If anything it shows that film remains popular among fine art photographers and there was even a few alternative processes including a cyanotype photogram.
I did notice almost all of them were “Photographic pigment print” and I didn’t see any silver gelatine prints mentioned, is pigment print inkjet?
Almost all were very large prints and I imagine optical enlargement at those scales is out of reach for most artists.
The winner I feel won’t work on a screen, the specular highlight of the moon in the sitter’s eye tracing a path through the extended exposure is quite engaging to see in person and the blurred figure is more legible standing at a distance from the large print
The winner I feel won’t work on a screen, the specular highlight of the moon in the sitter’s eye tracing a path through the extended exposure is quite engaging to see in person and the blurred figure is more legible standing at a distance from the large print
I understand what you mean. I've had a quick look at the gallery and on a computer screen, I find the choice for this candidate not entirely obvious (if I leave out socio-cultural considerations that may play a role as well). But I admit that I'm also sensitive to the argument "can you make a compelling, straight portrait" as opposed to conceptual and visual, ah,... techniques.
I understand what you mean. I've had a quick look at the gallery and on a computer screen, I find the choice for this candidate not entirely obvious (if I leave out socio-cultural considerations that may play a role as well). But I admit that I'm also sensitive to the argument "can you make a compelling, straight portrait" as opposed to conceptual and visual, ah,... techniques.
Oh yeah, they all have a great spiel for why a particular look improves the portrait, they're more or less convincing. Depends how suggestible you are I suppose