Objectivity? Who said dat? Certainly not I.
The approach I’ve been describing in the past couple of messages is a
model of _subjectivity_ and proud of it. My point that the world is the
world and the print is a print is aimed at pointing out the futility of
any supposedly “objective” photograph. Even pictures made by automatic
surveillance cameras are subjectively evaluated by their viewers.
I’m also not a believer in the cult of a single perfect and _definitive_
print. Because the making of a photographic print is such an opportunity
for subjective interpretation I don’t think it’s wise ever to “lock in”
on just one of them. When I return to a picture made twenty years ago
and reprint it, I expect to use all the experience I’ve gained in the
intervening years to influence my new exploration of the negative.
On the point about masterful vs useless prints--I should point out that
the vast majority of bad prints I see are the result of misplaced
virtuosity and pyrotechnics. A plain straight print will usually be
better than a heavily manipulated one, as is frequently shown
(inadvertantly) in the books and magazine articles showing “before and
after” demonstrations where the original is actually much more
satisfying than the overdramatic final. It’s the subtle differences that
can make a print “sing.”
---Carl