Recent Photographs: all photographs © 1969-2017 by Carl Weese
the color in the setup shot is nice, too.
I enjoy seeing both your setup, and the resulting image.
Carl, Interesting, in that to my eye/mind the b&w image is far more "manipulated" that the color "digital capture". Not that that is in any way 'bad', but there is the belief that the former is more 'accurate' to 'reality', which I have never been able to accept. Then, I've been wondering how you address the issue of oversize prints ("sofa size") in the platinum/palladium process.Cheers, Tyler
What's always fascinated me about photography is "representation." The ability for a flat piece of paper (and now displays) with either shades of gray or artificially produced color to convincingly stand for a scene from the real world. Nothing about it is accurate to reality, but what it presents and what our minds fill in can, when everything works, give the viewer a profound experience. Not the experience of being there, but of relating to, "seeing," what the photographer saw (although that's only an emotional impression, not reality). I don't think either b&w or color is more accurate or "real"—just different means of representation. Using the view camera controls to give "proper architectural rendering" without vertical convergence isn't accurate either, it isn't what our eyes actually see, but I like the effect and use it.On sofa size Pt/Pd, I'm not interested. I've made big prints (32" wide from my DI theater series) and a set of 17x40s of landscape/nature pictures for the lobby of a fancy spa, but I did them digitally and the client wouldn't have been any happier with Pt/Pd if I'd gone to the incredible hassle of producing platinum prints that size. For the first time in years I'm planning to work with my 12x20-inch camera (I have some film that needs to be used up before it's too fogged) and part of what I'm looking forward to is that the only way I can print from those negatives will be as direct contact prints from the original film.
Post a Comment