect how we interpret a scene even before we start really analyzing the composition. In other words, what are the really powerful cues that are important in the very first glimpse of an image. In this particular case, I think the b&w tone and contrast is what made me associate the scene with moonlight.
I suppose that the mind, foremost, wants to identify reality within a scene... that is how our image recognition is conditioned. What if the first step in that process is either to confuse the scene with a night or dreamlike image, or, on the other hand, to realize right off the bat that this isn't a literal representation because it shows something we know to be coloured. In either case, there has been a fundamental change in how we proceed to interpret the image after that first glimpse.
At any rate, regardless of whether scotopic vision plays a role as some sort of primary cue for interpretation, I think the more important point is that b&w images tend to evoke... they tend to ask for broader, more abstract interpretation.
Your point that saturated colours can be "too much" in a print is quite interesting. Whereas I tend to like smallish, intimate b&w prints, my instinct with colour landscapes is typically to print them large. I suppose that I think of colour prints as a sort of large window into a reality, whereas the b&ws are entirely different.
The scotopic vision idea is interesting but, as we generally view b&w photographs in relatively high light levels, I wonder. Something that has always interested me is the scale effect. When I look around me I never observe colour until I think colour, if you get what I mean!
In viewing colour landscape photographs however, I'm immediately forced to see saturated colour especially where large colour areas are concentrated in a small print. Maybe the concentrated colour, tone, texture etc. are just too much to relax with and enjoy.
that's what I call real Math! I need to learn from you man. I bought 2 Graflex holders and they came without the slides! Then I bought a 65mm sekor lens and had to get serviced CLA for $130!! Not everything is bad, I got good deals as well, lenses for $9? Yesterday I click again "Watch this item" and a message came up! "You pass the limit of items you can watch" please delete some items.
Anyway, I think you have your G.A.S under control. You scored on the P/N 55 for $40.00.
Interesting, isn't it, how much tone manipulation is now routinely added to digital colour work.
Honestly I didn't get the concept of "literal colour" until I tried some digital stuff myself and then it dawned on me: hold on! The reason why I like colour film is not because it shows me the world precisely as it is. Rather, colour film shows me the world as I want to see it (just like somebody once said).
What if colour photography were merely a literal capture of what I see... would I still care to do it? Probably not, honestly. So I personally do not see colour as inherently more literal than b&w, though literal colour certainly does exist and has its own distinct artistic force... e.g. Eggleston.