8x10 photography and diffraction

[Thom Bennett]

Very well put.

Now let me explain this from an entirely different angle. 8x10 photography inherently involves depth of field compromises. Crunching numbers will only take you so far. You need to learn how to strategize depth of field in a compositional sense, intelligently, for sake of the specific image itself, rather than rely on rote formulas. Some scenes might be amenable to very crisp overall plane of focus control, especially if wide angle lenses with their greater depth of field are involved. But in most cases, I find myself prioritizing certain things in the picture which I want the viewer's eyes to instinctively focus upon within context of a much richer cumulative print. I often do this by carefully nuancing the critical focus. Please do not confuse this with the notions of either soft focus or what small camera tele-photographers term selective focus. It's a lot more subtle, but allows me to strategize big highly detailed prints. Nothing is more disconcerting than these new huge digitally stitched panels where everything in the scene is artificially equally sharp. Human vision does not work like that. Vermeer would roll over in his grave. The eyes survey, select, re-focus, and prioritize; and any intelligent composition should assist that process.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, but I don't want to be misunderstood in the context of this thread. It is entirely possible that I have the most sophisticated optical enlarging setup of anyone on this forum, not necessarily in terms of sheer size capacity, but precision and hue accuracy. I too use a Norma camera, except when sheer lightness of the pack is a travel priority, and routinely fine-tune its settings. But even it doesn't have the visual authority of even my lesser-made 8x10 field camera. I have some the best lenses for both darkroom use and shooting. I know how to do very complex masking protocols, internegs, and duplication work. But that's all just a means to an entirely different end. Technical chatter for its own sake is about as rewarding as reading the list of ingredients on a food package. If it doesn't taste good, none of that matters. Nor does all this fuss over technical detail mean a darn thing unless it serves the higher purpose of meaningful, rewarding composition. It's way too simplistic to simply defer to a good "subject" versus technology debate; people who talk like that usually don't understand either. And a truly compelling big print has to have more going for it than just overwhelming size and a catchy theme or loud color that looks good over the sofa like a hyper-saturated billboard. Of course, if making fast money is your primary motive, then catering to the lowest common denominator of taste possible seems to be the proven route; but that's an instant dead-end to any personal gratification in having done something well that can be enjoyed over the long haul, in my way of looking at things. I like richly-layered images, not just highly detailed or "colorful" ones. But other people have their own priorities, and that's why we share, and often debate, our respective viewpoints.

[Bernice Loui]

Image preferences depends on a host of factors from an individual's innate visual, cognitive and numerous other bias to cult tribal membership to monetary demands to an individuals need for ego or other self gratification and much more.

At the core, this is one of the great and diverse abilities of art, it can be a means to share with others who we really are along with an individual's perception of the human condition in so many ways.

*What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?


Bernice

Of course, if making fast money is your primary motive, then catering to the lowest common denominator of taste possible seems to be the proven route; but that's an instant dead-end to any personal gratification in having done something well that can be enjoyed over the long haul, in my way of looking at things. I like richly-layered images, not just highly detailed or "colorful" ones. But other people have their own priorities, and that's why we share, and often debate, our respective viewpoints.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have to admit that being 6'4", 220 pounds of muscle...

I hate you! Seventy-three years old now and short of six feet, paying dearly for an athletic youth and military injuries. Keep on, Sir. Someday I hope be in Humboldt Co where my late younger brother's family lives. Peace on you.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?

Shared artistic vision is shared delusion, persons misdirected. But there is nothing wrong with that. It is the in-between revelations that matter to connect us.

[Drew Wiley]

But you have to be on the road awhile to figure that out. You even have to be on the road awhile to learn which tools best fit your own vision. One shoe size does not fit all.

[Jac@stafford.net]

One shoe fits all who want to move forward. It is not an exclusionary technology.

[Vaughn]

One shoe fits all who want to move forward. It is not an exclusionary technology.

Ah, but to wear shoes is to cover the earth with shoe leather.

I gave up basketball when my triplets were born (1997) -- after 3 knees surgeries, I wanted to be able to go backpacking with them! Of course the last few day hikes I have taken with them, I told them to go on ahead and I'd see them on their way back! But a side benefit is still being able to carry 60+ pounds or so of equipment (carrying my age, lol!)...just not as far as I use to! Hope you can make it up here...well, out here since you are to the east!

What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?

Socially-conscience art tends to have a direct message, some art just entertains, and the rest of art opens up possibilities, with the artist/s providing the hints...I would not call it misdirection, unless that was the artist's purpose. Just my way of looking at it, anyway...subject to change.

[Drew Wiley]

How come old fashioned slide shows looked sooooo much more impressive than viewing images on a computer screen; and how come a funky old wooden view camera can still take sooo much better images than some fancy dancy super-expensive digital camera, which must be really really good in inverse proportion to how quickly goes obsolete! The term technology does not just apply to electronics. Film and chemical-based photography had a hundred year head start; and for my purposes, the tortoise is still ahead in the race, while the rabbit has to repeatedly pull off the road to change into new fur. Useless fur all over the place, especially glued to gallery walls.

[Pere Casals]

How come old fashioned slide shows looked sooooo much more impressive than viewing images on a computer screen

An slide is an slide