|
Re: Ansel Adams Discovery
From: parallelcooler@ggmail.com (Kris Baker)
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:4c604aa8$0$2378$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
On 8/9/2010 11:24 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
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.
In the interest of accuracy (after all, that's what my whole post was about!), replace "film" with "plate" in the paragraph above, since the negatives in question are glass plates.
I understood it.
I was trying to find the other explanation, that shows the same spots
and scratches on some of the plates, as on Uncle Earl's prints.
One explanation (heard, not read) is that plate photographers used
the same holders over and over, so you could forensically examine
the plates to determine if they all exhibited similar wear marks.
Apparently, the finder never submitted his plates to anyone who was
a photographic expert.
Kris
|
