What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Newbie Question Need Help

Q.G.,

Guess I should have pointed out the distinction between an actual picture frame (or matte) and the shape of the picture plane
wink.gif


Being required to create an image to fit the former is what made/makes me cringe -- puts the cart before the horse. And of course one cannot escape from the shape of the picture plane -- a flat image (physical or aerial) couldn't exist without it or the boundary it sets.

Now that you have defined what you meant by 'making one thing fit another' as being composition, I understand where you are coming from. Further to "You can choose to make the format fit the subject, or the subject the format": what is preventing one from choosing to make both fit the other?
wink.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Mark

Looking at analog B/W photography : using filters , different films and developers , working with the zone system and doing dodging and burning in the darkroom , that is no "cheating".
Looking at painting : using different colours and mixing them , using different canvas and different techniques , is no "cheating".
Looking at digital photography : using photoshop with all its tools to produce an image of your imagination , is no "cheating" .
These three points , and you shurely could add some more details to them , are just your way , you could also say , just your "secret" , to produce an image of your imagination .
The only thing which counts , is the result , no matter which way you took , to obtain that result . And for the observer of your images , it is of no interest either , as long as he (she) does not want to copy your technique .
 
Jason, years ago I could buy self-assembly extruded aluminium frames, sold as pairs of sides, ready mitred and needing only the glass and a screwdriver. So, you could make square frames of a wide range of sizes up to about 30 inches simply by buying two identical pairs. I think they were made by Daler, but I am not sure and I haven't seen any for a long time, sadly.
 
Jurgen very true.
Although I like to think, as someone has said, hand made prints will only become more and more a rare and valuable art form/specialist field.
happy.gif
.
 
Wayne,

Even if the frame is the thing in which the picture ends up hanging/standing in, the same thing still applies: make things fit other things is what we do.
But yes, after the picture has been composed to a certain aspect ratio, taken, processed, etc. it would sometimes be difficult to recompose it to fit another aspect ratio. Still, that too is nothing more than an act of composition...

Even making a picture fit the colour of the wall it is going to be on is part of composing a "Gesamtkunstwerk'. So what if that happens to be a wall? (Museums and galleries often do the same, though they change the colours of the walls to match the things that are going to be exposed on it? Something to make you cringe?) And what if a picture is not the totality of 'the piece', but only plays a supporting, contributing role, is only a subordinate bit of a larger composition?
wink.gif



Of course you can make both fit both. It's just one possible permutation of 'making a thing fit another'.


Anyway, formats are tools. Tools that do not make creative decisions.
We, the ones using the tools, are doing that (i hope...).
So though we can discuss the relative merrits of different formats, we have to be aware that the merrits they may have are not absolute.

So this thing got off the rail a bit on May 13th. No problem. Could still be fun.
But definite statements like "the image dictates [...]", and the "[...] why they wasted their money [...]" are blatantly and heroically missing the point of what we are doing is all about...
crazy.gif
 
Jürgen,

The big Ansel Adams Cheat is that he went on and on about how to previzualize, do everything you can to make the final result a negative, that is printable, 'straight', 'neat', on normal paper, but then went on an dodged and burned like the best of us anyhow.
People are still trying to adhere to his Zone-system rules with religious fervour, while the Master himself didn't bother that much...

The system itself was not an Adams invention. It was no more than a quite detailed, systematic elaboration of the ancient expose-for-the-shadows,-process-for-the-hight-lights thingy. The thing too that knows that overexposed but underdeveloped negatives produce softer results, and vice versa.

So that (making a simple thing difficult) was Adams' contribution. Not bad. A great teaching tool, that Zone-system.
Too bad though that Ansel made people go to lengths he himself did not want to go.
He preached the 'straight and narrow', urged people not to err of the path he set out, but took it every way he could himself.

That's the cheat.
wink.gif
 
G'Day Y'all.

I'm one of the "watchers" in this Forum. I very much appreciate the contributions, and the help we all give to each other. Today, I'd just like to weigh in a little on the Zone System, only in so much as the positive impact it has had on my students over the past 35 or so years. By the way, I am not here to defend Adams et al, or damn them. (I'd settle, though, for 5% of the glory!!)

Many beginners and some experienced B&W shooters try mightily to get some contrast and 'pop' in their photographs, and reach serious levels of frustration. But just a couple of hours of basic Zone discussion, and some "hands on" with a decent spotmeter, and they 'get it'. The first epiphany occurs when they 'get it' that meters read "white" as 18% Gray. The second occurs when they learn to 'place' their picture segments into zones. Suddenly there is 'snap and crackle' in the pictures. Of course, composition and 'seeing the space' is an entirely other issue.

So, I don't think that Adams or the Zone deserves any 'bad rap'. I As an artist in oils, I often change my viewpoint to get the sun on the most important areas (to me) of a building, or landscape, or figure, or to foreshorten, or to ignore. I am not cheating. I am seeing the space I want to work in, and in the manner I want it to be seen when that fleeting moment is frozen.

However, I think that representing a 50 year old face as an 18 year old face for a publicity shot via Photoshop is starting to stretch the artist's ethics!!!

OK, I've said my piece, and I'm back to being the watcher. Cheers.
 
Colin,

I think Adam's Zone-system deserves praise as a great teaching tool, and a bad rap (to a degree) for not being the begin-all end-all it was presented to be by Zone-System renegade Adams.
 
> I remember when I was in school we were taught a formula for > getting the print the perfect amount above center. Someone makes a > t square that gives the 'correct' proportion. I always eye ball > where the print goes on the matt ( of course I measure to center > side to side). I tend to like it even more above center than is > traditional. I much prefer a square image in a rectangular frame.
 
I hope my post wasn`t misunderstood, I never meant to even imply Adams was a cheat, in fact my whole post screamed he didn`t.
I think the zone system is best thing to ever happen to B&W photography, and Adams too!, the man was no less than a genius.

But I do agree to an extent that any hard and fast rules can be a little counterproductive in the long run, when you learn anything you learn proper technique but when you become experienced you throw the rule book out the window and do what works, first and foremost, a good analogy would be in the sport of boxing, when the great Ali often held his hands down low cause he could see better, move better and get better leverage on his punches, greats in all fields break rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top