Leaves

As you wish; I'll leave (no pun intended, given this thread title) to others to start (a) thread(s) with (a) different title(s).

I don't see the word "approaching" in a purely physical way, as you seem to, in that I can happily (or not, as the case may be) approach a problem, or approach a person I'm actually standing alongside with a request without changing my physical position.
 
As I seem to be the guilty party here, may I suggest Looking at Photographs might encompass the ideas of approaching images, discussing them and analysing them? I suspect (but I may be wrong) that few of us need to debate the matter of moving towards an image.
[I have spoken hastily here. There is a debate about how close one should stand to view an image. Or rather two debates; one is concerned with recreation of the original perspective and the other with sharpness or resolution. There may be more. There might be a further debate about the physical size of the image too. Are we affected differently by seeing different-sized prints of the same image? I was, in fact affected by seeing Kertesz's Swimmer at its original tiny contact size in Elton John's magnificent show.] Now there are three...​
I don't know what to call a thread dedicated to helping others. Hints and Tips sounds simplistic and perhaps a little trivial. Help sounds like first aid. Useful Experiences, perhaps?

I don't know how to start new threads so if someone cleverer than me would care to start... It seems reasonable to have discussions on the production and consumption of images kept separately.
 
Many, many, years ago, (...and I damned if I can remember the 'who'... or of the 'where', or... under what circumstances) I was 'dutifully informed' that the 'proper' viewing distance of a photographic print was derived from the linear magnification of the print made from the negative, multiplied by the focal length of the lens with which the 'image' was made. That being 'said', I cannot remember ever having seen that 'formula' in print anywhere.

Ken
 
From memory, you'll probably find it in Photographic Optics (Cox) and How Photography Works (Walls). I won't bother verifying, but will add that adherence to it misses several points - but all of them off topic here!

Looking at photographs as a thread suggests to me more a discussion on the lines Ken raised above; while valuable, it's not any of the topics I was thinking off, so I'll still pass.
 
Ken,
That formula isn't magic. It just geometrically reconstructs the perspective that your naked eye would have seen. It isn't "proper" in any way. We photographers commonly distort the "natural" view by using shorter or longer focal length lenses to give wider or narrower images on the negative, sometimes for aesthetic and sometimes for practical reasons.
My apologies to Isabel for intruding, once again, on the original thread of her excellent Leaves picture.
 
David,
During the non-ending.... and seemingly everlasting Canadian Prairie winters, I find it somewhat too cold to go about with either of my eyes 'naked'. :cool:)))))

But.... my 'naked' eyes did did enjoy the close encounter with Isabel's 'Behind the Mask'.

Ken
 
Interloper.jpg
This image was photographed in the evening through a hole in the frosted glass window of a friend's garage since there was not enough space to set up for what could... and probably would have been a better 'composition' using my 75mm Rodagon between the outside of the garage wall and the hedge. My 'interest' was somewhat piqued by the 'repetition' of the nearest edges of the leaves. I was not exactly 'comfortable' including the the dead 'weed' within the frame, but... since rainfall was imminent, and the 'light 'quality' was about to change, discretion became (again) the better part of valour... and with a 'WTH' just went ahead made the exposure on my last unexposed sheet of film. In retrospect, I may be 'wrong' but... I believe it became a little more 'interesting' with the dead weed 'interloper' left where it was.

Recorded to Ilford FP4 (at ISO 100) at f.8 +2/3 for 1/2 second, behind my 150mm Rodenstock and developed with Pyrocat HD in BTZS tube.

Ken
 
On my screen, it's the contrast between the erratic linear scribble of the weed and the robust pattern of the mass of dark leaves that makes the shot so interesting. It almost seems that the weed is more alive. That little bit of extra light at top right seems to balance it nicely. I have a small and heretical thought: what if the lighter leaf, about a third of the way up on the left edge, were burned down to match the other leaves?
 
Thank you David... Now that you have mentioned that... it IS a good suggestion... but unfortunately, somewhat (as the saying goes) "A day late and a dollar short".... :cool:.

I am aways more than reluctant to make changes to what appears (originally) on the ground glass unless any change I might make cannot be readily 'reversed' to the original 'as first found' condition. Was it not Kirtimukha who indicated that "We should leave no footprints behind"?


Ken
 
  • Like
Reactions: LEO
WetLeaf.jpg

On my way home after the rain put an end to my first chance of being 'creative' under the dark-cloth for a while., I stopped to 'top up' the fuel tank. While waiting for a break in the 'end of work-day' traffic my eye was drawn to the base of a nearby tree. I backed-up a few car lengths... and 'parked'. I quickly got my tripod 'out' and 'up, mounted the Linhof and covered it with the dark-cloth, shoved a film holder under my belt and hurredly composed and focussed, inserted afilm holder with FP4 ..... got a good meter reading... then "did the necessary" with the 240mm Rodenstock.
Within the week, both sheets processed in Pyrocat HD in BTZS tubes. Exposure, if (my memory serves me well enough) was 1/2 second at f.11.

Ken
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top