Puyo and Demachy said it first [was Re. Paper Negatives]
I'm so glad that John G. points out that there can be such a thing as too
much detail --AND THE SKY HAS NOT FALLEN !
Permit me to call attention to the FIRST photo artists to point this out
(ie., try and stop me) -- in which, aided by French photographer Marc
Bernier and a dictionary of classic ("antique") French, I translated the
the introduction to Puyo and Demachy's 1906 "Art Processes in
Photography." (See Post-Factory #1, pages 3 through 7. I may also have
mentioned in passing that the issue can be found at
alternativephotography.com/books/js_post_factory.html.)
I quote a few lines here only to give the gist; the original is a marvel
of analysis by these two pioneers of the how and why of "interventions"
with gum bichromate.
For example:
"INTERPRETATION: The print as produced physically by the negative may be
correct from a documentary point of view, but it lacks the qualities of a
work of art unless they are introduced by the photographer...
"[We] take every means to simplify information of no interest that this
perfect instrument supplies with such prolixity. Thus we prefer a method
of printing which permits... suppression of useless details...
"Perhaps we will be accused of obliterating photographic character? That
is exactly our intention...
"[C]harcoal, lithography and etching extend their arms [but] it would
perhaps be too simple to take shelter there. Nothing will tempt us from
photography [chosen for] its photographic character of a happy sort...
[But] photography gives too much...[and] we dare choose among its
prodigalities ...."
Etc.
But 100 years later, the ethos of photography has evolved -- into the
assumption that the level and perfection of detail is a valid measure of
value. How did this happen? My husband, arriving back from the gym
tonight, reflected that when he was a kid, nobody went to a "gym," nobody
HAD a gym, there were no gyms, except for boxers (he had, he recalled,
once dated the daughter of some lightweight champion, tho that's probably
off topic). So where did all these gyms COME FROM, he wondered.
Nobody my family knew ever went to a gym, either, least of all my own
parents. Today, everybody I know goes to a gym, and if I miss at least
twice a week I expect to put on 5 pounds and grow lame. And gyms happened
in LESS than 100 years, less than 50, even. I leave the explanation of
gym culture to historians, at least for now, but find the parallel with
elevation of photo detail striking. The difference is that I think gyms
are mostly good, but take a neutral stance on detail... The similarity is
that both happened under their own steam, without my permission or help.
I suspect also that the love of detail may be more pronounced with
"alternative" processes than with "straight" SG -- because it's harder.
Not to mention that *critics*, not sure that photography is "art," can
probably understand detail...
Of course I too have been, can be, may be in future, and reserve my right
to be "slave to detail," which can be fetching, even delicious, in its
many manifestations, in fact a triumph, but ... see above & following:
Judy
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, John Grocott wrote:
Jaceck ( and All ),
I think it safe to say that what you thought about less detail
with paper negs is generally true. Those working with paper negs dont mind this. It depends on the style of the work in progress.
We are in the field of alternative photography processes ( sometimes ) which, of course, often swings away from the purist silver
gelatine approach to picture making and loss of detail is quite desireable
in the finished print. Even with silver gelatine work loss of detail was
often sought after by the use of various means, as with some pictorialist and the ''Linked Ring'' and '' Sessionists''. ( Alvin Langdon Coburn and many
others. )
Having said that it is surprising how much detail can be
retained from the original negative using paper negs. Silver gelatine paper
negs can achieve greater detail, using the right paper, than digital paper
negs. Its a useful topic with many opinions based on the experience of those who have actually made and used paper negs.
Looking forard to the discussion, maybe.
Best
John- Photographist - London - UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek" <gonsaj@iinet.net.au>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Paper negative
Other than the transparency route of producing negatives for alt
processes, what are the pros and cons of the Paper negative route? I
always thought a paper negative wouldnt give all the detail a transparency
negative would give?
Cheers
Jacek
Jaceck ( and All ),
I think it safe to say that what you thought about less detail
with paper negs is generally true. Those working with paper negs dont mind
this. It depends on the style of the work in progress.
We are in the field of alternative photography processes (
sometimes ) which, of course, often swing away from the purist silver
gelatine approach to picture making and loss of detail is quite desireable
in the finished print. Even with silver gelatine work loss of detail was
often sought after by the use of various means, as with pictorialist and the
''Linked Ring'' and '' Sessionists''. ( Alvin Langdon Coburn and many
others. )
Having said that it is surprising how much detail can be
retained from the original negative using paper negs. Silver gelatine paper
negs can achieve greater detail, using the right paper, than digital paper
negs. Its a useful topic with many opinions based on the experience of those
who have actually made and used paper negs.
Looking forard to the discussion, maybe.
Best
John- Photographist - London - UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek" <gonsaj@iinet.net.au>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Paper negative
Other than the transparency route of producing negatives for alt
processes, what are the pros and cons of the Paper negative route? I
always thought a paper negative wouldnt give all the detail a transparency
negative would give?
Cheers
Jacek
Jaceck ( and All ),
I think it safe to say that what you thought about less detail
with paper negs is generally true. Those working with paper negs dont mind
this. It depends on the style of the work in progress.
We are in the field of alternative photography processes (
sometimes ) which, of course, often swing away from the purist silver
gelatine approach to picture making and loss of detail is quite desireable
in the finished print. Even with silver gelatine work loss of detail was
often sought after by the use of various means, as with pictorialist and the
''Linked Ring'' and '' Sessionists''. ( Alvin Langdon Coburn and many
others. )
Having said that it is surprising how much detail can be
retained from the original negative using paper negs. Silver gelatine paper
negs can achieve greater detail, using the right paper, than digital paper
negs. Its a useful topic with many opinions based on the experience of those
who have actually made and used paper negs.
Looking forard to the discussion, maybe.
Best
John- Photographist - London - UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek" <gonsaj@iinet.net.au>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Paper negative
Other than the transparency route of producing negatives for alt
processes, what are the pros and cons of the Paper negative route? I
always thought a paper negative wouldnt give all the detail a transparency
negative would give?
Cheers
Jacek