From: Shannon Stoney (shannonstoney@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/31/02-04:18:11 PM Z
In regard to Chris's observation about technique getting in the way of
imagery: maybe it's a thing where you go back and forth. Most people start
out interested in what their photographs are ABOUT or OF. Then they become
aware that technically their photographs could be a lot better, and they
learn the zone system, get better at printing, and start thinking about
alternative processes maybe. Then they might go through a LOT of
alternative processes before they find the one that suits their vision. At
this point I think you have to commit to learning one process really, really
well until working in it is almost second nature. And then, after a lot of
practise, you can begin to focus on the content of your pictures again.
It's like music: musicians have to practise their technique a lot before
they can play fluently and expressively.
But then, people get so good at a process that they are almost bored with it
and want the challenge of something that's difficult technically again, to
push themselves. So the whole process starts over. I don't think it's
anything to be ashamed or worried about. I think each time you adopt a new
medium--and a new process is almost like a new medium--you have to learn to
visualize in that process or medium. Visualizing for silver gelatin is
different from visualizing for cyanotype, for example. The key is just to
give yourself enough time to really master one thing and really be able to
express yourself within that before you move on to something else.
Speaking of technique, I have a technical question: today I was
photographing the broad side of a barn (literally) with an open doorway
(nobody was taking a leak in there at the time). I thought that since most
of the important stuff was between ten and fifteen feet away, that it would
be ok to use an aperture of less than my usual f64. It seemed like I read
somewhere that lenses work better at bigger apertures? That maybe there's
an "ideal" aperture for a lens, so that if you have a shallow depth of field
and no particular reason to want to make a long exposure, you might as well
open up the shutter to say f16. But I can't remember where I read that or
what the reason for it was. Did I dream that?
Also, what does "tipped in" mean? In my new (really wonderful) book about
101 photography books of the 20th century, the description frequently says,
"gravure prints, tipped in." At first I thought that meant that the pages
had slits so that the corners of the photographs could be slipped into the
slits to hold the photograph there, but it doesn't look like that in the
reproductions. Maybe tipped in simply means "glued a little on the back"?
--shannon
-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST