Re: Black Macaque
Ron Kelly <ron@...>
Paul:toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
You've nailed me to the wall with surprising accuracy; guilty as charged.
Managing people in front of the lens has never been my forté, and I admit, I haven't seen the results
of the photographer in question.
In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal" portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any monkey could do.
There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer, coincidentally.
However, using no supplementary lighting for any shots cannot equate, quality -wise. The Shadow/Highlight
filter or similar techniques does not measure up to properly done flash-fill, for example. Even on an overcast day,
the eyes will be dull without flash, people under hats will be too dark.
My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.
Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the "perfect" original is far better than all the post production
you can bring to bear.
On 2011-07-07, at 9:35 AM, Paul Lawrence wrote:
Surely it is all about getting