|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ansel Adams DiscoveryFrom: nobody@but.us.chickens (David Nebenzahl) "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: You did, but I wonder about the reporter who wrote that story. I was trying to find the other explanation, that shows the same spots Again, it has *nothing* whatever to do with the film or plate holders, the camera, or anything else other than the film or plate itself. It's not like firearms, where a bullet can be reliably matched to a gun based on the pattern of scratches left on the bullet from imperfections in the gun barrel. The film or plate doesn't slide against anything (at least not if the photographer exercises basic care, as one would presume Uncle Ansel would). The film or plate holder merely holds the negative in place, held in place by thin rails at the edges, otherwise not touching it at all. So there's nothing to trace to any film or plate holder. On the other hand, a particular *negative*--film or glass plate--can rather easily be matched to a particular print or set of prints by matching patterns of imperfections on the negative (dust specks or scratches) to the print. All this takes is a magnifying glass and knowing what to look for. Which is apparently what they did, based on what can be gleaned from that article. People who write about technical things (I'm referring to newspaper reporters here, not anyone in this newsgroup necessarily) really ought to know *something* about their subject before putting fingers to computer keyboard. -- 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 ()
|
