aplumpton

Thanks, Allen. Sentiment reciprocated.

The spire is (was) a very visible part of the cathedral and no doubt a part of what makes Notre Dame one of the symbols of France (with Mont St-Michel and other icons), however Violet-le-Duc lived in the19th century and undertook many restoration-reconstitutions of French heritage sites, often using neo-Gothic or neo-whatever as part of the reconstitutions. The essence of the cathedral apart form its religious importance is its medieval architectural heritage and excellence. I hope that the major part of the building, the other destroyed elements, are restored or reconstituted to maintain the best of the original character. that wil take time and money of course. New architecture is I believe best on its own where it is not attached directly to the original structure. A good example of this is the pyramid at the Louvre, independent (except for underground access) of the various period surrounding structures. Norman Foster is a great architect, but I believe he and other contemporary architects are best in applying their art to greenfield structures where their uniqueness can be appreciated. I have no unique photo of the spire to offer. Sorry. But I do not think the reborn cathedral necessarily needs a 19th century add-on, however interesting. I wish I had images of the evolution of the disappeared timber framing in the transepts. Those structures, conceived by trial and error before the age of mathematical structural mechanical design were things of beauty, albeit hidden from most visitors. They are a great loss, but one that can be replicated more easily and economically with modern framing, without taking away from the visible beauty of a restored structure. It is to be hoped that the French traditional architecture experts who will intervene for the cultural ministry will be allowed to restore-reconstitute as faithfully as possible this icon of French society and leave new magnificent architecture to deal with other contemporary needs. An approach like that of the medieval castle style being built at Guedilon not far from Chablis, using ancient methods, is obviously too extravagant in method for Notre Dame, but some aspects of the reconstruction would be worthwhile to emulate, as France has the traditional craftsmen.

Arnheim may gild the lily in communicating his visual perception analyses, but the essence of what he says is I think valuable. None of it will make you a better photographer, unless you understand the contribution of framing (sometimes only minor, compared to other visual elements) and work with the qualities of that and the other compositional and emotive elements. Perhaps the more important characteristic is symmetry versus asymmetry. Some prefer the first, others (myself for one) the second. Beauty can only be seen, I believe, in the presence of mild or strong disequilibrium.

The 80mm f4 Componon-S is fine for 6x7. I found little or no light loss or significant loss of resolution in the edges of the frame. It also allows you to project larger images at a given height compared to the normal 90mm or longer lenses.

The Gossen luna pro digital is small and accurate. I found one about 5 years ago in mint condition for 100$. It has reflective and incident capability.

<p>Re-reading Leslie's OP I gather the subject is a showcase for weekly photos in both mediums rather than a monochrome or B&W site where the approaches, techniques, results (showcase) and aesthetic of that medium can be discussed and displayed, as opposed to the more prevalent color medium that most adhere to.</p> <p>In that case, there is nothing wrong I think with relocating here and rendering more general a weekly Monochrome Monday OP. Those wishing to specifically discuss approaches, techniques, results and aesthetic of the B&W medium will still have to do so within the various forums of Photo.Net, thereby diluting or dispersing these topics and making them a little harder to peruse.</p> <p>I for one would really love to see the administrators inaugurate a specific "B&W photography" forum, embracing all ways to achieve B&W photographs, which are distinct in a number of ways from the more usual color output.</p> <p>Does anyone think there might be any chance of that? Moderator?</p> <p> </p>

<p>The nice thing about photography is that multiple standards (I might prefer the term "format" or "medium") exist at any one time. There is nothing to stop you making daguerreotypes or collodion or carbon or cyanotypes if you wish and there is a very small fraction of photographers who do so and other old plate camera formats are still in use by some. What you call "standard" may be the prevalent medium or format at any one point in time and this may well be the cellphone in the very near future. For digital capture sRGB and RGB are two of the different standards for color rendition, whereas orthochromatic and panchromatic silver films were and are available for B&W film photographers. These are "standards" that are subject to change or modification over time, but the interesting thing is that pretty well all the formats, media, recording standards and equipment and materials are stil around and you can choose to project slides or show pictures on your tablet or smartphone.</p> <p>Vive la différence, as our Gallic friends would say!<br> </p>

<p>There is a lot of sun but also cold today (- 12 C, or about 12 F?) in eastern Canada for casual-objective photography (that is, wandering around in search of interesting images) so I tend to photograph inside and go out in winter to simply enjoy sports or hikes or conduct my part time business.</p> <p>I also like to photograph more intentionally with a particular theme or objective in mind (including creating a part of the environment or scene), which is independent of season, but that imagination doesn't occur every day. For the moment, deep in winter, inside activities are prominent.</p> <p>I like your approach of just wandering around and observing, although I am not only a street shooter and prefer not to interfere too much with the busy (and likely more important) activities of my fellow citizens. While away in a car on business today I will certainly have my camera at hand in case I see something that is too good to ignore.</p> <p> </p>

<p>(Double post, owing to local server on and off behaviour)</p>

<p>The 50 Loxia f2 (a modern Zeiss Planar) is very good, although you my find your 50 Summicron equal to it. It is also small, like the Summicron (I sold my Summicron version IV so I cannot compare it directly with my Loxia on the A7RII). I use the Zeiss 16-35 f4 and can vouch for its quality, if not quite as good as the Zeiss prime (again, only my 50mm to compare it with).</p> <p>A smaller lens in the A7 than the 50mm? While it is true that the A7 requires different lens formulas than other cameras (film or digital), the offerings from Sony and its partners has not resulted to date in many, if any, compact wide angle optics. Given the absence of the mirror and the prior need to design longer retrofocus lenses, it seems that Sony to date has passed on an opportunity to produce small lenses.</p> <p>Perhaps things will change, but I am looking forward to testing some small optics on the A7, including the retractable 50mm f2.8 Elmar-M, the small Voigtlander Cosina classic 35mm f2.5 optic and others. Perhaps there are some that can better suit Sony's thick cover glass on the sensor. Optics that have more narrowly disperse rays arriving on the sensor might do better than those which impinge at greater angles on the sensor.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Good idea and good luck, Leslie and Sanford. The medium has its specific qualities and aesthetic and it doesn't matter how one produces the black and white image.</p> <p>By the way, the word "monochrome" is more general than black and white and includes color monochrome in addition to that of toning of black and white images to create a color tone, so you may want to define (or not) that the topic is related to monochreome images derived from a black and white source (digital or film), or alternatively call it black and white photography.</p> <p>Having an independent B&W or monochrome forum may not fly, because it would then suggest that a color forum would also be logical, instead of being implied in many other forums, so CPC is probably the place for a sub-forum on B&W photography. In my humble view, it should go far beyond just W/NW as I am sure that there is interest in discussing and giving examples of varying approaches to seeing and producing B&W images and that is often where mutual assistance to other photographers or ideas of how to use the medium are best generated. Discussions on equipment are probably well enough taken care of in specific forums, but the topic or sub-forum might allow discussion of specific B&W materials including papers.</p> <p>Such B&W photography discussions are available of course in the press. The only journal that I am aware of that is supportive of all aspects of digital and film B&W photography, including its approaches, techniques, photographer portfolios, list of current exhibitions, materials and equipment related to the medium is the well regarded British monthly B+W Photography. Other photographic art journals mentioned above provide portfolios and artist interviews and are read by photographers and collectors, but the British monthly perhaps covers more varied topics of the medium for beginner to advanced photographers. The more general photography monthlies of Europe, North America, Australasia and elsewhere occasionally provide very good B&W theme numbers, which can also be of interest.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mark, I understand your dislike of digital black and white, but is that based uniquely on quality of result? This image is a digital camera conversion with minor post exposure light rebalancing (similar to red optical filter use with film). Although a committed film and darkroom worker, I don't think my film and darkroom craft could have provided a very different result. The digital image printed quite nicely on Canon inkjet paper, although I might have had a better physical texture with some developer and silver papers. I like to "see" subjects in B&W, which is often as important for me as the medium used to achieve them. The necessary slowing down of the visualisation and capture when using film for landscapes and other applications is certainly advantageous in some cases.</p><div></div>

<p>Living in a snow belt and often photographing sunlit snow scenes I have been only mildly put off by slight flare with an unmodified M4-P, or with a previous M4-2 once owned. Most cameras have some operational downsides that can be compensated by the photographer without missing an important picture. After all, Leicaists have struggled since the mid twenties of the last century with the imperfect framing of a VF-RF camera system, whereas many SLR and DESLR users have had to contend with less than 100% transmission of the image via their prisms.</p> <p>I appreciate those who want to improve if not eradicate some viewing problems and encourage them if the added expense of better equipment is justifiable for them, but there is also the question of making do when using an otherwise high quality system while realising that many superb images have been made with them.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I love shooting and processing B&W film and making photos in my darkroom or scanning to digital prints. For all their beauty of E-6 and C-41 films are not easy to process and have no great qualitative advantage for me over digital color, its convenience and post exposure control, so I intend to continue shooting B&W film (mainly medium format) and enjoying darkroom craft, while supplementing that with both color and B&W digital.</p> <p>Like the last poster, Bethe Fisher, I am attracted to the graphic and expressive character of B&W film and silver printing of its negatives and I hope that we continue to have the materials that make that possible.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Fred, you quote a part of one of my sentences which ends in a comma, which you purposely left out, and then you ignore the context that is also inherent in both it and the other two parts. I was referring to the nature of homo sapiens and their evolution and their natural creative nature (maybe not to MOMA standards but that is not the point) related to their cognition and not uniquely to the photographer, although it wouldn't exclude the latter.</p> <p>Julie, "leaving the room" is just a cop out, when one can instead use his or her mind to conceive and create. It may occasionally be a manner to turn the page and reposition the thinker, but that seems to be all you are saying in your response, without following it up with what leaving the room means to you. </p> <p>The discussion is loosing substance, in large part because the responses to ideas offered are deflected and not seriously discussed, more often than not being met with simple one-liners that seek to dismiss and only create more questions than they resolve. I wonder if that climate of discussion may be the reason why very few have participated over these numerous last pages. Is there another?</p> <p>-30-</p> <p> </p>

<p>Firstly, my apologies to the more assiduous posters and readers of this OP for my cavalier and very summary following of these debates on creativity and the interior world of the photographer/artist. I am not privileged to read and consider everything in the necessary detail to respond in like manner.</p> <p>Notwithstanding, my impression is that the desire to create is a very natural one. Perhaps a hundred thousand years ago the human brain reached the level that we could call ourselves sapiens and use and benefit from such memory and cognition to advance our lives and art. Recorded history is there to tell us that as individuals we do not create equally and sometimes the results of our creation go unrecognised for decades or even centuries. Questions of creative success or not are often not judged in the lifespan of the creating individual. We all have to put bread on the table or even advance our status in our own group and some would put creativity as a parameter and reward in achieving either, but on the whole my feeling is that we mobilize our interior world to achieve creative results simply because we recognize such action as being among the highest we might attain to, we fully enjoy the process of exploration and discovery, and because the inbred tradition of sapiens has been to create, in one way or the other.</p> <p>If that all seems mundane kitchen sink philosophy or social observation, so be it - This morning I am about to try my recent recipe for crepes, with an undisclosed ingredient and a soft local cheese, married to our splendid regional maple syrup....</p> <p> </p>

<p>Fred, first thanks for responding with some examples, although I still feel originality and creativity are very similar and intertwined. The original film featuring Roberto Bellini in "La vie est belle" (Life is beautiful) about a father's encouragement/protection of his son while they were in an internment camp under the Nazis, was both original and creative, yet the subsequent North American copy was anything but. "La la land" is a creative and original film that nonetheless borrows in part the energy and spontaneity common to preceding films like "Dancer in the Dark" (creative music scenes that empathize the film theme). There are déjà vu or clichés in parts of each work, but some fabric of originality and creativity seems to come through in both.</p> <p>One has to consider the severe artistic trials of both Munch (continuously ignored by critics and salons in his time) and Von Gogh when comparing madness and creativity. Munch was not really mad I believe but instead he was the downtrodden artist feeling things much more intensely than his compatriots. Such intense feelings often characterize very gifted and original artists who have to battle conventional thought.</p> <p>I am interested if anyone else is occupied by the play between interior world and exterior world inputs and outputs in the work of a photographer. I think it is difficult to ignore or separate the influence of both, and how each nutures the other. We are never really static in the composition of our interior world, but always evolving, if only slowly and in small incremental steps. </p>

<p>Artists often seem to display some dichotomy of their thoughts and actions. Weston, like other creative human beings, was probably influenced by the dual process of the exterior world interacting with his interior self and the interior world conditioning the perception of the exterior world. The example of the latter may be that of the "Westons" observed by Charis. While they may be written off as simply a recognizable style that may issue from other than an interior world, the perceptive uniqueness of Weston's images speak more to an interior world derivation.</p> <p>Only a few posts have considered the opposite influence of the exterior world on the interior world, but the two are I think are always in constant play together. When I photograph, I am often conscious of the evident and more hidden spirit of the place that I am in, something that feeds my curiosity and the way I see subjects. Marx stated that man sees everything around him as part of who he is. The uncontrolled presence of nature is a fresh experience that can free him from such predictability. Having spent some time living in the depressing rigid conformity of many North American urban planned cities of grid layout with their cookie cutter architecture duplication it is refreshing to see and be influenced by exterior worlds that deny that conformity. Sometimes these are simply arresting human activities within those grids, but also can be places of more charm or indentity. By escaping habits and conformities, we let our interior world better express itself.</p> <p>On the question of creativity and originality being different, I would really like to see some concrete examples of this. I think of the two as being intimately related, but would be glad to be shown contrary examples.</p> <p> </p>

<p>We seldom seem to be able to separate our concepts of craft and art, or of perfection and refined works compared to what is original and unique. Mozart is thought by some as a refined craftsman because he didn't invent the musical forms he applied, but that can be countered by the knowledge that he did so in a manner that is unique and inspiring to others, in works of creative content. In that sense his works are original and creative. When Picasso comments that copying is something all great artists do and also copies some existing ideas does that make his work less creative? I doubt it. Adams was a superb craftsman who had some creative insights into the action of light and the majesty of nature, but how many of his works can be considered creative? The same is true for the well-known portraitist Yousef Karsh who took a leaf from Adam's works and used light and B&W tonality to give his subjects an intimate nature that some viewers appreciate, but I don't think all his works are creative (A good friend long departed was photographed by the master but without great success). </p> <p>One can cite many examples where the line between high craftsmanship and creativity is obscure, or at least so much so that opinions are divided on stating which is which. All humans are capable of small creative acts, which are lost among the craft of living. However, even those very small creative acts outdistance Julie's considerable appreciation of the intricacies of a bird's nest construction, which for all its beauty, is simply the accumulation of millions of years of iterative progress on the same project.</p> <p>When the jet engine was first proposed in 1912 its originality was not appreciated. The collective ability of humans at that time was incapable of seeing its worth and only many years later was the idea applied (The idea was rejected as planes were travelling at slow speeds at which level the engine was patently inefficient). Art is like such imaginative engineering invention. It is often beyond the capability of the viewer to recognize it. What we recognize are the well trodden paths of high craft, like Steve's link to some very well lit, executed and composed portraits and nude studies that make me think of the more run of the mill works of Adams and Karsh.</p> <p>Creativity in photography ends up being a question of degree. Small and great creativity have the same parents, but differing outcomes. The OP's suggestion of the importance of the interior world of the artist is no doubt part of the process of increasing that degree. It's also the part of the potential that very minor and struggling photographers like myself need to more fully understand and apply. </p> <p> </p>

<p>It is not surprising to me that there is a good level of interest. It is not a question of either-or but simply that film photography and even darkroom printing are engaging activities and will likely have continued interest by photographers. The market decline and producer withdrawals has reached an adjusted level that should remain constant with the remaining industry supported by film photographers. Having both options is advantageous. </p>

<p>The ability to modify images after exposure has always been part of photography, although the degree to which one can do it is much greater today. The magazines are mostly reflecting this. And the market is there to present equipment with all sorts of features at high cost that you may not need but which a number of photographers seem to need (or accept the need defined by others).</p> <p>I sympathise with your desire to use straight (unmanipulated) photography and to minimise after exposure treatment of your photos, although you may still want to use the basic colour and light controls to tweak your images (simple post exposure software like Elements can allow that). Not sure whether your interests are colour or B&W or both and whether you shoot digital or film, but B&W Photography out of London may be to your liking. It is presently the only magazine I purchase, even though I think they go often too far with interviews and portfolios of very well known photographers that can be otherwise mainly accessed via Internet searches.</p> <p>As a fairly new photographer you can find much useful information in existing texts on photography that treat seeing and various creative and technical approaches to making images. Most libraries have a number of such texts, often from film days, that can give you all sorts of ideas for your own photography, without having to plow through Photoshop 101 or 201, or reading up on expensive equipment you may not need. The American series Time-Life from about 40 years ago (photographic approaches and composition haven't changed all that much since then) is still a good source of reading on basic photography art and science. More modern texts exist on creative photography and the art of seeing. They can be useful to you as you seem to be interested in showing everyday subjects in a new way.</p> <p>Finding and purchasing two or three if these substantial texts is often the same price as one or two magazine subscriptions or newstand purchases. I have decided that the regular purchase of two or three magazines is usually not worth the cost. </p>