From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 02/09/02-09:51:50 AM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, George Huczek wrote:
>> I'm glad that you are not the only one who found many of the images in the
>> book to be disappointing! I don't mind seeing nice work done using any
>> technique -- and there are a few nice pictures in the book made with
>> pinhole cameras and Holgas I will admit -- but I am of the opinion that it
>> would have been better to include more "straight" images. There are a
>> small number of nice ziatypes, but not enough balance showing good
>> photography. My bias is towards less experimental work that can be
>> understood by looking at it instead of by reading the caption which states
>> what the artist was trying to achieve.
>
>George, I wish you would expand on that. I'm serious. What is "good
>photography"?
I am afraid that my less than half serious comment about the image
content of Christopher James' book may have detracted from a real
serious concern about the reliability of some of the information in
the book. I wasted the better part of an afternoon trying to get more
contrast in a vandyke print following a method James describes in
detail in the book. I now don't believe the method works at all,
which suggests that James simply regurgitated something someone else
said back when without actually testing it himself. That would be ok
if the method were presented as theory but that is not the case.
Which makes me wonder if other information in the book may be
presented as fact when in reality it is but untested theory. For
example, and staying on the subject of vandyke, do the toning
procedures work as described? Can one actually get brown/black
aubergine colors from lead acetate? Can one effectively tone a
vandyke with a 30:1 selenium toner with hypo clear?
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST