jeffbuck@swcp.com
Date: 08/29/02-11:24:42 AM Z
I wonder if some New Mexico photographers are going to protest how hard it can
actually be to get some conditions to repeat, etc. Anyhow, often you can do
it around here. I'm going to do one of strong morning sunlight smacking a
certain big surface soon -- well, it's almost always sunny first thing in the
morning here (at least 320 days a year?), and the angle will be the same till
the season changes signficantly, so.... Internalizing over a period of time
like that can be good (I have examples) and bad (I have examples). The more I
do of this stuff, the more specific the conceptions seem to be getting ....
-JB
epona <acolyta@napc.com> said:
> Ha!
>
> That may be the smartest thing I've ever done -
>
> Humbly bow out of a religious discussion with a lawyer! ;>)
>
> Good luck getting that picture in October, Jeff. It must be nice to be able
to
> depend on a quality of light to return, because as far as I'm concerned, the
> quality of light can make or break a photo. Here in unpredictable New
England,
> you can't depend on anything. Sometimes, a quality of light is all I'm
chasing
> after. I wonder what it's like to internalize about an image you are going
to
> make for an extended period of time?
>
> Cheers,
> Christine
>
> jeffbuck@swcp.com wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > --
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
> It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this
> emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and
> stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."
> -Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST