[pure-silver] The Quest and My Heresy??
- From: Snoopy <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:54:17 +0100
Dear Adrienne,
sorry if I am being a heretic (feel free to burn
me at the satke) but I myself always find myself with two hearts in my chest.
Firstly I want to make good pictures (note: not
necessarily good prints) and I do feel that most
people, also some on the list here, are far too
technical in their approach. For a lot of people
good pictures boil down to printing technique and
chemistry. Or lots of pixels and PhotoShop. Or
expensive ameras and even more expensive lenses.
At the Photoclub especially the digital crowd
just drones on and on about their cameras and not
about the pictures taken with them, I sometimes
wonder if they actually take pictures or just get
their kick reading the spec sheet!
My point is: is it really worthwhile for you to
try and make prints that look like someone elses
by going down the same "technical route" what
with big cameras and unsharp masks and/or loads
of pixels etc. ?? Is this the way you should "run" _your_ hobby?
Photography (well, the way we do it) is a unique
pastime in that you need specific technical
skills and thorough working habits and procedures
in order to produce an acceptable quality.
But if you try to emulate someone else I think
you simply get frustrated. At some point, after
having seen tons of grand and fabulous prints by
the Grand Masters and Mistresses I just gave up
"trying to be like them". The problem being:
there is obviously no "right way" - everyone has
their on style, their own "look" of the prints
etc. So I am stuck with having to chose a Grand
Master to follow plus all the technical challenges thrown in on top.
And some of the renowned pphotographers never did
their own darkroom work. Helmut Newton and James Nachtwey for example.
So my second heart is now: try to take good
pictures which are "medium-indpendent". I try to
capture the emotions, the look, the scene , the
moment and I simply do my processing to ensure
that the pictures are "consumable" in an
acceptable form. Oh, sure, I try to get things
"right" with contrasts, gray scales, no dust, no
scratches and some such, but I only really see
this as the "substrate" on which good pictures grow.
My friend Lance does a lot of Baryt prints. They
are wonderful - because he captures the souls of
his models and his message is clear. I do RC
prints and my critics assure me that my message
also comes over (sometimes better, more often
worse). But I do not feel "hampered" by the
paper. I feel hampered due to lack of talent, not technical skills.
By the way - this attitude of trying rto simply
taker "good pictures" i.e. those that transport a
"message", have a "deeper sense", emotional depth
etc. is a kind of neat way to escape the entire
film vs. digital debate. I don´t give a damn how
the picture got into the camera. Whats important
is what COMES OUT OF THE FINAL PICTURE to reach ME.
And I admit it: I have never never ever made a
print and/or picture I am truly happy with. And I
have been trying for nearly 30 years now! Oh, my
models, my friends etc., everyone I take them for
are happy, very happy indeed. But I am NEVER happy.
It is an eternal quest. Maybe a curse. But it has
very little to do with unsharp masks, chemistry
or pixels. If I feel my messagewould come over
better if the print were sharper, only then would
I dig out unsharp masks and all the good stuff.
So the questuion to you is: would you really be
happier if you produced prints that looked like someones elses?
Just a thought.
Have a nice weekend...and thank you lots for all
of your postings on pure-silver, always wonderful to read...
Love,
Snoopy
============================================================================================================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:
