From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/26/01-11:38:54 PM Z
I think it was Dave Rose who said (yesterday?) that he doesn't go out with
something specific in mind, but knows it when he sees it.
I'd ring a variation on that by noting that I find the LIGHT of the moment
changes the picture completely. I once had a teacher who said all we're
photographing is light. I wasn't convinced at the time, but am now.
Suddenly on a familiar path, say to the Post Office, something leaps to
the eye. (Or course when I have the camera in hand, that's less likely.)
Perhaps NYC light is more changeable than open country light? More
shadows and baffles?
For instance tonight, walking west along Bleecker Street, a route I've
taken 100 times in the last 12 months (walk home from gym) at 8 PM the
light hit the buildings on the north side of the block, turning the fire
escapes to gold. It was breath taking. The source of the light was behind
the buildings to the south and west, but what it lit was transformed. Of
course I didn't have the camera -- and my experience is that even 10
minutes later (should I rush home for it) that dazzle-aura is gone. And
unlike (was it Dave?), what I saw doesn't necessarily appear in the
negative/chrome. Only sometimes.
But that is the beauty of gum... one can chase that chimera and often get
as close to the vision as is possible to get on paper --- many prints
later perhaps.... Here, paradoxically, I think the original "vision" would
come through more easily in a regular C-print... but then it's going to
look like a commercial. Or anyway realistic plastic doesn't interest me.
The other thing I've found is that shooting now ONLY in color (intending
to make digital color seps "when I get good" and/or when I finish printing
Times Square), I see completely differently. Pictures leap out (say, an
orange wall with a green chair on the sidewalk) that would simply not
exist in black & white.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST