From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 01/04/03-05:35:15 AM Z
I felt like I had to stick my oar in here, having just yesterday refused
a request from a newspaper that wanted to feature my work (this is a
newspaper that hasn't yet switched to color). They wanted to do a
two-page spread of reproductions of my work, and I said no. The most
important reason was that I never seem to get slides made of my work
before it goes out the door, so I don't have a lot of stuff to give
him, but the reason I gave him for my refusal is that I don't believe
my work, especially my newest work, would reproduce well in black and
white; it would lose all the subtlety and magic that makes it my work.
The editor was sure that his photoshop guy could preserve the magic, but
I was skeptical, and I don't want my work shown at less than its best.
The very pale color and deliberate subtlety of tone are what make my
prints beautiful; I totally reject the idea that a picture that doesn't
reproduce well in black and white is by definition a bad picture, and
the fact that my work sells well would indicate that I'm not just
whistling in the dark when I say that. I think this goes right to the
heart of Chris's dilemma about whether technique can get in the way of
imagery or vision. If I followed Carl's rule and made only prints that
reproduce well, I wouldn't be making MY images; I would have lost my
images and my vision in the process of following an arbitrary rule of
technique. Luckily I've never paid much attention to those rules and
have been able to make images that express my vision, without worrying
about whether photographers think they "look" like a proper photograph.
Perhaps one reason I appreciate Giacomelli so much is I understand that
need to force the medium to make the images I want to make.
Katharine Thayer
Carl wrote:
> For a long time now (nearly 40 years) I've always thought that if a
> picture wouldn't survive reproduction in newsprint, wouldn't be
> convincing when seen that way, then it isn't a picture in the first
> place and isn't worth printing at all. That's not to say it won't look
> better as a fine print in silver or platinum, just that printing a bad
> picture finely won't make it good. Nowadays I proof my ultra-large
> format negatives by snapping them on a light box with a digital camera
> and then outputting a small inkjet workprint. *If* the picture is
> strong enough to hold my attention in this crummy form, then it may be
> worth printing in platinum. If not, not.
>
> ---Carl
>
> --
> web site with picture galleries
> and workshop information at:
>
> &nbs p; http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
>
> snip:
>
> This is something I have always known but have decided to
> really work at about my work. It is this notion of when
> technique and process overpowers or takes over the work and
> imagery is lost or ignored. Its weird, I have always been
> obsessed with trying techniques, but I feel that I have lost
> my way with my imagery due to this. I look back at some
> really early sch oolwork when learning black and white and I
> find my investigation in imagery during that period more
> compelling then what I do now. Granted my early work is
> crude, but there is a true sense of exploration, desire and
> emotion in the imagery. When I show anyone my work over the
> last couple years, no one talks about the most important
> part: what Im trying to say. I always seem to be giving a
> verbal demo on how to do the process instead of invoking
> responses of why I did the work. I have realized this is due
> to technique suffocating my imagery. I think I have gotten
> in a cycle of when I fail with my imagery, I move on to the
> next hard to learn photographic medium thinking this will
> save my work. Its that same pitfall some photographers (me
> as well at one point) fall in about equipment, if only they
> had that certain camera or light pack, the work would really
> come across and be successful. It couldnt be more wrong
> about both (funny thing is I have always known this but have
> been in denial)! I think its time maybe for me to do some
> straight black and white work for a while until my images
> are what people see and not the process.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST