What makes a good photograph---or what makes a photograph good?

[John Kasaian]

This is a response to Tim's post of Kodak's latest announcement about photographic materials, but I thought it might stand in it's own better than being added to Tim's post.

I wonder if I'm too concerned about the materials used in the process. Contributors here will embrace the merits of platinum or AZO, pyrocat or Xtol, Tmax or Efke(or colloidion). Its a matter of personal preference, right? We choose our tools and make pictures, but its the photograph that matters, right? Some tools are more fun than others, some have a different "look" than others, but when does the process and the tools used become more important than the results you hold in your hand or hang on the wall?

I'm not saying tools and technique aren't important, and it really gets to me when any manufacturer stops making a product I've become comfortable using, but the world still goes on. Great photographs have been taken with unsophisticated equiptment and chemistry, too.

Would EW, Karsh or Kertez throw in the towel if a favorite product went extinct, or would they adapt to what was available and continue making great photos? I wonder how many discontinued products these guys lamented over and for how long---or were they more interested in taking the next photo to stress much about it?

What do you think about this?-------Cheers!

[wfwhitaker]

Frederick Evans reputedly did (throw in the towel) at word of the discontinuance of commercially available platinum papers. And today platinum printing not only lives, it thrives.



While I'm not ready to run for fear of being hit by pieces of falling sky, I am hedging my bets and keeping a couple of 8x10 plate holders around just in case.

[Nick Morris]

Q: What makes a good photograph---or what makes a photograph good? A: A good photographer.

[Tim Curry]

Any concerns about supply should be addressed with the judicious application of money and common sense. Buy as much as you can afford to store.

Good photograph? My taste is in my mouth.

[Nick Morris]

John, I'd like to add to my previous post: an appreciative audience. But more to your question of materials, I'd like to also add... for many years I attempted to play guitar. And over the course of those years I played on a variety of instruments. What I found was that regardless of the instrument, I sounded pretty much the same. That's not to say that the instruments sounded the same. Instruments of better quality sounded better, offered more nuance, richer and more refined in the tone...but my playing, the music (?) I produced sounded the same. I think it is that way with photographic process. A good photograher will get his vision out of the materials at hand, like a good musician will get his sound and music out of most any insrument. The hardship is the learning curve; the time lost and the monetary expense. It still comes down to why we do it in the first place. Its not to make an Azo print, its to make a print that satisfies our need for expression. No?

[Bruce Barlow]

A really important question! When is enough enough?

For what it's worth, I think knowledge of materials (and equipment) is important to the extent that you have explored materials enough to know what looks best with your work. Once you know that, you know what the materials do, so you don't have to think about them very much when you're making the photograph. Ditto your equipment. But it goes not farther than than if your real objective is to make pictures worth looking at.

Materials and equipment use should be mechanical. Making pictures should be creative. Don't be creative when you should be mechanical, and don't be mechanical when you should be creative.

The best way to learn to be properly mechanical and creative is to do it! And isn't doing it what we want? Experience is the best teacher, if one approaches every experience as a lesson to be learned.

I'm much more mechanical in handling my 4x5 after making several hundred Polaroid portraits of people. I can manipulate my camera in the dark (although I don't often photograph in the closet). I can find every control by touch, including setting the aperture on the lens to where I want it, without looking. That means I'm fast, which can sometimes be a godsend.

I've got a FAR greater sense of materials after testing 11 papers in 11 different developers and lining up the prints to look at. I now know what works best for ME (not necessarily for anyone else), but that came after 40-plus hours in the darkroom making about 500 prints. I know what I like, I know what kinds of pictures I make, and I know what I like less with my pictures. Wow! That's a lot!

Having said all that, I clearly recognize that there are many folks for whom the processes and equipment are more the ends than the means. We often call them gadget heads, and in my old age of 49 I have come to accept them and welcome them. We all seek different satisfactions from this medium and its processes, and if those folks enjoy cameras, lenses and chemicals seemingly more than actually making a lot of wonderful pictures, that's OK by me. In fact, they'll do more to keep the traditional materials alive than many of the rest of us!

[David L.]

Q: "What makes a good photograph - or what makes a photograph good?"

A: Good content.

[Donald Miller]

The ability to "see" what others don't "see".

[Walter Foscari]

Most discussions on analog vs. digital resolve with the statement that digital is just another tool introduced to allow photographers to do the same kind of stuff that they have been doing for the last century and a half, only more easily, faster and more conveniently.

Does it ever occur to anybody that perhaps the differences are not quantitative but qualitative? That is, that digital photography is essentially different in nature than the traditional chemical process? And that as such it should be recognized as a new and distinct activity (too early to call it art form). Conceptually I think of digital and analog prints as apples and oranges. Perhaps once things have been sorted out, traditional and digital methods will take off in different directions and produce distinct results instantly recognizable within the range of the visual arts, the same way that a painting and a photograph are now.

Personally I can hardly wait.

[Mark_3632]

I was sitting in a coffee house, eaves dropping for a social anthropology assignment in Tucson while I was in college. An art student and an art professor were at the table next to me. They were talking about equipment. The student was raving on and on about a set of brushes she had ordered that had freed her to create, but the price of the brushes precluded her from getting any more. This seemed to upset her. She asked the professor where he got his brushes, he said Wal-mart. Whether he wanted to get the coed away from him or make a point I don't know but this conversation has always stuck with me. The tools are tools, they are what gets you to the final print or slide. I will not die or throw in the towel if film leaves. I won't be happy about it but as long as there is a way for me to create an image I'll be fine. Probably coat my own plates if I have to.

For me, what makes a good photograph is the same as what makes a good painting or other 2d piece of art: emotion.

[Paul Metcalf]

Number 1 consideration in what makes a good photograph and a photograph good?

"It's in the eye of the beholder"

Scan this forum and the evidence is obvious. Everyone has their approach, and opinions. The viewer(s) of your prints (or negatives if that's the final product) ultimately provides the answer. In my one attempt to be a wedding photographer using B&W, what I thought was the worst picture/print (dull, low contrast, underexposed) was the newly wed couple's favorite. It showed the groom and his nephew (who was the ring bearer) at the end of the reception, tux coats off and ties undone, standing in subdued light and looking exhausted as if a major milestone/event had just passed by. They felt it summarized their emotions on the day completely, and they show it to everyone (much to my dismay because technically it's pretty marginal).

[John Kasaian]

Interesting discussion so far. What got me thinking about this is that for me, process, equiptment, and materials are such a satisfying part of photography, LF in particular, that it really is difficult to seperate them from the print---the prints I make more than the prints from other photographers whom I admire, although I do find kind of the same feeling in most photos that "draw" me in.

For example: a print of a an extinct volcano. For me it contains all the elements I experienced, not only taking the photograph---the temperature---the smell of the forest and trail dust, the chaffing of the pack strap that wasn't hitting me quite right---setting up the ancient 'dorff---watching the gg spring to life---the sound of the wind coming up the canyon is as sensual as the whiff of D-76, the clank of the amber glass jug when I set it down after pouring out the chemical---the sound of the Unicolor base humming along---putting paper in the easel and watching an image magically appear in a tray under the safelight. All this I'd like to convey to the viewer(yes, I know this is unrealistic) but it is elemental in my appreciation of my own work.

The materials used don't matter as much as the confidence I have in using those materials. Whenever I'm forced (or choose)to use a different product I am trusting the whole of the experience to something that didn't come in a yellow envelope(perhaps this says more about Kodak's reputation/PR than I'd like) but I can and do have confidence in other products by other manufacturers---I've been forced to really---by Kodak's marketing practices. So switching to new materials and products aren't an issue of life and death(for me, anyway)

New processes(digital---no [point beating around the bush) is a different matter. I agree with Walter on this one. Digital is not traditional and comparisons, though inevitable, are IMHO as pointless as comparing hierloom tomatos with the latest hybreds. They may appear similar, but the seeds were planted with very different expectations.

Any thoughts?

[tim atherton]

"New processes(digital---no [point beating around the bush) is a different matter. I agree with Walter on this one. Digital is not traditional and comparisons, though inevitable, are IMHO as pointless as comparing hierloom tomatos with the latest hybreds. They may appear similar, but the seeds were planted with very different expectations."

John, could you clarify what you mean by "digital" in this? In the same vein, Walter, where is the "qualitative" difference in say one of Chris Jordan's (or mine, for that matter) 8x10 colour photographs, shot on print film, scanned, adjusted and sized in Photoshop and then printed via a lightjet or such onto traditional colour paper that is then processed in exactly the same way as a similar print from the same negative, exposed via my labs 10x10 enlarger, colour adjusted and sized etc by the technician onto exactly the same brand of paper. What exactly is the difference in essence, as you describe it, between the two?

Or is this not "digital" I wonder?

[Mark_3632]

"the seeds were planted with very different expectations"

Were they? Can a digital photographer remember the trail, the backpack, setting up the camera, watching the image come to life on the screen. The sole purpose of a LF camera is to create an image. The sole purpose of a digital camera is to create an image. Does it really matter if one records the light on a sensor or a piece of film? One might say that the seeds of a color neg user were planted with different expectations, same as a color transparency user.

"the sound of the wind coming up the canyon is as sensual as the whiff of D-76"

Parfum de D-76:)? What have you been smoking?

In my opinion analog photographers are beginning to sound a lot like painters at the advent of photography.

I do not use digital. A computer is not the tool I choose to create my final image, but I see the potential and maybe someday I'll add it to the already bulging camera selection. But I doubt it. I seem to be running backward on the technology highway.

[Rory_3532]

Regarding the last few posts on digital, Ansel Adams said the following way back in 1981 in the introduction to the final edition of The Negative:

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

[tim atherton]

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

An interesting Adam's quote - (which has been used on here before). To me, two very interesting points that cut across the two strands of this thread.

First - on the electronic (digital) image: "Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics" - One of the exciting things about digital photography is that in many ways these "inherent and structural characteristics" are much broader, more flexible and plastic than those of traditional photography, which opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities and directions (but also see below).

Secondly, "the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them." - that is comprehend and control the inherent and, to Adams, apparently inescapable structural characteristics of, presumably, traditional as well as digital photography. Which seems to highlight the main flaw and limitation of Adam's work and overall method (the Zone system, if you like, for shorthand). Adams sees those characteristics as inescapable and indeed, found very good and effective ways to comprehend and control them - that is perhaps the overarching characteristic of his body of work (and a very useful practical one). But the truly great artist (as opposed to, in Adams terms, "the artist") finds way to bend and break out of those characteristics that Adams seems to consider inherent and inescapable - the great artists have always done that, in every form of art. Adams, in the end sought to control rather than break the boundaries.

So, what makes a good photograph? One where the photographer finds a way to break free of those seemingly inherent and inescapable structural characteristics that otherwise would limit it.

[John Kasaian]

tim,

I'm not sure really. Is there a difference between a digital print of a traditional negative(hybred process?) and a photographic print fro, a conventional negative? How about a photographic print from a digitally produced negative? Perhaps it would be more like a process a professional shop that presents art prints would use, rather than a conventional time, temperature, chemical process--- in that context, not very clear cut at all, but I was referring to a process where images could digitally be manipulated to represent the artisit's imagination(not that this couldn't be done photographically) using digital technology rather than a 2d representation of the physical world thats more limited by 19th century based technology. The difference then, would be one of limitations as well as the characteristics inherent in the different processes(pixel vs. halides, etc...)

I'd hate for this to get into yet another digital vs traditional debate, but you've brought up in interesting point: If tomorrow, all photographic chemicals were outlawed, say due to enviornmental concerns or something(the way the EEC is headed, maybe not so far fetched!) and we were all forced to get digi backs and epsons in order to continue making pictures, how many of us would?

[tim o'brien]

Everyone has a set of parameters that make him or her tick. This extends into the photgraphic realm. For me, what makes photography work for me is the process. I like the results, but ya know, without the control of the process, I would be bored out of my gourd. So, when film leaves the process, I leave the craft. I sit too many hours in front of a computer as it is, I program robots to pay the bills. To spend more to create an image that I cannot touch, it isn't worth it.

I respect all who put the image above all. It just doesn't define my place in the photographic world.

tim in san jose

[Walter Foscari]

Tim, in response to your question: 'where is the "qualitative" difference...' The fact that you introduce photoshop into the equations makes all the difference. Despite what critics and historians of photography like to say, traditional methods have always retained in the eyes of most people a degree of authenticity that has marked photography as essentially different from the other visual art. Now, I am very aware that theoreticians of the medium like to label that as an illusory quality but their arguments have always sounded a little contrived to me (and in fact most non-specialists feel that way). The reason being that the various manipulations that can be introduced into the traditional process are limited, and so much work is required to radically alter a picture and get away with it that by and large that is not considered. But that has changed with the advent of digital processes and the ease with which radical manipulations of an image can be performed.

Example: assume that I use a sophisticated rendering software to generate a view of St. Peter Basilica and print a high definition view of it. Assume that I also travel to Rome and take a picture of the “real” St. Peter from the same angle and light conditions. Do you consider the two prints the same thing? Should there be a conceptual difference between the two images? And from a certain point of view don’t you find this a little disorienting.

[John D Gerndt]

"New processes(digital---no [point beating around the bush) is a different matter. I agree with Walter on this one. Digital is not traditional and comparisons, though inevitable, are IMHO as pointless as comparing hierloom tomatos with the latest hybreds. They may appear similar, but the seeds were planted with very different expectations. Any thoughts? " --John Kasaian



John, stepping outside the idea of crossbred digichem-kinda stuff I feel you ananology holds well. What makes a photograph good has to do with intent and aesthetic. I like certain tomatoes and not others and by golly if my favorite becomes extinct then there is a real loss in my world, yet I would not choose to starve or even give up on anything that needed a tomato. I would always miss what was once a favorite though. And yes, I too am enamored of all those tiny things that go into the darkroom process as I know it now, such as the smells and sounds of darkroom work. Some people just get more out of the experience than others J

I shoot all formats except digital (for pleasure anyway, I do use digital images for the internet). I expect different results from each format so, what makes a good photograph changes! Again, it is intent and aesthetic. Drop one of my favorite materials from my list of tools and I am reduced, but I can concentrate on some other materials and learn them. I have to learn a new aesthetic, develop a new intent. It is a drag, but sometimes it turns out to be a plus. Sometimes it takes me in a new direction I might have never gone in. One has to embrace change or be defeated by it.

"So, what makes a good photograph? One where the photographer finds a way to break free of those seemingly inherent and inescapable structural characteristics that otherwise would limit it. " --tim atherton

Tim, A valid opinion but its opposite is just as valid. One can embrace the limitations and work with them, use them to spur creative solutions that do NOT defy the boundaries. Shakespeare is the best example of that kind of work.

For art to be shared there must be some way for we who take it in to get something out of it so something about it is/has to be of a convention. We honor (usually after they are dead) those who develop new conventions from old conventions, but it is not the sole marker of a good artist or of good art.



Some very conventional art has changed forever my perceptions, expanded mine and many other people’s view of the nature of this human experience. I can find this variety in many a public museum. I have seen a few photographs of this variety too. Finding where one's thoughts take this form, this uniquely-suited-to-you-as-an-artist form, is the real trick. When one believes one has found this and a certain supplier changes his materials some cannot cope. Most of us get by, some cannot.

[tim atherton]

"The fact that you introduce photoshop into the equations makes all the difference. Despite what critics and historians of photography like to say, traditional methods have always retained in the eyes of most people a degree of authenticity that has marked photography as essentially different from the other visual art. Now, I am very aware that theoreticians of the medium like to label that as an illusory quality but their arguments have always sounded a little contrived to me (and in fact most non-specialists feel that way). The reason being that the various manipulations that can be introduced into the traditional process are limited, and so much work is required to radically alter a picture and get away with it that by and large that is not considered"

I'd have to say I disagree. You could perhaps say it is a popular misconception that in photography "traditional methods have always retained in the eyes of most people a degree of authenticity". The artificial., unreal often false and never quite true nature of the photograph is something it's practitioners have always understood and utilized from the earliest days of the medium. I'd also say many many more people than you seem to give credit for are well aware that "the camera never lies" has a;ways been blatant falsehood, for all sorts of reasons.

This is why I see the Photoshop aspects of digital photography to be a new and expanded aspect of something following along the same continuum. Not, in that aspect, something qualitatively different.

"The reason being that the various manipulations that can be introduced into the traditional process are limited, and so much work is required to radically alter a picture and get away with it that by and large that is not considered" - on the contrary, it may have taken more resources than one photographer with Photoshop on his desktop can now muster, but such manipulations are far from extraordinary.

See http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/index.htm for one of the most blatant and far reaching examples.

and similar widespread manipulations (though generally for different reason - such as sexual censorship or capitalist gain as opposed to political censorship) have taken place widely and continuously in the West. For example, much advertising or magazine photography has been manipulated in one form or another - razor and cut and paste, airbrush, hand done retouching - for at least the last 75 years or so, and viewed by probably millions of ordinary viewers, who, by and large, don't question it until it becomes blatantly obvious, though most attainan awareness of it at some level. In the last few year they have used photoshop, but go back say 10 years and you could have picked dozens of magazines off any newstand where the cover was manipulated sans Photoshop, never mind what was inside.

[Graeme Hird]

Q: "What makes a good photograph - or what makes a photograph good?"

A: Editing

----------------------------------------------------

I don't think the process is in any way important to the subjective analysis of whether the picture is "good". If the artist thinks the picture is good, and the public think the picture is good, it's good. How it became a good picture doesn't come into the equation.

A true artist will produce worthy images with any medium that he/she is proficient with. A plodder will never produce a good image except through luck, no matter which process is used. (A plodder can become an artist by becoming proficient with a process, though proficiency does not guarantee artisitic merit.)

Graeme

[sanking]

There can never be one answer to the question as to what makes a photograph good. Photographs are made with many different objective in mind: fashion, fine art, journalistic, scientific, pornography, etc. and there are different standards for success in each of these areas. If a photograh succeeds in satifying its objectives then it by necessity is a good photograph within the field, IMHO.

Many of us are rather exclusively interested in one or another of these areas, in many cases fine art. However, bear in mind that even within this one specific area there are no permanent standards because taste in art changes over time, and is at best local and transitory. For example, the pictorial work of Henry Robinson, very popular in its time, is very little appreciated today. People may one day look at the work of many contemporary artists and those of our recent past in the same way.

[matthew blais]

An age old question. Personal choice/preference/conditioning, et al, all play a role in determining what we as individuals perceive as good. I think it's ok to like a photograph (or painting or etching or whatever) because of the excellence of execution or for it's composition or for it's subject matter or for the materials they chose. Even when only one of those elements are there. But my opinion, (subjective of course), is that I don't give a rats' arse if it was printed on azo, pimco, bimbo or whatever.. (bimbo?) If I like it, then to me, it's good.

What to me the question is, what makes a photograph GREAT? Is it big contacts on azo, or a state of the art scan printed on epson super duper, or because it's in a book, or anyone else's opinion? Or is it "just is"? Why try to explain it or understand it? So you can try to emulate it, achieve the same results? Seems contrary to the artists way.

My old art professor had a quote on his studio wall which read, "sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't". Paper ain't gonna make it magical. The size of your camera or negative or print won't make it better. It's just a medium. Do your own thing your own way on whatever is available and take joy in the opportunity to express yourself. There will always be a way to do so. This is of course, subject to subjectivity....

[Walter Foscari]

'You could perhaps say it is a popular misconception that in photography "traditional methods have always retained in the eyes of most people a degree of authenticity". The artificial., unreal often false and never quite true nature of the photograph is something it's practitioners have always understood and utilized from the earliest days of the medium. I'd also say many many more people than you seem to give credit for are well aware that "the camera never lies" has a;ways been blatant falsehood, for all sorts of reasons.'

I agree that almost nobody is so naïf to believe that "the camera never lies" and I was far from making a statement like that. But what I am talking about is a matter of degrees: photography so far has been, by and large, widely recognized as having to various degrees an indelible relation to reality, someone defined it as “spurious objectivity”. Irrespective of the illusory nature of this claim I have experienced it everywhere. And the fact that theoreticians often argue to prove the contrary just goes to prove how widespread it is. (By the way I think that the true nature of a medium is not defined by a handful of practitioners or critics but by its acceptance in the wider cultural milieu). Digital manipulation is simply putting an end to that. On the other hand, you provide the example of the manipulation of photography for political propaganda. Would the totalitarian state of the future be able to do the same? Would the public “believe” those doctored images in the same way that they believed them in the past? And if the answer is no, isn’t it and indication of the nature of the changes?

By the way Tim thanks for the link, I enjoied that.

[John Kasaian]

Interesting observation, Walter. One of my in-laws is an insurance fraud investigator who uses up a lot, I mean a whole lot of film. I would think he'd have gone to digital early on, but he hasn't and won't. Why? I asked and he responded that the courts(in California) won't admit digital images as evidence---to0 easily manipulated in photoshop. This conversation took place a few months ago. Verrry interesting!

[Ralph Barker]

"What makes a good photograph---or what makes a photograph good?"

I think that's a committee decision, John, and the committee is comprised of the photographer and the viewer. The photographer decides on some sort of balance between content, process, and presentation - then hands the result over to the viewer. If the photographer is pleased with the balance of content, process, and presentation, and it resonates with the viewer, it's a good photograph. If not, the photographer can try another viewer - or adjust the balance (aka style) so the photographs have meaning to a broader audience.

The quality and precision of the tools may, or may not have a role. There are lots of compelling photographs made either with poor equipment, or under conditions that rendered the equipment poor. But, there are far more bad photographs made with excellent gear, and/or with great attention to detail in the process involved.

There is no magic formula, as both photographers and viewers come in a variety of models. Each has to either create, or view, material that means something to them personally. There are, for example, many alternative processes that leave me cold, while lots of others swoon over the stuff. But, if there weren't a lot of room for different opinions, there wouldn't be anything left to discuss over a beer, or a cup of tea.

[John Kasaian]

My apologies everyone! The title I selected isn't the best and I stand before you a Troll. If judgements of good and bad applied to photographs are offensive, perhaps consider a photograph that you personally find satisfying. Is the selection of chosen materials a critical factor in whether or not your photograph satisfies?

Say you use products W,X,Y,&Z. You like working with them, you know them and you like the "look" they give to your photography. One morning you arise and find one of the alphabet soup has gone extinct. Do you adapt and survive? Do you give up? Do you mull over the loss, convincing yourself that none of your newer work will ever match the old stuff because the "magic bullet" is went down range? Or do you continue to try to make personally satisfying pictures with different materials?

This I think applies to materials. Processes, how we use the materials, seems to me to be more of a sensual issue. If I couldn't play with traditional (inclluding "alternative")photographic processes, I think I'd take up oils because oils satisfy my own senses better than pointing and clicking my mouse.

What do you think? What would you do?

[Graeme Hird]

John,

I'd learn the new medium and get on with it. As I and others implied earlier, the process is not as important as the artists' satisfaction with the end result. How that is achieved is up to the artist.

Digital or chemical capture - it doesn't matter to me. If it all went south, I'd paint.

[Steve J Murray]

Great discussion! To me what makes a great photo is the image itself, regardless of the orginal "capture medium" or printed form. A lot of great images appear in magazines like Life or National Geographic and we see them in crude printed form, yet, its the power of the image that captures the imagination. A great image becomes a stimulus for the mind and is remembered, and stored in the mind, ultimately. You recall it at will and see it in your mind. It no longer needs a medium at this point. Just my two cents.

[John Kasaian]

As an afterthought, I wonder if there is any record of who made Vermeer's paints? Or Michaelangelo's? I can imagine Buonarroti muttering something like:

"Gosh darn that Luigi! He discontinued gentian violet!"

------Cheers!;-)

[Ralph Barker]

I'd consider the materials to be part of the "process" chosen by the photographer to make a particular image, or a whole body of work. For me, if one of my favorite materials goes away, I find a substitute, learn it, and move forward. I switched from Agfa films to Kodak and then to Ilford. For a lot of folks (both photographers and image buyers), the materials and process are almost more important than the content of the image it seems. That's OK, too. Just a different perspective and a different emphasis.

As to oil paints, didn't many of the early painters grind their own pigments? (Rather like mixing and pouring one's own emulsion on glass plates.)

[Darin Cozine]

Oh look, another way too long thread where no one will read my thoughts. My view on this matter: There are two apects of astetics in photography. (say that 3 times fast!)

One aspect is the image itself. The image could be a traditional print, a magazine cover, or on a PC screen. But it is this image that provokes thought and emotion.

The second aspect is the craftsmanship of the print. A platinum print will look very different from a carbon inkjet print of the same image, as will a silver print or a cyanotype. Just as a hand-made marble statue will look diferent than a painted plaster cast, even if they are both excellent copies of the original. The craftwork involved in the print is part of the artistry. Ansel Adams had a good analogy in that 'the negatve is like the musical score and the print is like the performance'. [ive even heard that phraise used to dis the LF community!]

So I do think the print has a great deal to do with the astetics of the print. Digital photographers and artists are a little different than others because they can concentrate largely on the image itself (once the color palletes are corrected for monitors and printers, etc). This is where they really miss out. Allthough some people can get caught up in the craftsmanship and forget about the image. I've seen quite a few ultra-sharp prints that are utterly emotionless and thoughtless(for me at least, though maybee others are moved).

[tim atherton]

"As an afterthought, I wonder if there is any record of who made Vermeer's paints? Or Michaelangelo's? I can imagine Buonarroti muttering something like:

"Gosh darn that Luigi! He discontinued gentian violet!""

Actually John, the painters of the Dutch/Northern European school along many of the more southerly Renaissance masters were quite often incredibly secretive and concerned with their materials - seeking out certain sources etc. And there was a lot of what we might call Industrial Espionage among them to try and find out who exactly was using what and where/who they were getting it from. They guarded quite jealously their sources of materials and spent time developing the technical side of colours and pigments and such materials, along with the skills of those who worked for them producing these. Remember, most of them were working on and competing for major commissions and it was quite cut throat at times. In addition, many of them also actively sought out new approaches, new ways of doing things, new techniques, colours or equipment (for example, new ways of using optics or mirrors in composition, and so, who was the best mirror maker in Antwerp etc...). It was, most of the time, a very down to earth business (possibly you could say, in many ways, much more so than today)

[CP Goerz]

As a small aside to add to this interesting conversation.... The LAPD shoots crime scenes in film as it cannot be changed once the neg is shot unlike digital where a few blood drops/weapons could be added/taken away etc. Digital is used as a record of living people like the homeless who sometimes cannot remember their names or gang members who give different names.

Maybe Ansel was looking forward to digital but I don't think he would have used it to make his prints, he also had colour negative film available to him as well but never (to my knowledge) shot that. Not all that is new is improved.

CP Goerz

[tim atherton]

"Maybe Ansel was looking forward to digital but I don't think he would have used it to make his prints, he also had colour negative film available to him as well but never (to my knowledge) shot that. Not all that is new is improved."

What did he shoot for that whole "Ansel Adams in Colour" book? I though he shot quite a bit? (though he really didn't seem how to use colour - he just seemd to shoot what he shot in B&W i colour - and it really didn't work).

[Sal Santamaura]

"What did he shoot for that whole "Ansel Adams in Colour" book?"

Book's at home and I'm not, so can't be 100% certain, but recall it was Kodachrome and Ektachrome, no or very little color negative. I agree Tim, he did better working in black and white.

[tim o'brien]

The "Ansel Adams Coloring Book? Wow, I gotta get one of them.

tim

[Ralph Barker]

Tim - don't bother with the coloring book. The Zone Crayons are no longer available. ;-)

[Graeme Hird]

"The Zone Crayons are no longer available."

Damn! When Kodak announce that one? Guess I'll have to get the Fuji Pastels instead ......

[CP Goerz]

The 'AA in Color' book was shot with Ektachrome and Kodachrome. He also shot the Coloramas for Kodak in 7x17 Kodachrome on a Korona with a 12" Dagor for the most part.

CP Goerz