It aspires to be, but usually fails. So do painting, sculpture, music, literature... (we're in good company).
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
Actually, meters were being used in the 1800s. They weren't what we think of as meters, but were used. Given that European aperture ranges were quite different from American ranges in the first halfish of the 20th century, that rules doesn't apply. It wouldn't have applied until about the late '30s-'40s. I have a Zeiss pamphlet scan from the '30s based on "Dr Max Leo's System," that lists out a given set of circumstances that together gave a mathematical formula to set your exposure.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Also, I'd like to know values for placements and as a reference point for the future. For instance, under sunny 16, I've had blown clouds and dark shadows. I found it good for narrower ranges of values, but I'd like something that allows me to work my way, and give me more usable information for my vision. Since I spend sometimes a longish time making an image, I'd rather stick to something quantified.
When speaking of accuracy, I'm refering to something that I can use. If I can have something quantified, it gives me more to work with. I also meter with digital, even it's in camera.
Originally Posted by batwister
As for trying to "achieve" accuracy, it's not so much a destination. It's something I like to have as a point of reference and a tool for placements.
Accuracy is not an achievement, as I mentioned in another reply. I agree that materials are not a source of accuracy or inaccuracy. The source is the person behind the camera.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Why should analog photographers owe the viewer a complete technical break down of the time, place, equipment, processing, along with the intent for, taking, making, producing, creating, capturing, snapping, clicking the "subject" or "thing" in the film path? The image means nothing, it's the Triangle-BQ film rated at blah, blah, blah, in a Nikobladcoronette with a Petxitol lens after a sandwich and coffee during a 1000 feet climb up a mountain side. And having just shaved and wearing an Earney Foss backpack with a Woodpost tripod and a shimrron head at precisely 12 noon GMT on the blah, blah, blah.
Remember, document, document, document!
Mr. Blanksky could have said it better!
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
For that matter any photographer or artist?
Originally Posted by Curt
I like to understand why a shot may have been made, the conversation or story can be quite interesting and a learning experience itself. The technical details, AKA chatter as Adams called it, don't matter to me. If I want to know more about the technical stuff, knowing what value was placed where is nice. Actual aperture, speed, film, developing, developer, paper, etc can be too big a bog for me to get trapped in. That's my take, I'm just another voice in everyone's head vying for attention.
Not in a book, but you rarely would get more information.
Christopher Williams "Field of Vision":
Those captions seem major part of the photographs from this series.
Williams is sole professor photography at Düsseldorf Art Academy.
Last edited by AgX; 01-29-2014 at 08:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Did you read the page?
Originally Posted by AgX
It makes no sense, mentions color and B&W film process together, and then color filters followed by RA-4 paper info... It makes no sevse.
It basically makes sense if that photo had been colour corrected by external masking.
Though in case of that dish washer listing Agfa Color, Plus-X Pan and Pan Masking Film in one process makes no sense. At least it is not the typical way to do.
(The masking film and the Plus-X may have been used to make contrast reducing positive.)
I even do not expect those captions to be verifyable...
Last edited by AgX; 01-29-2014 at 08:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.
google Annie libitiovz camera...