A simple question...

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
So it was not a long "lens", just a normal one.

Normal for large format, which means a rather long lens. Are you really
not
aware that normal lenses on large-format cameras are longer and deliver
much
less depth of field than normal lenses on small-format cameras, all else
being equal?

A "normal" lense is not a long lense. What is or is not
"normal" or "long" changes with the format used.

Larger formats requiring longer lenses, with the resulting smaller depth
of
field.

Neil, go learn something about Depth of Field, would
you. Stop making up "facts" that what you want the
answer to be.

guffaw!

So now you're insisting that large-format cameras with normal lenses do
*not* have shallower depth of field than small-format cameras with normal
lenses?! And you have the effrontery to tell someone else to "go learn
something about Depth of Field"?!

You just don't know what you're talking about. But it would be fun to make a
list of these "Floydisms" -- I might do that if I have the time.


She clearly did not use a "long" lense.

The lens she used was in all probability 150mm or longer. That is "a
rather
long lens" -- the term I used.

That is not a long lense when mounted on a 4x5 camera.
It's just a "normal" lense, roughly the same as a 43mm
lense on a 35mm camera.

If you had a negative 3 feet high by 4 feet wide, "normal" for that format
would be a lens of 5 feet focal length, or about 1,524 mm. A 1500mm lens is
a long lens. It doesn't matter what it's "normal" for.


Tell me where the sun is coming from in relationship to
the opening of the tent. And explain the shadows (look
at her face, and look at that tin pan on the suitcase)
in each and every image... all of which are pointing from
right to left and slightly into the tent, thus
indicating the sun is to the right of the photographer
at an angle that puts it slightly in front of the tent.

Which is to say, the right side and front of the woman
and children are not in the shade at all.

She and the others under the lean-to are in its shade. Anyone looking at
all
five photos can see this.

That is simply untrue. Why don't you actually *look* at
the images.

There are shadows (not much, because it is a cloudy day
with very nice diffuse light) on the *left* side of her
face as she sits in a position with the sunlight coming
*from* *the* *right*, between the side of the tent and the pole.

Look at all the images. The occupants of the lean-to are in shade. This is
especially obvious from the earlier shots in sequence, taken at greater
distance, where you can see that the surroundings and background are far
brighter than the interior of the tent.

Apparently you do not understand that the same negative can be printed
darker or lighter. This has to do with what is called "latitude," a term and
a concept evidently unfamiliar to you.

Neil

Paul Furman wrote:

There is no sun, just bright low clouds everywhere like a big softbox. I
can't see the tin plate without downloading a huge tif. The only clear
shadow I see is the back left corner post of the tent where it's shaded
from 2 sides.

Download all of the JPEG versions of the images. You
don't have to download the tif formated files.

There is no "clear shadow" to be seen anywhere, because
the light is so diffused from the cloudy overcast sky.
But it is possible to determine where the sun is by
looking at what shadows do exist.

As noted, the tin pan gives the best indication...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

A "normal" lense is not a long lense. What is or is not
"normal" or "long" changes with the format used.

Larger formats requiring longer lenses, with the resulting smaller depth
of
field.

Neil, go learn something about Depth of Field, would
you. Stop making up "facts" that what you want the
answer to be.

guffaw!

So now you're insisting that large-format cameras with normal lenses do
*not* have shallower depth of field than small-format cameras with normal
lenses?! And you have the effrontery to tell someone else to "go learn
something about Depth of Field"?!

You just don't know what you're talking about. But it would be fun to make a
list of these "Floydisms" -- I might do that if I have the time.

Since you can't answer that one with facts, you stoop to
Argumentum Ad Hominem again, first by creating a
Strawman with your incorrect summary of my point, then
by changing the subject to me rather than the topic at
hand. That's pretty low level, and lacks integrity on
your part Neil.

The point is that you making up scenarios that do not
necessarily apply, i.e., false "fact".

I could just as easily point out that larger formats are
less affected by diffraction, so more depth of field is
possible because she could have put the camera on a tripod,
used a relatively slow shutter speed with a relatively
small aperture to get significantly more depth of field.

We don't know what the shutter speed, the aperture, or
even the ISO of the film were, or that she did not use a
tripod as she usually did. You continue manufacturing
"facts" for your unsupportable claims.

Stop ignoring real facts.

She clearly did not use a "long" lense.

The lens she used was in all probability 150mm or longer. That is "a
rather
long lens" -- the term I used.

That is not a long lense when mounted on a 4x5 camera.
It's just a "normal" lense, roughly the same as a 43mm
lense on a 35mm camera.

If you had a negative 3 feet high by 4 feet wide, "normal" for that format
would be a lens of 5 feet focal length, or about 1,524 mm. A 1500mm lens is
a long lens. It doesn't matter what it's "normal" for.

If you had asked Dorothea Lange, between the 3rd and 4th
shot, if she was using a "long lense", her answer would
have been???

Stop ignoring real facts.

There are shadows (not much, because it is a cloudy day
with very nice diffuse light) on the *left* side of her
face as she sits in a position with the sunlight coming
*from* *the* *right*, between the side of the tent and the pole.

Look at all the images. The occupants of the lean-to are in shade. This is

And that is why the left side of her face is darker than
the right side? They are not "in shade". They are
illuminated with very diffuse light coming from the
right, directly between the tent wall and the pole.

Stop ignoring real facts.

especially obvious from the earlier shots in sequence, taken at greater
distance, where you can see that the surroundings and background are far
brighter than the interior of the tent.

And then when you look very very carefully (or if you
find a twelve year old kid with good eyes or acceptably
correct glasses), you see in the last image, taken up
very close... she is not sitting in the interior of the
tent!

Stop ignoring real facts.

Apparently you do not understand that the same negative can be printed
darker or lighter. This has to do with what is called "latitude," a term and
a concept evidently unfamiliar to you.

It apparently is unfamiliar to you. Printing it darker
or light has nothing to do with latitude. Latitude has
to do with how much more, or less, exposure the
*negative* could have received an still have produced a
useful image (particularly if development parameters are
adjusted to match). That negative is not being
re-developed, I hope you realize... :-)

Stop ignoring real facts.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2008-07-30, Neil Harrington wrote:

"What?" wrote in message ...

sub-juvenile mouth farting deleted

Plonk.


At this rate you're just going to be talking to yourself and listening
to no one.

No change there then.

--
savvo In NH's killfile for two great weeks

"Jennifer Usher" wrote in message
.. .

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..

Of course, sharpness is an entirely relative thing, and if those parts of
her garments had not been as sharp as they were, the absence of sharpness
in her face wouldn't have been so noticeable. On a contact print-sized
image -- such as she was focusing with on her plain, unassisted ground
glass -- probably not noticeable at all. I don't believe any ordinary
ground glass can deliver image resolution comparable to film.

One other point that seems to be lost is that she may have wanted to
capture that particular moment and have snapped without the focus being
perfect. I remember years ago when I was doing a portrait of an aunt I
was very close to. At the time, I was very much influenced by the work of
Yousuf Karsh. I worked hard setting up the lighting, and trying to get
everything perfect. My aunt, who tended to be rather nervous about
everything, turned her head and put her hand up to her mouth. The pose so
perfectly captured her essence that I instinctively snapped the shutter.
I took some other photos that day, but that one, in my opinion, was the
strongest one. Neither she, or my mother thought that much of it ("But my
head is turned..."), but I thought it was perfect. In the same way, I can
imagine that Dorthea saw a moment, and snapped the picture and captured a
moment that is now classic.

Yes. I think that's it exactly.

Had she been using a 35 or even a medium-format roll film camera, she could
have taken a series of shots in rapid succession while improving her
position -- of course she'd have had more depth of field too, and I think
shallow depth of field was her main problem there. But working with cut film
in an unwieldy 4 x 5 reflex limited her opportunities. So it was indeed a
matter of getting the subject in the best moment, with best focus being
secondary in importance, and properly so.

Neil

"Jennifer Usher" wrote in message
.. .

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..

One has nothing to do with the other. It is a great picture, and the
notion that a slight focusing error would make it anything less than that
is just too ridiculous to discuss.

In reading this part of the thread, that is the conclusion I was coming
to.

Actually, seeing the other photos from that day, I have say, none have the
impact that the final one does. The one taken right before the last one,
which was used in some newspapers, comes close, but it is just not as
powerful.

Just so. That final photo is the picture which once seen by anyone, will be
remembered forever.

Neil

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

In the shade?
Of course. The subjects were under the lean-to, which put them in
shade.
Probably that was part of the purpose of the lean-to.
Neil, your trolling gets a bit tedious. *LOOK* at the
pictures and stop spouting off this nonsense. (When you
do look, please note where the shadows are...)
I've looked at all five. The subjects are under the lean-to and in its
shade. What IS your problem?
Tell me where the sun is coming from in relationship to
the opening of the tent. And explain the shadows (look
at her face, and look at that tin pan on the suitcase)
in each and every image... all of which are pointing from
right to left and slightly into the tent, thus
indicating the sun is to the right of the photographer
at an angle that puts it slightly in front of the tent.
Which is to say, the right side and front of the woman
and children are not in the shade at all.

It looks cloudy (foggy) so really nice soft light coming into the lean
to. Bright shade. The tent was probably helping keep them warm and
protected from the wind more than shaded from hot sun. It's always cold
& foggy on the coast where peas are grown in CA.

Look at it carefully though. The woman's face is *not*
in the shade of the tent.

Sure it is. Look at the longer shots. They show the background to be much
brighter than the interior of the tent and its occupants. The same B&W
negative can be printed darker or lighter to suit the case, difficult though
that may be for you to believe. In the final shot only the subjects and
interior of the lean-to are shown, and it is printed accordingly. Note that
the example of the unretouched shot is much darker -- it's all in the way
it's printed.


She is sitting just forward
of the edge of the tent that is on the right side of the
image, and her face is illuminated with light coming
between the tent's side and that tent pole.

"Shade" does not imply the absolute absence of light. A subject in open
shade is still in shade.

Neil