From: Shannon Stoney (shannonstoney@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/31/02-04:29:55 PM Z
Chris--I think it's ok to go back and forth between being concerned about
your imagery and being concerned with your technique. Most people start out
being most interested in what their photographs are ABOUT or OF. Then they
notice that their technique could be a lot better, so they learn the zone
system, get better at printing, and maybe get interested in some alternative
processes. Sometimes they try a lot of processes before they find one that
really suits their vision. AT that point I think it's important to commit
for a while to that one process for a while, so that using it and
visualizing in it becomes almost second nature, and one can concentrate on
the content of the imagery. It's like music: musicians have to practice
their technique a lot before they can play fluently and expressively.
But sometimes when people get really good at one process or medium, they get
bored with it, and want to try something technically challenging to push
themselves. Sometimes that also pushes your imagery. Maybe that's why
Chuck Close decided to try daguerreotypes for a while. Anyway I think that
this going back and forth, and this desire to try a new technical challenge,
is ok and even desirable, provided you give yourself enough time with each
new medium or process to really learn to visualize in it.
Here's a technical question: Today I was photographing the broad side of a
barn (literally) with an open doorway (nobody was taking a leak in it at the
time). Since most of the important stuff was between ten and fifteen feet
from the camera, I thought it would be ok and maybe even best to use a wider
open aperture. I thought I remembered that I had read that lenses work
better at say f/16 than they do at f/64. Am I making this up? I can't
remember where I read this or what the reason for it was.
Also, what does "tipping in" mean? My new (very good) book about the 101
best photography books of the 20th century often has a description that
reads, "Gravure plates, tipped in." At first I thought that meant that the
corners of the photographs were slipped into little slits in the paper, but
it doesn't look like that in the reproductions. So, does it mean "glued on
with a little bit of glue on the back"?
--shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST