Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

I'm another one who finds (web representations and magazine reproductions of) Michael A. Smith's pictures boring. But I would love to see what he could do with the landscapes in my area, and maybe compare them to some 100 years old prints by Knut Knudsen I have in my collection (hint, hint)!

Part 1 (too long for one post)

Michael A. Smith said:

MAS: Our photographs are usually complex........we want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space.

TS: I think this would be something easily said of any image. Of course there are relationships between things. There have to be relationships...however one might wish to define that relationship through composition etc! 'everything being of equal importance'. In all images? That rule is unilaterally applied? It really means nothing at all. It is a non-statement. Sounds to me like taking snaps where there is simply no regard for actively dealing with relationships. Is this not what composition is? Or are you suggesting that you deliberately engineer your images so that there really is nothing in particular to look at? You must be trying to actively do something with relationships (proportionately, relative to one another) otherwise what is the relationship ? that simply given to you by nature?

MAS: I do make photographs where there are no figure/ground relationships. They are more often of a complex allover "field"--...the relationships are far more subtle than simple figure/ground relationships. You got it, nothing particular to look at--you must look at everything, not just the ostensible subject.

I am perfectly happy with the concept of a holistic subjectless image. However, without any component parts an image would be base white would it not. There are definable components to subject matter (I am not talking about a singular or multiple subjects) no matter how devoid of subjects the image may be. The subject matter may be a hill with lines relating to walls, field edges, tree lines etc. There is no subject as such, but there most certainly is subject matter. Presumably by rhythm you mean the relationships between the componnents of the subject matterm (but there are no subjects as such). This is not a new concept. Most of us are familiar with it. Images that lack bold subjects require more careful consideration of these subtle relationships up to the point where it becomes difficult to define the relationships and why they evoke such a response. I do not see this in your work. I have looked at it (on the web) for a long time and still I see nothing. In many cases I see very poor composition where (perhaps deliberately) you have not made the most of what was in front of you in an effort not to cause leanings within the image. In many images I feel that a lack of cropping has included elements that considerably degrade the image. I can only speculate that you wished to include them as part of the literal, holistic unassuming approach to the image. The notion that images where there is no specific subject, where the eye (as you put it), has "the right" to roam is new is again silly. I personally love what I would call indefinable abstracts.

MAS: I have referred to photographs as rhythmic events. ....eyes are impelled to look at everything in the photograph,

TS: Again, this actually means nothing other than the viewers eye wanders about with no reason to settle upon anything. Sounds like you are trying to sell the already well trodden concept behind the 'Boring Postcards'.

MAS: "Postcards"? Postcards are always about "things."

Have you seen the 'boring postcards' images? Many are no more about things than your images are about things. I would say the component parts of the images are meaningless and at times invisible individually. I would also say they are a perfect example of what you describe. No specific emphasis given to any part of the image so tht the eye wanders about with no reason to explore any part more than another. They are often totally subjectless.

MAS: Paula and I make photographs that often ask a great deal from the viewer. .......... It is just that we ask the viewers to work at "getting" our photographs. We don't want to make it too easy for the viewers--or for ourselves.

TS: Sorry, but this is silly! Is there a secret code? Is there a moment of revelation when one suddenly realises the eyes are getting worn out looking for something to settle on (but failing) and then a light bul illuminates?
I think this is suggesting that many of us who don't get excited about your images are not 'up to it'....cannot/will not work as hard as you are asking us to. This is just daft.

MAS: Each to his own. But yes, people want instant gratification and generally aren't willing to stay with a work of art for more than a few seconds. Just watch people in a gallery or museum--they uaually spend only a few seconds in front of each photograph. Not minutes. And yes, it might take minutes, even many minutes.

Yet again there is the patronising suggestion that I and anyone else who finds your genre of work uninspiring is lacking 'staying power' and seeking instant gratification without the persistence to find what is 'locked within'. I could not care less what other people do in a gallery, but I either spend a very long time there (may well revisit on following day) or is pick a small number of pieces and stay with them all the way.......There are also condescending tones within such comments suggesting that you believe that I (and what seems to be a not insignificant number who agree with me) lack intelligence and the ability to 'operate' on the higher plane you inhabit. I am not going to spout off about how clever I think I am, but I am confident given my background that I am not stupid. I will not elaborate, but if you are questioning my intellectual credentials, all I will say is that they have been well proven elsewhere. I have seen work by artists which I do not particularly 'like', but may perfectly understand and feel the work, but find that is does not resonate in a way which is I find satisfying (and I dont mean 'nice'). However, I find your work does not resonate with me in any meaningful way at all


End of Part 1

Click to expand...

Part 2:
As for the final paragraph...no I am not referring to you as a peddler or charletan. I made this comment because I believe that your work and your description of it, treads the edges of an art community phenomenon that embraces such things. As I say, anything can be talked up (even in retrospect), but the art is in the retrospective description, not the work iteself. I do however think that your manner of dealing with the criticism of your work only goes to deepen my convition that your work is largely about about talk. I think that you have intellectualised far beyong the real content of your images. This is something that I had already identified from the earliest experiences of Shakespere and the numerous critiques. Most talk utter B/S. Having studied (and appreciated) them extensively at the time, many of the critiques that deepened the enalysis to often absurd levels beyond the possible original intent were enothing more than speculation and were totally unsubstatiated as a reflection of this claimed intent. Single paragraphs or relationships were expanded into hundreds of pages. Poor old shakespere would have either needed a million sheets of paper to write these extra complexities down or a brain the size of a super computer to manage them 'up top' whilst weaving the play together.

I had not intended in any way to bring your work so completely into this debate and I think you have done yourself a gross disservice by stepping in and using it as a case in point. It leaves the respondent with no choice but to reply in kind.

I personally believe that I can see in your work everything that is there (or are you suggesting that your work actually contains nothing really, but sets off a chain reaction, catalysed by the visual, but then extending far beyond? - sounds again like conept based modern art). I can identify what you would call the rhythms (arrangements in space of the visual components with the subject matter) but they move me not a bit. I find in many cases that (as I said before) opportunities look to have been lost which would have made these subtle relationships far stronger. Another factor which to me is the icing on the cake is in the case of the Tuscany images, an almost total lack of cropping. You appear to have been confined by the format. If your images are 'windowless', taking a holistic view of the landscape and managing subtle relationships why is there such incredible conformism in the aspect ratios. Surely to do this, one must at times exclude elements in order to preserve what you say is the lack of bias within your images. To me, many disruptive inclusions degrade this. If you generally stick to a format you really are being literal and compromising, rather than artistic. After hearing your descriptions of your work, one might expect far greater fluidity with respect to framing.

Michael, you mistake criticism for attack. I have nothing against you at all. However, by stepping into a thread which merely mentioned your name as part of a genuinely interesting thread (on technical merit vs content) and making the comments you have about inadequacy on the part of the viewer it was certain that you would generate such a response. Behind your 'each to their own' comments, I see a distinct dismissal of not only the critical opinions as intellectual products, but also those making them. If you believe that your work requires great intelligence and persistence to 'get', have you considered the possibility that some of those making the critical comments might be your intellectual equal or superior? One thing I learned long ago (and I am not old) is that making assumptions about an opponent's intelligence is usually a terrible mistake and leads to embarrassment.

I would finally ask you to directly answer the direct questions I asked on my first thread, which you have not done so far. Most importantly, 'what merit is there in your images (aside from the soulful printing and presentation) that cannot be see on a web-based image. Why can one not appreciate the central tenet of rhythmic activity (unless this is locked several layers down in the paper emulsion) on a reproduction. Again, I apologise for using the wrong word earlier, but I believe that whilst real images are immeasurably better, they build upon the basic substrate identifiable in a reproduction. I also think that assuming the tones of other photographers (Weston) further adds to the alchemy of your descriptions. I doubt anyone appreciating 'peppers' would not be able to see (never having seen the original) the basic substrate that makes the image great.......the fall of light and form being expnded upon considerably in the flesh, but nonetheless it is there (crudely) on the web.....

Michael, it appears you have a complete inability to debate specifics, preferring to suck the discussion back into 'artist speak'. Great artists have no need to do this, EVER, PERIOD...just like great jokes need no explanation asuming the listener is intelligent enough to understand it. Bad jokes explained (because the teller thinks you have missed something)...sound even worse..

Tom

Firstly Jorge and Tom well said!

Two things strike me from this thread and they are:

1. If you visit the Magnum site the pictures there have retained their impact and extract emotions and feelings from the viewer without having to see the original prints. As such I fail to see that viewing pictures on the web is merely "adequate". A good capture will inspire no matter how it is presented.

2. Also I hate to burst anyones bubble, but in truth all photographs provide a "second-hand experience" except for the photographer that shot them.

Maybe these are good reasons to give-up photography and spend the money on travel instead, or at least migrate to digital where we can shoot all we want and keep the pictures to ourselves to remind us fist hand of our first-hand experiences. Feel free to add me to your ignore lists as I will consider it an honour.

I think from now on I'll describe myself as a snapper as I'm not sure I want to be labelled a photographer after reading some of the BS on this thread

Until very recently, I had not heard of either Michael A. Smith or Paula Chamlee. Even now, I have seen their work only as small-screen images. I would nonetheless like to make this comment:

Michael and Paula's work provides an interesting opportunity to "compare and contrast". Paula's work appears to be more overtly designed and based on sweeping composition, while Michael's seems (quite clearly by choice) to be less immediately so. The level of skill exhibited by both workers leaves me in no doubt that they are both capable of making images look any way they want, there is (I am sure) also the factor that as husband and wife they wish to present two separate individual viewpoints. I could well imagine that Michael is concerned to avoid the obvious (as he sees it) and explore the possibilities offered for textural and tonal rendition by very large contact prints. I have of course not seen any of these, but like any experienced photographer can make at least a reasonable attempt on the basis of the screen images to imagine what these large prints look like.

On the other hand, I gain no impression that either worker is pursuing technique, whether printing or otherwise, for its own sake. I furthermore see no reason whatsoever to label either worker as boring or pretentious. It is up to any contributor to this forum to like or not like whatever he/she wishes, but I consider the blood feud which has apparently developed on this thread to be unfortunate and unnecessary in the extreme.

Regards,

David

David,

No blood feud, just strong convictions. I have not a single deeply valued friend on this earth with whom I have not had a significant difference of opinion, which on some occassions has become outright argument rather than debate (sadly). Such engagements only further ones understanding of others and ones own disposition ( a pre-requisite for a truly rewarding relationship). Even when close friends have very similar ideas, but differences on detail, these issues may well be expanded into a full blown debate. The topic is narrow, but no less worthy of discussion. The exploration of nooks and crannies further understanding. I realise that it may be difficult for people to see, but I mean what I say. I have no issue with Michael as an individual whatsoever, I just strongly disagree with his viewpoint and comments. I am not a 'precious' person and have no objection to a similar approach to my views. Most of us would admit to an engagement where we were unable to concede ground not because of stubborness, but incompatability of views. This is rarely destructive, the full benefit of these debates generally only becomes fully apparrent at a later date, perhaps when one's own views shift and are re-examined. Strong criticism of ones own viewpoint should be an everyday experience, otherwise where is the journey and growth? This process starts as a child when handing in essays for marking (and reading the red ink). We grow used to it at this age and accept it even when in further education or in professional life, even when we disagree with the comments made. I seems sad that as people become older, they at times become entrenched and feel compelled to discredit opponent views or continue to try to bend them to their own shape. I find it better to listen, discuss and move on, but will naturally not readily do so if the topic is not discussed (and questions not actually answered). Had this happened, the debate would have moved on with an 'agree to disgree'. As simple direct questions have been circumnavigated and buried under 'artist speak' and inadequacy on the part of the viewer has been more than alluded to, I will challenge this. I feel not an ounce of aggression or anger. Why would I?

I will admit that I of course cannot rule out the possibility that at some point in the future, my opinioins may turn around (though I very much doubt it). However, if by engaging in this discussion I might bring this date forward, I consider it worthwhile in the extreme.

Tom

Tom,

Ah, you have only seen my photographs on the web. That explains it partly. The web is a great equalizer as someone mentioned earlier. As are most book reproductions, by the way. All I can say is that I think it is presumptious of anyone to judge anyone's work, based on their experience of it on the web.

I understand digital things not at all. Unfortunately, the scans on our web site are poor. They are not clear, and the tonal values, when seen on some computers, are so dark that I hardly recognize the photographs as my own. At some point, when time permits, the scans will be changed.

I was not impugning your intelligence. Based on your comments, however, I do believe that you lack experience at dealing with certain types of imagery, your protestations notwithstanding.

You wrote: "Another factor which to me is the icing on the cake is in the case of the Tuscany images, an almost total lack of cropping. You appear to have been confined by the format. If your images are 'windowless', taking a holistic view of the landscape and managing subtle relationships why is there such incredible conformism in the aspect ratios. Surely to do this, one must at times exclude elements in order to preserve what you say is the lack of bias within your images. To me, many disruptive inclusions degrade this. If you generally stick to a format you really are being literal and compromising, rather than artistic. After hearing your descriptions of your work, one might expect."

Regarding image ratio: Are Edward Weston or Cartier-Bresson also guilty of "incredible conformism in the aspect ratios"? Were they "being literal and compromising, rather than artistic"? According to you, might one expect "far greater fluidity with respect to framing" in their work? Are you implying that all photographers need to crop?

TS: I would finally ask you to directly answer the direct questions I asked on my first thread, which you have not done so far. Most importantly, 'what merit is there in your images (aside from the soulful printing and presentation) that cannot be see on a web-based image. Why can one not appreciate the central tenet of rhythmic activity (unless this is locked several layers down in the paper emulsion) on a reproduction.

In good faith, I'll try. I cannot say with any assurance why you cannot appreciate the "central tenet of rhythmic activity" on reproductions of my photographs on the web. But I'll guess at it. There are two choices: either it is a problem with your perception, or it is a problem with the reproductions. Let's bury the hatchet and give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said above. The scans in my opinion are poor. But they are all I have. I don't like them either. Tonal relationships, which is all one ultimately has in any photograph (the photograph is certainly not the thing, but a piece of paper with an arrangement of tones), on some computers are not there as they should be. Everything can be way too dark. The print is a function of the grace of the tonal relationships. If they are not there, you have nothing at all, except an illustration. There is also the scale, which is far different from the original. And to me they don't seem sharp.

What merit is there in my photographs? Ultimately that will be for others to decide. Not me. I know what merit they have for me. And many people have told me my photographs have emotionally moved them. I haven't been able to make a living solely from print sales for 30 years because of my words. When I present my photographs to collectors and curators, all I do is present it. I never say even one word about tones, relationships, or about anything at all relating to the photographs unless specifically asked. And people almost never ask. All I can say is, "Here it is." The work must speak, or sing, for itself. And since my photographs have been purchased by about 125 museum collections, including most of the big ones, as well as by hundreds of collectors, there must be some merit in them. At least some people seem to think so and are willing to put up there hard-earned money to buy them--in some cases making real sacrifices. My work is certainly not collected by museums because it is "cutting edge." I don't know where you are, but I'm guessing you are in the UK. The V&A purchased a print of mine when I visited there in 1984. You might want to take a look at it if you are in London.

A footnote: Paula and I do talk about our visual concerns in our workshops--and only in our workshops (and occasionally in a lecture). These situations are entirely different--we are teaching, as I have been trying to do in this thread. If our photographs did not back up our words we would have been tuned out a long time ago. As it is, we cannot keep up with the demand for our workshops, so the prints themselves probably do have in them the rhythmic qualities we demonstate and talk about. Otherwise it would be a case of the king's new clothes. We have noticed a very interesting thing about the work of the photographers who have taken our workshop: in those instances where we have seen their work a year or two later, the imagery is so much more alive and exciting and truly creative in a deep sense. And the photographers tell us they have a greater sense of doing their OWN work--they are not copying us. Sometimes these photographers had previously taken workshops with other known photographers. From what Paula and I have observed, in these other workshops they have learned all kinds of technical things, things way beyond what we know, but not how to make a better picture. We teach them how to make better pictures. Someone above wrote that he heard we teach about vision. He heard correctly--what we concentrate on is photographic vision and what makes photographs successful. If we did not understand that in a very full way, and if our words were "just words" the workshop participants would not gain what they do and their photographs would be no better after the workshop than before. (We teach the technical things too, but as an adjunct to vision.)

I'll now ask you to bury the hatchet and to consider the possibililty that there might be something to what I have written--that my words are not BS, but an attempt to teach people a new way of looking at photographs. (Paula and I find that almost no one looks at photographs the way we do--even other photogrphers, some of them workshop instructors themselves.) Of course, it should go without saying that you have every right not to like or respond to my/our photographs. But really, you should wait until you see them before making that judgement.

In this regard the following is relevant: Jovo above mentioned that music he loves he still loves even when it is heard in poor audio--on an AM radio. My question is: would the music be loved if the only way it was heard was in poor audio? The answer might be "yes"--that the essence of the music would still come through FOR SOME MUSIC. But do consider that it might not for other music. There is a great difference between having an experience of something original and THEN seeing/hearing a reproduction, and only having an experience of the reproduction. If anyone thinks these different experiences are equivalent, we'll just have to agree that we're on different planets.

Michael

Someone wrote: "Also I hate to burst anyones bubble, but in truth all photographs provide a "second-hand experience" except for the photographer that shot them."

The above comment implies that the photograph is merely a stand-in for the thing photographed. Viewing a photograph is never a second-hand experience. It is a first-hand experience--of the photograph. Even if the point of the photograph is to show you the subject--as in photojournalism or commercial work--still, when looking at the photograph you are looking at the photograph--and that is not a second-hand experience. Some do not see it that way. All they do is look for, and then name, the subject of the photograph. But in doing this they make it for themselves a second-hand experience. It is not that a priori.

All photographs made with conscious intention, are, however, really records--records of the interaction of the photographer with the things recorded. The hope is that the end result of this interaction--the photograph--will provide an exciting new interaction between itself and the viewer--one that may lean, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the sensibility of the photographer, on the things recorded. But photographs are not the things recorded.

I find it curious that when confronted with a photograph of a subject they cannot name (often something very abstract), most people will ask," What is it?" rather than, "What is it of?" When I am asked that, my answer is always, "It is a photograph."

Yes, we are on different planets and agree that there is little point in continuing in the previous vein. It has been hammered now! 100% back to the original debate on technical quality vs content.

Would you consider spending a year with 6x7 (or Xpan for panoramas) so you cannot make contact prints. This removes both the AZO and the process (and arguably a large dose of purely technical quality). You would still be able to make glowing enlargements of about 10x8 and would still be able to deal with imagery in the manner you describe. However, as the technical element would have changed considerably, it would be interesting to see if you were at all satisfied and if not, why not. You can frame exactly the same image, composed identically, but it may be technically inferior upon detailed examination. However, you would still be able to produce a pretty darned good print. The image itself would be recorded exactly the same. I would suggest a Mamiya 7 which has such astonishing resolution, you would achieve great detail on a 10x8 (having printed a friend's negs and been quite surprised). Although I agree that you do not at this stage constantly consciously deal with technical quality as you are settled into a process and know it better than anyone alive probably. However, if it was not for technical reasons (process included), why did you move to the large negs and AZO? It cannot be for pictorial reasons. If you were to find the resultant prints from 6x7 insufferable, what conclusions would you draw regarding the thread topic of content value vs technical value as a proportion of a print's overall merit (to you)? I suppose what I am asking is would you be able to produce what you would comfortably consider to be 'art'? If not , why not? Many would say that big contact prints (printing component) are not inherently more artistic, but have a finer degree of craft content. This is of course of value, but it is entirely seperate from the artistic component. It adds technical quality and nothing more (which must be wonderful when the image is artistically outstanding but on a big neg)

I would suggest that Ed Weston' Pepper would still retain 95+% of its glory if it had been shot on a modern 6x7 and printed by a master (enlarger) according to weston's vision, rather than contact printed. That 5% extra makes a big difference in the upper echelons of art, which I totally agree with. However, all the same 'appreciation' boxes would be ticked (crudely put) and it would still be rgarded as exceptional for all the same reasons...just not quite as exceptional!

Tom

My ... a kindergarten fight with big words.

One question, Tom: Why did you originally choose the work of Michael Smith's so specifically? You could have easily have written in generalities;
"Whilst I greatly respect the work of [some photographers, who are widely respected and, inarguably, FINE printers], I personally find their work some of the least interesting from a photographic perspective." - (A moment here while I try to figure out what alternative perspectives there are) -

What follows is an extensive amount of words offered as irrefutable PROOF that "I am RIGHT, and Paula and Michael are WRONG!!".

I wonder - what reaction did you expect from Michael Smith? Did you expect him to roll over and pay dead under the crushing onslaught of your undeniable PROOF? "My reasoning is so perfect, there is no defense against it"?

You do not like their work. So ... move on. There a many more here, some of which you might like. Why be obsessed with work you do not like?
I can only conclude that, contrary to what you have written, you do NOT "respect their contributions."

Consider this, and feel free to "beat on me", if it would satisfy you (warning - that does not absolve you from my "beating back"):

"The work on the wall is an ENCRYPTED window into the being of the photographer on the other side."

At times, we cannot decode that window, being imperfect collections of moist cells - translation: "I don't `get' it."

Ed,

I chose Michaels work because it enables the reader to actually have a solidly anchored reference point to what I originally referred to. Sound sensible? Not to have done this would have allowed far greater ambiguity and would have reduced the clarity of what I was trying to convey (only an opinion). I 'singled out' Michaels work because it is well known. Anyone may feel free to criticise my work as much as they wish. I take constructive criticism on board. If I disagree with a suggestion (perhaps an alternative interpretation) I don't neccessarily change the image. I am fully aware that whilst I may feel comfortable with not being influenced to change, it in no way improves the image for the person who found it wanting. Me sticking to my vision, does not make it good for everyone...only myself any anyone who agrees.

My reaction (you would probably describe it as beligerant, but this is not the case) was based upon the thinly veiled suggestion that the problem is with the viewer rather than the viewer being able to understand the image, but not finding it to be 'good'. Just the same as with jokes. You can understand it and not find it funny. Not finding it funny does not neccesarily mean you do not get it...This is exactly what I responded to.

Sorry, but was I mistaken, or did Michael concede that his images are fallable? No. My view was instead challenged in a " he don't get it" manner. This gave rise to my approach in an attempt for my view to be considered valid rather than me being entitled to it (but wrong). There is an enormous difference.

We can all mince about protecting egos (avoiding kindergarten fights with big words as you put it) and learning nothing, or we can debate things.....I do not see how anyone can lose anything (egos aside, but egos dont make art) only gain insight.

You say, "Consider this, and feel free to "beat on me", if it would satisfy you (warning - that does not absolve you from my "beating back"):

Why on earth would I want to beat on you? And I am taking a confrontational apporoach? You are entitled to your opinion.

"So ... move on. There a many more here, some of which you might like. Why be obsessed with work you do not like? "

There was a topic here which soon became perceived as a personal attack on MAS because I stated that I did not like his work and explained why (entirely on topic - technical vs content).

Michael and I had largely moved on Ed, however, I tried to get back on topic and asked a final few (highly relevant) questions of Michael, as the answers would be very interesting to me.

Tom

Just because you use a pencil doesn't mean what comes out is a drawing or a poem.
Could be an academic treatise or a shopping list...

Tom Stanworth said:

Would you consider spending a year with 6x7 (or Xpan for panoramas) so you cannot make contact prints. This removes both the AZO and the process (and arguably a large dose of purely technical quality). You would still be able to make glowing enlargements of about 10x8 and would still be able to deal with imagery in the manner you describe. However, as the technical element would have changed considerably, it would be interesting to see if you were at all satisfied and if not, why not. You can frame exactly the same image, composed identically, but it may be technically inferior upon detailed examination. However, you would still be able to produce a pretty darned good print. The image itself would be recorded exactly the same. I would suggest a Mamiya 7 which has such astonishing resolution, you would achieve great detail on a 10x8 (having printed a friend's negs and been quite surprised). Although I agree that you do not at this stage constantly consciously deal with technical quality as you are settled into a process and know it better than anyone alive probably. However, if it was not for technical reasons (process included), why did you move to the large negs and AZO? It cannot be for pictorial reasons. If you were to find the resultant prints from 6x7 insufferable, what conclusions would you draw regarding the thread topic of content value vs technical value as a proportion of a print's overall merit (to you)? I suppose what I am asking is would you be able to produce what you would comfortably consider to be 'art'? If not , why not? Many would say that big contact prints (printing component) are not inherently more artistic, but have a finer degree of craft content. This is of course of value, but it is entirely seperate from the artistic component. It adds technical quality and nothing more (which must be wonderful when the image is artistically outstanding but on a big neg)

I would suggest that Ed Weston' Pepper would still retain 95+% of its glory if it had been shot on a modern 6x7 and printed by a master (enlarger) according to weston's vision, rather than contact printed. That 5% extra makes a big difference in the upper echelons of art, which I totally agree with. However, all the same 'appreciation' boxes would be ticked (crudely put) and it would still be rgarded as exceptional for all the same reasons...just not quite as exceptional!

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom,

I'm not sure your last suggestion/question can truly be answered. If one who regularly shoots 8x10 or ULF spends a year with a medium format camera, they will be different, and they will see differently. Yes it will remove the ability to contact print, and yes it would limit some of the technical things that a lot of LF shooters hold dear. But it also will change the way they see the subjects. I know that the 8x10 for me is not just about wanting to contact print, it about seeing with that equipment the way I want to interrupt the subjects in front of me. Its about working with equipment that compliments the way I see.

I'll ask a question that has followed me throughout my working with photography. At one time, I made enlargements from 6x7 negatives, I experimented with tones, and even hand coloring. I found I was always questioning the manipulated work against the untouched prints. What is strong about this photograph, if its strong without the toning/coloring/whatever then why do that?

Same thing happened to me when I printed in pt/pd. I had a lot of success and sales, but I always questioned, "was it because of process or the content of the photographs." If it was the content, then why print in a way that sometimes dilutes the content. If it was the process, then why aren't the subjects strong enough?

One should always try to make the best prints one can. But "technical perfect-ness" is not a substitute for a well seen photograph. Back to the original question, I think that a technical perfect print or thinking about one can defiantly get in the way of making a great image. I've said this before, when your working you need to be technically proficient enough so that you not thinking about that while your shooting, if you are then you won't connect with the subject in front of you.

I was once shooting with a friend who believed in all the "zone gods" and current fads. We walked into a scene and looked at it, I took a couple of quick light readings, and started to set up. He watched, after I made my exposures he asked me what about some hot spot through the trees? I just said I adjusted the exposure, and will adjust the development, and that should bring the negative in close enough to print. Being of the current trend of zone-what-ever-ness, that answer didn't fit the popular thought at the time. So even though he was moved by what was in front of him, he didn't make an exposure because it went against the technical side of his beliefs. About a three years later, we were in a three person show together and I had to include a print from the time he wouldn't make an exposure.

Tom Stanworth said:

Ed,
Why on earth would I want to beat on you? And I am taking a confrontational apporoach? You are entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

My opinion is, yes, you are taking a confrontational approach.

I, for one, would have understood your position, quite clearly, without a reference to any particular photographer's work. It would have been much easier to stay on topic with a discussion in generalities.

Again, in my opinion, there was a lot of, "The composition is obviously "bad" - there is nothing to prevent it, so one's eyes wander all over the place, and only stop as a product of fatigue" (not a direct quote - only my interpreted impression) .... And it certainly sounds to me that you are trying to expound "great truths" from the top of the mountain.

A question - choose to answer or not .. Do you think there is a "right" and "wrong" in art/ photography?

Aside from the discussion with Michael Smith - You have written that intense criticism (I take it largely the negative kind) is necessary if we are to improve/ grow - and that we cannot learn primarily from our own interpretations and experiences - that outside help is an absolute necessity. Did I read that right?

If so, I will disagree.. a bunch!. I firmly believe as Dale Carnegie did .. that we do not learn from our "mistakes", at least nowhere nearly as efficiently as we do from our successes. And ... the only one that can determine success or failure is the photographer producing the work, themselves.

George Losse said:

Tom,

I'm not sure your last suggestion/question can truly be answered. If one who regularly shoots 8x10 or ULF spends a year with a medium format camera, they will be different, and they will see differently. Yes it will remove the ability to contact print, and yes it would limit some of the technical things that a lot of LF shooters hold dear. But it also will change the way they see the subjects. I know that the 8x10 for me is not just about wanting to contact print, it about seeing with that equipment the way I want to interrupt the subjects in front of me. Its about working with equipment that compliments the way I see.
.

Click to expand...

I agree to a limited extent. If one has a vision beginning with looking at and absorbing, feeling the yonder (rather then squinting at a viewfinder or GG), the tool only becomes involved at a later stage, by which time that which one wishes to commit to film has largely been shaped and film exposed by whatever means is available. FWIW I think that yes, it does shape the image, but not that much. I think it is far easier once one has been forced into the contemplative approach demanded by LF/ULF to go down to smaller formats than the other way round. I started 5x4 because I saw what I did with a 1920s goerz folder when taking the image involved bending things, dead reckoning and black tape. I had to slow down and connect with what was infront of me. Now that I have started 10x8, I am mindful of the fact that there are benefits and constraints. If the constraints compromise the creative process too much, I will sell up. Shooting 5x4 extensively, I do not think there is anything I could not do on a smaller format from a capture point of view, having spent some time in LF. I would concede that there are in fact creative opportunities lost. For me, the ultimate height any given image can attain on smaller formats is more limited due to technical ceilings. On smaller formats I dont find I produce better 'creations', but perhaps more of them. However, the quality would be diminished from a smaller neg for a given print size. The content would be the same. At the end of the day, the important bit starts and 99% finished in one's head?

[/QUOTE]
Same thing happened to me when I printed in pt/pd. I had a lot of success and sales, but I always questioned, "was it because of process or the content of the photographs." If it was the content, then why print in a way that sometimes dilutes the content. If it was the process, then why aren't the subjects strong enough? .[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree it is sometimes a grey sliding scale between technical and creative, but either extreme is bad news. (I think thats what you mean?)

.[/QUOTE]
I was once shooting with a friend who believed in all the "zone gods" and current fads. We walked into a scene and looked at it, I took a couple of quick light readings, and started to set up. He watched, after I made my exposures he asked me what about some hot spot through the trees? I just said I adjusted the exposure, and will adjust the development, and that should bring the negative in close enough to print. Being of the current trend of zone-what-ever-ness, that answer didn't fit the popular thought at the time. So even though he was moved by what was in front of him, he didn't make an exposure because it went against the technical side of his beliefs. About a three years later, we were in a three person show together and I had to include a print from the time he wouldn't make an exposure.[/QUOTE]

I have heard of such rigidity, but never heard of an actual example. One would have to ask the person if they use technique to enhance a creation or exploit only some creative opportunities to facilitate the execution of a technically uncompromised print. Yikes. If this was some time ago, has his approach changed?

Tom

I enjoy looking at what I think are good prints. Even if they are of crap. I know "That's just wrong!". I like the process feedback. Something I can't yet get over the web. I always seem to like these better then the output of the "anything that doesn't look like a straight photograph" crowd.

I do feel that images of the weird, the surreal, the mysterious should be presented as straight forward prints. Just seems stronger to me then a heavily manipulated print.

I still view the heavily manipulated stuff as a learning experience. When I finally see it it's nice. Sometimes it has to be expained to me. This does get in the way of a straight viewing of the image.

Chuck

Ed Sukach said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth
Ed,
Why on earth would I want to beat on you? And I am taking a confrontational apporoach? You are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is, yes, you are taking a confrontational approachMy opinion is, yes, you are taking a confrontational approach.

Click to expand...

Ed, this was not rhetorical, I ws asking your to question your own apporach (choice of words), hence the quote.

[/QUOTE]
I, for one, would have understood your position, quite clearly, without a reference to any particular photographer's work. It would have been much easier to stay on topic with a discussion in generalities..[/QUOTE]

Fine, however it was a judgement I made at the time and you may not speak for everyone. In any case why should I not use a person's work as a case in point. This is being precious.

[/QUOTE] Again, in my opinion, there was a lot of, "The composition is obviously "bad" - there is nothing to prevent it, so one's eyes wander all over the place, and only stop as a product of fatigue" (not a direct quote - only my interpreted impression) .... And it certainly sounds to me that you are trying to expound "great truths" from the top of the mountain..[/QUOTE]

No Ed. I merely suggested that Michael seemed unable to put his finger on anything specific regarding the artistic merits of his own prints prints, preferring to use somewhat vague nonsensical generalised explanations. He appeared to me critical of so many aspects of (un?)creative photography like having a subject, or subjects or the notion of the importance of content or deliberately 'weighting composition'. These ideas seemed to be scoffed at as basic and for unaimaginative simpletons who have no hope of operating at a claimed 'higher level'

[/QUOTE]
A question - choose to answer or not .. Do you think there is a "right" and "wrong" in art/ photography?.[/QUOTE]


Come on now, Ed! No, but there are always valid opinions, including mine. If I do not think it works for me, it does not mean I am lacking in my understanding of it. It could mean that what the artist is trying to achieve has no meaningful impact upon me, leaving me unmoved. Invalid opinions are for subjects where a point can be proven or disproven. Like an opinion based on a car being an unreliable model when worldwide data show this to be untrue.


.[/QUOTE]
Aside from the discussion with Michael Smith - You have written that intense criticism (I take it largely the negative kind) is necessary if we are to improve/ grow - and that we cannot learn primarily from our own interpretations and experiences - that outside help is an absolute necessity. Did I read that right?.[/QUOTE]

No. But discussing these points with an open mind (ie not dismissing the person (critic) as a halfwit who only finds satisfaction with 'simpler less complex' work befitting of their need for a photographic easy visual 'quick fix', happily derived from second generation reproductions) can only heighten one's understanding of the way others see your own work (whether you give a damn or not). It certainly does no harm.

Tom

Tom Stanworth said:

Shooting 5x4 extensively, I do not think there is anything I could not do on a smaller format from a capture point of view, having spent some time in LF. I would concede that there are in fact creative opportunities lost. For me, the ultimate height any given image can attain on smaller formats is more limited due to technical ceilings. On smaller formats I dont find I produce better 'creations', but perhaps more of them. However, the quality would be diminished from a smaller neg for a given print size. The content would be the same. At the end of the day, the important bit starts and 99% finished in one's head?




I have heard of such rigidity, but never heard of an actual example. One would have to ask the person if they use technique to enhance a creation or exploit only some creative opportunities to facilitate the execution of a technically uncompromised print. Yikes. If this was some time ago, has his approach changed?

Tom

Click to expand...

Tom,

One major part of my work is shooting the human figure. A couple of years ago I had one of those D... things in my hand during a shoot. I used it to go viewpoints I don't normally shoot from with the 8x10 camera. It was liberating, but it wasn't a direction I would want to go with my work. But it did get me past a small mental block, so it worked out great for me.

But the point is, when one's vision becomes tied to one's equipment choice, it can be a very good exercise to step away and do something different. Either use a different type of camera, just something that challenges all the truths you hold dear. Then if this new work is the choice, then the new work and a new direction opens itself up. If it turns out that is not the way one wants to see the world, then there are not missed images of not using a different camera format. Or things the other guys can do that I can't. It becomes more of how my choices fit my way of working and seeing. Almost a reaffirmation of faith.

The example of the guy not making the shot happened about twelve years ago. I haven't shot with him in a number of years now but he went from very formal ULF contact printing style to a much looser way of seeing later. I know we talked about his partners images that were shot without ever focusing her camera. She just pointed it and made an exposure. He was headed for somewhere in between the two extremes.

TS: Would you consider spending a year with 6x7 (or Xpan for panoramas) so you cannot make contact prints. This removes both the AZO and the process (and arguably a large dose of purely technical quality).

MAS: No, I would not want to spend a year exclusively working with a 6x7. There are many, many reasons. The small cameras are too technical for me. View cameras are much, much simpler and easier to use. And they do not limit one at all in choice of subject matter. (You probably do not know my 8x10s and 8x20s made a la Cartier-Bresson with people moving about and photographed at a significant moment.) Also, the image on the ground glass or the viewer (or whatever they call it with small cameras) would not be upside down. A ready sense of abstraction would not be there. One could still work contemplatively, however. All that being said, as a matter of fact I do plan to get a small camera, a 6x7 or a 645 and use it to photograph something very specific when Paula and I return to Iceland next year. In thinking about it, there is not one photograph I would make with an 8x10 or an 8x20 that I would make with a smaller camera, and vice-versa. And the small camera work will be landscape.

MAS: But these small negatives will be contact printed only. Not enlarged. They can, however, now be enlarged onto Azo. It sounds as if you are unaware of a new light head for enlargers hat enables one to enlarge onto Azo. The tonalities of enlargements on Azo are identical to those in a contact print on Azo.

TS: You would still be able to make glowing enlargements of about 10x8 and would still be able to deal with imagery in the manner you describe. However, as the technical element would have changed considerably, it would be interesting to see if you were at all satisfied and if not, why not. You can frame exactly the same image, composed identically, but it may be technically inferior upon detailed examination. However, you would still be able to produce a pretty darned good print. The image itself would be recorded exactly the same.

MAS: I don't get it. I do not understand why anyone, not just me, would be the slightest bit interested in making anything, and certainly a work of art, less well than they can possibly conceive of it. "Pretty darned good," is generally not good enough.

TS: I would suggest a Mamiya 7 which has such astonishing resolution, you would achieve great detail on a 10x8 (having printed a friend's negs and been quite surprised).

MAS: Side question about the Mamiya 7: When you look through the viewfinder, do you see exactly, to the hundredth of a millimeter, what you are going to get on the negative, or not? The problem with a Hasselblad that Paula used recently is that she did not get what she saw. We are used to getting exactly what we see--and use those edges very carefully.

TS: Although I agree that you do not at this stage constantly consciously deal with technical quality as you are settled into a process and know it better than anyone alive probably. However, if it was not for technical reasons (process included), why did you move to the large negs and AZO?

MAS: I After 9 months of working with a 35mm, I went right to 8x10. It took another 8 years before I began to print on Azo. One year I reprinted all my pre-Azo prints onto Azo. The differences in the prints were often significant. On occasion you could not tell the prints were from the same negative. My approach was the same. The only difference was in the paper. The story of this is in my article on Azo. I moved to an 8x10 because I began to realize what photographic quality was all about. I'm interested in quality in everything. And working in large format seemed to suit me. It is much simpler technically for one thing.

TS: It cannot be for pictorial reasons. If you were to find the resultant prints from 6x7 insufferable, what conclusions would you draw regarding the thread topic of content value vs technical value as a proportion of a print's overall merit (to you)? I suppose what I am asking is would you be able to produce what you would comfortably consider to be 'art'? If not, why not? Many would say that big contact prints (printing component) are not inherently more artistic, but have a finer degree of craft content. This is of course of value, but it is entirely separate from the artistic component. It adds technical quality and nothing more (which must be wonderful when the image is artistically outstanding but on a big neg)

MAS: Regarding whether a large-format contact print on Azo is art whereas a small-format print on enlarging paper is not. Both can be art. Equally. It is just that I prefer the former--for the kinds of pictures I make. Would the finer print be "more artistic"? If it were my work, yes, the finer print would be more artistic. If it were the work of another photographer--say W. Eugene Smith--it might not be,

TS: I would suggest that Ed Weston' Pepper would still retain 95+% of its glory if it had been shot on a modern 6x7 and printed by a master (enlarger) according to Weston's vision, rather than contact printed. That 5% extra makes a big difference in the upper echelons of art, which I totally agree with. However, all the same 'appreciation' boxes would be ticked (crudely put) and it would still be regarded as exceptional for all the same reasons...just not quite as exceptional!

MAS: Yes, it would retain 95%. But who could possibly be interested in 95% when you know 100% is achievable? Have you ever seen an Edward Weston print of his Pepper #30 next to a Cole Weston print from the same negative? I suspect not. There is a world of difference--if you are attuned to these things and are able to make fine discriminations. Most people would not see the difference. I am interested in a fineness of experience in everything--it is both my curse and my saving grace.

I hope I answered your questions. It appears you are asking them in good faith.

From another comment of yours, Tom: "At the end of the day, the important bit starts and 99% finished in one's head?"

MAS: Here I could not disagree more violently. At the end of the day, all you have is what you feel--not what you think. What one needs to do is get out of one's head, not into it, and respond to the world with one's heart, one's emotions, not with one's thoughts and ideas. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. This does relate to some of the previous discussion about my photographs: no "concept" in my work, just visual pleasure.

My answer to the original question is no.

In your opinion perhaps it can. But to the person making the image it can not. They, their vision, and their technical knowledge are one. How Adams see an interment camp is how he sees it. He perhaps sees it as a beautiful vista where a bad thing occured. You perhaps see it as a bad thing that should have no beauty surrounding it. Perhaps his vision is more shocking than the one you would like to see.

I'm sure there were probably beautiful sunny days at Auchwitz (sp?). The problem is we can't bring ourselves to see it that way. We need to see it as a horror.

Perhaps the Adams view is really more like reality. Horrible things can happen in beautiful locales. The juxtoposition (sp?) may make it all the more dramatic.

Different people will make the image as THEY see it and not perhaps as you think it should be seen.

Does that make Dorothea Lange a better photographer of the human condition than Ansel Adams? Perhaps. But he saw what he saw.

Michael

TS: Would you consider spending a year with 6x7 (or Xpan for panoramas) so you cannot make contact prints. This removes both the AZO and the process (and arguably a large dose of purely technical quality).

MAS: No, I would not want to spend a year exclusively working with a 6x7. There are many, many reasons. The small cameras are too technical for me.

Michael, Really? You would not be capable of operating a Mamiya 7 or Hassy? Wind on, set aperture, set shutter speed, click?

View cameras are much, much simpler and easier to use. And they do not limit one at all in choice of subject matter.

How does a smaller format limit you in choice of subject matter other than the technical quality of its capture? A lens is just a hole allowing light to hit a peice of film....

In thinking about it, there is not one photograph I would make with an 8x10 or an 8x20 that I would make with a smaller camera, and vice-versa.

I am not saying that the larger camera might not be preferable, but you suggest that they would lose too much if shot on a smaller format. What aside from techical quality would you lose in comparing a 5x4 enlarged to 10x8 with a 10x8 contact print? How can you lose the essence of the image if Rhythmic Activity is present? If the print execution is the final chapter, would the rest of the image's qualities not still be aparrent? To quote an AA analogy (probably a mistake as you have differing ideologies), "If the print is the performance then the negative is the score" or similar. Most could identify a brilliant score if performed sub-optimally. I dont mean badly.

MAS: But these small negatives will be contact printed only. Not enlarged. They can, however, now be enlarged onto Azo. It sounds as if you are unaware of a new light head for enlargers hat enables one to enlarge onto Azo. The tonalities of enlargements on Azo are identical to those in a contact print on Azo.

I was aware that it ws being developed, but not that it was ready. However that misses the point. I am asking of you images would 'work' without the benefit of AZO contact printing (a technical factor). If they have the non-technical qualities you feel they do, surely they would still 'work' albeit to a lesser extent? If this is so, would these factors not still be present on a monitor?.

TS: You would still be able to make glowing enlargements .... it would be interesting to see if you were at all satisfied and if not, why not. You can frame exactly the same image, composed identically, but it may be technically inferior upon detailed examination. However, you would still be able to produce a pretty darned good print. The image itself would be recorded exactly the same.

MAS: I don't get it. I do not understand why anyone, not just me, would be the slightest bit interested in making anything, and certainly a work of art, less well than they can possibly conceive of it. "Pretty darned good," is generally not good enough.

That was not what I meant. Could you consider your work (shot on another format and enlarged) art, albeit perhaps not the best you are capable of? Or are you saying that it would not work at all.


MAS: Side question about the Mamiya 7: When you look through the viewfinder, do you see exactly, to the hundredth of a millimeter, what you are going to get on the negative, or not? The problem with a Hasselblad that Paula used recently is that she did not get what she saw. We are used to getting exactly what we see--and use those edges very carefully.

Michael. How can this be anything other than a slight inconvenience? This is a show stopper? You know that everything within the viewfinder (assuming that it is less than 100%) IS on the frame (and you could crop the print). What more do you need? You cannot possibly suggest that this is more of a compromise than the fact that you don't have lenses for every possible mm of focal length, nor can you always place yourself in the perfect position every time. If your focal lengths are spaced with gaps (at all) and you print full frame, you are already accepting a MASSIVE limitation in terms of what is included and not and to an extent that (to a degree) you have to take what you are given (with a choice of options due to lenses and positioning). You may consider every portion of a mm along the edge, but you did not entirely chose where that edge is......

TS: Although I agree that you do not at this stage constantly consciously deal with technical quality as you are settled into a process and know it better than anyone alive probably. However, if it was not for technical reasons (process included), why did you move to the large negs and AZO?

MAS: I After 9 months of working with a 35mm, I went right to 8x10. It took another 8 years before I began to print on Azo. One year I reprinted all my pre-Azo prints onto Azo. The differences in the prints were often significant. On occasion you could not tell the prints were from the same negative. My approach was the same. The only difference was in the paper. The story of this is in my article on Azo. I moved to an 8x10 because I began to realize what photographic quality was all about. I'm interested in quality in everything. And working in large format seemed to suit me. It is much simpler technically for one thing.

In essence you are saying that you get better quality which is of course the point of this discussion. We would all take better quality when it is on offer. However, you also appear to suggest that there is such a night and day difference in the technical output of the image content as to make this essential for your work to have any value to you. Most masters have prints of varying technical brilliance. The poorest technically are sometimes the finest overall because of the other qualities. There is a sliding scale within each print.

MAS: Regarding whether a large-format contact print on Azo is art whereas a small-format print on enlarging paper is not. Both can be art. Equally. It is just that I prefer the former--for the kinds of pictures I make. Would the finer print be "more artistic"? If it were my work, yes, the finer print would be more artistic. If it were the work of another photographer--say W. Eugene Smith--it might not be,

I absolutely agree that better prints of a given image are better than worse ones technically. We would all agree with that. However, you have still not explained what is lost on a monitor apart from technical quality (which I agree IS important) and why, if there is 'other quality' in an image, why this cannot be identified on a monitor.....and therefore if an image appears to have no merits on a monitor, how it can be anything other than an excellent technical accomplishment in the flesh. I know it is a little sideways, but I feel this is clear as a chain of logic (correct me if it is not clear!)

MAS: Yes, it would retain 95%. But who could possibly be interested in 95% when you know 100% is achievable? Have you ever seen an Edward Weston print of his Pepper #30 next to a Cole Weston print from the same negative? I suspect not. There is a world of difference--if you are attuned to these things and are able to make fine discriminations. Most people would not see the difference. I am interested in a fineness of experience in everything--it is both my curse and my saving grace.

Michael I agree that 100% is far preferable when compared to 95%, but that 95% is identifiable...to take it one stage further.....just as if only 50% is identifiable on a monitor, there is something other than the technical present (technical quality missing entirely). The point I am considering is on the converse. Again, if no 'merit' is visible on the monitor, what does that make the fine print other than technically excellent?

I hope I answered your questions. It appears you are asking them in good faith.

From another comment of yours, Tom: "At the end of the day, the important bit starts and 99% finished in one's head?"

MAS: Here I could not disagree more violently. At the end of the day, all you have is what you feel--not what you think. What one needs to do is get out of one's head, not into it, and respond to the world with one's heart, one's emotions, not with one's thoughts and ideas. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. This does relate to some of the previous discussion about my photographs: no "concept" in my work, just visual pleasure.

I think you mistake what I am saying. You say , "respond to the world with one's heart, one's emotions". Your emotions are derived from mental activity. I was not suggesting that one must employ cold logic to an image, quite the opposite. I just use a slightly too literal anatomical explanation of where ones emotions are formulated. We are in agreement. Your 'heart' is just a different part of my head!

Michael, I do ask the questions in good faith and greatly appreciate the fact that you have responded.

Tom

The essential question here is what makes something valuable? It's probably the most important question one can ask, and lots of serious and smart people have grappled with it over the millennia. The technical term for this type of inquiry is axiology.

Historically, there are two main types of theories: realism (or objectivism) and anti-realism (or relativism).

Realists believe that some things are valuable independently of anyone's thinking that this is so. Plato, for example, held that there are eternal, unchanging forms or essences, such as the forms of triangularity, beauty, goodness... Things in this world, the world of appearance, have properties only to the extent that they "participate" in these otherworldly forms. For example, something is beautiful only if it participates in the form of beauty... So for Plato, our judgments about what is good, bad, or whatever, can be objectively true or false, and this is independent of what anyone thinks, just as the shape of the early was always roughly spherical even if most people thought it was flat. In effect, he thought that there are moral and aesthetic facts, just as there are physical and mathematical ones. If your view gets that facts right, then it's not just your opinion, it's the truth.

Relativists, on the other hand, hold that something is valuable only if someone thinks that it is, whether it's the individual (subjectivism), or one's culture (cultural relativism). They point out that no one seems to agree on what the facts are, and they'd dearly like to know what "participation" in eternal forms really means. They point out that values change dramatically from culture to culture. What one thinks is beautiful others often abhor. So the only thing that matters for the relativist is what the individual (or culture) thinks. No one's opinion on these matters is any better than anyone elses, perhaps with the exception of those who are inconsistent. If you're inconsistent, something you think has to be wrong, but if your consistent it doesn't mean that you are right.

Realists will point out that we do think that some cultures are better than others, and sometimes people even think that other cultures are better, although the latter view is rare. Moreover even if it is hard to tell what is objectively valuable, this doesn't entail that things aren't objectively valuable. Furthermore, they'll point out that there's often more agreement between cultures than is generally thought.

Relativists will reply that if all we can appeal to as evidence for objective value is our own opinions, then what good would objective value be anyway?

At this point realists will often bring up Nazis, or perhaps rape or torture. They'll says something like. "Look, the Nazis were evil, but according to you they just had different cultural values. You don't think that the Nazis were wrong, whatever their subjective values were?" This type of question separates the committed relativists from the wannabees. The pretenders will say, "Ok, the Nazis values were wrong and evil, but..." Well, that's it for their theory. (Remember the part about inconsistency?) The committed relativist will say something like, "Of course I think that what they did was evil, but that's just how I was raised. It's not an example of an absolute value."

My opinion on this is that we can't tell who's right. I believe that somethings, such as torturing someone for fun, is wrong no matter what anyone thinks, but I'd have no way of proving this to someone who really (and consistently) thought otherwise. It's not a belief that I've reasoned to, it's a belief that I reason from. Why do I think so? I don't know, I just do, just as I don't like photographs of naked fat people, and I'm a fat person.

So when it comes to photographs, some may be objectively better works of art than others, but the only thing we can appeal to as evidence is our own taste, or the taste of others. I've gone to exhibits at famous museums and thought "What the hell was that?!" But I'm not about to try and argue someone else out of their own preferences, unless their preferences lead to unjustifiable harm. I mean what can you say to someone who likes that taste of Spam that will get them to not like the taste of Spam? You may horrify them enough to not eat it, but will you actually change how it tastes to them? And even if you could, what would be your justification?

To finally get this back to photographs. People like what they like. It's possible that what some people like is objectively better than what other people like, but no one's been able to demonstrate how this could be shown, and really smart people have tried for a very long time. As I tell my daughter, "We can all like different things." Some people like technical perfection above all else. How else could we explain certain types of jazz or classical music? And others prefer appealing content however it is expressed. And of course some people prefer both, although they're not going to like very much stuff. But that's ok.

Peter De Smidt
www.desmidt.net

Bravo

hands clapping in cyberspace...

Peter, thanks for that! However after this, " Some people like technical perfection above all else. How else could we explain certain types of jazz or classical music? And others prefer appealing content however it is expressed" . You may just be lynched for musical heresy (wrong forum I guess - probably just as well)!

Nice one!

Tom

It is nice that the animosity has gone out of this discussion. I'll try, again, to answer your questions.

MAS: Yes. Those small cameras are difficult.

TS: I am not saying that the larger camera might not be preferable, but you suggest that they would lose too much if shot on a smaller format. What aside from technical quality would you lose in comparing a 5x4 enlarged to 10x8 with a 10x8 contact print?

MAS: What I would lose would be the experience of viewing the world on a large ground glass. That is intensely pleasurable. I have only so many days left to live. Why would I want them not to be the most satisfying they could be? Not that working with a large camera is comfortable—I'm always pushing myself visually, but it is deeply satisfying.

TS: Could you consider your work (shot on another format and enlarged) art, albeit perhaps not the best you are capable of? Or are you saying that it would not work at all.

MAS: Sure it would be art. And it would "work." But it would be art that was not as fine--to me. And as the maker, why would I want to do that?

TS: How can this be anything other than a slight inconvenience [referring to not seeing the photograph exactly in the viewfinder]? This is a show stopper? You know that everything within the viewfinder (assuming that it is less than 100%) IS on the frame (and you could crop the print).

MAS: The pleasure comes from seeing the photograph exactly. There is nothing wrong with cropping. I would do it if I needed to. Seeing, ahead of time, that the format needs to be different and using only a part of the negative to get that, I do not consider cropping. Intense pleasure comes from seeing all of the relationships exactly--ahead of time. It is a "high" moment.

TS: What more do you need? You cannot possibly suggest that this is more of a compromise than the fact that you don't have lenses for every possible mm of focal length, nor can you always place yourself in the perfect position every time. If your focal lengths are spaced with gaps (at all) and you print full frame, you are already accepting a MASSIVE limitation in terms of what is included and not and to an extent that (to a degree) you have to take what you are given (with a choice of options due to lenses and positioning). You may consider every portion of a mm along the edge, but you did not entirely choose where that edge is.

MAS: I choose where every edge is. Not having a lens of every mm is not a limitation or a compromise at all. One's creativity can best flourish within limitations. For example, Weston only used an 8x10 for the last many years of his photographing. And Cartier-Bresson used only a very few lenses.

MAS: Yes, I do place myself in a perfect position every time, or else I would not make the picture. I think here is where a major difference in our approaches comes out. If, a priori, even by a few moments, I knew what I wanted to photograph and how I wanted to do it, then yes, there would be a "perfect position." But I do not work like that. I never know exactly what I will photograph until I see it on the ground glass. And often I do not even photograph what I set up my camera for, but photograph something else. This is what Paula and I teach in our workshops--to get rid of your preconceptions of what you want--and allow the photographing process to be one of fresh discovery. If whatever I am photographing did not look right to me on the ground glass I would not make the exposure, no matter how much I thought that the "subject" would make a "good picture." I have said before "It is how one sees, not what one sees that makes any photograph interesting." (If the how and what come out in italics, I have just done my first code.)

TS: However, you also appear to suggest that there is such a night and day difference in the technical output of the image content as to make this essential for your work to have any value to you.

MAS: To me, yes. The work of art is the print. That is all we have to look at. I want the finest prints I can possibly make. Others, and I understand it as little as you understand my position, are quite satisfied with prints made on enlarging paper. I don't get it. All I can figure is they never compared prints on each paper side by side. Kodak really got behind keeping Azo in production after they sent me their best non-Azo paper to print on. I matched the mid-tones to an Azo print I sent them the two prints. The powers that be were amazed.

TS: Most masters have prints of varying technical brilliance.

MAS: Yes, that's true. I certainly do.

TS: The poorest technically are sometimes the finest overall because of the other qualities. There is a sliding scale within each print.

MAS: Rarely does that happen. Rarely.

TS: You have still not explained what is lost on a monitor apart from technical quality (which I agree IS important) and why, if there is 'other quality' in an image, why this cannot be identified on a monitor.....and therefore if an image appears to have no merits on a monitor, how it can be anything other than an excellent technical accomplishment in the flesh. I know it is a little sideways, but I feel this is clear as a chain of logic (correct me if it is not clear!)

MAS: Works of art have an energetic presence to them. That is not conveyed to me, ever, on a monitor. It is not just a question of what the work of art looks like, it is a question of what it is. I have rarely seen prints that I first saw on a monitor. But I have seen prints that I first saw in books. It is often that I am sorely disappointed in viewing the photograph after having seen it in a book. Often the reproductions are better than the originals. That has to be a function of the technical qualities. But remember, or please understand, that technical qualities, are integral to a work of art. One can never separate the image from the picture. When people speak of their "images" it implies that they are mostly involved with what is imaged. Images are what one sees on the ground glass--they are not yet pictures. A "picture" involves the entire work--the inseparable image/technical quality whole.

TS: Again, if no 'merit' is visible on the monitor, what does that make the fine print other than technically excellent?

MAS: Again, I do not understand how these things can be separated.

MAS: From another comment of yours, Tom: "At the end of the day, the important bit starts and 99% finished in one's head?"

TS: Emotions are derived from mental activity.

MAS: No. Emotions do not come from mental activity. They arise spontaneously from what one feels, not from what one thinks. This is a discussion for another forum. We will have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that, even though this very thing may be central to our opposing views.

I hope I have answered you fully.

Michael