|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ansel Adams DiscoveryFrom: nobody@but.us.chickens (David Nebenzahl) "vince garcia" <vggarciaxx@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4C5FF8E3.4664@ix.netcom.com... You know, it's this kind of writing that gives journalism a bad name, and tends to further muddy the waters surrounding already-murky matters like this dispute over the provenance of these negatives. Yes, those spots and scratches *do* seem to prove that that negative was used to make those prints. That's just a simple matter of matching up the imperfections in each, something any amateur photographer could do. Doesn't take a forensic scientist. But it has *nothing* whatever to do with the camera used to take the picture. Dust on camera optics, and even for the most part dust elsewhere inside a camera, does *not* leave tell-tale spots on a negative. It's a myth that even very large specks of dirt in a lens somehow show up on a negative; they do not. At worst, they reduce the contrast of the overall image. Spots on negatives come from dust sitting *on the film*. Dust is almost impossible to completely eliminate from a large piece of film (4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 inches). I know; I've tried. And scratches on a large-format negative like this come from handling the film--loading it in the film holder, unloading it and processing it in trays or tanks. So this paragraph above was written in profound ignorance of the photographic process--no doubt a journalist trying to make the best sense of information they got--and tends to cast doubt on the rest of their reporting. Although it does appear that the negatives are in fact "Uncle Earl's" and not Uncle Ansel's. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com ()
|
