LF images getting sterile

Hi,

I would love to think that art is an intimate process. It depends on
the context in which the art is made. We are influenced by other
photographers,and art is derivative, we should not pay too much
attention to originality. I view originality as a byproduct of a
personal journey.

There's really a fine line if we compare one photograph to another
just based on visuals. I believe that alot of gursky's prints by
itself would be just large, camera club shot. (not to say camera club
is bad). But taken as a whole, as a process, as a series, his work has
breadth and depth. Its not easy to gain access to those places, the
research and knowledge base he gains must be significant. The
aesthetics that he saw or manipulated must of been exciting.

I think the material photograph, the final product, can only do so
much. Usually photographs are never as satisfying as the journey. The
photographs are just periodic and selective recordings of the journey
we have. Clearly reading a journal is not as fun as experiencing it.

Furthermore, alot of times, the closer you are with the subject, the
more the final product might not appeal to the masses. It requires a
certain kind of investment or understanding or experience in the
process or journey.

My taste is similar to sympatico, the becher student's, especially
ruff. Those are the german gang, and the american gang, misrach and
japanese, shibata. But even then, it gets really boring looking at it
over and over. Clearly, my photographs are not as established, but it
has more potential to remind me of my journey. Granted it might not be
original. But i don't care.

Kyle



Robert Feinman wrote in message . ..
The latest issue of Large Format has three portfolios.
One faux 19th century, one straight ahead architectural and
one quasi-panorama landscapes.
We seem to be in a rut here. I realize that the limitations of
large format cameras tend to dictate the types of images made,
but there must still be some people out there not following
the old paths.
Personally, I found the difficulties with transport and processing
as well as the tendency to repeat myself so burdensome that I've
mostly shifted to other formats in the past two years. Thus I've
done a lot more with panoramas and ultra wideangle lenses. I've
also started taking candid shots of people on the streets, I thing
I rarely used to do. Anything to get the rust out of my brain..

Large format photographers also seem to be excessively concerned
with process. Just because a print is made in some archaic process
which requires 30 steps to complete does not yield a result that is
"better" than a conventional one. I should be able to view the print
without any knowledge of how it was made. It should speak for itself
as an aesthetic object. The same thing goes for the supersized prints
now in vogue. These types of exhibits get talked about just because of
the presentation, not necessarily because of the works themselves.

This isn't intended to be a critique of the magazine, rather of the
fact that we all seem to be repeating ourselves or copying others..

In article ,
(khoi) wrote:

Hi,

I would love to think that art is an intimate process. It depends on
the context in which the art is made. We are influenced by other
photographers,and art is derivative, we should not pay too much
attention to originality. I view originality as a byproduct of a
personal journey.

There's really a fine line if we compare one photograph to another
just based on visuals. I believe that alot of gursky's prints by
itself would be just large, camera club shot. (not to say camera club
is bad). But taken as a whole, as a process, as a series, his work has
breadth and depth. Its not easy to gain access to those places, the
research and knowledge base he gains must be significant. The
aesthetics that he saw or manipulated must of been exciting.

I think the material photograph, the final product, can only do so
much. Usually photographs are never as satisfying as the journey. The
photographs are just periodic and selective recordings of the journey
we have. Clearly reading a journal is not as fun as experiencing it.

Furthermore, alot of times, the closer you are with the subject, the
more the final product might not appeal to the masses. It requires a
certain kind of investment or understanding or experience in the
process or journey.

My taste is similar to sympatico, the becher student's, especially
ruff. Those are the german gang, and the american gang, misrach and
japanese, shibata. But even then, it gets really boring looking at it
over and over. Clearly, my photographs are not as established, but it
has more potential to remind me of my journey. Granted it might not be
original. But i don't care.
Kyle

Well stated.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

I don't have suggestions on what should be shown, especially in the
magazine. If I did have other types of photography in mind I'd be doing
that style myself. I include myself in the "large format rut" category,
which is why I've been trying other formats to expand my vision.
Using a swing lens camera, for example, not only gives a wider field of
view but allows for nonlinear distortions which can be a creative
option. Similarly using the 12mm Heliar lens on a 35mm camera allows for
extreme perspective forshortening with the freedom of a handheld camera.
It must be something about the personalities of large format
photographers that attracts them to this type of photography and thus
to a certain set of classic styles.

Check out http://www.marktucker.com/index_content.html

www.marktucker.com

look for the San Miguel d'Allende section among others - I know he used his
Ebony 4x5 for that trip and some of the others, (though he favours his
Hasselblad "plunger-cam" which I believe once gave a Hasselblad rep
apoplexy...
http://marktucker.com/plungercam/ )

Also his Miami Roadtrip and Random Landscapes.

No idea if it's "art" but it certainly is funky and uses a lot of "non
linear distortions" - seems to be out of that rut anyway

BTW - yes, I forgot Misrach in my list. And there are plenty of other
Becher Babies out there to keep your interest up.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:44:59 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

.... The same thing goes for the supersized prints
now in vogue. These types of exhibits get talked about just because of
the presentation, not necessarily because of the works themselves.



jan2704 from Lloyd Erlick,

I agree, and certainly your comment applies even more broadly than
you've stated.

But when there is content as well as form in a large print (I can
really only talk about black and white prints...) there is also a
wonderful feeling of basking in front of it as one views it.

regards
--le
_______________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits,
2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1,
Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada.
---
voice 416-686-0326

http://www.heylloyd.com
_______________________________________

"sympatico.ca" wrote
Check out http://www.marktucker.com/index_content.html

www.marktucker.com, "Miami Road Trip", et. al.

Shades of Marcy Merrill and "The Great Pintoid Adventure":

http://www.merrillphoto.com/gallery.htm

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

BTW - if you want a regualr boost of non-rut photogrpahy (LF and other),
check out: Conscientious - a photography weblog at

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/

It's up dated almost every day. You can spend a good time trawling through
the archives

On 27 Jan 2004 15:19:32 GMT, (Largformat) wrote:

Thanks. However we are always open to constructive criticism.

steve

I'll save that for your site !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

What would you like to see??

You're doing all right, Steve. Not every issue is a home run but then neither
is every photo I take. There's enough variety that it stays interesting and if
I don't happen to like every portfolio you run, well, I always felt I was
better off being exposed to things I didn't care for. Sometimes I change my
mind. (For example, your recent article on Eliott Porter completely changed my
idea about color photography. I even bought some color film!)

One gripe, though: most of your 'equipment reviews' are cursory. They often
sound like re-typed press releases. I'd prefer more depth but I understand
that you can't print an encyclopedia every issue.

Mike

C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

Subject: LF images getting sterile
From: magine (Msherck)
Date: 1/28/2004 8:07 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

What would you like to see??

You're doing all right, Steve. Not every issue is a home run but then neither
is every photo I take. There's enough variety that it stays interesting and if
I don't happen to like every portfolio you run, well, I always felt I was
better off being exposed to things I didn't care for. Sometimes I change my
mind. (For example, your recent article on Eliott Porter completely changed my
idea about color photography. I even bought some color film!)

One gripe, though: most of your 'equipment reviews' are cursory. They often
sound like re-typed press releases. I'd prefer more depth but I understand
that you can't print an encyclopedia every issue.

Mike


Thanks for the note


steve