You sometimes hear of well-known photographers leaving rolls or dark slides of unprocessed film after their death and I wondered if the demise of film and its chemical process know how, could mean that one day it maintains a special value in its latent image state? To process it may destroy the wonder of what it may behold. This may already be the case, but any thoughts?
Johannes Brahms was always his own severest critic. When he knew he would soon die, he destroyed all but a very few of his unpublished manuscripts. He did this to ensure that he would be known for only his best work. Other artists have done the same thing. In most cases the fact that films were never developed indicates that the photographer did not believe they contained any memorable images.
But did they?
...dark slides...
...and I wondered if the demise of film...
...To process it may destroy the wonder of what it may behold.
...but any thoughts?
But did they?
Schroedinger's cat.
Well played EvH!Schroedinger's cat.
garry winogrand i think left 10,000 rolls of unprocessed film ...
i don't think much deserves to be permanent ... unless it is on the internet
sounds like a good art exhibit ...
just filmholders and spooled film
leaving it to the imagination of the viewer
what they may or may not be looking at ...
retina and other unstable images would be perfect for this, seeing they
decompose / are destroyed the moment they are made
great thread cliveh !!
Schroedinger's cat is/was a photographer?
You sometimes hear of well-known photographers leaving rolls or dark slides of unprocessed film after their death and I wondered if the demise of film and its chemical process know how, could mean that one day it maintains a special value in its latent image state? To process it may destroy the wonder of what it may behold. This may already be the case, but any thoughts?
Bugger tugging at the forelocks of the dear departed's celluloid record. I'm taking it all with me. There will be nothing for the world to stickybeak at!
If film was still celluloid, all the negatives could be made into a bomb, to be used in a modified Viking-type funeral.
Sounds more like an emotional issue than photography.
maybe you're right, or maybe he just loved exposing film
the file cabinet was full ...
ziplock bags full of thousands of rolls of film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zk1nkZ3-kE&feature=related
and his leica had so much film through it there was a film image on the pressure plate
http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
I have the most incredible and magnificent images in my head that I never bothered to take pictures of, never stopped the car, never put down my beer and snapped a picture.
When I croak they should put my head on display and people can walk by and know that those images are in there, but just far too magnificent for the likes of them to see.
The greatest pictures never taken.
I think that Winogrand had an obsession, or even an addiction for taking photos - I would say it was on an emotional level for sure.
I actually think that the idea does have merit - if someone offered you a roll of exposed by not developed film that was taken by a master, would you buy it? I have to admit, it would be tempting. THe hardest part would be making sure that its authentic (just like the bits of the Cross that have been sold all over the world!)
If you assembled all the bits of the True Cross in all the churches in the world, Jesus would have had to be 14 feet tall with a 15 foot armspan.
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?