has Brooks Jensen totally lost the plot

[arigram]

I gave up on Lenswork after a year of subscribing and some random issues before that mostly because I got tired of the repetition of themes and style of images. Plus I didn't feel that the acceptance of digital in the styles of LF photography helps the quallity.

 

[jovo]

I think some people feel betrayed by Brooks. Here is one more source for fine art B&W photography going down the path of embracing an inferior technology.

Ironically, today's podcast considers contact prints from film (not inkjet digital negatives) and 4x5 ones at that with all the praise that Brooks can muster. Far from betrayed, I feel as though he's the most likely to genuinely embrace what he feels is really good work regardless of it's origin, and, unlike some who have or will abandon the traditional, he'll publish it all. Even in his acceptance of digi, Brooks has set limits to the size that looks good at this point in time, but still hasn't gone off extolling it as the photographic second coming. I might wish Lenswork were the 'official' publication of apug, but it's not. As such, it is very worthwhile being what it is.

 

[gr82bart]

I buy Lenswork every now and then. I've seen some great images in it. I could care less about whatever the drama is. Plus it's a good size read for a short trip and fits nicely in the carry on.

Regards, Art.

 

[Daniel Grenier]

Dead Link Removed

This is today`s blog from Brookes. I am quite out of tune with him for the majority of his blogs but he has (temporarily ?) come to his full senses with today`s blog where he highly praises the undeniable beauty of the contact print. I have that book he mentions and it is one of the reasons why I did (and still do) only contact prints. One thing I really don`t get from this, though, is if Brookes feels so passionately about the contact print, then why the heck does he not practice it? Brookes?

 

[lenswork]

Why don't I practice it? Good question. The first answer is a dumb one -- in my youth I could never afford the equipment. I simply didn't have the money to equip a 4x5 outfit and darkroom, let alone an 8x10 one or larger. I did the best I could with limited means. For 30 years I used a great -- little -- used Arca Swiss monorail 6x9 camera and roll film. It was the perfect sweet spot for my tastes and my budget. I had three old lenses and several Graphic roll film holders. It had full view camera controls and with very modest enlargement I could make a very nice 5x7 or 8x10 print. These were as close to a contact print as I every got. I never did get an 8x10 enlargement that I would say would match the sheer quality of an 8x10 contact print, but I was happy with the results nonetheless.

In truth, I did try an 8x10 camera once. For about a week. I purchased a rickety old Burke & James 8x10 antique camera that had some Ektar something or other lens, a couple film holders, and a box of film. Quite simply, I hated using it. I came to the conclusion that I love looking at someone elses results, but large cameras are just a torture to use -- at least for me. I felt guilty about this for a long time. Then I realized the liberating truth that I don't play the clarinet either, but Benny Goodman is perfection. I also don't paint or draw, but I am spellbound by Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock prints. I decided it was okay to love gelatin silver contact prints -- even if I did so only as a consumer.

Now having said that, I did do one project -- which I never did finish -- called "40 at 40". It was a "concept project" of 40 images in celebration of my 40th birthday. The idea was to make a portfolio of 40 contact prints from my best 6x9 negatives. Small, little jewels, I hoped. I jumped in and did ten sets or so of the first 25 images. I really loved them. But, by the time I'd gotten that far in the darkroom project I was 42 and the idea kind of fizzled. I still have the prints in a box somewhere. I should dig them out again and see how they look today. If I were a betting man, I'd bet the look . . . well, small.

Brooks

 

[skillian]

Those really small contact prints can have a very jewel-like quality to them. They really draw you in for a closer look and that's the best way to enjoy a well-seen contact print. I've also found that very small prints of very large places or scenes can be an interesting way to make use of these small contact prints.

Lenswork is a very fine magazine - the best, in fact. Keep up the great work.

Best,

 

[wfe]

I'm with Brooks on this one. I am first and foremost a lover of photography. For me it is about the photograph and what it has to say.

 

[Sanjay Sen]

It would be so much nicer if some folks here would appreciate the fact that there are people for whom it's the image that matters, and not how it was made. As long as Lenswork publishes good photographs and maintains its high standards in terms of print quality and the no advertisements policy, I think it will have its patrons.

I have so far refrained from commenting in threads like this, but of late it does seem that Brooks-bashing is becoming a favorite activity around here, lending credence to Don's observation.

Jason,

Well put, you echo my sentiments completely. Sometimes I think these potshots are aimed at Brooks due to envy. It always seems it's the same familiar list of suspects leading the assualt.

 

[Daniel Grenier]

.....In truth, I did try an 8x10 camera once. For about a week. ......

Brooks.

I would suggest that that was an amazingly hasty surrender. One week and you gave up? I bet Goodman hated the clarinet in that first week too but we're all so thankful he didn't quit.

You have to wonder what Edward Weston accomplished in the first 7 days of 8x10 ownership. Probably nothing. What about Evans, Caponigro,Tice, Adams, and countless other excellent contact printers. What do they have to show for that week? Likely next to nothing too.

I guess I don't understand how one would give up the possibility of such great results (and settle for something of lesser quality) on account of not liking the process to get there? Seems like an overly low pain threshold.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not in any way inclined to "bashing" you, Brooks. Quite the contrary. I think that what you have accomplished with Lenswork is stunning and worthy of the highest praises and so many of your images would be just terrific as 8x10 contacts. I suggest an intervention is in order so "sentence" yourself to one full month of nothing but 8x10 "torture" and I bet you will absolutely love the experience.

Best regards.

 

[avandesande]

Sounds like an interesting article to me, complete with pictures. An 8 pound wheman with a g claron will help you forget your bad B&J experience. Bruce might even loan you one.

 

[BrianShaw]

Brooks is making sense to me... I don't think he's lost anything, especially the "plot"!

 

[c6h6o3]

I love the magazine (it's the only one I do like) and also Brooks' photography. Recently I visited a photographer friend who had purchased one of his inkjet prints. I found the composition compelling, but couldn't help lamenting the fact that it would have had ten times the impact if it had been a well executed wet chemistry contact print.

As I've said a thousand times before, when digital technology enables me to produce as fine a print as I can make using wet chemistry now, I'll switch to it. I've yet to see such a digital print.

Anyway, I certainly can't tell the difference in the magazine between wet chemistry and digitally produced images. I think that's a testament to the quality of Lenswork. Keep it up, Brooks.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Trust me, folks. That B&J was a hog. I wrestled with that sucker for a week, too and while I did make a few good images during that time, the work to success ratio was too high for me.

Of course, it does help when you remember to check that you packed the ground glass before you leave on a trip...