Latest Issue of Photo Techniques

[Dan Henderson]

I know that many people have abandoned this magazine because of the increasing content of binary photography, but I continue to find one or two articles every issue that cause me to keep purchasing it. Anyway, to my point...

The latest issue has a column by David Vestal and an article by Al Weber that are challenging me. The common thread of both pieces is that many photographs suffer by being "overdone" with too much technique, covered, in Vestal's words, with "too much gravy," and from the use of technique for the sake of the technique.

I'm trying to understand just what these writers mean. I wish they had provided some examples. In the same issue are some images that I think are great, but that could be considered to be "overdone." I try to be sensitive to the content of my images and print them how they want to appear. Sometimes that means a simple, straight printing with little manipulation or technique other than good darkroom craft, while others seem to want to show themselves as high key, darker, or colored through a toning process.

I would enjoy hearing comments from anyone who has read these articles and/or has an opinion on this subject.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I took the Vestal-Weber workshop 3 years ago, and spoke for several hours with Al last summer. Both are proponents of this method, and showed me how simple or even smaller can be better. I cannot describe it, but I know it when I see it. I guess that is all I can say.

I looked through hundreds of their photos, and can see the effect they are looking for. I had a photo of a wetlands that looked nice, but they showed me that a scene comprised of one reed in that scene could tell as much or more than the entire frame.

PE

 

[laverdure]

Vestal has always emphasized that in his writing. Though I haven't read this particular article, my impression of his gist here is, don't let showmanship get in the way of content. He's generally against the use of on-camera filters, especially for dramatic intent, for instance. I think he'd be strongly opposed (in his own work, not necessarily in yours, he would be sure to add) to the use of alt process to pretty up what might otherwise be a weak photograph. If you notice the print quality before the print content, that would be a problem. I'm not sure if that helps to answer your question or if it's even directly related, or even a correct impression of Vestal's take (I don't know anything about Weber), but I hope it helps.

Pity about that magazine, yes. Vestal's contributions were always a high point of it. I wish they were anthologized.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dave publishes an irregular newsletter that is available from him by request. It has very good comments about life and photography, and makes for enjoyable reading.

PE

 

[laverdure]

No kidding? How to I contact him?

 

[Andy K]

I tried contacting Mr Vestal via email some time back regarding permission to reproduce an old humourous article of his here on APUG. Never got any response.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dave admits that he is not very good answering mail, especially e-mail. He is a wonderful person though, as is Al Weber. Dave is about 85 now, I would think. He still drives cross country for his workshops at the Formulary.

PE

 

[Andy K]

It is a shame he never replied, that article was one of the funniest, and truest, I've ever read about photographers. (even if others did fail to see the funny side)

 

[Dave Miller]

Dan,
I think it’s what I would call the intimate landscape; sometimes the parts are worth more than the whole.

 

[Chuck_P]

My 2 cents:

When I was at Western Kentucky University in the early 80's in a photojournalism major, Dr. Paul Corn was my first instructor. I seem to recall that he firmly believed in the "less is more" approach----I try to apply that today as well in the fashion of "straight photography". I'm not familiar with those articles or the authors, but I would have to agree with them.

Chuck

 

[Mick Fagan]

Having read the two articles (I'm a subscriber) in question, I would suggest that PE's take on it in his first post is pretty accurate.

In a nutshell one can make a technically fantastic print, but if the content of that print is low, then it's a lousy print, no matter how brilliant the technical aspects of it are!

I nearly always turn to Vestal first, one of the reasons I kept my subscription, the other reason is the two retired Kodak people, Dick & Sylvia.

I will probably let my subscription lapse when it comes up next year.

Mick.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mick;

You got it. Thanks.

David said to me, "Ron, your lab technique is perfect, what you have to work on is content. Don't worry so much about how you do it as much as how it works or what it looks like."

That is in quotes, but is just approximately what Dave said.

Pe