Masters

[mikewhi]

If you look at the type of photography that he did and the conditions that he took them under, there was no way that he could carefully meter every exposure. War photos, quick shots that he had to fire off, really low light situations, etc. He was a photojournalist and he just couldn't take the time to meter accurately for every shot. Also, he shot roll film and had to develop each negative the same amount of time so he couldn't control development for each individual shot. In fact, he would roll 2 rolls of film at once onto a reel and develop more film at once that way. He wasn't interested in producing a technically perfect negative and, given the way that he worked, he couldn't do it even if he wanted to. He was able to pull great prints from these negatives, however, and that is what really matters. I'd say his real craftmanship was in the darkroom. EWS also had personal issues with alchoholism and he might have had a mental disorder given his constant emotional agitation. He was self-desctuctive. This just doesn't sound like someone who would stand behind a view camera carefully calculating exposure and development times before taking a picture. Sticking his head up from behind a rock to capture an image of some marines setting off an explosive nearby sound more like his style.

I have seen a fair number of his original prints and they are beauitful, so whatever his technical approach to exposing\developing negatives was, it worked for him and that's all that matters.

-Mike

 

[Aggie]

I had made a comment earlier about this very man and his methods, that I read in a book on darkroom techniques. From what I gathered (EWS himself) this was on purpose and not because he didn't have a clue as to what he was doing. From your comment it sounds like he was perhaps just inept? Could you clarify?

Get the interview about Morely Baer from Lenswork. His wife Francis talks about Morely and Edward Weston whom she worked for. She talks about the pepper in that interview. Edward was a person that would if he didn't like the results would keep shooting until he did get it right. This not from a book written by someone else, but the person who cleaned and cooked for him. As they say direct from the actual horses mouth.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Interesting. Try to apply some of this logic to what I do, and it's impossible. I don't have the luxury, in the kind of work I do, to set up thoroughly and completely, analyze every point in the image, check the contrast of the light, etc, etc, before each shot. Ain't gonna happen. Light can change every five seconds on some days. Kids don't stay put.

And since I'm not LF, I don't have the luxury of perfectly processing each neg according to the condition in which I shot each image. The beginning of a roll might be indoors by window light, with lots of contrast. By the end of the roll, we may be on the front porch in diffused, relatively flat lighting. I can certainly meter accordingly, but I obviously can't develop the roll to suit each image.

I think that the implication that those with innovative darkroom technique, or the knowledge of how to pull a great print out of a less-than-optimal neg are doing it to cover sloppy technique or inability to shoot properly -- well, that's just bullsh*t, to be blunt.

- CJ

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

He was able to pull great prints from these negatives, however, and that is what really matters.

Just saw your follow-up post, Mike. Sorry, but this doesn't seem very consistent with your first statement.

 

[Eric Rose]

Just a few notes:

1) In my experience the more darkroom 'tricks' one knows implies that the photographer routinely produces negatives of, shall we say, widely varying technical quality. They often expose in a haphazard way and work in the darkroom later to pull a good print from the negative. Others have no idea what they wan t in the final print when they expose, make exposures that will provide some information in the negative and then 'post-visualize' in the darkroom. To pull good images from these negatives can require all sorts of manipulaations (including nose oil). I know very few darkroom tricks and techniques.
-Mike

This is the biggest lump of doo doo I have ever read here. Mike get a grip old buddy.

 

[mikewhi]

This is the biggest lump of doo doo I have ever read here. Mike get a grip old buddy.

What part is 'doo doo'? Plenty of 'masters' made bad negatives, and plenty of 'masters' post-visualize. What is the 'doo doo' in that? Have you never heard of either? As for 'tricks', why does one need to intensify, bleach, make masks, do a lot of dodging and burning, etc? To make up for problems with the negative, that's why. If the negative lacks contrast, you can add that into the print with these techniques. But wouldn't it have been better to create the negative with the correct contraast (density range) in the first place?

There is nothing wrong with anything I wrote, just what you read into it.

-Mike

 

[mikewhi]

Just saw your follow-up post, Mike. Sorry, but this doesn't seem very consistent with your first statement.

What I wrote was: "Eugene Smith made horrible negatives (an old girlfriend was a student of his, this according to her), but he should could print well from them."

Seems consistent to me.

All I was trying to say is that he made negatives that were 'horrible' in the sense that they were not exposed with so much care that he knew he got the correct shadow detail and that he devloped for the correct highlight density for what he wanted. He was a photojournalist, afterall and one can't meter too carefully when someone is shooting at you. So he ended up with negatives of widely varying quality. He had to know a lot of darkroom 'tricks' to get what he wanted. He was adamant that noone print from his negatives except for him. He did this because the negatives had to be intrepreted heavily - by looking at the negative it was certainly not obvious what needed to be accentuated to get the image that he wanted.

-Mike

 

[mikewhi]

I think that the implication that those with innovative darkroom technique, or the knowledge of how to pull a great print out of a less-than-optimal neg are doing it to cover sloppy technique or inability to shoot properly -- well, that's just bullsh*t, to be blunt.

- CJ

So, you are just telling me that you are the type of photographer that I was describing. One that cannot carefully craft negatives because of your subject matter and the way that you shoot. Nowhere did I 'imply' that this indicated photographic imcompentence. That's in your head, not in my words. If I said that, quote me and point it out.

My personal style is that I create as perfect a negative as I can and I'm sure that APUG is full of LF'ers that do the same. With these negatives, I don't need to employ a lot of darkroom 'technique' to get a good print - I spend that time behind the camera making the negative.

I have also not disparaged anyone for either technique. The final print is what matters. So long as these darkroom techniques are employed in such a way that they don't blemish the final print then I have no issue with them.

I'm afraid this thread is falling into the old trap of people reading what someone writes, intrepreting the words, adding meaning and then blaming the original author for their intpreretations. I think people here should be a little too smart for that and should recognize when they're reading into what is written.

I'm signing off this thread......

-Mike

-Mike

 

[mark]

You did say this didn't you?

"1) In my experience the more darkroom 'tricks' one knows implies that the photographer routinely produces negatives of, shall we say, widely varying technical quality. They often expose in a haphazard way and work in the darkroom later to pull a good print from the negative. Others have no idea what they wan t in the final print when they expose, make exposures that will provide some information in the negative and then 'post-visualize' in the darkroom. To pull good images from these negatives can require all sorts of manipulaations (including nose oil). I know very few darkroom tricks and techniques."

If one does not want to be misquoted they should take better care in making very clear what they wanted to say. This is a vague jab at those who may not create the technically perfect negative. For you, the making of the camera is the most important part of the photographic process. And yes there are those who follow this train of thought. Others see the camera as one tool and the darkroom as another. These folks, I am afraid do previsualize and know that the combination of a good negative and darkroom wizardry will create the art the are looking to achieve.

In my mind those who use the most tools to craft a fine print of something more than just technical perfection are the much better photographers.


Remember a perfectly exposed negative that prints very easily, of a crappy subject is still crap.

 

[Eric Rose]

So Mike how many "Masters" have you printed along side? I bet none. So your opinions are just that, opinions based on little if any factual knowledge. I myself have printed elbow to elbow with some of the greats. I have seen their negs and what you are proposing is just BS. Part of the reason for using these "tricks" as you call them is to facilitate the necessary extra steps required to get just what the photographer had PRE-VISUALIZED. Not post-visualized as you put forth. Not everything can be achieved thru perfect exposure and development. To create a truly expressive print I will use whatever techniques I have in my kit to achieve what I had in my minds eye when I began to create the neg.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

As Mark pointed out quite well, I don't believe I misinterpreted anything. I took the original post in its entirety, and believe I read and understood exactly what was written, and in the spirit of what was written. The original post was quite derogatory in nature toward those whose negs are not what you consider to be consistently high quality. You made no allowance for difference in subject matter or film format, or anything else. The post was quite condescending in tone.

On the lighter side, I find it a bit odd that in your follow-up post, Mike, you mentioned Eugene Smith as one whose true talent was in the darkroom -- and also felt it necessary to mention his mental and emotional defects. LOL. So, Smith's mental illness contributed to his being better at shooting haphazardly from the trenches under gunfire, and less able to make a great neg? That's kinda funny, if you look at it in a certain way. Regardless, I think most photographers would give their right arm to be able to produce prints like Smith's, although the loss of a limb might make printing a bit more tricky....

 

[Art Vandalay]

Like Cheryl, I was also confused by the mention of EWS's mental stability!!!! What does that have to do with anything? As a matter of fact, I think a certain amount of instability, or what we call 'craziness' is, is present in many of the great artists. Of course I should preface that by saying that I rarely include AA or EW in my list of outstanding artists. I find that stable, calm, normal people create stable, calm, normal images - in other words, effing BORING!!!

But I digress. I'll have to get a copy of the Darkroom where Smith wrote about his techniques. I might be totally misquoting him, but I believe he said that he did have a great handle on the exposure and found that a 'technically perfect neg' was not his goal. It may have been one or more of the other photographers in the book but it's a statement that I've seen before. A technically perfect neg is meaningless and darkroom manipulation is just another tool to create, it's a part of the process.

In addition, EWS did not spend most of his time ducking behind rocks, dodging bullets and taking shots without the luxury of reading the scene. Most of his greatest works were his documentary projects which he spent years on and immersed himself in the subject. He did have time to get exactly what he wanted.

 

[mikewhi]

"A technically perfect neg is meaningless"
Nonsense. You must not make and print from very many negatives if you think this is true, unless you have some odd definition of what 'technically perfect is'. To me, technically perfect is a negative that will produce the image desired when the shutter was tripped. It can be 'thin', have a full range of densities, whatever. But it must have a correlation with the image desired. I don't have much regard for a negative that is exposed, processed, printed, cropped over and over, printed many times until the photographer finally discovers an image in there somewhere. To me, that isn't photography.

As for the mention of his mental instability, I think it was an essential part of his personality and most certainly influenced even his technical approach to his photography. If he had Adult ADD, for instance, could he even concentrate on the technical aspects long enouch or even care about them? I have always thought of EWS as being ssomething of the Van Gough or Hemingway of photography, brilliant, disturbed, and very self-destructive.

-Mike

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

For what it's worth, I have adult AD/HD. Yep, it's possible to concentrate long enough to be technically sound and proficient. I'm only slightly self-destructive, so I'm a bit disadvantaged when compared to Eugene Smith.

I'm betting most people wouldn't think of a thin neg as being technically perfect. Your definition of "technically perfect" matches my definition of "technically sound" or the somewhat less polished "unscrewed up".

 

[Art Vandalay]

"A technically perfect neg is meaningless"
Nonsense. You must not make and print from very many negatives if you think this is true, unless you have some odd definition of what 'technically perfect is'. To me, technically perfect is a negative that will produce the image desired when the shutter was tripped. It can be 'thin', have a full range of densities, whatever. But it must have a correlation with the image desired. I don't have much regard for a negative that is exposed, processed, printed, cropped over and over, printed many times until the photographer finally discovers an image in there somewhere. To me, that isn't photography.

Earlier you had a much more precise definition of what this was but now it seems you are talking about something much more subjective and only in the mind of the person tripping the shutter - ie it is only perfect to the photographer. This is what I mean by it being meaningless. I will say that I prefer your last definition because you are giving the creator the benefit of the doubt.

As for you not having much regard for a negative created in your desired mode I can honestly say I have never been to an exhibition that gave a description of how a negative was created and printed, nor is the negative ever on display with the print. For all you know images that you admire may have been made in the exact way that you seem to have no regard for. Unless you only admire your own work.

I have worked with quite a few negatives although probably not with the care that you do. It's not my style of shooting and I feel no remorse or embarassment about it either. The one thing I have found with this site is that there seems to be an inordinate amount of energy and time spent with the superficiality of photography and techniques, and very little time spent on the deeper aspects of photography. There are some good works and good photographers on here but I can't help but feel some would benefit from throwing their spotmeters away, grabbing a good 35mm, going somewhere that isn't already quite pretty and banging off a few rolls. Spending years trying to get perfect technique, before going out an acutually doing something original (in ones own sphere) seems like a very insecure excuse for creating bland photographs - "The image is a boring as hell but I got Zone 7 exactly where I previsualized it. Wow!"

Just to be fair, I also realize that I need to get off my butt and spend more time in the darkroom.

 

[mikewhi]

I appreciate your points. Actually, my definition of a 'technically perfect negative' has been the same for decades. I had to put some thought into it and question a lot of assumptions that I had before I could distill it down to that simple sentence.

FYI, I have been to art exhitibs where ONLY the negative was shown and not the print. I have been to some where both were on display. I've even been to exhibits where only the prints were on display<g>. I know of a photographer who sells negatives, not prints (this was some years ago). Recently a book was published showing only negatives. So, there is interest in the negative. If you care to take a peek at my personal gallery, you'll see many negative images. Personally, I appreciate the negative as an image in it's own right, but it must work as an image and not be used as pure effect.

But what I was really trying to address was the working style of the photographer. I know there are photographers who do work like that and probably they can be quite successful. It's just my personal opinion that I don't respect that approach - if that drives some people mad, then so be it. It's quite possible that I could go to a show of an unknown photographer and see some images that I liked. If after the show I learned that he\she worked in this manner, honestly I would lose respect for that person. So process is apparently important to me.

"There are some good works and good photographers on here but I can't help but feel some would benefit from throwing their spotmeters away, grabbing a good 35mm, going somewhere that isn't already quite pretty and banging off a few rolls."

I appreciate this point and your sentiment. I have actually done this on many occasions because I was starting to feel constrained by the LF process. Still, I took care with my exposures and development. I even took random pictures where I never looked thru the viewfinder. Even still, because of the way I setup the shot on a tripod, I had a fair idea of what I was getting but there was an element of randomness in it. My ratio of good images to negatives exposed was quite low, however. But still it was a liberating experience and I got at least one 'keeper' that particular day.

As a rather long-time LF'er, I want to defend all us LF'ers on one point of yours and that is the perception that we think that all an image has to do is contain a full range of tones, be sharp all over, etc. (20 years ago, this would have been my definition of a technically perfect negative). Well, we are actually brighter than that, believe it or not. Just because we work under a darkcloth doesn't mean our brains turn to mush. Those technical qualities in a print are only a means to an end - a good image. We actually do like photographic images as art and we even appreciate good 35mm work or whatever. It's just that many of us have adopted an ethic where we embrace values such as tonality, sharpness, contrast, etc. Our ethic is just as valid as the hand-held shoot from the hip 35mm folks. Please son't accuse us of only being interested in the technical aspects of a print.

Lastly, thanks for the good post and the good points. I appreciate you sticking to the point. Some others were getting personal towards me for some reason and I appreciate you not doing that.

Take care.

-Mike

 

[doughowk]

In Bruce Barnbaum's Lenswork interview (CD version of interview), he relates how by 1980 he had acquired the technique to handle the too contrasty lighting of slit canyons. He states he entered Antelope Canyon in Jan 1st, 1980 knowing that he was both the 1st photographer to enter it & that he could technically take the pictures. How often have we been in a situation were we felt incapable of handling the technical problems either at time of exposure or in darkroom. Vision without technical abilities is an un-realized image.

 

[Francesco]

Vision without technical abilities is an un-realized image.

Jorge, this quote of Doug's should be a nice addition to your top ten of APUG signatures/quotes. Well said Doug.

 

[TPPhotog]

One of the things we overlook is that early photographers had very basic equipment compared to what we have today. Many of them like us would have got their equipment and leaned how to use it, just like we do today and like today some would have given up if they had not been able to produce the pictures they wanted.

My point is that many of the masters possibly had the ability to see light and with experience could transfer that to the final image without the need of accurate light meters. As metering got better those people didn't lose their ability but were able to better judge the image they wanted. If they didn't have the ability then we would never have heard of them.

Endless practice with a pepper or other object is the journey along the learning curve. Cartier-Bresson had the decisive moment and composed full frame. But how many decisive moments did he miss and therefore didn't get a picture? Also he printed full frame ratio but many of his pictures enlarged to that ratio even the "reflection in a mud-puddle"

They are masters because they had the ability to produce the picture with the available materials at the time. Technically perfect negative? I bet none of them felt they had achieved perfection.

The power of hindsight produces many heroes and villans.

 

[SuzanneR]

The medium of photograhy uses such a broad spectrum of tools, that I'm not sure how productive it is to argue over whether one technique is better than another. I admire Weston's peppers, nudes, and landscapes. He was a master with his camera and in the darkroom. I also admire someone like Robert Frank, who I think wasn't as good a craftsman, but despite that, (or maybe because) he realized some great images. I consider him a master, but a very different type of artist than Weston, and comparing these very different approaches turns into an apples and oranges argument.

Having said all that, I'm personally not after total technical perfection, but by mastering the craft, and creating good negatives, I can use my darkroom techniques (not tricks) to make expressive prints. Something I think many of us are after.

Cheers,
Suzanne

 

[Ed Sukach]

"A technically perfect neg is meaningless"
Nonsense. You must not make and print from very many negatives if you think this is true, unless you have some odd definition of what 'technically perfect is'. To me, technically perfect is a negative that will produce the image desired when the shutter was tripped. It can be 'thin', have a full range of densities, whatever. But it must have a correlation with the image desired. I don't have much regard for a negative that is exposed, processed, printed, cropped over and over, printed many times until the photographer finally discovers an image in there somewhere. To me, that isn't photography.

Forgive the long quote, but I think it is necessary to start from a "ground".

This discussion could be viewed with one question in mind: "Is the process of Art/ Photography one of "creation" or "capture"? - something I am far from resolving.

I can understand your concept of "a successful photograph is one that satisfies the pre-visualization", but that leaves a number of questions unanswered ... What, then, does one do with an image that did NOT "turn out as intended", but is still recognized by the photographers a *really* good work - one conforming to the concept of Ansel Adam's "Fortunate Accident"? Throw it away? Destroy a thing of beauty that fascinates and enraptures the photographer and the experiencer? Whatever the "soup" that resulted in the production of that image, it is still the photographer's work, to do with as s/he will.

I might extend the idea of previsualization back still further: "The only photograph that could be considered valid is one where the photographer exerts tight control over the elements in the image ... selecting and arranging each, and controlling, tightly, their relationships to each other and the overall composition" - in other words, strict "creation". The only way that would be possible would be in a "tabletop" situation.
I would submit that the fraction of those photographs considerd to be significant, and and also being rigid "Tabletop" creations is relatively small. There is usually (note that I'm avoiding any "absolute" here) some level of capture, otherwise known as the "Decisive Moment".

Back to the idea of "Fortunate Accidents" - I have an image posted here - what was it titled ... "Abstraction #27", which happened to come into being as the result of a malfunctioning Hasselblad magazine. Artistic "value" aside - If it is "not photography " - then what is it? "Is it in some way unethical to mat and frame that image and exhibit in a gallery, claiming it as "my photograph"? - As I have already done...

Ansel Adam's "Moonrise Over Hernandez" (hope I've got that right) is certainly one of the most significant photographs - of all time - and the negative, from an undisputed "Master", did NOT turn out "the way it should have" - as it was pre-visualized by Adams, resulting in extensive darkroom manipulation. One *very* successful photograph.

I do not mean to be contentious here, I'm only attempting to bring attention to one facet of, and offer my legitimization to an alternative way to do photography.

The "final product" to me, is of crucial importance. If I can draw the attention of the viewer, and ultimately, create in the experiencer some level of the same emotional state *I* felt when - or more appropriately, during - the production of that image - I will consider the work to be successful. However I caused that to happen is incidental.

 

[TPPhotog]

Ed I see nothing contentious in what you posted here and feel you have made the point very well. There are many successful people who cannot say what the mechanics are for producing their results, but they know that what they do works for them and have the results to prove it. Accidents? .... in some parts of the world those are known as the hand of god aren't they?

 

[BWGirl]

I have read all the posts on this subject, and thought long & hard about it. I guess because I consider myself to be lower than even the most beginning apprentice!

So who determines whom is a "master" of any craft or fine art, or whatever we choose to call it?...(it's just a matter of semantics.) Is it the co-workers of the prospective master? Is it the public? Who gets to decide? When I go to the Art Museum and look at all the objects there...I have to wonder! There are many exhibits that must be defined as "art" or they would not be in the Art Museum. But I have to tell you that those "things" are NOT art in my eyes, and the people who created them are far from being "Masters." They are not Monet, Manet, DaVinci, etc.
Isn't it the same with photography? I see some photos and I just stare in awe! Is that how a 'Master' is defined? By the response evoked in the public? Or do all the photographers (those who obviously know what is good and what isn't) decide who is a 'master' irregardless of what the public thinks? Kind of like the Acadamy Awards, isn't it?
As for the technical aspects... well, like I said, I'm definitely not in danger of someone calling me a 'master'... but what difference does it make if the negative was easy or hard to print? No one looks at the negative! They look at the print! So I guess I'd have to say it's a moot point as to whether the 'master' photographer spent 10 minutes or 5 hours making the print.
Jeanette

 

[Art Vandalay]

Well I have to admit that I'm a bit thunderstruck! I cringed after I made my last comment and expected to get blasted this morning for basically insulting much of the site!!! But everyone is calm and thoughtful. Possibly many have given up reading anything attached to my name or everyone is much more flexible than I thought. I'm surprised and impressed.

mikewhi, after you clarified about EWS I went back and read that part again and did see that you were complimenting him and it was your friend that said his negs were awful. I understand where you are coming from and realize that your interests are broader than the pure technique. Oddly enough I often find negatives to be works of art in themselves sometime and the resulting positive lacking in energy.

I'm glad someone brought up Robert Frank because I was talking to a microscope rep from Nikon yesterday (I'm involved in science) and we got onto the subject of cameras. It turns out he's been a landscape/nature photographer for about 30 years and lives in Nova Scotia - which is where Robert Frank has been living for ages. I asked him if he knew who he was and he didn't have a clue!!! This was quite a surprise since he had been a big fan of BW and originally worked with camera/lens manufacturer such as Zeiss and Leica before going to Nikon. I know that I probably can't name many nature photographers but anyone who has read even a simple history of photography should've encountered Robert Frank.

As for Frank not being that good technically, once again I'm not sure how this has been decided and why it would be so important. If you have seen his images you can tell he knows what he is doing and even so his photos have are much, much deeper than the tonal range or the amount of shadow detail. They are not superficial images and considering that he changed modern photography I'm not sure technical proficiency is all that important.

 

[JD Morgan]

Imagine for a moment the snickers this thread evokes from those with books filled with perfectly composed and exposed chromes. :rolleyes:

The perfect negative might be a positive