jeffbuck@swcp.com
Date: 08/29/02-10:39:36 AM Z
What I typically do is a little different I guess. First of all, I do a fair
amount of portraits and similar. That involves seeing a face or an expression
(often quite an "instantaneous" recognition of the impressive face or
expression etc.), and then begins what can be quite a laborious process of
arranging to get it in front of the camera at my house. I hardly do any
environmental portraits (I'm interested in the face or the expression
typically and don't want anything interfering). So that's that stuff. More
germane, I guess, to this discussion is seeing things out of doors. I see the
thing in a certain light and I imagine how it might look as a platinum print.
If I think I can do it, I return at a later time w/ the equipment. Because of
the considerable predictability of the climate and weather around Central New
Mexico, this is more practical than you might suppose. For instance, I know
of a certain 7x17-able scene (including the very quality of light) that's
going to present from a certain bridge on the south end of town here around
the middle of October. I'm just waiting for it. You could say that the
essential creative part of all this is basically over -- I saw the scene,
projecting the look in mid-Oct, about a month ago, and ran the processes that
I think will produce the platinum print I imagined over the next day or so.
This whole business fails often enough, due to my lack of skill and
experience and other causes. I've shot a certain building on three occasions
this summer and am probably heading back for a fourth. BTW, and this responds
to Judy to an extent, I really enjoy tweaking the prints. I practice law all
day and, no matter how incomparably jolly that may sound, there's little I
like better in my life than getting into the darkroom in the evening, lighting
a cigar, looking around myself, and thinking, "Now, let's just see what may be
done with that smug negative of the beautiful desert weed ...." -JB
Carl Weese <cweese@earthlink.net> said:
>
>
> > I do not believe I EVER took a picture of
> > something I thought was "beautiful" & was happy with the result.
>
> One of the dealers who handles my work once said that he understood my
> pictures of beautiful things--the Connecticut woods and rivers, the hills of
> western Virginia--but couldn't quite get his head around my pictures of ugly
> things--corrugated metal buildings, abandoned drive-in movie theaters. He
> was all the more puzzled when I explained that I only photograph things that
> strike me as beautiful. In fact, that's all there is to it, I Iook for
> beautiful things and photograph them. But my perception of beauty is quite a
> bit more catholic, more inclusive, than his.
>
> I also don't understand the business of view cameras being slow. Of course
> they aren't as fast as a 35mm, but the notion that it takes hours to make a
> photograph with a view camera is nonsense. When I teach view camera
> technique I tell students that you should be able to see something from the
> car at 70 mph (or while hiking with your gear in a packback) and be pulling
> the darkslide within ninety seconds. They usually think I'm kidding, but I'm
> not. (How do you get to use a view camera fast? Same way you get to Carnegie
> Hall--practice!) When I spend a day out looking for pictures, I take forever
> looking at things, deciding whether I want them or not. When the decision is
> yes, I seldom spend more than a couple minutes making the picture whether
> it's done with my 5x7 or my 12x20 or something in between. If I want to
> respond to subjects _instantly_ I work with Leicas, but using a view camera
> doesn't prevent you from working fast.
>
> ---Carl
>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST