That's what I was looking for, thanks. So this is purely a function of light. To my eye it appear that the sand is quite flat in contrast, but Charis appears in full contrast.
That's what I was looking for, thanks. So this is purely a function of light. To my eye it appear that the sand is quite flat in contrast, but Charis appears in full contrast.
Originally Posted by jetcode
Joe, The reason that the sand looks flat while Charis appears full contrast is that her body surfaces are not all perpendicular to the light source. Additionally her skin is more reflective than the sand. The sand is perpendicular to the light source for the most part (some shading due to the forms in the sand in the lower portion of the image).
In lighting the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. That is the reason for the difference that you noted.
Joe, thanks for posting this thread. Thanks to all who have answered. I love the tones in Edwards nudes and this helps me understand his work even more.
Jim
Andrew Tymon:Ansel calls this the limb effect see the negative page 133
In at least one of his books, Adams explains this as the "limb effect", which may be as close as he ever came to a mischievous pun ( "limb" as used here is actually a technical term from the field of astronomy). Sadly, it is elsewhere illustrated with a photograph of an egg, more's the pity.
It says Edward Weston printed by Cole Weston, not Kim Weston. It looks like crap, It's hard to believe that Edward Weston would have approved this printing.
Nude, 1936 (233N)
Edward Weston negative, Cole Weston print
8" x 10"
14" x 16" mounted
the print I saw was printed by Kim in one of his classes ... the print is beautiful
I have a print of Charis on the dunes printed by Cole which is absolutely stunning. When I choose to display it I get more positive comments on it than on any other of the many prints I have collected.
Thank you for this excellent discussion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks