Print range versus negative.

Bill Burk · Apr 28, 2013

markbarendt said:
Dang, you call in' FP4+ primitive?

No it wouldn't be right for me to do that, since I work for Kodak.

I had in mind the work with homebrew emulsions being done at George Eastman House by holmsburgers and PE, et. al.

p.s. The opinions and positions I take are my own, not necessarily those of EKC.

Bill Burk · Apr 28, 2013

I was looking for a lower-right quadrant "ideal film".

Then I could tell if placing shadows on the toe is desirable (if the ideal film curve includes a toe). But if the ideal film is a straight line, then it may reinforce my desire to place my exposures on the straight line.

AndreasT · Apr 28, 2013

Last night I was thinking what Mark said about his intent, and mentioned before that I was unsatisfied doing the same.
Then again I realised I often do something similar.
When photographing with 35mm I sometimes raise the exposure a lot to try and blow the lights in an attempt to give the backlighting a soft look. Like an archway where I want the back white and soft.
I think this is somehow similar to what Mark is getting at.
??

markbarendt · Apr 28, 2013

AndreasT said:
Last night I was thinking what Mark said about his intent, and mentioned before that I was unsatisfied doing the same.
Then again I realised I often do something similar.
When photographing with 35mm I sometimes raise the exposure a lot to try and blow the lights in an attempt to give the backlighting a soft look. Like an archway where I want the back white and soft.
I think this is somehow similar to what Mark is getting at.
??

Absolutely.

markbarendt · Apr 28, 2013

To build on that thought a bit Andreas "Photography is a subtractive art. Painting is an additive art."

Don't know where I found that saying but it is true in my world.

The reasons this topic has interest to me is because just like choosing a point of view, a crop, and limiting depth of field for a given shot creative exposure placement is a tool I can use to minimize or eliminate unwanted detail from a composition.

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 28, 2013

markbarendt said:
To build on that thought a bit Andreas "Photography is a subtractive art. Painting is an additive art."

I disagree, I would say that:

Sculpture is a subtractive art.
Painting is an additive art.
Photography is an extractive art.

markbarendt · Apr 28, 2013

Shawn Dougherty said:
I disagree, I would say that:

Sculpture is a subtractive art.
Painting is an additive art.
Photography is an extractive art.

Please expand on that a bit.

How do you see extractive and subtractive differently in this context?

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 28, 2013

Well, as far as sculpture being subtractive. Say you are whittling a piece of wood into a boat. The form of the boat already exists within that piece of wood and you are removing or subtracting physical material in order to expose it.

I believe a photograph is extractive because you are focusing in on one area of a whole and extracting just that one square/rectangle. You are not physically subtracting what's outside of that square but choosing NOT to extract it.

This is not my idea, I have also read this somewhere but I'm not sure of the source. It might have been "Art & Fear" by David Bayles and Ted Orland...

markbarendt · Apr 28, 2013

I see your point, I do think we are expressing the same idea.

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 28, 2013

markbarendt said:
I see your point, I do think we are expressing the same idea.

I agree, the difference is just semantics.

AndreasT · Apr 28, 2013

and rather academical.

Photo Engineer · Apr 28, 2013

There is such a thing as over analysis!

But I do wish Stephen and I can get into the same room and teach a course. I have no response to that previos post, but it may be of some benefit.

PE

Print range versus negative.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency