From: Jack Fulton (jefulton1@attbi.com)
Date: 12/20/02-09:23:24 PM Z
Jon:
You certainly have your thinking cap on. When alluding to, or reaching out
for, a reason as to why we don't see many a 'landscape' in photography done
w/a long tele lens, the reason came to mind is that the appearance of the
image is not verisimilar. The relationships of scale inherent to lens
photography upholds the belief in our minds of an appearance of truth. When
this truth is inverted, so to speak, the verisimilitude of a true
photographic perspective is lost through lens distortion. Indeed, though the
qualities have an appearance of being photographic due to their truthful and
believable flat entity, they are not faithful to reality as we know it.
Now, you might come back with that quick mind and say, "well, what about a
fish-eye lens" and I'd agree w/you that that too was, well, I won't get into
that. My point was simply to say that folks didn't employ the method of
landscape using long, long lenses because it didn't look right. Same
w/ultra-wide lenses.
For everyone else's interest, if you've made it this far, Landscape is a
16thC Dutch work meaning land-ship. Why ship I don't know but he earliest
theories of landscape work held that a picturesque (a word used right after
landscape's early usage) view showing primarily raw Nature with usually some
element of humanity in it such as a small house or church steeple to
indicate a person or people were there.
Cheers
Jack
> From: Jon <fotonerd@yahoo.com>
> It will take a lot of convincing for me to accept the fact that subject
> matter will take an image in the realm of 'anti-photographic'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST