Tim, I have to disagree. How the image reaches the paper has no more relevance to the impact, interest, or what have you, than how you get to the Grand Canyon affects how the Canyon looks. Fly and take a cab; drive; hitchhike; hike - whatever. The Canyon is not affected by your means of reaching it. A good print ("good" as in "interesting", or "engaging") is a good print. In exhibitions, I've never walked up to a print and said "Wow - looks like Tri-X in Rodinal on Ilfobrome w/Dektol, 68 degrees F for processing" - and I doubt that I ever will. I *have* walked up to a print and said "Wow! That's an interesting face - and a nice image of it."
I don't care what camera, lens, film, light, developer, enlarger, lens, paper, easel, developer, and so on were used to make a print. If the print is boring, dull, uninteresting, unengaging, etc., the process amounts to (first choice word deleted for politeness) zilch.
-Bill On Friday, December 15, 2006, at 03:58 PM, Tim Rudman wrote:
Yes, I know what the image is Dana, and how it gets onto the print is critical to how it communicates with the viewer - and therefore how 'interesting' it is (to that viewer), or perhaps 'engaging' might be a better term for what I mean. Tim
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
