I have a friend who has done volunteer work photographing children - I think for the linked organization "Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep". She has an established child portraiture business as well. It apparently is very difficult, but also very rewarding.I don't know about funerals and wakes, but post-mortem photography was quite common in the 19th century. It's still done today. I have come across photographers asking about shooting funerals or wakes in more recent years, but I can't find the original links.
The only photo I ever saw of my paternal grandmother was in the coffin. Never understood why there were no photos of her sitting on the front porch in a rocker or hanging clothes outside instead. Same thing with my granny's sister. They brought her into the parlor in a coffin for everyone to see at her home and photographed. This was back in the 50's.
I couldn't elaborate a complete response to this opinion, as it has a number of misconceptions and wrong statements.I consider printing to be an integral part of the photographic process. It is the completion of what began with pressing the shutter. So the reputation of photographers that do not do their own printing is diminished for me. What would we think if Picasso gave his ideas to an assistant.
I couldn't elaborate a complete response to this opinion, as it has a number of misconceptions and wrong statements.
Can I start with the painters and sculptors which work were accomplished with the aid of assistants as Rafael, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rodin, etc, in different scales. Painting is not photography, totally unrelated, other medium, other skills needed, other "technology".
But let's for the moment consider this option: photographers that I can recall starts with Cartier-Bresson for instance, I could add a list of Magnum agency photog. who had their print done by others in house. I have worked for a number of big scale newspapers which had also their own lab. and none of their photographers had to make this work neither had the time to. In color processing? You name it, for different reasons.
It doesn't hurt to the artist to humbly consider the help of great printers to accomplish their work, for one reason or another, neither it restricts the value of the image taken, IMO. It's a wrong idea I think to consider the help of a professional lab a gap of any sort toward the results of an image. Even A.A. did it, at his own lab,
Cheers,
Renato
This long thread, if it illustrates anything for sure, shows the pernicious consequences of substituting the word "print" for "photograph". I expect most APUGers think photograph when they say print but in the wider world I see a conceptual haze where it's all just pictures. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that the words we use firmly limit and channel how we are capable of thinking. If we lump photographs with ink-jets, etchings, mezzotints, lithographs, linocuts, engravings, web-offsets, and all the other things that are actually prints we become unable to think of what makes photographs different and uniquely valuable.
The piece of exposed, developed, fixed, photographic paper with picture-forming marks on it is not a print, it is a photograph, and I would plead it is the photograph. Other things, including the camera-original negative, are ingredients used in passing to culminate in the photograph. The person who executes the entire process from beginning to end is certainly the photographer. But how should people with partial roles be designated? I reckon there are plenty of honest options.
Salgado is a supremely admirable camera-man and the people who make pictures for him are brilliant printmakers. In a similar vein Henri Cartier-Bresson who exposed film but made no visible photographs was a camera-man who relied on photograph-makers to have something to show.
All the recent Salgado pictures I've seen are print-outs of electronic files that have been heavily worked in a data processing environment. The Salgado "industry" fabricates glorious visual experiences, the mechanical equivalent of hand-wrought paintings or drawings. But all of this is well sideways of making pictures out of light sensitive substances; photography as such.
This is precisely the ruinous vaporising that empties photography of its powerful and unique values. I won't accept a dumbed down world in which the universal consensus is reduced to "Photographs? Nah, leave it out, guv. It's all just pitchers, innit?"The photographer captures the original image and the zillion ways it can be printed is merely a technical exercise.
Hate to have a dig at you Clive but you only trot out this nonsense because of HCB.The photographer captures the original image and the zillion ways it can be printed is merely a technical exercise.
He spoke to the guardian about these pictures here - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/may/28/sebastiao-salgado-photography-kuwait
Incredible story. He had a 60mm lens, so I wonder what camera he was using, wasnt a common focal length.
And he must have a good printer
The photographer captures the original image and the zillion ways it can be printed is merely a technical exercise.
Salgado is digital now, converting his files to film. ???
I have checked his book with some pathetic name where it is digital. Something with penguins, if I'm not mistaken. It was awfully over-processed and boring.Salgado is digital now, converting his files to film. ???
he does !!!
her name is nathalie loparelli
she is pretty fantastic ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?