Re: [photo-3d] Accuracy Debate

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

David W. Kesner wrote:
> I am of BOTH camps when it comes to accuracy. There is a time 
> and place and subject for each.
> 

I don't think I'm in either camp, and agree there there is a time and
place for just about anything, but I'd like to make a point about
something said below.

> I would like to "accuse" those in the accuracy camp of going 
> over to the other side and not admitting it.
> 
> Do you use ANY sort of filter on your camera: UV, polarizer, 
> gradient, tint?
> 

Pictures taken with filters (such as UV) that block light that is
outside the human visual band could be said to be more "accurate" than
those taken without.  After all the film is sensitive to wavelengths
that human vision is not.

It all depends on your definition of "accuracy".  If you mean
"corresponds with human visual limits", then using the blocking
filters would be more "accurate".  If you mean "corresponds with the
physical world" then everything is accurate when you take into account
the response of the materials involved.

As a visual example, think about architectural photography.  With the
first definition of "accurate" you'll use a view camera (or at least a
shift lens) on a tripod to take pictures of buildings in order to
maintain the perpendicular lines of the building.  With the second
definition a picture taken with a rigid camera is more accurate since
it represents the geometry of the scene as it actually exists, not as
our minds tell us it is.

> Some of these may seem a bit exaggerated, but in my opinion 
> they aren't any different than using a film that accentuates a 
> certain color characteristic. Besides a film that is "neutral" 
> on flesh tones won't necessarily be so on other colors.
> 

I have to think about it some more, but I believe that film that
renders flesh tones "neutral" should render everything else "neutral"
also.  The sticking point is specifying the lighting conditions under
which the flesh tones are rendered "neutral".  My guess would be that
the color portrait films are intended for studio lighting, as opposed
to the films used for landscape which have to handle (variable) day
light.  Again you run into our minds tells us what it "sees" as
opposed to what is there.

By the way, I use about 50% B&W with the rest being one of the
Disneychromes (usually Kodak EPP, but occasionally E100S, or E100SW
and sometimes E200).  I would try Kodachrome, but it is not available
in the formats I use, and processing would be a hassle.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"