 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Minolta experience... posted by xenon101 on January 17, 2002 at 17:50:52:
*** Not much different than claiming you can hear the difference between amplifiers on the same speakers.It is it not exactly the same. This is why I reject any listening evaluations based on “compressing by contrast” or state that people have no idea what they listening or doing. Reference to www.audioannex.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=5&Number=1963
I have no problem with what you said. Though if you have a calibrated print process the experiment could be done not only with the transparencies. In many instances it would be even preferable to avoid the transparencies giving some idiosyncrasies and vulnerability of E-6. (Unless you nave VERY expensive and VERY calibrated and VERY personal E-6) Do not forget we are interesting not about the absolute result but about the delta. (Well, sort of…)
You didn’t describe the DEFERENCE BETWEEN OPTICS. (I think that was a topic). In fact an absolute shit of color by lenses is IRELEVENT. (Guilty as charged!) It would be similar to you having a 0.5% color glass all day long of spending time in a room with a different color temperature. Would it bother you (unless some very specific applications)? Do not forget the purpose of photography is to impact a human vision (and whatever after that)…. So the coloration of lenses is important as a photographic method and totally insignificant as the viewers’ benefit.
I am capable as well as you to discriminate the results form the different lenses but, honestly, I would NEVER pay attention to a total tone of the images.
The cat
Follow Ups:
Actually I never the subject was the difference between optics. I only said that when I was in college I had the opportunity to compare lenses from several manufacturers & commented on the slight color cast associated with the lenses. This had to do with the lens glass (design) & coating.***"...avoid the transparencies giving some idiosyncrasies and vulnerability of E-6..."***
uhhh..Romy...Kodachrome isn't E-6 processed. At the time I made the comparisons, the process was K-15 & ONLY Kodak could run that process. Essentially, Kodachrome is black and white film with no imaging dyes or color couplers as part of the film. The color dyes are added to the transparency when it is processed. So the color film is "made" for you when it is processed. Much more complicated process, but the results (at the time) were the best you could get with any type of color process.
***"So the coloration of lenses is important as a photographic method and totally insignificant as the viewers’ benefit.***"
Yes, important as a photographic method, and I don't give a shit about the viewer's benefit. I'm not making personal photographs for the viewer. I'm making photographs for me. If someone else likes them - that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
In fact, for years, I so subverted the color in many photographs that you can't tell what is real. I had Harrison & Harrison make a custom filter to my specifications. It makes the film see colors like someone wearing brown sunglasses. Neutral colors (whites, blacks, greys, browns) are rendered normally. Greens are rendered slightly muted, reds are enhanced, and blues are rendered anywhere from grey to steel blue. The idea is to give your eyes something to "key" off of that is rendered "normal" and in the correct brightness relationships (the neutral colors).
If white is rendered correctly, then your brain says that all other colors are correct. But, your brain also knows that they can't be, because the color relationships and brightnesses aren't correct for the colors and this unconsiously disturbs you when you look at the print. The working principles behind this were discovered and studied 40 years ago by Dr. Edwin Land. I just took the information he discovered & applied it to my personal work.
If you’d like to see some photos with the distorted colors, go to:
www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=96471.
If you “click” on the images they will enlarge.
The only time I worry about the viewer's benefit is when I do commercial work. At that point, most people can't even tell whether something is color balanced correctly or not. Most of that work is done on neg film for architects, museums, etc. I don't do portraits. After taking close to 90,000 portraits, I decided I never wanted to do that again.
*** Yes, important as a photographic method, and I don't give a shit about the viewer's benefit.Big, the fundamentally biggest possible mistake. This is way the amplifiers which designed to satisfy the demands of (faulty) engineering theories are condemned to sound dead.
*** I'm not making personal photographs for the viewer. I'm making photographs for me. If someone else likes them - that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
It was not what I meant. You are a viewer as well, and your viewing methods share the common with the rest of the viewers principles. No meter how much a composer “composes for himself” but he use the same rudiments of harmony...
*** In fact, for years, I so subverted the color in many photographs that you can't tell what is real…. The idea is to give your eyes something to "key" off of that is rendered "normal" and in the correct brightness relationships.
Yes, this is a very interesting direction (if you can handle it). Frankly speaking I should confess a sin by saying that I personally do not consider color being meaningful enough. Whatever I did “seriously’ for myself was b/w. To me, color as an expressive method, is a destructive force … (though it could be used complementary)
*** If white is rendered correctly, then your brain says that all other colors are correct.
It is correct but only if you disregard the misbalance of the color contracts. If you do take it under consideration that you have to demand the “rendering correctly” an entire gray scale ending with black. Yes, white is most critical but… white dose not exist and usually “perceived” as D-min projected to the film’s fog level.
*** But, your brain also knows that they can't be, because the color relationships and brightnesses aren't correct for the colors and this unconsiously disturbs you when you look at the print.
It is why I never was able to use colors “for myself”. I just never was able to mange it at the desirable level of freedom. (There is more to it then just that) Hey, colors are is just a density!
*** If you’d like to see some photos with the distorted colors, go to…
I looked at those images, thank you. This is only confirmed what whatever photography has interesting has a b/w structure. It is very similar to looking at women naked vs. women wearing underwear. Which case create more “spiritual movement”? :-)
*** The only time I worry about the viewer's benefit is when I do commercial work…. and the rest
Well, a commercial work is totally irrelevant for this discussion (the commercial customers swallow everything) but you misunderstood my phrase of “viewer benefit”. An amplifier could have 0.00001% of distortions. This is a fact. However, how this fact would benefit a listener …this is TOTALLY deferent issue.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
"...he use the same rudiments of harmony..."I've been trying for years to forget what I was taught in several highly regarded art schools. The need for "harmony" is something I hope never directs a composition that I am working on. However, I am sure that at some subconcious level, there is part of may brain that is reacting to this very issue. I am more interested in what the subject needs than what is "harmonious" within the frame.
"Whatever I did “seriously’ for myself was b/w."
I used to do a lot of black and white because I could afford it, and I didn't understand how to use color in a photograph. If you would like to see some of my black and white photos go to:
www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138425
Then I found out that color was much harder to do than black and white. B&W has all the controls you could ever want. Filters, film development, paper choice (with contrast controls), chemical alterations, toning, etc., etc.
Color on the other hand has very little that you can do to affect the outcome of the photo. It is much like a hiaku poem in that you have a limited set of controls and must play strictly within that set boundary. Success is much more difficult and requires greater concentration and deeper seeing (for me - only) - I find it much more challenging than B&W.
"...what whatever photography has interesting has a b/w structure..."
Yes, that is probably true. Any of the color photos would have worked as black and white - but, I don't think they would be nearly as interesting. For me, B&W is like a skeleton waiting to be "fleshed out" with more information - in this case color.
Maybe it's the difference between an etching and a color lithograph - both have their aesthetics, but, when I was working in print making, I always found lithography far more interesting because there was an entire color world that could be explored.
Unfortunately, the color photos you looked at were composed to be seen big. They just start to work at 16x20 and don't really open up until they're about 36 x 40. Then, all of the little details become apparent (and important), and the spaces work within the photo to give the eye places to explore individually.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
