cheers,
Judy
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Carl Weese wrote:
> Judy,
>
> 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
>
>
>