- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
The advent of roll-film and an efficient film-winding feature made most of this possible. Things would look much different had wet-plate still been the primary method of image making. Pointing out the obvious, of course.
Very true. A good example are three fine photographs of the White House in the Canyon de Chelly. Two were taken by Ansel Adams in 1942 from slightly different positions. The other was made with much more effort in 1873 by Timothy O'Sullivan. I prefer the older one. Had Adams worked as hard as O'Sullivan in making just one photograph, the advantage of 69 years progress in photography should have enabled him to do much better than O'Sullivan.
What's with the visible sprocket holes on some of the 35mm contacts?
What's with the visible sprocket holes on some of the 35mm contacts?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Mark- I thought he was pointing out that a properly exposed/developed contact sheet wouldn't show the sprocket holes.
Mark- I thought he was pointing out that a properly exposed/developed contact sheet wouldn't show the sprocket holes.
That's what I was meaning. Wouldn't the (non contact) print quality be better if the film exposure/development ratio gave a true black on the contact?
I always reach maximum black before the sprocket holes completely disappear.
I love Irwitt's contact sheet. I always thought the dog shot was 35mm!
I saw the Magnum contact sheet show last summer in Istanbul and it was amazing. Shows how a photographer's mind ticks.
http://hyperallergic.com/256109/see-the-contact-sheets-from-13-legendary-photo-shoots/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?