When printing stuff that dense you need to pull out all stops. Veiling and blooming in the enlarger is your first enemy. Burning and dodging is way too crude there.Yep, Helge, we certainly agree on that - it's one thing to get extreme density on a neg, but it can be a different thing entirely to bag it realistically as usable density. Besides, unless one is involved in scientific photography or something analogous, it's darn rare to even stumble upon a scene with a density range of 12 or more stops. But yup, I'm quite aware of what Googling the subject will come up with - among other things, what we in this country call a lot of malarky. I know what a densitometer is just as well as anyone else. Taming a curve on graph plotting paper or with a computer profiler is not the same thing as taming it on printing paper.
Bingo! It was inevitable that eventually someone just had to bring up AA. Talk about stereotypes! But ya also have to recognize that how he did it doesn't necessary equate to how a lot of wannabee clones do it. Mere technique doesn't count. Everyone can read the how-to books; not many can actually sense the light to the same degree. Most go over the top and spoil it. Sure, I've got some prints in that vein. I've also got a lot that aren't. But having come from those mountains, I do have an appreciation for AA's sensitivity to the light n' clouds and so forth that many flatlanders and smog dwellers can't quite understand, cause they've never been absorbed into it, so to speak. So I really do get it. But if a scene in my mind works better taking a totally different approach, let's say, for example, a much more open sky with the sense of scale and atmosphere being accentuated by lightening it instead of darkening ala AA, then that's why I'll do, or even blank it out completely white for sake of graphic effect, much like the old blue sensitive landscape masters did.
My very favorite picture of all time of the El Capitan monolith in Yosemite was not any of the famous dark-sky ones by AA, but a totally blank sky version taken by Edweard Muybridge. It has an overriding sense of scale and monumentality bound to its sheer graphic simplicity, nearly white on white. My second favorite might be my own, taken on edge during a snowstorm from atop a high ice cone, which I chiseled off the top of with my ice axe for sake of my 4X5 tripod, itself with a white sky, but more silky and subtle in atmosphere, and silvery with respect to the granite, than Muybridge's version from down below. But I did bag the same impression of monumentality and sheer scale. I was there with my nephew when he was surveying his next intended climbing route up the Dawn Wall directly overhead, and only the third ascent of that extreme route ever.
But now that I brought up smog, and earlier made the statement that I've never seen a boring sky.... well, for months on end last year our skies were so filled with smoke as to obscure any kind of cloud detail. But there was an utterly magical property to it almost like an amber Godfather movie effect, yet with soft veiling yellow-brown haze doing amazing things with hues both natural and manmade, in a manner no mere camera filter could have done. But the air was just too unhealthy to do much outdoor shooting; and besides, all that fine white and yellowish ash raining down days on end would be terrible for camera equipment. My lungs hurt for weeks afterwards. So ya gotta pick and choose yer battles.
No ozmoose, you didn't drill into a nerve. (etcetcetc - edited for clarity and for the sake of, yes, boredom!)
Right. AA's one of the icons of modern photography, and you're making fun of him on the Net. Sounds like a prescription for success in the 21st century, eh?Obligatory in a cynical sense because it seems to be another of the many things Adams popularized which basically became “de rigueur” in much of black and white landscape photography.
To quote Drew Wiley, “ho hum”.
Right. AA's one of the icons of modern photography, and you're making fun of him on the Net. Sounds like a prescription for success in the 21st century, eh?
That's why when I look at images from contributors like Drew ..
I think you may have missed an emoticon here.@takilmaboxer: can you please tell me where exactly you got a chance to look at images by Drew? I too would like to see them. Thanks in advance.
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated.
personally, I get kind of bored with the same old landscape photographs of people who look for Adam's or Michael Smith's tripod holes.
Im looking forward to when Atget, NADAR or David Benjamin Sherry's tripod holes will be looked for instead of a the same old red, orange yellow or polarizing filter.
I don't make it a point to look at that work, I don't go out of my work to seek it out and I typically ignore most all of it unless it is in some sort of discussion and a respondent has posted an image as a talking point. I do on the other hand look for as much DBS, Nadar, and Atget, as I can find. I have the complete oeuvre of the 2 frenchmen but DBS is a bit more obscure and hard to find. Their works are rewarding. Don't get me wrong im not saying that people who use panchromatic black and white film don't have it hard ( they don't ) but being the first aerial photographer, and mastering a medium that has a narrower latitude than slide film, and DBS well, his work is in a realm of its own...Uh, then do not look and move on. No one has put a gun to your head to make you look. Just like I skip over the over sharpened over saturated crap that is posted on the internet.
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated.
personally, I get kind of bored with the same old landscape photographs of people who look for Adam's or Michael Smith's tripod holes.
Im looking forward to when Atget, NADAR or David Benjamin Sherry's tripod holes will be looked for instead of a the same old red, orange yellow or polarizing filter.
A cabal of (I suspect elderly) malcontents on this site seem to delight in leaping down the throats of anyone who dares express a contrary opinion.
Only an old timer would have seen even a token representation of my work on the web, back when everything was accommodated to much lower web speeds. I took down that site years ago. It was half color images anyway. It was an exceptionally well-done site for that era, involving one of the very best professionals in Silicon Valley.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall reading about digital manipulation of the image. But there is so much extraneous BS in these threads today, I probably ignored it along with all the name-calling and ignorant rants.LOL, this is an ”Analog” thread about blank sky. With all of that manipulation you’re talking Hybrid, graphic arts, rather than photography. Or am I just getting confused by a long-winded explanation? I’m struggling to understand how this relates.
Thanks for that clarification. I completely misunderstood this part, "Color slides were taken on the copystand, then scanned in a miserable early desk scanner, then off to the web designer, who cleverly adapted a couple images for sake of the overall background shading, which was an especially nice touch.". Not too sure why you are getting butthurt, rude, and insulting over it... I was just asking a question. But I suppose I'm on your ignore list so you'll never see this until you decide to peek... which I'm sure you will if you haven't already. Have a good day, Drew.... sorry your blood pressure spiked.Brian - There is ZERO, ZERO, ZERO digital work, hybrid or otherwise, in any imagery I do except for cataloging or secondary web applications. Everything on that old website was copied at faithfully as possible from actual optical prints, and the whole point is that the web is a ridiculously poor vehicle for assessing the quality or presenting the nuances of that. Very few people even owned digital cameras back then; and personal or amateur slide-scanners were themselves relatively new to the market. Am I dealing with some illiterates? Apparently so. Please try to expand your reading capacity to more than three lines. But thank you for making it so apparent which two people now belong on my Ignore List.
its too bad people can't have an opinion in the 21st century without someone getting all irate as if some sort of religious diety has been desecrated...
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?