[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex for Artists
- From: <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:41:26 +0800
Hello Allen,
In my opinion Agets' photographs in which there is viginetting are bad ones.
Cartier Bressno's was 70 years ago and didn't have the benefit of later ideas
like the zone system. If his negative were bad the only thing you could from
them are bad prints, imagine if they were good negatives.
If the negative is made poorly the best thing you can get from them are bad
prints, you can't crop in detail as it were you can only crop it out. If you
think that detail is not necessary in negatives-then so be it.
No camera is perfect, but good ones such as Rolleis are an excellent tool able
to push the limits of the photographer. If one simply doesn't care about
accuracy, then surely a Rollei, could be replaced by say a Lubitel.
Marvin.
>
> From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2008/10/10 Fri PM 09:13:15 HKT
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex for Artists
>
> Either didn't know or didn't care. Atget often used a rising front on
> his camera beyond the image circle so that the top corners on many of
> his photos were vignetted. C-B's negatives were so dense, according to
> Sid Kaplan, one of his printers, that printing from at least one of
> them took more half an hour under the enlarger (said he went out for a
> sandwich during that exposure). Many of Weston's prints were
> improperly fixed so they faded over time. Stuff like that. None of
> this prevents me from regarding these guys as heroes, but not for
> their technique.
>
> Allen Zak
>
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
> > "finer points" means what?
> > It means they didn't really know what they were doing?
> > You wouldn't not want to go down as saying people like Atget and Weston
> > didn't know what they were doing. They practiced their craft day in
> > and day
> > out. What they skimped on I don't know.
> >
> >
> >
> > mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Mark William Rabiner
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:59:57 -0400
> >> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex for Artists
> >>
> >> Recognized masters of photography are all over the place with regard
> >> to
> >> their technical abilities. Ansel Adams, Avedon (fill in the blanks)
> >> had solid technique, but other great photographers, like
> >> Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue, Atget, to name three Frenchmen, were
> >> relatively indifferent to the finer points. This carries over to
> >> other
> >> arts, including some of the most technically demanding. Modest
> >> Mussorgsky, an amateur composer who continually relied on some of his
> >> more proficient colleagues for technical assistance, produced some of
> >> the world's greatest classical music. Art is in the power of the
> >> impulse, I believe, which if strong enough, overcomes technical
> >> limitations. That, however, is no license to be lazy.
> >>
> >> Allen Zak
> >>
> >> On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Technique" certainly comes well into play regardless of ones media
> >>> if
> >>> its
> >>> painting, sculpture or whatever else is left.
> >>> As it is in the performing arts.
> >>> I don't believe photography stands alone as an unusual artform which
> >>> is hard
> >>> to categories as art or anything else.
> >>> Lots of people nowadays to learn their art need to make sure they are
> >>> not
> >>> weak on computer skills.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Mark William Rabiner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> From: Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:13:15 +0800
> >>>> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleisflex for Artists
> >>>>
> >>>> I was considering the content of previous posts, and think it
> >>>> obvious
> >>>> that
> >>>> photography at least with film, is not like being an artist,"
> >>>> painter",
> >>>> since the artist can be solely conceptual. The photographer on the
> >>>> other
> >>>> hand must at least be a great technician. He or She is forced to
> >>>> master the
> >>>> technique, whereas the artist can dispense with technique. This
> >>>> mastery of
> >>>> technique is what makes the photographer an artist within the
> >>>> discipline.
> >>>> This high technique lends itself to a quality camera such as the
> >>>> Rolleiflex.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Examples of such photographer technicians are Cartier Bresson, Ansel
> >>>> Adams,
> >>>> Joel Peter Witkin, Andre Serrano, Cindy Sherman and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Marvin.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:25 PM
> >>>> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
> >>>>
> >>>> I painted on the smooth side of Masonite as did lots of my friends
> >>>> taking
> >>>> painting in Washington university in the 70's.
> >>>> 4x4 was my format of choice.
> >>>> Feet.
> >>>> An 8x4 cut in half.
> >>>>
> >>>> Was a bit tricky to hitch hike down Big Bend Blvd with but I pulled
> >>>> it off.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Mark William Rabiner
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: David Dodge <dannysoar@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:28:48 -0400
> >>>>> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was brought up by artists. They frequently painted on the rough
> >>>>> side
> >>>>> of Masonite. From time to time they'd crop a half finished painting
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> a saw. I remember one large painting that was cropped several times
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> wound up very small.
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don Williams wrote:
> >>>>>> At 07:27 PM 9/24/2008, Marc Small wrote, in part:
> >>>>>>> Cropped photos are life. I cannot comprehend the sort of
> >>>>>>> anal-retentive mindset which demands that all pictures be printed
> >>>>>>> full-frame. It just does not work that way. Any one who has
> >>>>>>> spent
> >>>>>>> time in a dark room has experienced the process of just HOW to
> >>>>>>> crop a
> >>>>>>> decent negative. A lot of poor pictures produce a great cropped
> >>>>>>> image.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I never knew cropping could be such an emotional subject. I never
> >>>>>> think about it, I just do it, both in the camera and later, as the
> >>>>>> mood strikes me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder how all the famous painters of the past decided how to
> >>>>>> crop
> >>>>>> their paintings. Was it a result of the size of the canvas they
> >>>>>> could
> >>>>>> afford, the dimensions of the wall or ceiling they were working
> >>>>>> on,
> >>>>>> the size of frames available (if there were ready-made frames), or
> >>>>>> what?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DAW
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
