From: Kris Erickson (kerickso@ryerson.ca)
Date: 12/19/02-08:50:36 AM Z
If it works--if the final image REALLY works (a singular image tho' it
be)--can it really be said that it was a waste of time? (Foolish
perhaps, but then I'm also guilty of that...)
I'm also not sure what's so "typical" (or typically digital-aged) about
that either.
Just my opinion, but if one is using the camera to _see_ (which it
sounds like this student may be doing), I'd say it's really tough to do
this with just one image--if one is trying to envision something there's
a chance that there are drawers full of useless contact sheets or wasted
negs somewhere in her life--I'd guess even Watkins took the picture
several times over in his head with the ground glass in front of him
before he coated his plate and exposed...
Although Photoshop makes things a little more seamless and streamlined,
I still think there can (and is) a remarkable (tho' different) amount of
seeing possible.
kris
ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> Some guy taking all those landscape pictures to get one final,
> focused print? What a foolish waste of time and so typical of the
> digital era. I doubt very seriously if he will do any better than
> Carlton Watkins, let's say, who managed to get it all in focus with
> one exposure, and using rather primative lenses (Dallmeyer WA
> Rectiliniars) and the Collodian wet-plate process. Someone should tell
> him about view cameras, with all those tilts and stuff. Arthur
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST