Jump to content

anton_romar

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. 1) Crop to frame as appropriate for the subject. 2) Rotation if required to correct for tilted camera. 3) Full-image area colour balance and gamma correction. 4) Removal of sensor dust spots, if any. (1) and (2) are equivalent of what was done by adjusting the height of the enlarger head, and by selecting the size, shape and position of the paper underneath it. (3) is what was done by selecting the film and paper type, and by adjusting the chemical process. (4) is equivalent to removing the dust spots and film gate and processing scratches on the negative. Anything else takes the image over the line separating photography from creative computer graphics. I have no interest in creative computer graphics, but understand some people do, and I have no objection to them practicing their hobby. (That they call themselves "photographers" I find mildly amusing, but I know full well there's no law against it...).
  2. Some of Eward Weston's photographs of female bodies is then "objectification" in the ultimate degree . My personal view of that opus is irrelevant, I simply note that the contemporary critical validation of early American photography considers them to be masterpieces. Is that a mistake?
  3. English is - I thought this was obvious - not my mother tongue, I learned the language some years ago in a very good school in a land that used to be a British colony, and I never heard the term before. BTW I still don't quite understand. Any living being is both a subject and an object, and it seems to me that we treat those as either of the two, or a mix of the two, depending on the context and purpose of the photograph all the time, with perfect justification. In other words - if I interpret correctly the dictionary quote provided - it might be a "description", but it is not automatically a "bad thing" as some of the above posters seem to imply.
  4. Could one of those that use the term "to objectify" please explain exactly what it means, and why is it considered a "bad thing"?
  5. If I had a chance to inspect a used camera, and if after inspecting it I plunked the money on the counter, my pride would prevent me from ever contacting the seller with a complaint. I have sold and bought more pieces of used gear than most, never by mail from anyone other than large, reputable companies. When I sell, I honestly describe the condition, but the bill of sale always includes a note: "as is, where is...". Anything else between private parties is an invitation to conflagration.
  6. Then they do not understand early 21st century: what is offered for public viewing, is ipso facto offered to be photographed. And what is photographed, can't be prevented from appearing on the 'net. It is not be how it should be, but it is how it is...
  7. Korda's Guerillero heroico: http://100photos.time.com/photos/alberto-korda-guerillero-heroico#photographKorda In addition to everything that has bee said and written about it, one thing is worth adding: this is a photograph that gained its universal recognition and prominence exactly because of the fact that it was not protected by copyright.
  8. <p>If only the followers of the popular religion of Environmentalism could be convinced that their wisdom and benevolence would be of more lasting value to the humanity if applied to improving the justice between individual humans beings and between the nations of this World, instead of fixing Geology and Zoology...</p>
  9. <p>I much appreciate hearing from well-meaning members that know who works on these cameras, but this is not what I am interested in. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I am only interested in <strong>hearing from those that have had this work performed on their cameras</strong>.</p>
  10. <p>I am not asking other members to search the web for me - I can well do that myself. I am asking if anybody has had this work performed, by whom, how much was paid and what was the result.</p>
  11. <p>I have been offered a Minolta Autocord CDS in 8+ condition for $150.- Lens is clean, film transport works OK; the only thing that is at fault is the shutter, which appears to be slow at all speeds and does not close back at speeds longer than 1/30th of a second.<br> If anyone here had the same camera's shutter in the same condition serviced, I would be very interested in knowing who did the work, how much was paid and what was the result.<br> TIA, </p>
  12. Those that invented the name Mt. Cook did not climb to the top, just as those that called the mountain Aoraki did not. But those that called it Aoraki did so centuries before those that invented the name Mt. Cook appeared on the scene.
  13. <p>In my experience, it is very unlikely one would find a buyer for a complete film-age camera kit. Selling by piece will almost always produce quicker result and better price. Undeniably, it requires the seller to do more work.</p>
  14. Mr. McCurry has willingly made a transition from a photographer to a graphical artist. I wish him well, but I have no longer any interest in his business or his work.
  15. Post-scanning sharpening may or may not be useful, but it is not a solution for the loss of sharpness either at the time exposure was made, for low-resolution film or for scanning process that did not obtain all the resolution present on film. Before you do anything, take a piece of blank film and create on it some linework using a pen with old black technical drafting ink. Scan it; this will quickly tell you on which side of the fence the problem lies. And unlike some opinions expressed here, I was quite happy with 30x40 cm prints made from 120 film scanned on a flatbed (CanoScan 9950F) scanner.
×
×
  • Create New...