Is it just me?

[JW Dewdney]

Brian - I think you're taking her sentiments as an attempt to establish fact. Don't take it so literally. You don't find there to be a 'memorial' aspect to, say, the typical B&W photograph?? That's all she's saying - she was just trying to probe more deeply into the medium. Specifically - she's saying that you're FORCING your memory of a given tableau (what you're photographing) into the past and therefore permanently destroying that 'moment' - the camera just forces you to be conscious of that fact. You could derive the same thing by staring at the second hand of a watch, obviously - but you wouldn't have the consciousness of the person or moment any longer. But the big irony she was also trying to point out is that the actual moment, in being memorialized, is also being created - according to the projections of the (photographer).

I'm guessing the thing you're having a hard time with is relating to her style of thinking/expression. I, for one, found the book incredibly interesting and to the point. It's brought a real depth to the way I see the medium - and my role in it. I can only guess that most people who dislike the book - pick it up because they're expecting it to be a 'stupid technical manual' such as the adams books...(??)

All this recent interest in using old lenses, with 'old lens bokeh' and aberrations seem, to me, like a direct reaction to EVERYTHING she tried to capture in that book. Just perhaps, not in the words that you might choose.

I should also mention that, to me, the quote you've provided doesn't mean much. It could be a good book for all I know... I'm not familiar with it. Giving the reader a little (fake) ego-boost maybe?? What are you supposed to do with THAT information?

[Rider]

"The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."

Shorter focal length lenses have more DoF at equivalent f/stops and distances. Photo 101.

Yeah, but magnification for a given format is determined by focal length is determined by focal length and object distance.

Hence, Dof depends on: magnification and f-number.

I ain't no physicist, but that's what I've read.

[Brian C. Miller]

JW, part of Negative / Positive was reprinted in Lenswork magazine. I don't remember the issue number. Since the book is no longer in print, I recommend that you get that back issue, or else buy the book itself from a used book seller, or at least use inter-library loan to get a copy.

Negative / Positive (A Philosophy of Photography) isn't a technical manual by any means. It is about philosophy, and the value of idealism.

Jay references Abraham Maslow and Viktor Frankl. I have read for myself Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. One book that I found to be an excellent book for a photographer is Ray Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing: Essays on Creativity.

Negative / Positive
Table of contents:
The Failure of Photography
Naturalism vs Humanism
Humanism in Retreat
From Humanism to Heroism
The Mechanics of Purpose
The Viewer as Humanist
Conclusion

I have called this a philosophy of photography. It deals with ideals, the fundamental issues that I believe must be faced by every photographer in the medium. I have no stylistic axe to grind; greatness can be expressed in the wildest, most bizarre multi-media mix or in the simplest direct confrontation between mind, camera, and reality. It is not the appearance of the image that matters but the spirit that moves the individual mind. I have attempted to express a fraction of my thoughts in the simplest, clearest way I know how. It matters not a jot that phtographers reach different conclusions. The issues must be engaged. Photography is too important to leave it in the hands of photographers devoid of ideals.

If you don't want to investigate Jay's other books for yourself, that's your choice. The books are cheap and available from Lenswork and Amazon.

[RDKirk]

The rules change with the focal length. As Jeff Conrad explains in his article "An Introduction to Depth of Field" on the large format home page, "The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."

Yeah, but magnification for a given format is determined by focal length is determined by focal length and object distance.

Hence, Dof depends on: magnification and f-number.

Folks, it's an equation of relativity that ends in a true/false response to the question of, "Will the human eye fail to resolve the blur circles in the final display image as distinct from true points?" If the answer is, "True," then the image is "sharp." If the answer is, "False," then the image is "unsharp."

Change any one factor--desired CoC (itself based on expected magnification and viewing distance of the final display image), focal length, distance, relative aperture (itself based on physical aperture and focal length), actual magnification to the final display image, actual viewing distance of the final display image--and you change all the relationships.

But if you change two factors complementarily, you can retain all the other relationships.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE=Brian C. Miller;243184]Yeah, Sontag?

You actually think that Michael Reichmann is a essayist on photography (or anyone else on LL) on the level of Susan Sontag. Really.

I went to school with Bill Jay (he was a gs in history of photo, I was merely an undergraduate in studio). Interesting guy, good writer, ok photographer, not on my short list of profound writers on photography.

[Merg Ross]

And he (Bill Jay) still owes me four issues of his defunct Album Magazine from 1970. I have been leery of start-ups, ever since subscribing to his efforts at marketing a good photography magazine, which it was. His writings, however, leave me amused but never enlightened.

[Doug Dolde]

The Eichmann saga continues....what a plick

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...howtopic=17034

[Roger Krueger]

But if you change two factors complementarily, you can retain all the other relationships.

Not true. If you change the focal length and the subject distance to maintain composition at the subject plane you change the DOF.

For many situations you make an unnoticable 0.000001% change. But if you are reasonably near the hyperfocal distance for the wider lens you can end up with a very large difference between a wide and tele. When you're actually at hyperfocal for the wide the difference is by definition infinite.

But hey, don't believe me, there are a ton of decent DOF calculators around, give it a try. Near hyperfocal=big difference. Significant distance from hyperfocal=very little difference.

In any event, that's not even the really egregious problem with the Reichmann DOF article in question. He compared subject space resolution, which has nothing-nothing-nothing to do with DOF. In fact, if you have the same subject-space resolution of items portrayed at different sizes on the film, you by definition have different resolution at the film, and thus different DOF.

He's made errors on film vs. digital comparisons too, where stupidity is a very charitable theory of what went on. Twice he's had film vs. digital comparisons where he shot a reduced-format back on a body, then shot film in the same body without recomposing, just cropping the film to the digital's format for the comparison.

An especially funny one was where he took a 4x5 and scanned at (and/or downsampled to) the same pixel count as a P45 back--well under 2000dpi for the film. He then used this to come to the conclusion that the P45 had as much resolution as 4x5 film. Gee, using that methodology I can beat 4x5 with a cell-cam.

The thing that makes this all really smell is that he admits that Phase One's VP of Marketing is a buddy and a shooting partner. Hello?!?! Don't pretend you're doing objective tests of a company's products when a senior executive is a personal friend. That's just slimey, even if you do fess up to it eventually.

[JW Dewdney]

Negative / Positive (A Philosophy of Photography) isn't a technical manual by any means. It is about philosophy, and the value of idealism.

It wasn't my intention to imply that it was. I was talking in relation to Sontag's book - not this one - at this point. I was just hypothesizing that most people don't expect to find what they find there.

If you don't want to investigate Jay's other books for yourself, that's your choice. The books are cheap and available from Lenswork and Amazon.

if it came out in the 70s... then I probably at least skimmed it. I've read or inspected just about everything the main library had on photography around 1980 (no joke! I'd be there every NIGHT for about three hours after school!). The title sure seems reminiscent of a book I've seen from that period. But there could have been others. Judging from everything I've seen/heard here - it really sounds like it's not quite my 'speed' or 'thing' but I'll certainly thumb through it if I come across it - so, thanks for the suggestion.

[Doug Dolde]

Another line of BS from Reichmann's latest article on the Seitz Roundshot :

"But I was fortunate in being able able to find a Hasselblad Flextight 343 scanner for $3,995 from Calumet. (It appears, alas, that Calumet has now sold the last of the US inventory of this scanner). A search of the web and some phone calls failed to turn up any remaining stock anywhere else.)

The 343 is essentially the same scanner as the Imacon Photo which I owned and sold some years ago, except that it has a Firewire interface and comes with updated software. At this price I didn't hesitate, since in essence I was getting the equivalent of my Imacon Photo back, but for a thousand dollars less that I had sold it for several years ago because of the SCSII limitation."

Why do I say it's BS? Because I bought that old battered Imacon Photo from him for $1500 a couple years ago. He clearly is not to be listened to regarding much of anything.