Bernice Moore Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important? Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks. Duncan Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack....... B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Quote:Its the Thompson thumbprint. Not sure if it is a scan from the print or from the negative. It appears to me to be the large digital images from the negative scan that I produced a few months back. It can be cross referenced with Robin Unger, he has the large digtial file I produced on his website (still I think) Hi Craig. You are correct, it looks to be the same one i have on my website. Thanks for providing the original image. Re: FTP SITE. My email address is quaneeri2@bigpond.com Thanks again. Robin, if you want the original file from the drumscan (its about 100mb) I'll put it on the ftp next week and send you instructions on how to get it. DO you have any way of making notations on your website in regards to the history of the images posted? I was wondering if you could put the decription of what I did to the Thompson Moorman with the image so it everyone would know exactly waht they have. Hi Craig. Re: Notations Yeh no problem, just send me a copy of the history of the image, exactly as you would like it to appear on my website. I will then CUT and PASTE it under the Moorman Drumscan Image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UP by a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important? Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks. Duncan Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack..... B..... Nice alteration Jack. Care to explain exactly how the Moorman lens/film/fstop combination can produce that level of detail in that small area of the print...detail the far supasses anything else found in Moorman polaroid? Or are you finally willing to admit its simply new detail created by th the copy process and gross overexposure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Nice alteration Jack. Care to explain exactly how the Moorman lens/film/fstop combination can produce that level of detail in that small area of the print...detail the far supasses anything else found in Moorman polaroid? Or are you finally willing to admit its simply new detail created by th the copy process and gross overexposure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I'm not impressed with Jacks knowlege of photography. As for Groden, I agree with Healy, if he has something to say HE can say it. I don't really care what he tells you. Tell him to come here and we can see if his stuff holds water. What do the people at MIT have to do with it. They GUESSED it might be a person. But I've not seen ANY of you deal with the resolution issue, simply because you can't. If it were possible to obtain an image as sharp as "badgeman" the picket fence would be tack sharp. It is not. As for showing you, the badgeman work tells the entire story, All you need to do is look at the retaining wall. Game, Set and Match. Deal with the science and physics of this and not your emotional attachment and you might get to the truth. Craig, I will ask only once more .... show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct .... I have never seen it done, heard of it being done, or been able to do it even on the computer. You implied that it could be done, but never went any further in your reply. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important? Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks. Duncan Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack..... B..... Nice alteration Jack. Care to explain exactly how the Moorman lens/film/fstop combination can produce that level of detail in that small area of the print...detail the far supasses anything else found in Moorman polaroid? Or are you finally willing to admit its simply new detail created by th the copy process and gross overexposure? Please explain how gross overexposure creates such a level of detail that it creates clumps of silver grain into an image which looks like a man. Please replicate this overexposure process and produce such an image if you are so expert. I did it without trying. Surely someone with such expertise can do it even better. Since you say it is possible, do it. If you cannot, you are burnt toast. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris If one places their mouse arrow on the Hudson tree - they can quickly see that the one alleged Moorman view photo was not even taken from the correct location. The Hudson tree shifts dramatically because of the different angle each photographer had to the knoll. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Chris...I notice that in your gif the CORNER OF THE PICKET FENCE MISSES LINING UPby a considerable amount. I put my cursor on it and when the picture changed it was about an eighth inch off. Please check it. Jack Jack, I think the Crawley photo may be missing a few south facing palings. It's hard for me to tell where the actual corner is. Maybe with this comparison, you can point it out to me. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Photographer was too far west to be at Moorman's LOS. Edited September 2, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I'm not impressed with Jacks knowlege of photography. As for Groden, I agree with Healy, if he has something to say HE can say it. I don't really care what he tells you. Tell him to come here and we can see if his stuff holds water. What do the people at MIT have to do with it. They GUESSED it might be a person. But I've not seen ANY of you deal with the resolution issue, simply because you can't. If it were possible to obtain an image as sharp as "badgeman" the picket fence would be tack sharp. It is not. As for showing you, the badgeman work tells the entire story, All you need to do is look at the retaining wall. Game, Set and Match. Deal with the science and physics of this and not your emotional attachment and you might get to the truth. Craig, I will ask only once more .... show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct .... I have never seen it done, heard of it being done, or been able to do it even on the computer. You implied that it could be done, but never went any further in your reply. Bill Bill, You CANT do it with digital images, its a whole different ballgame. I sold my darkroon stuff years ago and I'm not about to purchase again to prove this to you. You don't agree, fine. But deal with the science of resolution. How can this lens/film/fstop produce this level of detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) I'm not impressed with Jacks knowlege of photography. As for Groden, I agree with Healy, if he has something to say HE can say it. I don't really care what he tells you. Tell him to come here and we can see if his stuff holds water. What do the people at MIT have to do with it. They GUESSED it might be a person. But I've not seen ANY of you deal with the resolution issue, simply because you can't. If it were possible to obtain an image as sharp as "badgeman" the picket fence would be tack sharp. It is not. As for showing you, the badgeman work tells the entire story, All you need to do is look at the retaining wall. Game, Set and Match. Deal with the science and physics of this and not your emotional attachment and you might get to the truth. Craig, I will ask only once more .... show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct .... I have never seen it done, heard of it being done, or been able to do it even on the computer. You implied that it could be done, but never went any further in your reply. Bill I will ask only once more .... I'll answer now, but not for Craig. I will submit that even with digital images appearances can be deceiving. show me how you can take any image and by adjusting the contrast and/or lighting and create a persons image with features that are anatomically correct .... Ok, OK I have never seen it done, heard of it being done, or been able to do it even on the computer. Not so. You have seen it done on this forum. And, of course, you have seen it done with the Moorman photo. Now, here is a photo you posted: Here's a blow up of a figure. (Someone, NOT ME, added the inscription. I copied this blowup with inscription.) By adjusting the contrast and/or lighting I created a person's image with features that are anatomically correct, but which is a fiction because Mike could not have rested his arm as seen, did not wear a stetson, is much too large for the perspective & never had David Ferrie eyebrows. See those elevated eyebrows? This sequence shows what is possible by way of distorting via contrast & lighting controls an image's data. Enlargement as with Moorman is a factor. Much more dramatic effects can be achieved than are shown here. But the possibility is demonstrated. It's easy to see illusions. Bill Edited September 2, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important? Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks. Duncan Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack..... B..... Nice alteration Jack. Care to explain exactly how the Moorman lens/film/fstop combination can produce that level of detail in that small area of the print...detail the far supasses anything else found in Moorman polaroid? Or are you finally willing to admit its simply new detail created by th the copy process and gross overexposure? Please explain how gross overexposure creates such a level of detail that it creates clumps of silver grain into an image which looks like a man. Please replicate this overexposure process and produce such an image if you are so expert. I did it without trying. Surely someone with such expertise can do it even better. Since you say it is possible, do it. If you cannot, you are burnt toast. Jack What you did was create a rorschach test. How do ink blobs look a man? Good question about the silver grains Jack. Poloroid film does not have discreet silver grains. Point of fact is that its image structure can be described as clumpy. That is the main reason Polaroid film has such lousy resolution. The 3000 speed film used by Mary Moorman had about 4 times LESS resolution than the Tri-X film used by Crawley to shoot the recreation posed above. Even that lens/film/fstop combination cannot deliver the detail found in your badgeman print. So where did the grain and the attendant detail you ask about come from? Artifacts of the copy process. The image you posted of your contact sheet is FIVE GENERATIONS away from the Moorman original. Thats FIVE places where grain was introduced. Thats FOUR lenses where the detail has passed and the resolution reduced. So you took a 35mm slide that was a copy of a print that came from a copy negative of the original, and you made yet another copy negative but this time at least 4 stops overexposed and made yet another print...and you have the gaul to tell us that what we see is an accurate representation of the detail found in the Moorman original! Never mind that the Moorman original could not resolve that level of detail. You want to know where the the real culprit lies? The UPI copy negative. Why? Because the badgeman image cannot be reproduced from anything else, not the original nor any other copies. Why, because the detail is not really there. You are still dodging the resolution issue. Once again, How can you explain your image having detail that is impossible for the Moorman lens/film/fstop to resolve? Who is toast? Edited September 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 (edited) Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important? Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks. Duncan Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless. What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Nonsense! I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range. The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact. My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN. Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos. Jack Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original. You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power? As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom. And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison. ...... Jack..... B..... Nice alteration Jack. Care to explain exactly how the Moorman lens/film/fstop combination can produce that level of detail in that small area of the print...detail the far supasses anything else found in Moorman polaroid? Or are you finally willing to admit its simply new detail created by th the copy process and gross overexposure? Please explain how gross overexposure creates such a level of detail that it creates clumps of silver grain into an image which looks like a man. Please replicate this overexposure process and produce such an image if you are so expert. I did it without trying. Surely someone with such expertise can do it even better. Since you say it is possible, do it. If you cannot, you are burnt toast. Jack What you did was create a rorschach test. How do ink blobs look a man? Good question about the silver grains Jack. Poloroid ifilm does not have discreet silver grains. Point of fact is that its image structure can be described as clumpy. That is the main reason Polaroid film has such lousy resolution. The 3000 speed film used by Mary Moorman had about 4 times LESS resolution than the Tri-X film used by Crawley to shoot the recreation posed above. Even that lens/film/fstop combination cannot deliver the detail found in your badgeman print. So where did the grain and the attendant detail you ask about come from? Artifacts of the copy process. The image you posted of your contact sheet is FIVE GENERATIONS away from the Moorman original. Thats FIVE places where grain was introduced. Thats FOUR lenses where the detail has passed and the resolution reduced. So you took a 35mm slide that was a copy of a print that came from a copy negative of the original, and you made yet another copy negative but this time at least 4 stops overexposed and made yet another print...and you have the gaul to tell us that what we see is an accurate representation of the detail found in the Moorman original! Never mind that the Moorman original could not resolve that level of detail. You want to know where the the real culprit lies? The UPI copy negative. Why? Because the badgeman image cannot be reproduced from anything else, not the original nor any other copies. Why, because the detail is not really there. You are still dodging the resolution issue. Once again, How can you explain your image having detail that is impossible for the Moorman lens/film/fstop to resolve? Who is toast? Edited September 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now