 EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
| Harry Benson on low light photography After Googling Harry Benson as a followup to reading »Is it image theft, or acceptable conceptual art? , I found this interesting interview with him;
»gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/201···-photos/
In addition to touching on low light, he mentions digital vs. film, and post processing. Seems like a fellow one would enjoy hoisting a pint with in some cozy neighborhood pub.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
 mhhackPremium
join:2005-03-29
kudos:3 | It's an interesting read. I remember when I was much younger thinking that the kind of camera you had didn't make much difference since basically all of us used the same film, and what counted was what you could do with the negative. Nowadays you can practically choose you film equivalent using all the tricks of post processing. I do remember things like the zone system and the attempts to do the same with film as is easily done now with digital. |
|
 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:19
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to EGeezer
Interesting read...even just the part about film vs. digital. I had a friend visiting recently, and one of the conversations we had, over and over, was the reliability of shooting with film or digital. Obviously, it wasn't just about in low light situations. She had just started using a digital and was really uneasy about her shots. I showed her how easy it was to correct something if, per chance, the lighting wasn't good. As mhhack comments, post processing now does all the things that it were so much more difficult to do with film and having to get special film for certain results. While this article covers low level lighting, it is an example of how those that used to think about using only film have changed...sometimes using both. Benson's explanation of what he usually shoots in is also helpful, so this link will be sent on to a friend.
--
JKK
Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!
»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay
|
|
|
|
| reply to EGeezer
Thank you so much for posting that very interesting and surprising interview. Excellent find! |
|
| reply to EGeezer
Hmm...
I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film. If I manipulated the photos, I would feel that everything I did was fake. I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork. and
On film, the results were unreliable. If I was in a dark situation, the film had to be developed first so that I had an idea of how far to push it. I’d usually develop eight frames or so to judge the quality. Pushing, pulling, dodging, burning, either on digital or film, are 'post-production', something you do after the shot is taken... |
|
EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Callcentric
| On the other hand,
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.
Ansel Adams
Clyde Butcher also uses post processing in his work. Both are fine photographers and artists.
But it certainly doesn't mean we should copy their methods and expect great results. Too often people do stuff because somebody famous does it rather than doing it because it's part of one's style or what he wants to achieve.
I don't think that in camera, out of camera or no processing at all is the determinant of the quality of a photograph. I've seen wonderful and highly acclaimed work by people whose techniques employ any one or more of these three philosophies.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
