A glimpse of the multiverse

[Julian Tanase]

Olympus OM1, Fomapan 100 @ 50.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Haha. Love the title. And the shot lives up to it. Excellent work.

 

[Julian Tanase]

Glad you like it, Rob. However, the exposure and processing could have been better, truth said.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Nah, that’s trendy these days!

 

[Julian Tanase]

Be that as it may, but I have never aspired to be part of the lomo-throng, with all due respect for those who do affirm their allegiance or inclination to this current (or genre, whichever applies).

 

[Brian Moore]

However, the exposure and processing could have been better, truth said.

Nah, that’s trendy these days!

I think it was Yogi Berra (a famous baseball player with the NY Yankees several decades ago, well-known for his unintentionally comic turn of phrase) who once said something like "Good pitching beats good hitting every time, and vice-versa." The exchange above between Julian and Rob got me thinking about what's more important, exposure or composition. Julian has produced an interesting picture with, by his own standards, less than ideal exposure. I think good picture beats perfect exposure every time.

 

[Julian Tanase]

I totally agree. A photograph is a memory of a single moment at a certain time. I believe that preserving the memory is above things such as exposure and such. Of course, everyone tries to get a balanced exposure, good framing, interesting subject. But let me tell you that the vast majority of photographs of my daughter, since she was a few days old until she was about 10 or so were taken with Minox cameras. They are what they are: small negative, tiny frame, can't enlarge them beyond a certain size...BUT are they bad photographs? Perhaps in terms of art yes, they are, but they serve only one purpose: that of preserving cherished memories. And in that it's their value, at least for me.

 

[Brian Moore]

They are what they are: small negative, tiny frame, can't enlarge them beyond a certain size...BUT are they bad photographs? Perhaps in terms of art yes, they are, but they serve only one purpose: that of preserving cherished memories. And in that it's their value, at least for me.

Same here, Julian. One of my favorite photos of all time is a tiny selfie that my then 6 year old daughter snapped with a Polaroid i-Zone camera we had given her. The print is about the size of a postage stamp, there is evidence of a light leak, and the exposure isn't great. But she took the photo without any of us knowing and her impish smile speaks volumes. A cherished memory!

 

[Pete Askew]

I agree. This is a striking effective picture even if the exposure may not have been perfect. And it has prompted an interesting discussion.

Some years back I attended an exhibition of prints by Robert Capa, including all of the iconic ones. What was striking was how imperfect they were technically, but how compelling they were either due to composition or content (and in many cases both). Similarly I also went to an exhibition of the original prints that Bill Brant produced for the series / book "Literary Britain". The way he used ink and what looked like correction fluid to addict the prints was quite a surprise, but the impact of those dark and characterful prints won out over the technical limitations. So I think that quote that content is king stands true and Gene Nocon's comment that, "If you don't press the shutter, you don't get the picture" is always worth having in mind, even if it takes a bit of work to sort out later on.

 

[Brian Moore]

Gene Nocon's comment that, "If you don't press the shutter, you don't get the picture"

I think Eisenstadt or maybe Cartier-Bresson said something similar. Can't recall the exact quote but because things happen in the blink of an eye you may not have the time to fiddle with exposure or focus; press the shutter button or you've missed it for sure.