Getting "reality" with film. It ain't happening.

**rdenney** · 30-Jul-2010, 14:25

Originally Posted by Robert Hughes

You wouldn't get along very well in Congress, I can see that ...

Why, thank you.

Rick "appreciating the compliment" Denney

**Gordon Moat** · 31-Jul-2010, 14:34

I use Astia 100F mostly for images of people, or for beach scenes. In those situations, the film renders in a way that people expect. That is not the same as reality, though it is a good representation.

My long time exposure night shots are usually Kodak E100VS. There is nothing realistic about this, because our eyes cannot average out light at nighttime over many minutes. Photography for me has never been more than representational.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

**Maris Rusis** · 31-Jul-2010, 17:35

Originally Posted by Steven Barall

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Reality has nothing to do with it. If you think you are recreating nature then where is the creativity? If you can't be creative why do it in the first place?

In semiotics school they taught that a foot print in the sand is the index of the foot, it's a direct relationship, one makes the other. Is photography like that? Does the mountain and the cloud and the moon have that same relationship to the photo as the foot has to the sand?

I give photography more credit than to say that is merely replicating nature and photographers more credit than to call them camera operators.

Cheers and have a great weekend everyone.

Photography is the only way of making a picture that is directly and physically linked to subject matter.

Cameras (light tight boxes in general) and film (light sensitive chemicals in general) are the essential components that make that link achievable. An 8x10 sheet of film actually absorbs about 10 to the minus 25 kilograms of stuff that a moment before was part of the subject matter. The penetration of this stuff, at 300 000 km/second, into a sensitive surface makes changes that enable a photograph to be revealed at the site of impact.

Photographs, of all picture making processes, are absolute certificates for the reality of their subject matter. The relationship is truly indexical in the semiotic sense. What photographs do not offer is a reproduction of subject matter in just the same way as a foot print is not a reproduction of a foot. Also photographs do not guarantee reliable identification of subject matter. Just think of all the honest photographs of floating logs in Loch Ness that "prove" the monster really is out there.

**Rust Never Sleeps** · 31-Jul-2010, 22:28

Originally Posted by John NYC

One of my eyes sees color totally differently than the other eye. I've spent a lot of time analyzing this once I noticed it last year. Essentially, one eye has a warmer white balance and more vivid color and the other has a cooler white balance, less vivid color and less sensitivity to specular highlights. I am not imagining this, and I actually find it really valuable when taking color photos.

So, which eye is "reality"?

P.S. With both eyes open, I essentially get the color impression of my dominant eye.

I get the same thing. I noticed it recently after having some problems with my eye prescription for glasses/contacts. About the same things you reported like one eye warmer, other cooler. One more vivid, other less. Doesn't bother me.

What is interesting about this, is it something with the eyes themselves or does it have something to do with the brain and how it is processing vision?? Maybe a little of both??

**Vaughn** · 1-Aug-2010, 00:19

Originally Posted by cyrus

Reality is overrated.

An old saying from the 60's/70's...

Acid absorbs 47 times its weight in excess reality.

**Ulrich Drolshagen** · 1-Aug-2010, 02:04

Originally Posted by Maris Rusis

Photography is the only way of making a picture that is directly and physically linked to subject matter.

Cameras (light tight boxes in general) and film (light sensitive chemicals in general) are the essential components that make that link achievable. An 8x10 sheet of film actually absorbs about 10 to the minus 25 kilograms of stuff that a moment before was part of the subject matter. The penetration of this stuff, at 300 000 km/second, into a sensitive surface makes changes that enable a photograph to be revealed at the site of impact.

Photographs, of all picture making processes, are absolute certificates for the reality of their subject matter. The relationship is truly indexical in the semiotic sense. What photographs do not offer is a reproduction of subject matter in just the same way as a foot print is not a reproduction of a foot. Also photographs do not guarantee reliable identification of subject matter. Just think of all the honest photographs of floating logs in Loch Ness that "prove" the monster really is out there.

I have never seen this definition of photography concisely condensed into so few sentences. It's just perfect.

Ulrich

**D. Bryant** · 1-Aug-2010, 06:59

Originally Posted by Rust Never Sleeps

I have settled on Velvia 50

I recall once a 30 something woman telling me, "I'm a 32 year old virgin!". I replied, "Are you bragging or complaining?".

Velvia 50 is just about as real as Velveeta cheese. Some people love the look - of the yellow ooozing Velveeta. Others move along to something else. Unfortunately the choices available today have been reduced from what it once was if you want to shoot color positive. Experiment and see what you like. But don't tell your friends you are a virgie!

Oh yeah! Some fresh Velveeta!

http://media.photobucket.com/image/V...a.jpg%3Fo%3D18

Don Bryant

**Vaughn** · 1-Aug-2010, 11:09

Originally Posted by Maris Rusis

Photography is the only way of making a picture that is directly and physically linked to subject matter...

As long as that subject matter is light, and only light, I agree with this. The light bulb finally went on when I realized that I was not photographing rocks and trees, but the light that defines them. YMMD.

Vaughn