Re: physiology vs. sensitometry

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 8 Jun 1996 01:38:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, TERRY KING wrote:
> You say what's "the original scene" got to do with it?
>
> Is it not possible that the 'original scene', including the way it was lit, may
> have influenced the photographer to push the button in the first place ? And
> that the photographer may have wished to preserve those qualities of light seen
> at the time. There is no obligation but it is an option.

Yes and no. There is an ocean of difference between "influenced the
photographer to push the button" and near-terminal tone mania. And the
thought that reproducing a scene is -- thought.

I have been dumbfounded, not to say drastically fuddled, at the recent
discussion parsing how many tones the Parker Roll Law says you can have of
the total available compared to the original heaviest density -- or
something. If all photography is is the most excruciatingly perfect
replication devisable by an indefatigable cadre of maestros, give me, um,
tap dancing.

What makes a photograph thrilling? Who are the most thrilling
photographers? I suggest those who interpret, twist, brutalize, press,
push, trash, exaggerate, or otherwise put a gloss on "reality" as you
yourself very well know. You think literal replication is good? Alt photo
doesn't mean "alternative"?

Anyway, are your best photographs the ones that looked best to you in the
scene?

Judy