Is "alternative process" and excuse for boring subject matter?

[Bob Carnie]

At the APUG conference we had a selection of large format and small format intermixed in our show.
I think this exhibit for me confirmed that unless the image itself was stunning and well executed, no amount of print *turd* polishing could help .

We had examples of 35mm negative to print that on a print quality basis stood up to the large format work.
From the numerous comments that I overheard it was the image that was the primary concern to the viewer and not the process.

This *turd* polishing happens in all formats and generally this obsession with process is what drives a printer crazy.

Its been said in another post or two of the ability of making enlarged negatives from smaller formats a breath of fresh air for the alternative print processe.

As well I have seen in my own client base photographers taking large format gear and using it like 35mm . This too is refreshing to see.

I think that one can work from both directions , but if the imagery is weak it will show on any process.

 

[jimgalli]

On reading the original post what clearly comes to mind first are some of the obvious limitations of collodion and wet plate processes. While they are timeless and beautiful they are fraught with difficulties that nearly always limit them to a studio controlled situation. With these we tend to see the simplest of still life's and at best, some beautiful portraits. Robb Kendrick has done some masterful and beautiful work in this venue. So also has Quinn Jacobsen. Their work stands apart because their subjects are interesting. Very real folk if you will.

To a lesser degree ULF / Platinum also has some limitations. You need a good negative with perfect range for the processes usually using very vintage equipment unless you're a millionaire. All of these add up to let's say less chance of success than a guy with a Nikon.

Mostly though the problem is the subjectivity of the viewer. I would challenge Grant and others with a reciprocal argument. Are you unwilling to make the effort to move to ULF and therefore hiding behind a sour grapes argument that "I'm not going there because it's just a bunch of folks making boring pictures with wild notions of mastery only because it's a big expensive camera etc." No less valid than your original assumptions.

 

[Donald Miller]

I think that it is true that some innocently are confusing a technique...even a format with the production of fine work. Is this all? No, I think not.

I think that those who produce unique and credible images have found this within themselves before they engage in new techniques and equipment. Unfortunately for those who have not done the peliminary work, it often appears that they never will.

I like what Bob Carnie so eloquently stated.

 

[VoidoidRamone]

Mostly though the problem is the subjectivity of the viewer. I would challenge Grant and others with a reciprocal argument. Are you unwilling to make the effort to move to ULF and therefore hiding behind a sour grapes argument that "I'm not going there because it's just a bunch of folks making boring pictures with wild notions of mastery only because it's a big expensive camera etc." No less valid than your original assumptions.

I think it would be a lot of fun, and a good challenge, to try ULF- but I personally don't have the funding right now to shoot film that costs in upwards of $5 a sheet. I also think that my work and style is perfectly suited to any format 4x5 or smaller. I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of. Sometimes it seems to me that Alt. Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.
-Grant

 

[scootermm]

I think it would be a lot of fun, and a good challenge, to try ULF- but I personally don't have the funding right now to shoot film that costs in upwards of $5 a sheet. I also think that my work and style is perfectly suited to any format 4x5 or smaller. I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of. Sometimes it seems to me that Alt. Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.
-Grant

grant what you say makes perfect sense. But Ive found in the time Ive been doing this its not the case. People can think that their work is more interesting because of format, obscurity, size... but the point still remains that an image holds its own.

"I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of."

that may be true for some (although I dont imagine they would admit it... and it may be completely UNTRUE for others.

Its coming across as some broad far reaching statements that you are making. But that could just be the inadequate process of communicating through typed words on a forum (of which sometimes it can make no sense)
Ill make some assumptions, you shoot with 4x5 or smaller because thats what you feel right with.
assuming that holds true with EVERY other photographer out there its up to them to decide what that is... maybe its minox or maybe its 20x24.
If they seem to believe that just because its bigger its better, well then thats not much different than somone touting that the latest 12MP digicam makes their photos better.

I think you are right in that the image should stand on its own, and the process should back it up. but thats just my personal opinion, I bet theres people out there that think process/craft can stand on its own.

to each their own.

 

[blansky]

As I've said in other threads of this type and in Shiite vs Sunni, there are right brained and left brained individuals. One is not better or worse than the other. Generally one is more "creative" than the other and one is far more technically oriented. To find the "perfect" blend of this type is pretty rare.

One type, left brained, loves the process, and dabbles and makes equipment and processes and chemical concoctions to fulfil his love of this side of the equation.

The other is more "arty" or "creative" and attempts to capture emotion, or subject matter that the image speaks for itself and is not dependant on process so much.

Everybody is a blending of these two "brain" types and the world could not function without both ends of the spectrum.

Occasionally the "perfect storm" of both types comes together to make a master photographer, who handles both aspects with ease, and I wish that were me.


Michael

 

[Joe Lipka]

Yes.

Not really. Using large format and ULF by their very nature you have significant physical limitations imposed by (and by practictioners warmly accepted) the equipment. This tends to limit the subject matter. Thus, we continue to see Peppers in tin funnels, flowers and the ubiquitous rock and tree photographs. You have to be a very adept technical photographer to break this mold. Nicholas Nixon is one of the few that uses a view camera in a very non-traditional approach.

The Alt process comes in as a consequence of the requirement of a large negative. They just seem to work together.

Probably been said many times before, but medium is not necessarily a good indicator of the worth of the image. It is the image itself which should be judged. If you are aware of the medium of the image, then the photograph failed to impress the viewer. Your response should be, "Great Photograph", not "That's a really good black and white print." The format should serve the image, not be the point of the image.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Jorge]

Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.

I could understand the intial question and your reasons, but now you are going beyond what is reasonable and making silly assumptions. Do you really think that any of us think people will be interested in our pictures because we used a big negative or an alt process? Give me a break! Outside photographers, 99% of those who see a pt/pd print have no idea waht it is or how it was done, many just say it looks "old"......YOu obviously did not see the work I recommended to you, or you would not be writing this follow up.

 

[Ole]

One type, left brained, loves the process, and dabbles and makes equipment and processes and chemical concoctions to fulfil his love of this side of the equation.

The other is more "arty" or "creative" and attempts to capture emotion, or subject matter that the image speaks for itself and is not dependant on process so much.

Blansky, that's perfect.

I'm a born "tinkerer", in that I love the process for its own sake (having a degree in chemistry is a symptom, not an excuse).

I realise there are artistic aspects to each and every process, and I aspire to master these.

If I can "meld" the two, I'll make a great print (I hope).

 

[Grady O]

"you are going beyond what is reasonable and making silly assumptions"

It seems that you are the only one making the assumptions. Grant never said that ALL alt. processes were as he described, simply that some people seem to hide they're poor photographs behind complicated processes. I have seen many lovely photos done in ULF or alt. process, but I have seen many more (particularly on this site), of lame subject matter with an ongoing list of all their technical details that get many responses that I know they wouldnt had they been shot with a smaller format.

 

[mark]

I think it would be a lot of fun, and a good challenge, to try ULF- but I personally don't have the funding right now to shoot film that costs in upwards of $5 a sheet. I also think that my work and style is perfectly suited to any format 4x5 or smaller. I don't think that I need to shoot in a format in which I am more concerned on how big it is rather than be able to focus all my attention on what I'm actually taking a photo of. Sometimes it seems to me that Alt. Process and ULF photographers feel a lot more secure knowing that if they are shooting with something that is "obscure" that more people will become interested in it- I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of their negative or the chemical makeup of the print.
-Grant

Why so defensive? Seems like a tomAto tomOto argument to me. If you don't like it don't do it, but don't bash on people for doing what they like. You are not forced to look at the images so you are not having it shoved down your throat.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"you are going beyond what is reasonable and making silly assumptions"

It seems that you are the only one making the assumptions. Grant never said that ALL alt. processes were as he described, simply that some people seem to hide poor photographs behind complicated processes.

Hear! Hear! Technical mastery is always easier than artistic mastery.

Many achieve both. But those who achieve only technical mastery -- in ANY medium, includiing the 'easy' ones, small formats, etc. -- sometimes seem to expect (and occasionally receive) disproportionate praise.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

ULF is expensive, in terms of price per shot (not equipment).

So is 35mm (in my experience), in terms of cost per successful shot.

Both media deserve the best print quality you can give them. Sometimes it's a quick neg scan (fast, efficient, but not all that great. The newspapers love them). It could be a "proper" enlargement on RC paper, or FB paper if it's going for an exhibition or similar. Sometimes the negative just seems to call out for some kind of "alternative treatment", which unleashes a plethora of options.

I wish I were determined enough to shoot my negatives for one kind of treatment, and one kind of print. As it is I'm an undisciplined experimentalist: I prefer to get the picture, then worry about how to print it.

 

[bill schwab]

I think that most of you are missing the point. Yes there are MANY bad photos with 35mm on traditional papers, but it just seems that when that same photo is taken with some obscure ULF size and printed on a paper that was dicontinued years ago and is only special order over the internet that same photo magically becomes a work of art.

It appears you simply have some grudge against people doing alt process work? Why should it matter where and how the materials were procured? Can you show those of us that are "missing the point" some example of a print "magically" becoming a work of art simply because of its process?

...of lame subject matter with an ongoing list of all their technical details that get many responses that I know they wouldnt had they been shot with a smaller format.

What is the real problem here? I don't see any more or less crap or "lame" subject matter coming from those that do ULF or Alt process work than those doing smaller, more traditional processes. In fact, just by sheer numbers of practitioners of each it stands to reason there would be more crap created by those using the latter. And your reasoning as to what is accepted as a "good" photograph confuses me even more. A photograph of say... vomit might get a lot of responses as well. Am I to think that is any more a "good" photograph simply because it illicits a lot of response? I understand one man's regurgitated food and drink is another man's art and can leave it at that. I don't need to look at what others think to be able to decide what is good in my eyes.

I think the original poster of this thread was off-base and perhaps a bit defensive as Mark said. Why single out alt processes unless there is perhaps a feeling of jealousy or inferiority?

Bill

 

[Grady O]

You seem to have forgotten the part where I said, "I have seen many lovely photos done in ULF or alt. process". I'm not making any personal attacks here and theres really no need to get so defensive, it's just my thoughts. And as for Grant feeling "jealousy or inferiority", uh, well, I'll just let him speak for himself.

 

[bill schwab]

You seem to have forgotten the part where I said, "I have seen many lovely photos done in ULF or alt. process"...

Much the same as saying, "I have a lot of friends that are Penguins, but have you ever tried to fly with one?". I don't feel as if I have anything to defend here. Still interested in seeing some of that magical art you spoke of as well.

Bill

 

[VoidoidRamone]

I don't think I'm being overly defensive here. I do not think I ever said that using a smaller format means a better photograph either. And I don't think I ever said that there are more good photographs being made with small formats than with large format. My only point was to provide a topic for thought. Everything I'm saying here is subjective. My reason for "singling" out these processes is because I find it that people who are shooting with ULF and Alt. Process seem to almost brag about their work more and seem to put themselves on a higher pedestal than photographers who shoot in small formats. Is a photo of a tree any better because someone carried a 90lb camera through the woods and then printed it with highly toxic chemicals? And yes, I feel inferior and I am very jealous.
-Grant

 

[VoidoidRamone]

Much the same as saying, "I have a lot of friends that are Penguins, but have you ever tried to fly with one?". I don't feel as if I have anything to defend here. Still interested in seeing some of that magical art you spoke of as well.

Bill

What does this have to do with penguins and magic?
-Grant

 

[bill schwab]

The percentage of alternative process users and ULF users that displays dull pictures with pride does however seem significantly higher than one might reasonably expect.

Sorry Roger, I completely disagree with you here. Saying simply because someone is enamoured by and uses alt processes that they should be any more evolved creatively than a hack with a 35mm camera is ludicrous. I'm hoping you can show some examples to back-up your statement?

All due respect,

Bill

 

[bill schwab]

What does this have to do with penguins and magic?
-Grant

Apparently absolutely nothing.

Bill

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have been lucky enough to have seen Salgados "Migrations" show as well Kenro Izu "Light Over Ancient Angkor" . Both were amazing and inspirational. But from two opposite ends of the spectrum , equipment and process wise.

I have heard the saying " its nots so important the size but how you use it" but then again John Holmes seemed to be a pretty popular fellow.

Any Ultra Large Format folks getting antsy and ready to dump their 11x14 camera, I will trade enlargers for one, I have a 11x14 enlarger sitting in my darkroom, dying to enlarge some big boy negs.

 

[bill schwab]

My reason for "singling" out these processes is because I find it that people who are shooting with ULF and Alt. Process seem to almost brag about their work more and seem to put themselves on a higher pedestal than photographers who shoot in small formats.

You must be basing this on something. Can you show me where this is so? Granted, there is a lot to talk about when using alt processes. It is not simply mixing up some yellow or white packages and souping your film. I think this we all understand. Where does it turn to bragging and placing oneself on a higher pedestal?

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry Roger, I completely disagree with you here. Saying simply because someone is enamoured by and uses alt processes that they should be any more evolved creatively than a hack with a 35mm camera is ludicrous. I'm hoping you can show some examples to back-up your statement?

All due respect,

Bill

Dear Bill,

No, no examples at all -- just the same overall impression that started this thread. Plus my own experience with everything from Minox 8x11 to ULF. If your (and of course, by 'your' I mean 'my') pictures aren't worth looking at, because they're dull, it doesn't matter how hard they were to produce.

And sorry, I don't agree with you at all either. Someone who starts chasing unnusual processes or equipment without bothering first to cultivate, in your words, more creativity than a hack with 35mm, seems to me to be taking a path that is an admission of aesthetic failure. They are saying, "I can't take pictures that are aesthetically interesting, so I'll master something that most people regard as REALLY DIFFICULT!" A bit like my deciding to take an LL.B. when I failed to get into medical school.

Any obsessive with normal dexterity can learn any technique (you don't even need to be obsessive -- I got my LL.B.). Learning to take pictures that are aesthetically attractive is a LOT more demanding -- perhaps impossible in extreme cases -- and excessive emphasis on technique instead of aesthetics is, again to borrow your own phraseology, ludicrous.

If I have misunderstood you -- and it is possible, after a luxurious dinner, with a grappa by my side as a digestif -- I apologize; but I think that it would take a lot to dissuade me from the view that anyone who takes their photography seriously enough to deviate from the obvious, easy techniques should indeed have acquired in passing enough aesthetic sensibility to produce (or at least, not to show) pictures that are dull, dull, dull.

I will also repeat again that a picture which is nothing in reproduction or on the computer monitor may be very different (and very good) when seen as an original alternative process print or ULF contact print. But after seeing a fair number of both alternative process prints and ULF prints (and attempting to make both myself) I have to say that distressingly many of those that I see do not meet the simple criterion I set when looking at others' pictures: "Would I be proud to have taken that?"

Nor, of course, do many more conventional pictures, or many pictures of my own, regardless of process or format.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[SuzanneR]

I don't think I'm being overly defensive here. I do not think I ever said that using a smaller format means a better photograph either. And I don't think I ever said that there are more good photographs being made with small formats than with large format. My only point was to provide a topic for thought. Everything I'm saying here is subjective. My reason for "singling" out these processes is because I find it that people who are shooting with ULF and Alt. Process seem to almost brag about their work more and seem to put themselves on a higher pedestal than photographers who shoot in small formats. Is a photo of a tree any better because someone carried a 90lb camera through the woods and then printed it with highly toxic chemicals? And yes, I feel inferior and I am very jealous.
-Grant

I'm not sure about people bragging, but I think using larger formats with alternate processes can, indeed, make a photographer fall into a "process rut" for lack of a better term. For example, I think Sally Mann is, for the most part, a very good portrait photographer. Lately, though, she's been doing landscapes using wet plate collodion. At the end of the day... I just don't think she's a very good landscape photographer, and I'm not sure the process is helping the images. Other's may disagree.

Recently, I've seen some new portraits of her now grown kids, and I hope she explores portraiture again with the process. These recent images are disturbing, as they look like "death masks", but the image and process seem to be working together better for me than the landscapes.

At the end of the day the process, the format, the subject all have to work together, and just because it's an unusual process or an unusual format or hell, and unusual subject doesn't automatically make it a great (or bad) photograph.

 

[smieglitz]

Grant,

Curious fellow that I am, i went and took a look at your APUG gallery and your website to see what sort of subject matter you might find appealing. (I liked some of the Niagra work FWIW.)

It is obvious from those two sources that you are drawn to color photography (at least in your current online work) and, if those sources are representative, that you don't do monochrome or alternative processes. I would dangerously and perhaps unfairly speculate that your printing may be done by a lab, or if you do it yourself, that you use standard color chemistry and procedures. That sort of framework puts you at the opposite end of the spectrum from those workers who do lug big cameras around, mix their own exotic monochrome or pigmented chemistry, experiment with different printing substrates and chemical treatments, and so on. Putting labels on those two ends of the spectrum, I would refer to people such as yourself as photographic "imagemakers" while the other end I'd attach the additional tag, "printmaker."

I'm of the opinion that "printmakers" are also "imagemakers" and that they are generally into it not only because of the final image, but also because of the joy they get through working the process. There's "value added" there IMO. And experience has shown me it is really futile to argue about the relative merits of one vs the other. That's a horse as tired as arguing with a Photoshopper making fauxtographs on a computer that hand-made craftsmanship has merit over the machine. Two different mindsets with different purposes are at work. And as far as good vs boring work, you know what opinions are like...and everyone's got one.

So, given your apparent color photography orientation, I'm curious if you find any alternative process photographers or work interesting? Can you name a few whose work you might find appealing? Never mind the boring, holier-than-thou alternative photographers or imagery you allude to at the start of the thread. I'd be interested in finding out who, if anyone in that field, you like. Can you name some examples?

It seems this thread has been rife with overblown generalizations and has been largely about tearing people down rather than exalting them. IMO, not a good premise.

Joe