From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 01/04/03-03:15:16 PM Z
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Katharine Thayer wrote:
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.
>
> 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.
My surmise on this, a subject that interests me, is that definitely it
depends. As only two examples, a friend of mine prints photographs on
glass in silver gelatin emulsion... which she does also on commission.
That is, folks bring her their AWFUL tacky instamatic one-hour photo
prints in color... In monochrome (usually black) they are lovely,
absolutely transmuted. Not always of course, but if the separation holds
-- it's simply astonishing how often dull/ugly becomes elegant.
The other example is that sometimes I scan a color image onto the monitor
and then change it to grayscale... And see a terrible loss... I do what I
can with the lying adjustment curve, but the life is often gone. On the
other hand, just putting into a brown tone often makes either a soso black
OR color print live.
Many times I've been struck by a stunning repro in a magazine in
monochrome, usually a shade of brown -- and look with the loupe, it's made
in color.
Then we see "colorized" images of one sort or another, old movies,
"improved" for re-issue. They tend to be vile. Which is to say generally
speaking the rule does seem to be no rule.
I also remember when I began toning silver gelatin, all the piety about
don't expect to turn a bad photograph good by toning. An EXTREMELY stupid
rule. My greatest successes generally began as dull or "bad" photographs
that got some kind of subtle shift in a color, maybe change of balance,
flattening or sharpening, loss or gain of contrast, whatever, that made
them suddenly special.
Meanwhile, there are times I don't use a print I'd like in Post-Factory
because it suffers too much, other times it doesn't seem to matter... or
not with my level of repro.
Is that 5 examples?
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST