Printable View
"His 11x14" work is simply incredible; he raises the bar on all the best LF color photographers in the world"
Chris, you should check out Bas Princen (and his book Artificial Arcadia). Struan put me on to him - quite wonderful work - very little online.
IMO he's what Soth has the potential be if he really works at it...
There's another "innovator" out there in addition to that guy from Colorado working with a 9X18. Look out, all you ULFers! ;)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66498,00.html
<<Why is it that every time a photographer makes an onrdinary picture of an ordinary subject and prints it big we are told it is great and we just dont "get" it?>>
Is it possible that if you "got it," it would seem like more than an ordinary picture of an ordinary subject?
Look back for a minute at the history of art criticism. Look at how the majority of critics and contemporary viewers ripped the impressionists apart; look a few decades later at how they did the same to the modernists. Look at all the outcry against Picasso, Braque, Brancussi. "It's just Nothing!" "Why am I looking at this glorified fire escape?!" Look at the rejection of Hemingway for his "unliterary" prose; of Beethoven for his thuggish lack of subtlety; of Eggleston for his pointless banality. Then look in the miror and ask yourself if there's even the possibility that you're doing the same thing, which is, in fact a quite normal and human thing to do: disliking something for being outside the bounds of what you've grown comfortable with.
What can be learned here is not that something is great because is is an ordinary picture of an ordinary subject, but that it's possible for a picture to be great while being superficially ordinary, or while depicting a subject that is superficially ordinary, or both. This is not a new lesson by the way; it goes back at least as far as Walker Evans, and you can find much closer precursors to this kind of color work--which in some ways is about finding something remarkable in the subtleties of the banal--in the early and mid 70s. It's not for nothing that Stephen Shore's great project in this vein was called "Uncommon Places." At first glance, the pictures depict the most common places imagineable. But these are not pictures meant to be understood or savored in a first glance.
By the way, I believe this kind of work is MUCH harder to pull off than the kinds of less subtle "aint nature pretty" anachronisms that I see being glorified on sites like this one. Fellow camera club members might be impressed that someone planted their tripod legs right where ansel planted his, and that they spent a week in the darkroom getting the tones rich enough to induce orgasm, but the essence of such work is almost always a kind of conservatism based on connoiseurship and many-times recycled vision. It's about copying pictures of copied pictures of copied pictures, many generations and decades removed from the original artist who had a fresh vision and a real, personal response to the world.
What can be learned here is not that something is great because is is an ordinary picture of an ordinary subject, but that it's possible for a picture to be great while being superficially ordinary, or while depicting a subject that is superficially ordinary, or both
Uh?......Once again, what is it with the "superficially" adjetive? You mean to tell me there is greater depth and content on these prints than what is already present and we dont "get" it?....sorry, I dont buy it.
Isnt this just a racionalization? I would think that if you look at the history of art critizism that some might have at least learned something and realize that sometimes there is more than meets the eye. There is nothing new in this work, take away the size and the prints become nothing.
Hmmm. So those of us who see something are wrong? Or we're lying?
I'm not sure how you can move with such conviction from "I don't see anything,"
which is an honest report of personal expeience, to "There is nothing there,"
which presumes some kind of omniscience.
For what it's worth, I'm not familiar with the artist's work--I haven't seen original
prints, so I'm not being swayed by their scale. I don't know his reputation, so
I'm not being swayed by that. But I see something in the work, just based on
the small web images. In fact, I see quite a lot. And I'm not surprised that some
people would have a more difficult time connecting with it, because I find that
a lot of quieter, more subtle work is an acquired taste.
Maybe if you told us some examples of work you like most, I could suggest some
other work to look at to serve as a bridge between what you know well and this work.
I find that to be a nore natural way to get to something new. It would be hard for someone
who only listened to Mozart to appreciate John Cage, for example, but if you moved
him along in steps that included, say, Beethoven, Debussy, Gershwin, and Messiaen,
they might be able to go the road on their own. Not to suggest that Cage is better or
more sophisticated than Mozart, but that there's a long road of evolution between them
that can't be ignored.
I have to agree with Jorge on this one. But I do like Chris Jordan's work better than Massimo Vitali's!
BTW, did you kow you could buy Massimo at Wal-Mart?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?dest=9999999997&product_id=2321999&sourceid=0100000030660805302498
Steve
Hmmm. So those of us who see something are wrong? Or we're lying? I'm not sure how you can move with such conviction from "I don't see anything," which is an honest report of personal expeience, to "There is nothing there," which presumes some kind of omniscience.
Well, the difference is that we are saying there is nothing special here, you otoh tell us we dont "get" it and that this is an "acquired taste," if any body is presuming of omniescence it is you who tell us we should "work" harder and see the greatness that is there. To use your words I am not sure you can say there is greatness there and we just dont see it.
Leaving aside the matter of taste, what I always find somewhat arrogant is this notion that one has to "work" at seeing art. One might observe something we like and upon closer examination find further discoveries why we like the work, but this "acquired" taste sounds to me like you are saying you have a special vision the rest of us mortal or unwashed masses dont have. Talk about omniescence! Presumably one can "acquire" a taste for shit, that still does not make it good to eat..no?
Why on earth is it arrogant to suggest someone has to work at seeing art? What would you say to someone who threw down Joyce's Ulysses because they didn't understand it at first glance? Or to someone who couldn't hear the structure of a Bach fugue the first time they heard one? Or for that matter, to one of the New York Times critics who wrote a scathing review of Stieglitz's show of cubist paintings, claiming to be insulted at the idea that any of it was art? Would you agree that it was the art's duty to be instantly available to them, whatever their backgrounds and experiences happened to be? Or would you tell them to be patient, to give the work some benefit of the doubt, to ask the people who made it or the people who like it some questions?
On the subject of acquired tastes, do you really believe that your own tastes were not acquired? Are the pictures you like to look at now the same ones you liked to look at when you were five years old? If not, then what happened between now and then? And is there some magical point at which that stopped happening, or at which you assumed it should stop happening?
The tastes that I've acquired, personally, have nothing to do with omniscience. There's plenty that I don't get. And when I don't get it, I work to try to get it. That doesn't mean I'll like it. But I'm not going to declare that I don't like it ... or worse, declare that it's crap, before I have some reason to believe I got it.
Some of what you can do to acquire tastes is conscious, some of it isn't--but how you respond to any piece of art has to do with where you are right now in terms of all your experiences and understandings. It's a pity if someone isn't open to these things continuing to grow over a whole lifetime.
Maybe this is truly art and maybe I just don't get it, but I am a photographer and to my eyes these are not good photographs. I do see the intention of the "Artist" trying to make subtle pictures of mundane every day kind of scenes, but from intention to effect there seems to be a gap and I am falling into it.
I just would love to hear from those that say they get it, what is that you get? If you would be so kind, maybe I will also see it.
Here's what I get--and please take this with the disclaimer that I've only seen a few small images on the web, so there may well be a lot that I have yet to get. Maybe some of his real fans would like to chime in.
I see a kind of sly, subversive formalism--an apparent formlessness that has something going on that makes me look again. And when I do, subtle relationships begin to emerge. I start to become aware of the balance of forms, and at an almost deliberate looking arrangement of elements (like people on the beach) that at first seemed random. Color plays into this. There's a very conscious, but subtle, use of color holding the frames together.
All of this reminds of a Robert Adams passage:
. . . The beauty of a work of art can also be judged by its scope. The greatest beauty tends to encompass the most; the artworks of largest importance frequently have within them the widest diversity. A.R. Ammons phrased this well in the poem “Sphere,” in which he observed that “the shapes nearest shapelessness awe us most, suggest the god.” This is so, I think, because most of life seems shapeless most of the time, and the art that squares with this powerfull impression seems most convincingly to confront disagreeable fact. Thus, for example, while Charles Sheeler’s photograph of an ore car at the Ford River Rouge plant is unquestionably beautiful, its beauty is of a lesser sort than that found in the formally rougher but more complexly human photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson.
There are, of course, wonderful exceptions to this rule, though they are perhaps more apparent exceptions than real ones. Bell peppers would seem to be about as limited as any subject matter could be, but in fact how unlimited they are when photographed by Weston.
--from Beauty in Photography
I also see in his photographs an awareness, maybe even commentary on landscape painting (although this kind of allusion strikes me more as icing than as cake--I'm not generally impressed by work that depends on this kind of thing).
But as an example, in form, color, and subject, this one http://www.consarc-ch.com/gafo/vita/ZH2003.jpg recalls Monet, while this one http://www.consarc-ch.com/gafo/vita/Dontir.jpg recalls Nicolas Poussin.
Finally, there's something curiously theatrical about all of them. It's hard for me to put my finger on it, but part of the vision that ties these together seems to involve people acting as players on the large stage of the landscape. That element is something that recalls certain early landscapes for me, although it's juxtaposed with the thoroughly contemporary formal looseness of the images.
Anyway, this will have to pass as my first or second impression. I hope it helps. Again, none of this is to convince anyone that they should like the work. But I'd like to remove some of the suspicion that there's nothing there at all that a sane person might like.
Incidentally, I just checked his bio page, and noted that his work is in about a dozen major museum and corporate art collections, and that his long list of recent solo exhibitions includes major galleries in New York, London, Paris, Milan, and Berlin.
I don't believe for a minute that this should convince anyone to like a piece of art or a body of work ... but it should count as at least a few votes that there's something there to look at.
By the way, has anyone checked out Chris Jordan's website? I think there's something there to loo at too.
I like Vitali's shots, but I can easily see how one could get nothing out of them. Sometimes one has to have a certain base of knowledge or be in a particular mindset to really get a piece of art. But ultimately, if you don't get it, then so what. If there is other work that you do get and enjoy, then hell run with it. That's one great thing about art - there's something out there for everyone. There's a lot of art that I don't get or just don't like, but I don't deny that other people enjoy it or consider them morons for doing so.
On the subject of acquired tastes, do you really believe that your own tastes were not acquired? Are the pictures you like to look at now the same ones you liked to look at when you were five years old? If not, then what happened between now and then? And is there some magical point at which that stopped happening, or at which you assumed it should stop happening?
I dont buy it, as you mature your taste changes but it is not acquiared. This is a very different matter. What you talk about is tantamount to saying cancer is an acquired taste. As one matures one learns to give the benefit of the doubt, and as you say give things a second chance, but this in no way precludes having the ability to recognize on first glance something one dislikes. Yes I do really beleive my tastes are not acquired.
I would not say to someone who does not "get" a work of art/literature/music that he/she does not get it. I would point out the things I see in an effort to show them what I see, but telling someone "ah, you just dont get it" is the typical reaction of the cognizante when one challanges their view.
You have explained what you "get" out of these phtographs, frankly I dont see all that. What you see is shaped by your experiences and taste, but this in no way is proof that the rest of us dont "get" it.
In the end time will tell who is right or wrong, but some how I dont think these prints will ever be mention with the same awe and reverence as Da Vinci's last supper... :)
"In the end time will tell who is right or wrong, but some how I dont think
these prints will ever be mention with the same awe and reverence as Da
Vinci's last supper... :)"
I doubt there ae but one or two photographs that ever could - if that.... :-)
" dont buy it, as you mature your taste changes but it is not acquiared. "
this is a semantic dodge, Jorge. Come on. Tastes can change in a couple of basic ways: you can start to appreciate something you didn't used to appreciate, or you can stop appreciating something that you once did. Any time you do the former, that counts as acquiring a taste.
I'm not belaboring this point to belittle you, Jorge. I'm doing it because your idea constitutes a limiting belief, and it's one that I hate to see people carrying around. It's not about Vitali's work, ultimately. I could care less if you like it or not. It's about you acknowledging the possibility that what you don't see now you might see tomorrow or the day after. It can only happen if you believe it can; because if not, then you'll just stop looking, and consider yourself proven right.
I would never suggest that someone doesn't "get" art work simply because they don't like it or because it's not to their tastes. But when they tell me WHY they don't like it, they sometimes give clues.
Some of the things you said before: implying that this work is nothing but ordinary pictures printed big; that they're 6 foot vacation shots; that they're merely examples of fine printmaking; that they were technically easy to make-- all suggest a profound missing of what these photographs offer.
I posted a long description of what I see in the work, and you replied "frankly I don't see all that."
THIS is precisely my point. You do not see all that. Which is not, of course, evidence that it's not there.
There are a lot of reasons someone might not see all that. I see it for some pretty simple, mundane reasons: I look at a lot
of photography from the last several decades; particulary photography in similar genres to Vitali's; I have books by William Eggleston, Stephen Shore, Mike Smith, Robert Adams, and Walker Evans, and I've studied them; I've seen Andreas Gursky's work at the Modern about a half dozen times, I host a forum on contemporary landscape photography where people challenge me with ideas and pictures all the time; when people recommend a book on art history, I read it; I've had my own work critiqued, and sometimes shredded, by many of the top curators in the world.
But above all, I've been open to the idea that what I like and what I think I know today are likely not the whole story. So I keep looking. It's enriched both my life and my work. And my appreciation for other people's work. My wish for any artist, here or anywhere else, is to discover the same openness. Know the difference between not liking something and not getting it. And be willing to do the work to get it. Who knows where it might lead you?
I'm not belaboring this point to belittle you, Jorge. I'm doing it because your idea constitutes a limiting belief, and it's one that I hate to see people carrying around. It's not about Vitali's work, ultimately. I could care less if you like it or not. It's about you acknowledging the possibility that what you don't see now you might see tomorrow or the day after. It can only happen if you believe it can; because if not, then you'll just stop looking, and consider yourself proven right.
You were doing fine until now, now you are pissing me off. This is a very patronzing statement. How about if I say you are seeing there things that are just not there but you do so in a effort to fall in line with the rest of the conizante. At least I am honest with myself and dont have to "work" at something I found totally ordinary. Do me a favor, dont do me any favors......
You do not see all that. Which is not, of course, evidence that it's not there.
On the same token, just because YOU see this it is not evidence that it is there. From the books you mention it is apparent you like this type of work, we could substitute Vitali for Gursky or any of the others you mention and you get the same reaction from many people. The fact that some of these people is in museums or collections does necessarily mean their work is good, museums are also known for collecting crap they think is good at the time.
On this one I will stop here and say I disagree with you, I am not about to be patronized by the likes of you.
I looked again.
I like the woman in the red bikini.
Jorge, can you give us examples of what is NOT ordinary pictures or ordinary subjects, and explain why they are extraordinary
in the same depth as Paul has explaned what he saw in those Vitale images ?
My wife keeps telling me that I dislike Mahler's music because I simply haven't listened to it properly. We've been together twenty years and she still won't accept that I have listened, repeatedly and well: I simply don't like it. I therefore have great sympathy for Jorge. Where we differ is that I don't call Mahler's music rubbish, not even late at night when the missus is safely asleep.
Don't get hung up on canons. I could say the same about bits of Henze, or Reimann, or even Tippett.
I'm surprised at the amount of flak that Ross and the Gigapixel project have drawn from LF folk here and on other forums. There is always a wealth of encouragment and support for people here who attempt to build their own cameras or modify some hunk of metal they turned up at a surplus depot. I don't see why that support should be withdrawn just because the person concerned doesn't post here, or because they have taken the extra step of trying to make a commercial success of their project. It's not even as if there are many other options for ULF colour work besides aerial films, so in many ways both Ross and Gigapixel are doing the commendably necessary. For my money Gigapixel gets the nod for technical excellence: the designers obviously know what real resolution is. Those who believe that their antique 20x24 blows them out of the water should re-read the notes on air MTF, the importance of alignment, and the 'inadequacy' of mainstream ULF wide angles.
I like Massimo's photographs. It, and the Bas Princen book Tim referred to, have a feeling of understated authenticity that is missing from more conventional landscape work, particularly in the American tradition. I do love, for example, Ansel Adams, but his prints merely run the emotional gamut from A to B. He, and the Velvia-fuelled crowds that follow him, seem to think that there is only one appropriate reaction to a natural scene: Silent Awe. As a former climber, and as a European, I miss the sense of being at home in the wilderness, of *belonging* there; as well as the recognition that the changes humans have wrought on the landscape are not necessarily an aberration, but instead often define what the landscape really is, both physically and metaphorically. I also enjoy the quieter sense of presentation in the muted colour palette, non golden-hour light, and the finely-balanced yet undramatic composition. For me, Vitali isn't really all that radical or different, except in the polish and skill of his execution.
"My wife keeps telling me that I dislike Mahler's music because I simply haven't listened to it properly. We've been together twenty years and she still won't accept that I have listened, repeatedly and well: I simply don't like it. I therefore have great sympathy for Jorge. Where we differ is that I don't call Mahler's music rubbish, not even late at night when the missus is safely asleep."
That's a big difference. It sounds like you've listened enough to be able to hear what your wife likes about it; it just doesn't happen to do the same for you. You're not declaring there's nothing there to hear. Personally, I can't stand Leonard Cohen. This puts me on the sh!t list of many of my friends, serious music heads among them. I've opened mymind to the possibility of liking him; I've listened to most of the albums. Still bums me out. But at least I feel that I "get" the music now, and can state what others like about him.
I also hear plenty of music that I don't get, and possibly never will. A good friend is a new music composer. I go to group concerts that include his work from time to time. Some of what's being played is miles over my head in terms of sophistication. I'd have a lot of homework to do before I got from here to there. Ironically, I like some of it in spite of not getting it--but much of the rest is just a curiosity.
Jorge, I'm sorry to have pissed you off. It was not my intent, although I understand that you did not sign up for this kind of interrogation when you commented on some pictures.
I am still curious to know what work you do admire ... I've laid at least some of my cards on the table here but, as QT Luong pointed out, we still don't know what you like or why.
Struan, my first impressions agree with you when you say, "For me, Vitali isn't really all that radical or different, except in the polish and skill of his execution." Based on those web images, I'd like to see more of his work, but I suspect I'll still like my old Egglestons and Shores more. We'll see.
So much depends upon a red bikini... William Carlos Williams
beside the white chickens ???
Exactly!! Actually all I am trying to say is that an entire universe can hinge on the seemingly insignificant......
Here is a link to someone that has some interesting thoughts on Vitali and his relationship to the contemporary landscape....
http://www.modemonline.com/bio/massimo_vitali.html
Jorge, can you give us examples of what is NOT ordinary pictures or ordinary subjects, and explain why they are extraordinary in the same depth as Paul has explaned what he saw in those Vitale images ?
Good enough, here are 3 from Kerik Kouklis:
http://www.kerik.com/gum6.htm
http://www.kerik.com/1351.htm
http://www.kerik.com/2155.htm
Here are a couple from an APUG member who has a very unusual style
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=4266&sort=2&cat=500&page=1
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=5009&sort=2&cat=500&page=1
The reason I like these pictures is that they show not only care on printing, but they also show a "personal" way of seeing the subject. I purposely included the color picture to show what I thought was a well printed color photograph regardless of medium.
Michael Smith calls this kind of pictures, "easy" pictures, and I suppose for those of you who like to "work" at pictures might think the same thing. This is exactly my point, the photographer has destilled any unnecessary elements to create an appealing picture. IOW it shows the photographer has taken some care and effort in making the photograph.
I will repeat myself, wether one likes/dislikes Vitali, Struth, Gursky is a matter of taste and inconsequetial to this discussion. What I object to, is this notion that when someone expreses disagreement about the "greatness" of these pictures/photographers, he/she is told.."ah, you just dont get it." Many of us who "dont get it" sometimes wonder if you guys who do "get it" are not just enamored with the newness of making big prints and are simply tired of seeing the derivative "rock and trees" and are reacting to them by "seeing" things in these new pictures which simply many of us dont see.
Regardless of the motivation, I find it arrogant to tell people "you just dont get it". That is my one and only point.
Struan, I never said these pictures were "crap". I said I find nothing excpetional about them.
Paul, I have no problem with being questioned. Anybody that has frequented this forum knows I dont shy away from controversy, but when you say: "I'm doing it because your idea constitutes a limiting belief, and it's one that I hate to see people carrying around." This assumes you "know better" and that you are going to "guide" me to see the light. With all due respect, I doubt there is much you can show me, either in photography or life.
Well hell, dont know what happened. Here are the two remaning links from Kerik:
http://www.kerik.com/2155.htm
http://www.kerik.com/gum6.htm
I will ask Thomas if he will let me post some of his pictures here.
Interesting essays ... so far I only made it to the second one.
The first one points out something that should have been completely obvious that I missed, when noting the strangeness of the pictures: the perspective. That 18-foot high, removed from the earth vantage point is central to what gives these a slightly fantastic, unphotographic feel .. we as viewers are not part of the scene in any concrete way, but are more like Emmerson's disembodied eye.
The essays also illuminate what ultimately makes this work hard for me to love (although it doesn't influence how much I might admire it), and that is simply the subject matter. I have very little connection to the ideas and fantasies of this kind of leisure. I've never been a beach person. Like Struan, I'm a climber, and have strong connections to places that convey a sense of wilderness, of removal from comfortable and known space (even if these places are marked by human presense or even of urban origin) and resort beaches strike me as an antithesis to this sensibility. When I have a chance to get away from my everyday life, I head in the opposite direction of the places depicted in these images. None of this, of course, has anything to do with how good the work is; just an attempt to understand the nature of my personal connection to it.
"What I object to, is this notion that when someone expreses disagreement about the "greatness" of these pictures/photographers, he/she is told.."ah, you just dont get it." Many of us who "dont get it" sometimes wonder if you guys who do "get it" are not just enamored with the newness of making big prints and are simply tired of seeing the derivative "rock and trees" and are reacting to them by "seeing" things in these new pictures which simply many of us dont see."
Well, that's not what I've been saying at all. I haven't even been claiming the unquestionable greatness of these pictures--just that I think they're very good, based on a lot of elements that I can identify and appreciate in the pictures. I don't object to someone disliking them, but what you in fact did was dismiss them on several grounds: that they are merely X, Y, and Z. Those of us here that like the work are saying, no, X, Y and Z aren't in fact what we're seeing in the work. There's more to them than that. It's your dismissal that there MIGHT be more to them is what I'm responding to.
As far as "rocks and trees" pictures, that's actually where I came from. I liked pretty calendar photography in the beginning, and it was a stretch for me at first to appreciate Weston. Then Weston's modernism became like my native language, and it was a stretch for me to appreciate later 20th Century artists like Rob Adams and Eggleston. I probably agree with you on a lot of the contemporary huge color print pictures. In the 80s it actually became a joke among MFA students: "if it sucks, make it big. if it still sucks, make it color." There's a lot of this big, bright, crappy work out there. Which isn't the same thing as saying that all big bright work is crappy. While I'm not in love with Gursky, for example, I'm impressed by it, and I think it's important. I'm less impressed with Tina Barney. But whatever. I happen to like Weston more than all these people put together, still, but I recognize that the world does not need any more pictures that look like his. They would not be authentic on any level. Let Weston be Weston. Those of us born a century or so later have inherited a new world and a new history to stand upon.
Are the other Kerik pictures you're looking for anywhere else on his site? He's a good friend of mine, and I've admired his work for a long time. His work straddles a lot of eras, I think, from the nineteenth century to current times. The two pics you linked that I could open are classic formal modernism. This kind of vision represents my roots, in a sense, although it's important to understand that most contemporary photographers are doing work that's informed by this type of imagery but also reacting against it. Or even reacting to the first generation of artists that reacted against it. Like it or not (I often don't) we live in a post-modern world, and historians that look for the important work from this era are going to pick work that reflects this in one way or another. Luckily "post-modern" is a phrase that still means a lot of different things to different people. But it does not mean High Modern or Early Modern.
"Paul, I have no problem with being questioned. Anybody that has frequented this forum knows I dont shy away from controversy, but when you say: "I'm doing it because your idea constitutes a limiting belief, and it's one that I hate to see people carrying around." This assumes you "know better" and that you are going to "guide" me to see the light. With all due respect, I doubt there is much you can show me, either in photography or life."
Perhaps not. But if there was a picture that you thought was remarkable and I could not see anything interesting in it, I would be asking you a lot of questions in an attempt to see what I might be missing. I'm open to learning about photography, or life, or music, or ice cream, from you or from anyone who offers the opportunity.
oh brother.
On business, I recently spoke to an optical engineer who worked for Clifford Ross (the other "highest resolution" poser) who basically said that he has gobs of family money and connections. And a good publicist. I guess he had this guy test lenses for him for a few thousand a day.
Too bad neither of these guys uses their great big cameras to take photos that are worth a damn. For really gorgeous ULF work, check out Massimo Vitali-- a member of this forum. His 11x14" work is simply incredible; he raises the bar on all the best LF color photographers in the world. His new book published by Steidl (available on Amazon but sent to me by a dear friend in Italy) is the most beautiful color photographic book I have ever seen. For any photographic book collectors out there, this is a must.
And by the way, the newest LF digital scanning backs from BetterLight (www.betterlight.com), when used along with the bitchin panning panoramic feature (which laces together multiple exposures), can produce digital images that will be WAYYY higher resolution than anything from a 9x18 camera. Check out their website and zoom in on the little detail of the Golden Gate Bridge, and see if that doesn't make you say "whoa," nonchalantly like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix when that other guy jumped over to the other building.
~cj
www.chrisjordan.com
Chris,
Does Massimo Vitali have a web site? I shoot 11x14 B+W and would be interested in seeing his work. Thanks.
-Bruce
Bruce -
Here's a sample:
http://www.consarc-ch.com/galle/vitali2.html
Chris, please tell me how is his work amazing. I have never seen color prints more washed out than those I have just seen on the monitor. I really hope it is a monitor thing.
...I'm with Christian
Never mind the washed out print, where's the content?
On Massimo Vital's work, why are people jumping on him based on looking at a few pics on a website?
I'm not sure he "raises the bar" for color large format work ... I think I'd still spend more time with Stephen Shore's or Mike Smith's work ... but the few pictures I saw on that site were very, very good. Certainly more subtlety and depth than I see in the camera club type images shown by most people who call themselves "large format photographers."
Other than that, I'm not going to judge someone's printing abilities, color or otherwise, from a website.
If I only saw a few 200-pixel wide jpgs of Eggleston's or Shore's pictures, I'd think they suck too. This is probably a failure of website design and not making the images big enough. Because they fear somebody will steal a properly sized 700-pixel wide image, they put up tiny 200 pixel wide images that are worthless.
Massimo's book is on sale at Amazon. It is simply amazing; anyone who is interested in color photography should have this one. I've been a big fan of Stephen Shore for years also, along with Misrach, Sternfeld, Gursky, etc. In my opinion this book raises the bar on them all.
For the guys who don't "get" his images, I understand the reaction. What I do when I don't get someone's work is to give it another chance; try a little harder. All good art requires some patience and some affirmative effort on the part of the viewer; the reason it is good is that it pushes a boundary somewhere, and in the pushing of the boundary, it causes you to see something in a way you haven't seen before, which is not always easy or comfortable. Some people's work is simple and sugary and you get it instantly; the work of some others is more sophisticated and requires some sitting through until you get the more complex message. Massimo's is in the latter category. Be willing to have some some faith in all the people who think he is one of the world's great photographers; consider the possibility that they are seeing something that is worth seeing, and so try working harder at discovering what it is. With his work it doesn't take long, especially when you are looking at his incredible book. I can't comment on how his JPEG's look on uncalibrated laptop monitors, but considering that his originals are 11x14 (and in some instances three 11x14's side by side) and his prints are 6x7 feet, it's probably fair to say that 24k JPEG's don't do them justice.
~cj
www.chrisjordan.com
Why is it that every time a photographer makes an onrdinary picture of an ordinary subject and prints it big we are told it is great and we just dont "get" it?
When I view a print on a monitor I give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and preffer to think of the prints as perfectly printed. In this case, I am thinking the prints have incredible subtle tonalities not apparent on the monitor. That the colors are in some parts vibrant and striking and in some parts are incredibly subtle pastels with gorgeous detail. Even so, I dont want to see 6'x7' vacation shots.
As one magazine editor told me, being a technically exceptional printer does not make you a photographer.
I dont get this idea that just because the print is big and technically well printed it is a "great" picture. Nor do I buy the idea that just because it was done with a big camera and was perhaps a difficult shot that it is good.
As far as I can see, these are not very hard shots to make even with an 11x14. Slap a 400 speed color film, focus on far subjects so you dont have to use extreme DOF and you are capable of using very fast speeds, specially in sunny weather...I know, I do it all the time with my 12x20.
Most confusing to me is this notion that one has to "work" at "getting" some art.....is there really something speciall in this prints? or is it just the case that because these prints are huge people are refusing to see that the king is really naked?......IMO it is the latter....
Ok:
I had another look using Jorge's advice and no, I see nothing noteworthy in these images.
Fair enough, the good majority of my work is probably family album stuff but, unless someone explains it to me, I just think they are little more than snaps.
Obviously I have no intention of belittling anyones work and if he/they are reading this I offer my unreserved apologies for any distress I may have caused.
I collaborate with Massimo Vitali and I make the scans from his negatives, postproduction etc..
Take a look:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/
M
'high-resolution' camera? Leica, Minox, etc. I suspect the lens on that camera is pretty low resolution.Quote:
Retired physicist Graham Flint and his wife, Catherine Aves, pose with the custom-built high-resolution camera.
Excuse me, how big is a pixel? How tall is a tree? What is the distance between here and far away?Quote:
One of Flint's three gigapixel cameras
The pixels in my ten-yottapixel 8x10 camera are smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by federico9001
Nice, thanks for sharing.
That particular camera is a surplus K-38 9x18 aerial photography camera, used by Graham Flint for the Gigapxl project.Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Link does not define the size of a pixel. Or the size of a tree or the distance from here-to-there. "Megapixel" is not a unit of resolution. It reads like advertizing jibberish. Are they selling something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
They have a large format camera. Hey I have one also, so do you. What is the big deal.
You mean besides something as in, "my snapshot is really, really, really big, so it has more meaning than your snapshot," that sort of something? I thought he was chasing grant money. As for pixels-per-mm, try the technology page, where Flint discusses the Asymmagon.
edit: Oh, I see, the two guys behind this are optical engineers. Gigascapes has one of the two cameras built by them.
How could anyone not "get" Vitali's work? Seriously. The guy photographs the most beautiful beaches in the world. The palette of the pictures makes a perfect compliment to the decor of your second home. It's some of the most accessible, easy to digest work out there.
I think that what bugged Jorge about Vitali and other "print it big" photographers is that the "wow" factor comes from the print being huge.
How does Vitali compare with Adams? Beach scene vs Moonrise? One is, "oh, that's nice." The other is, "oh, yeah!" One is just about any good day at the beach, and the other is a chance, unrepeatable happenstance.
The big prints should, instead, be compared to a Kodak Colorama. Did those have brilliant content, or did they sort of look like vacation snapshots?
None of these gets close to a Kodak Colorama's size, though. 18ft x 60ft, and at the last Kodak was using cropped 35mm. So, if 11x14 is used, then a print 178ft x 593ft should be made. That would be about nine stories high and two city blocks long.
So the real problem is that these prints are too small! Ross, Flint, and Vitali are all a bunch of wussy pikers!
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by frotog
... couldn't disagree more! This might put a few things into perspective:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended...assimo_vitali/
Yep, not all of his work is equally striking, but when he nails it, he really does produce extraordinary pictures, imo.