This image was made from inside a stationary car.
The light AND dark were what drew me in.
The 'colour' of the light, a contributing factor as well. Pre-digital, I would probably NOT have contemplated making this image. The technical considerations, costs, and the effort involved to produce a quality result, may have outweighed the actual result.
The question remains though, would I have even "seen" this image pre-digital? Has digital allowed me to see more or better?
Also given the recent bruhaha over Henon's work, how many people can appreciate the power that Digital has unleashed on the world of photography? How many will understand, the dichotomy of photography, that is; the 'representation' of an object and that of an 'expression of an idea'?
Comments (4)
Not familiar with Dolores' work, will report back shortly.
Thanks for the birthday wishes :)
Posted by s2art
|
June 8, 2008 8:12 PM
Posted on June 8, 2008 20:12
Dolores Marat - one of many damascene moments for me was seeing her Paris night photos. Pushed tranny.
And Happy Birthday!!!
Posted by brendadada | June 8, 2008 7:27 PM
Posted on June 8, 2008 19:27
in some ways yo are right barb, digital has less "latitude than film for sure, but if you aren't too pedantic about your results lighting situations such as the one above can be turned in your favour
Posted by s2art
|
June 8, 2008 4:32 PM
Posted on June 8, 2008 16:32
It really captures the Henson spirit.
I'm the opposite to you, I "see" a lot less with a digital frame of mind, the DSLR inspires me a lot less than film. Also, when I was still carrying it around I often didn't bother taking it out when I had tricky light situations. Film seems to have less exposure issues.
Posted by barb | June 8, 2008 3:40 PM
Posted on June 8, 2008 15:40