[pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy??
- From: "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:34:18 -0800
Mark Blackwell wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Claudio Bonavolta"
> <claudio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:24 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy??
>
>
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De: "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:11:49 -0800
> Sujet: [pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy??
> À: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> <snip>
>> I'm not sure there's anything sillier than debating
>> that interesting images are always more interesting than boring images.
>>
>> Dana
>
Claudio wrote:
> Altough I completely agree on this, there are cases where it is the way
> the image is processed that makes it interesting.
> The japanese photographer mentionned by Adrienne is a good example: what
> would be the interest in these pictures without that particular
> processing ?
The proof is in the print; if it's interesting, then it's interesting.
Every step in the process of creating the print is a creative opportunity.
I assert that Taiji Matsue's images are interesting because of the choice
of subject matter *and* the way they're printed; the extreme sharpness
in his process doesn't create an image where there wasn't one to begin
with - the sharpness enhances the geometric qualities of his subject matter.
There are certainly examples of images which start with little in the way
of "raw" material and are primarily created in the darkroom; I've personally
never been a big fan of multiple-exposure and cut-and-pasted images, whether
they're done in the darkroom or with Photoshop, but I can see how interesting
images can be crafted this way.
> How its processed should not even be something that enters consideration
> of the viewer. They could care less. Is the image interesting, say
> something, make a powerful statement, trigger an emotional response, or
> any of a number of other WOW factors? If so the image works. If not it
> doesn't. A particular techinque almost never makes or breaks an image.
Amen. You need to start with *something*.
> You might like one with the techinque a little better than the other,
> and you might improve something with this or that, but for the most part
> its like make up on a beautiful woman. It just enhances the beauty
> thats already there. Put make up on an ugly woman and you still have an
> ugly woman.
Precisely.
Cheers -
Dana
=============================================================================================================
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.
Other related posts:
