Richard Lahrson (tripspud@hooked.net)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:47:25 -0800
> His photographs are wonderful to behold, and only in comparison with what
> was out there then are truly unique. In comparison with what's done today,
> and mostly because of EW, with modern materials the work of today is far
> superior. If he is your benchmark photographer, do yourself a favor and
> don't seek out his original work.
Steve,
I've seen a good deal to Edward Weston's work.
> Brett, on the other hand, had everything we have today except finer grain
> film and automatic focus, the latter which he dearly wanted. Ansel accused
> him -- in good fun -- of taking his studio into the field. Brett had the
> white light reflector umbrellas, spray for moisture, flash meters; almost
> like the Abercrombe & Fitch satire of the fisherman with everything but
> never caught the fish. Only flaw in the comparison, Brett brought home to
> big ones.
Again Steve,
This is a personal taste, but for me, Brett Weston's work does not
have as strong an emotional content as his father's.
> It is this mastery of the large format, patient darkroom techniques that I
> have seen first hand; and availability of materials with latitude that has
> magnatized me back into photography for in camera negatives that have never
> been surpased by second generation negs in alternative process. But, this
> is like comparing apples with Honda cars.
> And, rare is the moment that all that can be achieved without laying out a
> few bucks.
I'll agree here! Even to work simply today in the smaller 4 X 5 size negative
and making contact prints is an expense. I am by no means wealthy. I am
struggling to return to photography, but have been moving in too many
different formats and hence I am standing still....
Rich Lahrson
tripspud@hooked.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48