Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,363   Posts: 1,682,882   Online: 838
      
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101415161718192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 210
  1. #191
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,659
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    so is photography art?
    It aspires to be, but usually fails. So do painting, sculpture, music, literature... (we're in good company).

  2. #192
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Gotcha,

    Well before meters existed photographers used a system that basically works in most conditions

    The basic and most fundamental rule is the sunny 16 rule, where on a bright sunny day you should set that f-stop to f/16 and you match your shutter speed to the film speed (example an ASA100 film shutter should be 1/100 (or 1/125 is probably fine) and in the shade (but still bright day, it's f/11 and an overcast day is f/11 and heavy shade is f/8...
    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.

    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.

  3. #193
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    If you want accuracy, digital is your man. If you want to spend your life trying to achieve 'accuracy' with traditional materials, well... John Sexton beat you to the punch.
    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.

    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.

  4. #194
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    No, digital methods are neither more nor less accurate than traditional materials, both can be done to very high levels of accuracy/quality, any real difference in accuracy or quality of result is generally imparted by the photographer in question.
    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.

  5. #195
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,558
    Images
    15
    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

  6. #196
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    Why should analog photographers owe the viewer a complete technical break down of the time, place, equipment, processing...
    For that matter any photographer or artist?

    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.

  7. #197
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,164
    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 07:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #198

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    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.
    Did you read the page?

    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.

  9. #199
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,164
    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 07:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #200

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    5,366
    google Annie libitiovz camera...
    or whatever



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin