Masters

doughowk · Oct 12, 2004

At the risk of over-simplifying, the reason we set up the camera & tripped the shutter is because we saw something in the subject/scene worth recording eventually on paper/print. Maybe its conscious or sub-conscious, but we did pre-visualize something. The exposing of the negative is, ideally, to capture enough information to realize that vision of a final print. Our technical skills are tested by the various situations in which we photograph. If the information is lacking or overwhelmed by other information, our darkroom technical skills are required to still produce our original vision. Creativity as well as craft is part of the entire process for we are creating something unique - it may not match our original vision as we explore the potentials of the negative. One might even call the outcome a post-visualization process, though that term is identified with photographers like Jerry Uelsmann.
To sum it up, a perfect negative is that which contains the information you need to create your vision, and that information has to be readily accessible during the printing process.

Jorge · Oct 12, 2004

To sum it up, a perfect negative is that which contains the information you need to create your vision, and that information has to be readily accessible during the printing process.

Simple ideas are often the best ones....could not have said it better...

Francesco · Oct 12, 2004

Jorge said:
Simple ideas are often the best ones....could not have said it better...

Jorge, chalk up another of Doug's statement for the t-shirt. Well said Doug!

Francesco · Oct 12, 2004

Hey Jay, just so you know, I was referring to Poindexter in the movie "Revenge of the Nerds". The 50s?

Art Vandalay · Oct 12, 2004

Jorge said:
Yep, Ansel Adams was the buffoon who decided it was a good thing to previsualize as useful technique...what did he know??.....

I think the key part of this statement is 'as [a] useful technique'. It doesn't really mean anything does it. It's a 'technique'. Techniques are something you chose to use or not. AA went as far as choosing the exact paper and developer he was going to print on and no doubt he even took into account the specific lot of paper he was using at the time - I understand papers and film didn't have the precise quality control we have now.

However, I also know that he changed his mind later and desired to print the negs differently. Too bad that he chose to previsualize so severely because I suppose the negative would be useless for any other print than the one he decided on the exact day and point in his life. By being so anal and unyeilding he painted himself into a corner. It would've been better if he had made a more general negative so he could print it differently if he so chose....but he didn't so that's that.

John McCallum · Oct 12, 2004

That is a rather interesting interpretation of Ansel Adams approach to photography. Personally I would not view such dedication to the mastery and innovation of the craft of photography in a negative way, such as you have Art.

Art Vandalay said:
By being so anal and unyeilding he painted himself into a corner. It would've been better if he had made a more general negative so he could print it differently if he so chose....but he didn't so that's that.

And the second part of your statement just doesn't make sense to me (though my knowledge may at fault here).

Art Vandalay · Oct 12, 2004

John, I can't help you with the confusion but maybe I just didn't state it properly. I was commenting on something that I've encountered before that just doesn't work for me. That's the strict adherence to the doctrines of somebody else - namely AA. His version of previsualization is often held up as a holy command and my sarcastic comment was pointing out that by being so severe you have limited yourself to your feelings at that point in time. What if you change your mind and wish to print the image differently at some point in the future? What if that brand of paper is discontinued? Then your sunk because (allegedly) you've created a negative for that paper/developer combination and anything else would be of lesser quality. I know I'm pushing the idea to the extreme but the way I see it presented by others is that producing negatives, without a precise result in mind is somehow bogus and/or a sign of 'poor craft'.

John McCallum · Oct 12, 2004

I think there is a line that links Absolute Technical Mastery at one end with Significant Creative Achievement at the other. People move about on that line at various stages of their photography, according to the efforts they put into improving their 'vision and creativity' or learning 'technical mastery' of the craft.
Generally, when we start out, technical mastery and the creative aspects seldom come together and meet in the same picture.

But as we apply the effort and learn, the two come together more often.

The thing is however, people give different priorities to what they see as advancing their photography. Some might use whatever film is in the camera, flick it onto Auto and point and shoot, with the creativity being the beginning and end of what is important to them, as long as it results in something in a print! Others go through film/developer combinations until they are blue, refining their technical knowledge until they can predict the proportion that each zone will appear in the final print.

If you are truly an exceptional photographer, you will achieve both in the final image. Using landscape photographers as examples: Ansel Adams and his ilk, and I would suggest Bruce Barbour as a modern day example.

Fortunately, photography is now considered enough of an 'Art form' that you do not have to have a perfect balance of both. But (and this is just in my opinion), the more consistently you are able to support significant creativity in your photography with disciplined, accurate techniques, the better a photographer you should be regarded.

Many have already said it; .... some get lost in the tech aspects, and their creativity suffers through lack of attention. I have seen outstanding ULF prints, the result of decades of dedication and refinement that leave me cold with boredom. Likewise, the other way. Plastic camera shots that are unrecognisable, but should be appreciated for the wonderful pure creativity involved.

We all should have our individual views about what is most important for our own images.

Personally, for the record I apply creativity to my photography with a passion (and normally it is excruciating and rarely satisfied) and I try to support that with technical skills necessary to achieve the result I want. I don't pursue technical accomplishment for its own sake, seeking subjects to display the technical merits of the image.

However, who is to say any one way is right or wrong? In addition, who is in a position to criticise anyone who has applied themselves with passion, vigour and dedication to their personal goals of photography (just my 2 c).

photomc · Oct 12, 2004

You know Lee....I don't see it, but it must be full...the day here sure has been.

Maybe it has something to do with all the seismic activity, beats me...

Art Vandalay · Oct 12, 2004

Hear hear John. I completely agree with you and I feel very fortunate that I can relate to works from both ends of the spectrum and everything in between. I only wish I was better at both the creativity and the skill, but I suspect everybody feels that way at one time or another.

Art Vandalay · Oct 12, 2004

lee said:
is it a full moon? or is it just the crazies time to play? Jeeze!

lee\c

Well sometimes you have to just inject a bit of passion into the mix. It keeps things from getting too dull.

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

Art Vandalay said:
I think the key part of this statement is 'as [a] useful technique'. It doesn't really mean anything does it. It's a 'technique'. Techniques are something you chose to use or not..

Actually, pre-visualization is not a technique that one can choose to use or not. It is an inate ability that some have and most don't. I'v read that only about 10% of the population at large is capable of pre-visualization. And the type I mean is that when I photograph, I can litterally see in my mind's eye the final print framed and hanging on the wall. A close friend of mine, with whom I go out and photograph is a neurologist and used to be a brain-surgeon. We talk about this often. He cannot pre-vislualize and he can't even understand it or explain how it works, and he can't explain it, I won't even try to. I just know it happens and studies have been conducted to see how common it is. So it can't really be considered a technique.

Art Vandalay said:
However, I also know that he changed his mind later and desired to print the negs differently. Too bad that he chose to previsualize so severely because I suppose the negative would be useless for any other print than the one he decided on the exact day and point in his life. By being so anal and unyeilding he painted himself into a corner. It would've been better if he had made a more general negative so he could print it differently if he so chose....but he didn't so that's that.

He didn't change his mind to such a degree that it made the original negative useless. Can you point a single example where he had to re-shoot a negative just for a different brand\batch of paper? You're suggesting that's its' 'too bad' that Ansel Adams didn't dump the Zone System and just create 'average' negatives that he would spend hours in the darkroom working over......hey wait a minute, that's how your work, isn't it? Are you suggesting that AA got it all wrong and he should work like you do? Yeah, that's the ticket, and we could call it the 'AV System' and then we would have the AV Gallery in Yosemite, and the AV System Basic Photography Series and of course Mt. AV.
Aren't we getting alittle carried away, Art, suggesting that AA got his technique all wrong and should have done it like you (and some others on this baord) do?

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

doughowk said:
To sum it up, a perfect negative is that which contains the information you need to create your vision, and that information has to be readily accessible during the printing process.

Does it matter to you how that information got into the negative? One one (admitidely ridiculous extreme, which actually happened to me), I could drop the camera, the shutter release could go off and an exposure would be made, controlled by the in-camera meter. At another extreme, as in LF, every step in making a negative is consiously controlled by me. Let's say that in both cases, I get negatives with enough information to pull a good print from. Thei first one may take a lot of dodging, burning, papg\er grade changes, maybe some bleaching, etc. The second maybe a little manipulation, but not much.

Do both meet your definition of a 'perfect negative'?

-Mike

Ed Sukach · Oct 14, 2004

mikewhi said:
... You're suggesting that's its' 'too bad' that Ansel Adams didn't dump the Zone System and just create 'average' negatives that he would spend hours in the darkroom working over......hey wait a minute.... (clipped).
Aren't we getting alittle carried away, Art, suggesting that AA got his technique all wrong and should have done it like you (and some others on this baord) do?

I didn't interpret that message like that, mikewhi... at all.

It was a rather sarcastic method of try to illustrate a point by intensifying... that can be a slippery slope, but I understood what he was trying to say.
The only "suggestion" that this meat something like AA "should have abandoned anything" was yours.

Art Vandalay was not suggesting that the "Zone System" or "previsualization" are "bad" - or that Adams "got it all wrong" ... only that we are free to choose to use those techniques - or not.

Ed Sukach · Oct 14, 2004

Foraging around here... I've been giving deal of thought to the idea, advanced by "mikewhi", that APUG is predominately a "technical" site; that we are primarily and narrowly interested in the "technical matters" of photography, as opposed to the aesthetic.
I think he has a point there, although the thoughts of trying to communicate our ideas in an aesthetic frame seems to me to be difficult to say the least.

I will take the plunge, and start (I hope this is OK) a thread titled "Aesthetics". .. where we can, hopefully express our emotional reactions to different images.

"Technical talk" (i.e. Dmax - min; "blown highlights"), should be, gently, off limits... not that they are to be forgotten or deemed unimportant - only that we should have a dedicated venue that should be for opinions and impressions that do not have to be supported or "logical" - or conform to anyone else's opinion.

I don't expect that it will be easy to post in that thread ... we will have to discuss our "insides" ... but ... here goes.

Art Vandalay · Oct 14, 2004

mikewhi said:
It is an inate ability that some have and most don't. I'v read that only about 10% of the population at large is capable of pre-visualization.

I'd be interested to see this reference if you have it. To me pre-visualization seems pretty simple.

Art Vandalay · Oct 14, 2004

mikewhi said:
He didn't change his mind to such a degree that it made the original negative useless. Can you point a single example where he had to re-shoot a negative just for a different brand\batch of paper? You're suggesting that's its' 'too bad' that Ansel Adams didn't dump the Zone System and just create 'average' negatives that he would spend hours in the darkroom working over......hey wait a minute, that's how your work, isn't it?

But I thought that he 'pre-visualized' exactly how the print would look on the wall (as you said) and 'pre-visualized' the paper and developer he would use and made 'the perfect negative' for that situation using the Zone System. Isn't this why he was considered a demi-god? That he knew exactly what he wanted and created the exact negative for the situation? Is this or is this not the truth, as has been said by many of his supporters on countless threads in numerous forums?

I would say that this is what others interpret, so logically, if you've (allegedly) created a negative for such an exact situation then you're screwed if you change your mind and/or can't get that paper/developer combo. What would you do in this situation? You create technically perfect negatives and I assume you pre-visualize and use the zone system to get the perfect neg for the paper/developer. What happens if the paper you're using suddenly disappears? Do you chuck the negative? I mean if it's perfect for one paper then surely it's going to be less-than-perfect for another and any print you make will be substandard and make you look rather silly if you show it.

Francesco · Oct 14, 2004

This is one of my favourite passages in the Daybooks. I love its simplicity and how it implies complete mastery of technique leading to complete independence from it.

"My way of working -
I start with no preconceived idea --
then rediscovery through the lens --
final form of presentation seen on ground glass, the finished print previsioned complete in every detail of texture, movement, proportion, before exposure -- the shutter's release automatically and finally fixes my conception, allowing no after manipulation --
the ultimate end, the print, is but a duplication of all that I saw and felt through my camera."

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

Art Vandalay said:
But I thought that he 'pre-visualized' exactly how the print would look on the wall (as you said) and 'pre-visualized' the paper and developer he would use and made 'the perfect negative' for that situation using the Zone System. Isn't this why he was considered a demi-god? That he knew exactly what he wanted and created the exact negative for the situation? Is this or is this not the truth, as has been said by many of his supporters on countless threads in numerous forums?

I would say that this is what others interpret, so logically, if you've (allegedly) created a negative for such an exact situation then you're screwed if you change your mind and/or can't get that paper/developer combo. What would you do in this situation? You create technically perfect negatives and I assume you pre-visualize and use the zone system to get the perfect neg for the paper/developer. What happens if the paper you're using suddenly disappears? Do you chuck the negative? I mean if it's perfect for one paper then surely it's going to be less-than-perfect for another and any print you make will be substandard and make you look rather silly if you show it.

Art, you're trying to force a point where there is none to be made.
1) "then you're screwed if you change your mind". The point is that you don't change your mind. Once you realize what you want, that's is what you go for. The expeience of it is so strong that you simply don't change your mind. Peopel who post-visualize in the DR, those are the ones who constantly change their minds.
2) "What happens if the paper you're using suddenly disappears?" Well, obviously, you use a different paper. The characteristics of top-end FB papers aren't so drastically different that a negative is suddenly useless if that paper disappears. When graded Brilliant went away, I switched over to Seagull with no problem, still print the same negs on Seagull as I did on Brilliant. Some sligt re-calibration is necessart to determine the range of the new paper, but you won't find it much different than the other top-end brand.

You've got no point here and you're arguing up a blind alley. You don't have any experience inthis type of photography so I'd suggest you stop trying to invent reasons why it can't work when the best photographers of all time have made it work for decades and decades.

-Mike

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

Francesco:

This is the pass I was trying to recall earlier. It says it all perfectly. I know not everyone works like this, but the fact is that many photographers do. There just seems to be people on this board whao can't stand the idea that an image can be pre-visualized and the technical aspects are all about creating a negative and print to re-create that pre-vislualized image.

I guess they think everyone has to work like them or it isn't photography!

-Mike

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

Ed Sukach said:
I will take the plunge, and start (I hope this is OK) a thread titled "Aesthetics". .. where we can, hopefully express our emotional reactions to different images.

God bless you for the effort and good luck. If my prediction holds out, it'll be a pretty short thread and\or short of meaningful content. It's a tough subject for any of us to tackle. I'll try to contribute, but I'm sure\hope I'll ruffle some feathers.

-Mike

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

Maybe it's simple because you can do it. Can you take a temporal 3-D color scene and see it as a non-temporal 2-D B&W scene in your head?

Many Many people cannot do that. To some it's a total mystery.

If I run across the reference again, I'll post it but I don't have time to go thru my books looking for it. It's just an old quote that stuck with me.

-Mike

Poco · Oct 14, 2004

"then rediscovery through the lens"

But why not "rediscovery in the darkroom?" For the life of me, I don't understand why all the major creative decisions must be fixed at the point of exposure and exposition in the darkroom -- perhaps far away from the original photographic conception -- is a somehow cheaper creative act. Or a mark of failure, even.

For me, there's discovery in the field, followed by discovery on the
"ground glass," followed by discovery in the darkroom ...and that's what makes the process so interesting from start to finish.

Now, I agree that technique should at least be adequate to make the original visualization transferable to print form. But it usually takes far less than a "perfect" negative to allow for that. AA's book "The Print" details many darkroom tricks that were used to make up for negative failings. No big deal.

Francesco · Oct 14, 2004

jdef said:
Wether or not one subscribes to EW's approach, it has to be acknowledged that he came to it honestly, and didn't simply adopt another photographer's methods.

Way of Working is not Method of Working. I do not really find anything in the Daybooks that details his methods that anyone can simply adopt as their own. I actually only finished reading this book two weeks ago. It is the only book of EW writings that I own.

Francesco · Oct 14, 2004

You should really read the book. And if you already have, you should read it again. In this way you can actually say something intelligent and objective about what is contained in it. I am using EWs definition of Way of Working and your veiled attempt to diss me for quoting EW shows more about your insecurities than a delusion on your part that "way" versus "method" is a desperate argument.

Masters

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency