2006 B&W Special Portfolio Issue

catem · May 24, 2006

Do you mean the 2006 Portfolio of Excellence? I would say - look out for it. It includes the work of Simon Larbalestier, and if you're not familiar with his work, you have something to look forward to

JLP · May 26, 2006

The day images like those of Simon Larbalestier and many others in the new 2006 B&W Special edition (In my mail yesterday) makes me yawn that is the day i will put my cameras on ebay.
For those not yawning there's a lot of beautiful inspiration in this issue.

jan

Jim Chinn · May 27, 2006

After reading the editor's comments I understand that all the judging and selecting was done solely by asessing the work on a computer monitor. I understand that this is probably how work is submitted for most publications these days. But it seems a little strange that a publication that is all about collecting the fine B&W print would not even look at a print by the finalists for final judgement for a contest.

I understand there was a large number of participants but if I were deciding I think I would at least want to see one print from say the top 100.

Just seems like a strange way to judge something that in reality can only be appreciated in physical form.

jovo · May 27, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
After reading the editor's comments I understand that all the judging and selecting was done solely by asessing the work on a computer monitor. .

I received mine a few days ago. I think it's a mixed bag that's better than I first thought. There is certainly some inspiring work that's varied enough that most people's taste will be rewarded by at least a few portfolios. What I don't like is the fact that the digital files from which this issue may have been published vary so much in quality. For instance, the 'graphs of Barrie Watts look way oversharpened while those of Peter E. Thompson looks dreary and 'poorly scanned' if in fact they were scanned. Additionally, some of the photographers whose black and white images appear offer color work almost entirely on their websites (not, Roteague, that there's anything wrong with that ) which might mislead collectors into expecting to find a large body of collectable monochrome images from them.

I'm not sorry to have this Special Issue at all. I wasn't bored...I just was not as impressed as I would like to have been.

Jim Chinn · May 27, 2006

As far as the content, it is a vast improvement over the previous special issue, but I still don't know if it is worth the $$.

Since judging the work on a computer was good enough for the editor maybe I'll just go to Borders, get a cup of coffee, write down all the web addresses and just look at the work that way and save the $13.

david b · May 27, 2006

I just got back from Borders. I looked through this new mag and it is rather good. Is it worth $13? Not to me but there was some good work in it.

eddym · May 28, 2006

I wasn't as impressed with this one as I was with the Single Image special issue. To be a Portfolio special edition, I had to wonder two things:
Can a portfolio consist of only two photos?
Why couldn't there be at least a little explanatory text with each portfolio? Some portfolios spoke for themselves, but others had nothing at all to say, at least not to me. I got the impression that if we wanted to know more about a photographer or see more of the portfolio, we were supposed to go to their website.
And as mentioned above, judging a fine print from an image on a computer screen seems at least strange, if not disingenuous.

--Eddy

Changeling1 · May 28, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
After reading the editor's comments I understand that all the judging and selecting was done solely by asessing the work on a computer monitor. I understand that this is probably how work is submitted for most publications these days. But it seems a little strange that a publication that is all about collecting the fine B&W print would not even look at a print by the finalists for final judgement for a contest.

I understand there was a large number of participants but if I were deciding I think I would at least want to see one print from say the top 100.

Just seems like a strange way to judge something that in reality can only be appreciated in physical form.

Strange isn't the word. More like fraudulent. How in the hell can these so called fine art print experts determine if the image was actually shot on film and/or ever actually printed on photographic paper? If these folks wanted any real credibility they would require an actual print AND a neg or copy neg to be considered in the competition.

jovo · May 28, 2006

Changeling1 said:
How in the hell can these so called fine art print experts determine if the image was actually shot on film and/or ever actually printed on photographic paper?

B&W changed their policy about film and real photographic prints some time ago. It's now completely okay to offer inkjet prints made from film scans or from digicams as well as traditional prints. Jeff Alu, for instance, who is featured on page 106 as a Merit Award winner, has been a self proclaimed "digital" photographer for many years. I don't ever remember (and I've known his work for nearly a decade) him ever not using digital tools. The magazine usually describes the featured photographers work as inkjet, silver gelatin, platinum or whatever. I don't think collectors are being duped.

Changeling1 · May 28, 2006

jovo said:
B&W changed their policy about film and real photographic prints some time ago. It's now completely okay to offer inkjet prints made from film scans or from digicams as well as traditional prints. Jeff Alu, for instance, who is featured on page 106 as a Merit Award winner, has been a self proclaimed "digital" photographer for many years. I don't ever remember (and I've known his work for nearly a decade) him ever not using digital tools. The magazine usually describes the featured photographers work as inkjet, silver gelatin, platinum or whatever. I don't think collectors are being duped.

I had no idea about the policy change. I guess a snapshot made with a camera-cellphone and printed on a Pict Bridge injet could be sold to fine art print collectors. Oh well..... :confused:

DBP · May 28, 2006

Changeling1 said:
Strange isn't the word. More like fraudulent. How in the hell can these so called fine art print experts determine if the image was actually shot on film and/or ever actually printed on photographic paper? If these folks wanted any real credibility they would require an actual print AND a neg or copy neg to be considered in the competition.

One of our better local fine art photographers uses digital printing for some of her larger works, and produces beautiful results. And given her silver halide prints, and that she was taught by Ansel Adams (who apparently was very silly drunk), I don't think it is for lack of darkroom skill. And I am drawing a complete blank on her name, will have to go by her gallery.

Cheryl Jacobs · May 28, 2006

Honestly, I thumbed through the issues and wasn't very impressed. I hoped to be blown away by it, because nothing motivates me more than seeing work that makes me envious, but it didn't happen.

c6h6o3 · May 28, 2006

DBP said:
One of our better local fine art photographers uses digital printing for some of her larger works, and produces beautiful results. And given her silver halide prints, and that she was taught by Ansel Adams (who apparently was very silly drunk), I don't think it is for lack of darkroom skill. And I am drawing a complete blank on her name, will have to go by her gallery.

The work can't be all that beautiful, or you would have remembered her name. But at least it was good enough for you to remember the gender.

SeamusARyan · May 29, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
The work can't be all that beautiful, or you would have remembered her name. But at least it was good enough for you to remember the gender.

Am I being a tab overly sensitive this morning or does the above come across as a dig at the the person giving the opinion, of which we are all entitled, all because they can't remember the name of an artist, would the person have made the dig if the reference wasn't to some work being digital.

I go to shows all the time and rarely remember who took what but do remember when I've seen a stunning image, regardless of media. Afterall are we not in the image making business. For crying out loud I have trouble remembering peoples names who I've just been introduced to and am having a conversation with. My short term memory is shot to s..t, damn those seductive darkroom chemicals and 17 years (9 to 5) in front of a monitor.

and while on the topic of digital work, I would be interested to hear from anyone who made it to my show this month as to what they thought of my images, both silver gelatin (Ektalure if you must know) and digital, the comment of one APUGer I met at the private view was along the lines of "... if you ever need to get rid of your printer let me know as these are beautiful prints" and this person does platinums, the holy grail as far as I'm concerned in terms of printing.

be well

Seamus
www.seamusryan.com

jovo · May 29, 2006

SeamusARyan said:
Am I being a tad overly sensitive this morning or does the above come across as a dig at the the person giving the opinion,.

Well, I don't actually know in this instance, but that's one reason why emoticons can be so helpful.

Jim Chinn · May 29, 2006

I am also aware of the magazines policy change to acepting pixelgraphs as well as photographic prints. And I have also seen truly great pixelgraphs.

I guess if one is judging from simply a content/subject point of view then evaluating an image on a CD is fine. But there is a huge difference in impact between a computer monitor and a print in hand regardless of the method used. I feel that probably a lot of good work fell through the cracks because it does not translate well on computer, unless the editor took the time to at least have it reproduced in the size and with the quality the photographer intended.

User Removed · May 29, 2006

Its weird to think that some of the image you are looking at in the magazine may not even really exist as a REAL photograph. There may not be an actual physical PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINT that you can handle or even look at, other then a computer screen. The image may only exists on a computer screen, and that is the only place it will ever be!

For us film photographer who are producing stunning platinum prints, ULF AZO prints, silver prints ect...there is no way we can compete with someone who snaps a picture with a digital camera, seriously reworks it in Photoshop to be some amazing picture, then both are just viewed on a computer screen! If the viewer of the photographs held in their hand a beautiful AZO or platinum print, and an inkjet print...im sure the tradition image would win hands down. However, by just viewing the images on a computer screen...what is the purpose of producing fineart prints anymore?

It seems like photographs being produced today are made to be almost...disposable. The actual photographic print does not matter anymore, and all that matters is what the artist is trying to say or express in the image. I hate to say that, but it's how I feel. No one is producing the "iconic" images or images that have serious importance like Adams, Weston and the pioneers of photographer were creating less than 100 years ago.

Jim Chinn · May 29, 2006

Ryan McIntosh said:
Its weird to think that some of the image you are looking at in the magazine may not even really exist as a REAL photograph. There may not be an actual physical PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINT that you can handle or even look at, other then a computer screen. The image may only exists on a computer screen, and that is the only place it will ever be!

Especially wierd when you consider that the magazine is aimed at collectors of actual, physical prints.

c6h6o3 · May 29, 2006

SeamusARyan said:
Am I being a tab overly sensitive this morning or does the above come across as a dig at the the person giving the opinion,

These are not mutually exclusive alternatives. I think you're being a tad overly sensitive even if the post came across as a dig. I assure you it wasn't.

The poster lives in the same metro area as I do and that's what really caught my eye. I haven't seen any work from photographic artists local to the Washington, DC area which I find compelling.

When I do see work which grabs me, I make it my business to find out who the artist is and I always remember it, no matter where they're from. I write it down or enter it into my PDA. I was only trying to jog the memory of the poster, and that failing, to goad him into doing the legwork necessary to find out who it was.

If there are any fine photographers around here I would earnestly like to know who they are.

SeamusARyan · May 30, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
These are not mutually exclusive alternatives. I think you're being a tad overly sensitive even if the post came across as a dig. I assure you it wasn't.

The poster lives in the same metro area as I do and that's what really caught my eye. I haven't seen any work from photographic artists local to the Washington, DC area which I find compelling.

When I do see work which grabs me, I make it my business to find out who the artist is and I always remember it, no matter where they're from. I write it down or enter it into my PDA. I was only trying to jog the memory of the poster, and that failing, to goad him into doing the legwork necessary to find out who it was.

If there are any fine photographers around here I would earnestly like to know who they are.

fair comment, thanks

re your PDA, sadly I'm never that organised

good luck with your search

regards

Seamus
www.seamusryan.com

photobum · May 30, 2006

I was under whelmed by the amount of soft, fuzzy, blurry images. AA was distressted by the idea of a "Sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea". In this issue there was a lot of fuzzy photographs of fuzzy ideas.

I think the fuzzy/fuzzy is now required for your MFA. It's what colleges teach instead of craft.

pharquarx · May 30, 2006

Photobum, well stated. That was one large factor in my original comment. Never understood the appeal, attraction, or value of such work. I still say "yawn" and have since circular filed that issue of the magazine.

ctr

roteague · May 30, 2006

JLP said:
The day images like those of Simon Larbalestier and many others in the new 2006 B&W Special edition (In my mail yesterday) makes me yawn that is the day i will put my cameras on ebay.

So, who is Simon Larbalestier?

User Removed · May 30, 2006

photobum said:
I was under whelmed by the amount of soft, fuzzy, blurry images. AA was distressted by the idea of a "Sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea". In this issue there was a lot of fuzzy photographs of fuzzy ideas.

I think the fuzzy/fuzzy is now required for your MFA. It's what colleges teach instead of craft.

Being a photography major at UofA (home of the Center For Creative Photography) in Tucson, AZ...I can tell you that the majority of students (and instructors) are doing the fuzzy/blurry work, or what they call "conceptual photography". I've seen so many photographs that were nothing more than a big gray blur, but the "concept" of the photograph is about the artist political views on the government or the creation of the world or some BS statement like that. They teach the students the basic craft, but teach no technical aspects of photography. The students do not know anything ABOUT photography, how to craft a true "fine art print" or how to correctly mat/mount and present their work. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen the classic "conceptual" presentation of gluing a print to a piece of cardboard, pouring chocolate syrup on it and sticking feathers to the surface. HAHA! :confused:

Its funny to think how photography has changed over time, from doing soft portrait work, to the traditional straight forward/sharp focus work of Adams and Weston, now it seems like making the "blurry/fuzzy" picture is the new trend in photography. I'm sure it will not last long.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a blurry picture, but you need to be able to justify your reasoning and the image needs to WORK in that style. It almost seems to me that so many photographs have been done over the years that someone cannot create something new without being compared to a photograph from the past. For example someone photographs a bell pepper, its compared to Edward Weston's peppers....so why not just make your picture blurry, because then you will be creating someone new and different. Right!? Hmmm...

2006 B&W Special Portfolio Issue

pharquarx

catem

JLP

Jim Chinn

jovo

Membership Council

Jim Chinn

david b

eddym

Changeling1

jovo

Membership Council

Changeling1

DBP

Cheryl Jacobs

c6h6o3

SeamusARyan

jovo

Membership Council

Jim Chinn

User Removed

Jim Chinn

c6h6o3

SeamusARyan

photobum

pharquarx

roteague

User Removed

2006 B&W Special Portfolio Issue

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency