Digital BW, The Print

At 10:17 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:


>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>You have taken this way over the top,
> >>
>
>It's a common rhetorical and debate technique to demonstrate the logical
>inadequacy of a rigid, "supposedly objective" standard, that is in fact
>inherently subjective..
>
> >>and made a lot of silly assumptions
> >>about my point of view (that I've said or implied that photographs are
> >>verifiable, optical, reality or some sort of truth, for example.)
> >>
>And you haven't answered my questions... nor addressed  my third point..
>
>
>2)    We already know that B&W imagery is automatically an abstraction...
>
>If I use a red, orange, green or yellow,  filter etc. when shooting I am
>altering the image "unnaturally."  The image recorded is NOT accurate in
>accord with the film's inherent recording abilities..
>
>So, does your standard NOT allow such filtration.. If it does, how can
>you hope to justify it?
>
>
>3)     You cannot reliably represent a transmissive image (a negative)
>as a reflective one (print).  Add in dodging and burning to compress or
>accentuate tonalities and you are not rendering faithfully your
>in-camera image.. Instead, you are altering that image to be more
>aesthetically pleasing (hopefully).
>
>
>
>You are setting up straw men.  Screwing around with tonality and certain 
>formal issues do not fall in the same realm of discussion.  I, nor has 
>anyone else, argued those points. The "standards"  are not dogma and apply 
>only to what I keep repeating - what you see in my print is what was on my 
>film excepting conventional printcraft.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us