billschwab said:
It somehow seems as if you forgive "easy" process photographers their dull photographs, but those practicing alt processes are held to a higher standard.
As for the original generalization you made... "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." ... I realize you stated you have no examples and therefore I still do not understand how you come to this conclusion.
Bill
Dear Bill,
The first point, about being held to a higher standard, is indeed pretty much what I said in an earlier post, in which I also mentioned Sturgeon's Law. Perhaps the rest of this post may throw further light on this, or perhaps it may not.
The second point, about an unexpectedly high percentage of dull prints is, again as I have already said, an impression. It derives from looking at pictures of all kinds for several decades; it would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, and giving examples would in any case be invidious. It certainly isn't based on the work of anyone in this forum.
Ultimately my argument comes down to something very close to the statement that Mr. Callow found surprising. To enlarge upon this:
I have tried, and very much like, POP and Argyrotype. I have tried and don't care for cyanotype and gum bichromate. I haven't tried platinum because it seems to me suitable only for some subjects and styles, and I don't work in those styles. Also the cost alarms me. I haven't tried salted paper simply because I haven't got around to it. What I like or dislike as a process doesn't signify: different people like (and get good results from) different processes. I make the list only to show that I am not unfamiliar with alternative processes.
Frances is a good enough bromoilist that Fotospeed use (or at least used) one of her pictures as part of their display material, and good enough at hand colouring that she has demonstrated both Spotpen and Marshall's Oils on the manufacturers' or importers' stands, including at
photokina.
Learnin all of this involves or involved quite a bit of effort, over and above what (for want of a better term) I have called the 'easy' processes. Now comes the second part of the argument, an expansion of "Would I be proud of this if I had done it?".
When I look at one of my successful alternative process pics, I think, "Yes, it was well worth the effort." I imagine others must feel the same with their successful prints, and when I admire someone else's successful picture, I think, "That was a lot of work and beautifully executed." If I look at an unsuccessful picture, I think, "He went to all that trouble -- and that was all that happened."
Success and lack of success? Yes, it's personal, a matter of opinion (without the capital letters in this case). But to pretend that one should never judge anything is clearly nonsense. If we don't judge our own work, we'll never get better, and comparing our own work with that of others must again necessarily involve judgement. So must comparing the work of two other photographers.
One last point, when I say that alternative process users 'ought' to have picked up more than the average amount of aesthetic sensibility in their quest, I do not use 'ought' in an imperative sense. Rather I use it in the sense of 'I am surprised when someone has been interested in photography for a long time, and clearly devotes a good deal of time and effort to it, has not picked up in passing a fair amount of aesthetic sensibility by osmosis and practice.'
This would apply to ANY long-term practitioner, regardless of their medium. I simply make the assumption, perhaps unjustified, that anyone going for alternative processes or ULF is likely to have a good deal of experience of photography in general.
Cheers,
Roger