Why don't photographers include photo details in books?

[erikg]

For many photographers, especially for those who consider what they do art, there is already this feeling that they need to work against the idea that photography is just a technical exercise. It's a bias or perceived bias that has lessened over the years but hasn't completely gone away. Artists in other media get this too and you won't find too many books put out by painters who go into much detail about process. Unfairly or not in the art world it seems amateurish. Ever go to a lecture by an established fine art photographer? There always seems to be one person in the audience who asks about cameras or film or something and you'll hear a collective grown go through the audience. There are just bigger questions to ask and to think about. The stakes should be higher. Sunday painters talk about brushes. Serious artists keep that talk amongst peers.

 

[cliveh]

Most readers are not interested in that detail.

 

[BradS]

Because most people reading those books don't care a bit, and in the end it adds absolutely no value for most readers.

Several folks have made a reply similar to the one above.

I think, however, that there is more to it than that. Having been around a few really talented professional photographers, it seems to me that many of them (all?) just simply don't think it that important. I think all of them have worked with the same (relatively small number of) materials for so long that they can make the materials do whatever they want...they can achieve whatever 'look' they want/need using their chosen materials.

 

[StoneNYC]

The stakes should be higher. Sunday painters talk about brushes. Serious artists keep that talk amongst peers.

That last sentence is the key....

Where are my peers??? LOL

Should I considered a compliment when people I think are amazing and above me actually tell me their secrets?

 

[erikg]

Maybe so! I've found that many artists don't mind talking about process and often really enjoy it but don't want to be that public with it for all sorts of reasons. Like actors not talking about their stagecraft they like to keep the illusion that what they do is effortless.

 

[Maris]

...I'm constantly surprised and frustrated when I'm looking through a book of photographs by a famous photographer, and almost never is there any indication of what film it is or what developer was used....

You reckon you're frustrated, well I'm driven to the point of anguish when looking at most photo-books by not knowing what is being offered to my gaze.

Ok, I can see the page in the book bears a picture and it is probably a print made by web offset photo-lithography like much of high end printing these days. But the burning question for me remains "What does the picture in the book illustrate?"

Sometimes the picture in the book IS the final work itself. The photogravures in Alfred Stiezlitz's Camera Work periodical are artworks in their own right and that's why many have been cut out, auctioned , and framed. The same goes for pages out of Ansel Adams' Parmelian Prints of the High Sierras.

Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is an illustration of a physical photograph that exists somewhere. I'd love to know "what medium on what substrate", how big is it (in long measure not pixels!), who made it, how was it made, when was it made, does it have a signature or other annotations? I've looked at thousands of photographs over several decades and I know well the frisson that goes with being in the presence of a great photograph. I wish the photo-book would give me enough clues so I could recreate a parallel experience in my imagination.

Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is a "print-out" of an electronic file that does not have (never did have?) a descriptive relationship to something with physical existence. I'm thinking of negative scans recalculated as positives, stitches, HDR's, and all the other electronic chicanery. Do I accept the picture in the photo-book as the artwork itself, a la Camera Work, or do I dismiss it as "never existed, didn't happen, never looked like this" and move on to something with physical provenance? I do wish the photo-book would be explicit about this so I don't feel soiled by accidentally and momentarily selling my soul for a swarm of pixels.

 

[kintatsu]

I know Ansel Adams considered the technical aspect- f/stop and time, merely chatter. Including the technical "chatter" really provides no useful information if the reader is unable to reference the levels or some other variable. In his book Examples, for instance, he includes the approximate values and placements. That will help a photographer in their growth more than just knowing what aperture and shutter speed.

That's one of the reassons people find his teaching so approachable, even 30 years after his passing.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Stone for prez

word

 

[cliveh]

You reckon you're frustrated, well I'm driven to the point of anguish when looking at most photo-books by not knowing what is being offered to my gaze.

Does it matter? Can't you judge the image as it is without internal thoughts about how it was made. It exists before you, right here right now. Appreciate what you see without internal judgement about production.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone for prez

Someday

 

[removed account4]

You reckon you're frustrated, well I'm driven to the point of anguish when looking at most photo-books by not knowing what is being offered to my gaze.

Ok, I can see the page in the book bears a picture and it is probably a print made by web offset photo-lithography like much of high end printing these days. But the burning question for me remains "What does the picture in the book illustrate?"

Sometimes the picture in the book IS the final work itself. The photogravures in Alfred Stiezlitz's Camera Work periodical are artworks in their own right and that's why many have been cut out, auctioned , and framed. The same goes for pages out of Ansel Adams' Parmelian Prints of the High Sierras.

Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is an illustration of a physical photograph that exists somewhere. I'd love to know "what medium on what substrate", how big is it (in long measure not pixels!), who made it, how was it made, when was it made, does it have a signature or other annotations? I've looked at thousands of photographs over several decades and I know well the frisson that goes with being in the presence of a great photograph. I wish the photo-book would give me enough clues so I could recreate a parallel experience in my imagination.

Sometimes the picture in the photo-book is a "print-out" of an electronic file that does not have (never did have?) a descriptive relationship to something with physical existence. I'm thinking of negative scans recalculated as positives, stitches, HDR's, and all the other electronic chicanery. Do I accept the picture in the photo-book as the artwork itself, a la Camera Work, or do I dismiss it as "never existed, didn't happen, never looked like this" and move on to something with physical provenance? I do wish the photo-book would be explicit about this so I don't feel soiled by accidentally and momentarily selling my soul for a swarm of pixels.

wow .. i feel sorry that you can't just enjoy looking at something just for being what it is, in a book or magazine,
and you have to go through such stress because it might have been made with a non-silver medium.
i hate to imagine a time in the future when there will be very few contemporary silver based images in publications
and it causes you to self destruct ...

 

[erikg]

The Vanity Fair piece by Annie Leibovitz was interesting. A friend of mine was one of her assistants in the 90's. He has some funny stories which I won't repeat but he did say she had a fleet of Fuji 6x9s at the time, among other things. I didn't think she came off too well in the BBC piece on the Queen but it is entertaining to watch.

 

[StoneNYC]

The Vanity Fair piece by Annie Leibovitz was interesting. A friend of mine was one of her assistants in the 90's. He has some funny stories which I won't repeat but he did say she had a fleet of Fuji 6x9s at the time, among other things. I didn't think she came off too well in the BBC piece on the Queen but it is entertaining to watch.

Haha was he the one she was talking about who didn't know what he was doing? LOL

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Photographs are photographs. The influence that each photographer has, as a person, a technician, and as an artist, has 100 times more impact than the materials they use. The photographs are about them, what they wish to express and what they want you to feel. Why should any of the information regarding how it was made be of any importance at all? The end result is what's important, and since that is so utterly influenced by the person that created it, why should mundane technicalities like choice of film and film developer, or software or other hardware, even be a consideration?

Take the cameras, films, developers, and other materials, use them, and work them and work them and work them until you have what you want. Your own knowledge, expertise, experience, and ability is 95% of the outcome.

 

[erikg]

@Stone: I know you're just joking but no, no way not this guy. Super smart and talented. He works for himself in NYC now, has for years. Back on topic, have you read the Lustrum press Darkroom books? From the 70s but full of the information you're looking for.

 

[StoneNYC]

@Stone: I know you're just joking but no, no way not this guy. Super smart and talented. He works for himself in NYC now, has for years. Back on topic, have you read the Lustrum press Darkroom books? From the 70s but full of the information you're looking for.

So are you going to recommend me to him as an assistant? then I can learn

 

[erikg]

Ha! Can't help you there, but aren't you learning the way up a different industry?

 

[StoneNYC]

Ha! Can't help you there, but aren't you learning the way up a different industry?

I don't really have a certain industry that I'm going for, there are a few different types of photography that I enjoy doing, I really love landscapes, and I also shoot a lot of model photography, but I would love to also do fashion photography as well which is different in a lot of ways, I live in Connecticut but I used NYC, because I wanted to manifest destiny Innoway and be a fashion photographer in New York.

I also wouldn't mind doing more famous portrait style stuff like Annie does, I know a lot of stars in the industry, but knowing them is different than actually being friends with them, and so unfortunately I don't have the connections to be able to comfortably approach people about doing us kinds of things and no one knows me so I'm not going to be hired specifically for those jobs and I don't really know how to Break down those doors.

 

[lxdude]

Some photographers do include information on their equipment and/or materials in their books, sometimes in their introduction or as an afterword.

 

[Maris]

Does it matter? Can't you judge the image as it is without internal thoughts about how it was made. It exists before you, right here right now. Appreciate what you see without internal judgement about production.

There is no more simple-minded, naive, incurious, and gullible way of looking at an image than by taking it as fully revealed at first glance. Everyone has their price, even me, but I won't sell my committment to look, wonder, and marvel at so cheap a price.

If the medium and means of production of an image are discounted all the affirmations that the medium carries about its relationship to subject matter are cancelled too. And all the connections to the physical art process and the real-life creative journey of the picture-maker disappear as well.

These connotations and connections are readable by people who look beyond the surface of a picture in order to profoundly enrich the viewing experience. Without this inquiring search a picture is just a picture is just a picture. And it does not matter how it got that way.

A world where "it's all jest pitchers, innit?" muddles surface and substance. It's a shallow and naive world where "looks like" means "same as". I won't to surrender to such superficiality while I can still generate internal thoughts to look deeper.

 

[markbarendt]

...in addition to it being mostly pointless, and highly subjective (ie. Tri-X and D76 can be very smooth, or very, very grainy when treated differently)...

I would hazard that most photographers don't remember or care.

I don't record what developer I use, and the film choice is generally unrelated to the overall look of the print...I have prints from FP4+ that make Delta 3200 look like TMax 100, and I have prints from Tri-X that have no right to print at 16x20" as smoothly as they do, but yet there they are...

Totally agree Chris.

Stone even if you were using an enlarger and the same film and camera as me; your results would be different than mine for any given scene. That's a good thing, variety is the spice of life.

Maybe you need to ask the question from a different perspective like; "how can I create this effect?" rather than "how did they?"

Pick the characteristics that strike your fancy, that you want in your work then do some experiments and figure out how to get there.

 

[cliveh]

There is no more simple-minded, naive, incurious, and gullible way of looking at an image than by taking it as fully revealed at first glance. Everyone has their price, even me, but I won't sell my committment to look, wonder, and marvel at so cheap a price.

If the medium and means of production of an image are discounted all the affirmations that the medium carries about its relationship to subject matter are cancelled too. And all the connections to the physical art process and the real-life creative journey of the picture-maker disappear as well.

These connotations and connections are readable by people who look beyond the surface of a picture in order to profoundly enrich the viewing experience. Without this inquiring search a picture is just a picture is just a picture. And it does not matter how it got that way.

A world where "it's all jest pitchers, innit?" muddles surface and substance. It's a shallow and naive world where "looks like" means "same as". I won't to surrender to such superficiality while I can still generate internal thoughts to look deeper.

Are you saying you can always tell the difference between a darkroom print to one made by any other means? Because I can't and I know a lot of other people who can't.

 

[Vilk]

There is no more simple-minded, naive, incurious, and gullible way of looking at an image than by taking it as fully revealed at first glance. Everyone has their price, even me, but I won't sell my committment to look, wonder, and marvel at so cheap a price.

If the medium and means of production of an image are discounted all the affirmations that the medium carries about its relationship to subject matter are cancelled too. And all the connections to the physical art process and the real-life creative journey of the picture-maker disappear as well.

These connotations and connections are readable by people who look beyond the surface of a picture in order to profoundly enrich the viewing experience. Without this inquiring search a picture is just a picture is just a picture. And it does not matter how it got that way.

A world where "it's all jest pitchers, innit?" muddles surface and substance. It's a shallow and naive world where "looks like" means "same as". I won't to surrender to such superficiality while I can still generate internal thoughts to look deeper.

yaa, i mean, i gedit, but... it's all jest pitchers, innit?

 

[erikg]

I don't really have a certain industry that I'm going for, there are a few different types of photography that I enjoy doing, I really love landscapes, and I also shoot a lot of model photography, but I would love to also do fashion photography as well which is different in a lot of ways, I live in Connecticut but I used NYC, because I wanted to manifest destiny Innoway and be a fashion photographer in New York.

I also wouldn't mind doing more famous portrait style stuff like Annie does, I know a lot of stars in the industry, but knowing them is different than actually being friends with them, and so unfortunately I don't have the connections to be able to comfortably approach people about doing us kinds of things and no one knows me so I'm not going to be hired specifically for those jobs and I don't really know how to Break down those doors.

Oh I see. I thought you were learning the ropes in the film industry. As for shooting fashion assisting is a great way to learn the business, PDN just had a piece on that. Knowing celebs is great but the people you will want to connect with are the art directors who hire for those shoots.

 

[bdial]

The bottom line is that what film, developer, and even camera was used to make such and such amazing image done by whomever is meaningless.
There are amazing images made with pretty much every film and developer combination ever devised. But, there are many, many more bad images made on those very same materials.

The real trick is to pick some (IMHO it does not have to be just one) that translate what you want to say, and make images.

I think the frustration in this comes from the fact that there are so many possibilities, all 66,671 members here have felt it.
Following some cookbook you can take film A and with developer B make images with flowing smooth tones that go on forever. But take that same film, handle it differently, process in developer C and you get grain that looks like the emusion was coated on sand. But if you look long enough, you'll find someone who has used Film A and developer C and produced a grainless smooth detailed image that would be impossible for anyone else. When that happens, just say "WTF" and grab a roll of your fave go make pictures and process it in what works for you.