From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 01/04/03-06:06:11 PM Z
My two colleages seem to have missed the key phrase within my now
twice-quoted paragraph:
> *If* the picture is
>> > strong enough to hold my attention
This, and its context, was written in response to someone agonizing, or
perhaps only speculating, over the problem of evaluating one's own efforts
at photography. So I offered the standard that has served me well for my
work (since he seemed to be at least exploring the neighborhood of this
sensibility). I don't have a problem with, or make rules about, anyone
else's work. Just as I have no rules for my own--I was refering to what I've
learned from my own experience in the absence of rules.
A picture that will hold my interest, as its creator, cannot rely on
"printing" to live. Hence the value of a crummy proof. 35mm proofsheets are
wonderful for this: the real picture grabs you, when a roll has one. There
has to be an underlying image straight from the lens for me, otherwise I
wouldn't bother to be working with a camera. Photographs look better printed
well than printed sloppily, but for the kind I find worth making this is a
tweak--ok, an enormous tweak--but still not the essence. Anyone who wants to
reverse that and consider the printing to be the essence certainly can do so
without any concern for my opinion.
---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST