No, it's a normal white light bulb shot at 3-1 and reversed to a enlarged negative print with an internegative.
I thought it related to your image. As your image made me think of mine.
Originally Posted by Joe O'Hara
No, it's a normal white light bulb shot at 3-1 and reversed to a enlarged negative print with an internegative.
I thought it related to your image. As your image made me think of mine.
Tin Can
Some things do look very strange when presented as a negative.
Others, as a positive ;-)
I think it's actually an incubator for little alien embryos. Sigourney Weaver is probably somewhere in the background. Nice one, Randy!
I'm sorry I have not heard of the concept of "equivalence" as it seems to pertain to photography. I started to read the link in the first posting, but it is rather obtuse. Is there a clear definition of equivalence? I like the photos shown, but I am not getting the connection.
Pieter, that word was I believe first used as a concept in fine-art photography by Alfred Stieglitz (1865-1946), an American photographer, gallerist, and critic.
Like most terms used in the discussion of art works, it is murky and obtuse indeed, to me at least. It seems to refer to the idea that a photograph can evoke
in the viewer concepts or feelings that are completely independent of the subject matter. Stieglitz, for example, titled a number of his cloud photographs "Equivalent".
Naturally, exactly "what" they are supposed to be equivalent to, is never stated.
Not everyone considers this idea meaningful or helpful. Edward Steichen, a contemporary of Stieglitz, scoffed that "They aren't equivalent to anything. They're
just clouds". (Actually, they aren't even that. They are just photographs of clouds.)
You will probably get many other points of view on your question in this thread. My personal opinion is that aesthetic discussions, including that of "equivalence", are futile and inherently content-free. Don't feel that you're missing out on anything important, though. You aren't.
I thought religious discussions were taboo.
The term "Equivalents" is what Stieglitz actually used. I've seen his master set, and these indeed represent striking emotional "equivalents of what he saw and felt" at the time of the shot. It was a major theme in early to mid 20th C photography, and was preached by Minor White as if it were a religion; but he too did it exceptionally well. It differs from Surrealism, which was also popular around the same time, but try to simulate perhaps weirder or more deliberate responses of the subconscious, often unfortunately with a bit of pre-hippie non-darkroom chemical help.
Tin Can
White remarked, “One should photograph things not only for what they are but also for what else they are.” and “Equivalence is a function, not a thing.”
from : http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blo...5/equivalence/
JPC son/student of Paul Caponigro, student of Minor White, etc...
Carries it even more forward describing resonance as the consequence of equivalence.
I make an effort to understand it, but realize it's all a bunch of inadequate words. We work in the realm of photography because words are often inadequate in some manner.
Last edited by jp; 22-Jan-2019 at 20:02.
Thanks for the link, Randy. Many wonderful images there. I will have to make more of a study of Stieglitz
than I have so far.
Equivalence is "a thing", but it is better to do it, rather than talk about it.
After all, that is what cameras are for.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks