From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/20/02-10:43:48 PM Z
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, S Wang wrote:
> Claudia,
>
> Although it seems that there is no need for such with 35mm, since the
> viewfinders that come with the cameras would be perfectly adequate,
> there is a different kind of clarity and insight that comes with a
> large open frame viewfinder.
>
> This would be very similar to what we often do with beginning design
> students: have them place a cardboard frame over "anything" and study
> the structure, the composition, of the area, and draw it.
>
> It also invites you to really imaging how the camera would see the
> scene, sort of what Ansel calls Previsualization, or someone else's
> "the Zen viewfinder".
I figure the framing device is handy with a view camera, because setting
up and framing can be arduous. And it does sound like fun.
But for 35 mm? Could be a nice way of "finding" photographs, or diversion
on a jaunt, etc, but surely the distortion from 3-D life-size natural
color "reality" to the smaller (often) monochrome 2-dimensional print is
so vast and drastic that what lens, what view finder, what framing device,
are minor. In other words -- mostly moral support.
Aside from my previously explained objection to previsualization (at best
it prevents discovery) is the fact that no scene is the same as the
PHOTOGRAPH of the scene. The convention that says it is is yet another
triumph of belief over reality.
As for "what is photographic" -- thanks to Jon on that one. Anything (even
if we discount the lensless "photograph") made with a camera and
light-sensitive material is "photographic." I think what was really meant
by the term was *conventional* photo perspective. But conventions change
with the times, taste, and equipment. Of course some folks can't help
being "conventional," but.... surely not a meaningful goal.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST