One thing I always found interesting is that seeing contact sheets can remove the hero worship to some degree and help other or "lesser" photographers see the myriad of also rans that every photographer makes to get the one "masterpiece".
Very often people learning photography will place their heroes on such a high pedestal that they can fail to respect the process of getting great pictures and how mundane some are, as the "hero" works through the shoot to get what he/she feels is enough to pull out the great ones.
The fact the the greats didnt just go out every day and pull off a winner is a great learning tool.
I completely concur with blanksy on the hero worship. Elliot Erwitt's dog/head photo seems so perfect but it took him quite a few shots to get there.
I was bought this book for my birthday in July and it's an incredible read, I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in photography.
In another environment, I have some modest skillsets and regularly praise the 'old bulls' of the site for sharing their foibles & foulups - for exactly the reason Blansky & others say - for the poor schmuck trying to learn. The guys that have it all together & don't make mistakes are of very little value to the student. One photo site illustrated w/ Ansel Adams - around 40 something iconic images - most of which he openly says had alot of darkroom intervention. That averaged out to 2/yr. No one would accept that he only took 2 shots/yr. The rest were foul-ups, experiments & also-ran shots. We learn more from the foul-up & our talk about them than the much needed & wonderful successes. My 'heroes' are those kindly disposed towards the serious student & help them understand. They aren't the only heroes, but they're the ones who have the attention of my voracious learning appetite.
Fav. HCB quote responding to the starry-eyed student's struggle: the first 10,000 are the worst.
Mark - excellent observation about work, etc. If one is not passionate enough about something to enthusiastically endure the work - its already over.
The advent of roll-film and an efficient film-winding feature made most of this possible. Things would look much different had wet-plate still been the primary method of image making. Pointing out the obvious, of course.
The advent of roll-film and an efficient film-winding feature made most of this possible. Things would look much different had wet-plate still been the primary method of image making. Pointing out the obvious, of course.
Very true. A good example are three fine photographs of the White House in the Canyon de Chelly. Two were taken by Ansel Adams in 1942 from slightly different positions. The other was made with much more effort in 1873 by Timothy O'Sullivan. I prefer the older one. Had Adams worked as hard as O'Sullivan in making just one photograph, the advantage of 69 years progress in photography should have enabled him to do much better than O'Sullivan.
Very true. A good example are three fine photographs of the White House in the Canyon de Chelly. Two were taken by Ansel Adams in 1942 from slightly different positions. The other was made with much more effort in 1873 by Timothy O'Sullivan. I prefer the older one. Had Adams worked as hard as O'Sullivan in making just one photograph, the advantage of 69 years progress in photography should have enabled him to do much better than O'Sullivan.
I find it interesting how the "snapshot" changed the entire landscape of photography. Would "Magnum" even exist if it weren't for snapshots. Instead of photographers turning in hundreds if not thousands of negatives per assignment, just turning in a hand full of plates, because that's all that time and resources would allow. After years of being a miser, I recently started making contact sheets again. It's a great tool for comparing a group of potential images. But on the flip side, it's an even better tool to point out how bad a photographer I really am. I need to put it in my will that my contact sheets must be burned immediately upon my passing..
A "contact sheet" is what it describes . . . placing the film in direct contact with the sheet of photographic paper. When exposed with light, you are exposing the entire film image onto the paper, to include the rebate, film perforations, and the density of the base material. You also get the framing numbers and film identification marks. If you own a Pentax 645N you can also print the camera settings within the margin between the edge of the film and the exposed frame. That information will show up on your contact sheet. I'm sure there are contact printers that eliminate the rebate from the exposure. But, I have never seen such an animal.
thanks, as usual for your thoughtful and provocative posts&blinks !
it is great to see contact sheets !
while the comments about adams and osullivan are sort of relaxant , they are worlds apart because
humans/anthropology/ human condition photography are different than static/ lAndscape/ site photographs. there is no anticipation, no hopefulness or anticipation. and while the advent do roll film might ave changed the previous slow, thoughtful, set-up people photography of the day...
news-/anthro landscape, roll film still provides something that could never have been done when emulsions were slow or
plates were larger. it wasn't ez to be spontaneous with slow emulsions that took time to expose
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.
