Pickers 'fine prints'

[Mark Layne]

Got one of Fred's reference prints back then - the barn I think. Dreadfull.

Fred's review of Galerie paper came close to causing it's disappearance, which would have been unfortunate

 

[c6h6o3]

Got one of Fred's reference prints back then - the barn I think. Dreadfull.

Fred's review of Galerie paper came close to causing it's disappearance, which would have been unfortunate

Well, he would've had a vested interest in its demise, would he not?

That paper he sold was just godawful. 'Zone VI Dull', wasn't that its name?

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Doing a critique of images or commenting on quality or lack of it in an image is not attacking the person who made it. It is a comment on the quality of the prints.
Yes, Fred was a booster for LF photography. No, the prints I saw were not of high enough quality to be used for much other than a reference for how not to make a good print. It doesn't mean he couldn't print, just that with these he didn't do well or his assistants didn't do well.
AA sold a set of prints in his gallery. Prints done by assistants to his specs & priced far lower than his personal exhibition work. These prints were done well & looked good, as good as his exhibition work. It can be done if one wants to do it & AA did it. I bought some when they were $35 each & they still look as good as the exhibition print we got for $800.
If one is selling work prints for comparison to help people learn what a 'fine print' looks like, it should be a 'fine print' in all respects.

 

[SLNestler]

Was visiting a friend and he dragged out a half dozen of Fred Picker 'fine prints' that he had purchased years ago when he was making his darkroom a Picker shrine with every Zone VI gadget known to man.
They weren't too good. For the most part not good at all. They did have a black & a paper white in the image but were lacking in contrast overall and the mid tones were flat.
It is no wonder his printing isn't too good if these are what he was using to judge what print excellence is.

I knew Fred from before his Zone VI days. I believe he was everything that has been said; a warm and generous person, a contributor to the medium he loved, a salesman, bs artist, etc. I was one of his original instructors at his workshops; and he did give good value.

In the early days, Fred had a wonderful sense of humor about himself; he was a good photographer who didn't take himself overly seriously. In later years, though, I started to get calls from former students around the country, telling me that Fred's advice in his newsletter contradicted what I had taught them. I told them they must be misinterpreting Fred, when they quoted him as saying that one should meter the highlights and not worry about shadows; a complete contradiction of the physics of b&w photography.

I visited Fred not long before his death. I hadn't seen him in several years, as our lives had taken different turns. I remember sitting in his livingroom, seeing one wall with AA prints, one with Strand, one with Caponigro, and one with Fred's own work. I was shocked at how poor his prints were; his early work in Iceland and Easter Island was good. Fred told me," you know, I've finally come to the conclusion that all you have to do is place the highlights, and the shadows will be fine." Fred was not in good health, and it was good to see an old friend after several years, so I didn't point out the obvious deficiency in his work that followed his new credo. It was sad to think that success had made him take himself so seriously that he thought he could decide how the materials would work.

I have many fond memories of Fred. But my advice to any photographer would be; there are good Fred Picker photographs out there, and there are really poor Fred Picker photographs out there. Don't assume anything; use your own judgement. On a good day, Fred would agree.

 

[Bob Carnie]

As stated in a earlier post I recieved the reference prints and they were bad, I am in my office now as I type and 3 feet away from me is the complete Zone V1 newsetters and some of his videos.
I have read these letters a couple of times and I still refer to some of the articles and all the young photographers that work around me here do pick up these sets of newsletters and read up on things and ask question , so I know that I got my moneys worth out of these articles.
He had a wonderful way of getting the word out about photography and you could see that he was fully immersed in this path that we have crazily taken.
But I have to say those reference prints really sucked.
By the way I bought the drying screens over 14 years ago for drying and they are still working fine in my darkroom. As well I agitate my fibre prints exactly the way his video recommended.

 

[Donald Miller]

This thread seems to have evolved into not only an evaluation of Fred's fine prints but also an evaluation of Fred's methodology and his business practices.

Like many others, I bought Fred's prints. What I observed, in retrospect, is that while the highlight and shadows were depicted within the tonal scale of the paper, there was very little if any local contrast shown.

However, that has also been my experience of other photographers whose work I have had the opportunity to see. For instance, I saw some of Bruce B's prints at the "After Image" in Dallas last fall...I was absolutely dismayed by what I saw. The magazine reproductions that I have seen, in his case, were better then the actual prints. An Ansel Adams print that I saw that day was equally as dismal. Yet other photographers, whose work was shown, were producing work that was as great as anything that I have ever seen.

Edward Weston's prints shown at the Amon Carter in Fort Worth initially seemed printed overly heavy...yet in proper lighting they absolutely glowed. Ansel Adams' work shown at the same gallery under the same conditions looked overly dramatic, weak, and inadequate in comparison.

I was intially impressed with Howard Bond's work years ago...today, I would say that some of his is good and some is not so good.

So to evaluate any photographers production requires, I think, a retrospective view of many years of production and in comparison to the work of others.

My experience of Fred was in regard, additionally, to my purchase of a 4X5 camera. A camera that I still own and use today...some twenty years later.
I remember buying the bag bellows with that camera. The bellows came apart after I bought it. I phoned Fred and explained my experience...His comment was "that really is a terrible thing isn't it?, a new an improved bellows is on the way to you"...I still have that bellows today. It was in fact new and improved.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I've never seen any Fred Picker prints. He and Zone VI had a HUGELY positive effect on my photography. After seeing the books of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Imogen Cunningham, I knew that my way of seeing demanded the control of large format. Since I had never touched or even seen a large format camera and the nearest store that sells them is 1000 miles down the road, Zone VI made me feel confident enough to mail order the 4x5 outfit. Twenty+ years later I'm still using the same camera, camera bag, lenses, film holders, focusing cloth, and tripod. They have not led a gentle life in the north coast rainforest!

The Compensating Metronome used with a cold light on graded paper was a massive improvement in ensuring consistant print exposures.

Another thing I got from Fred was the idea that you should be able to duplicate a prints perfomance at a later date. This is pivotal in the way I now work; fine tuning a print, letting it dry overnight and flattening it the next day to really have a good look at it, then diving back into the darkroom and picking up from exactly where I left off.

I dealt with Zone VI in the early 1980's, so I didn't experience anything of Fred's apperently changing attitudes as he aged. I never did call Fred up and thank him for all he had done for my photography...that makes me sad.

Murray

 

[c6h6o3]

All these reminiscences make we wish that I had known Fred Picker. I'm sure I would have liked him immensely.

 

[SLNestler]

All these reminiscences make we wish that I had known Fred Picker. I'm sure I would have liked him immensely.

Although Fred could have a temper, as well documented by Ron Wisner, it should also be noted that Ron Wisner has been known to bring out peoples' tempers. Mostly, Fred will always be remembered by most people as intelligent and warm, generous and witty. Yes, you would have liked him immensely.

 

[rhphoto]

In his book "The Fine Print" Fred says he had a print of AA's "Oak Tree and Snowstorm", and that he printed with that image at his elbow. Hence, I guess, came the idea to market the "reference" prints, as a way to allow others to have the same kind of experience. I bought a print of the Oak Tree at the AA gallery in Yosemite years ago. I think Alan Ross was doing the gallery prints in those days. It's a gorgeous thing - (too bad my ex-wife has it) - and shows that good prints can be made by students of the masters. Of course, it doesn't hurt if the 8x10 negative you're printing from was made by AA, either. Most of the guys I knew in Carmel, photographers, gallery owners, made fun of Fred Picker. But I admired his enthusiasm, and there was almost a kind of sweet naivete about his solemn proclamations regarding the methods and materials. About printing the big tobacco barn, he said he went for the most boring paper he could think of - Kodak Medalist. Well, it's only boring if you can't make it work, and what I'd do for a 100 sheet box of that paper now! Fred was just a little too rigid and dogmatic. But he also advanced the medium for a lot of beginners, of which I was one when I first read The Fine Print lo those many years ago.

 

[SLNestler]

In his book "The Fine Print" Fred says he had a print of AA's "Oak Tree and Snowstorm", and that he printed with that image at his elbow.

Fred was a wonderful guy in many ways; but be cautious about how much you believe. I don't think he was nearly the saint he portrayed; nor the charlatan that others have made him out to be. He did, in fact, do a great deal to promote large format; but I know a great deal about his books and how they were written. Admire him, but don't take every word literally.