How did those Wet Plate togs get perfect plates compared w dirty modern stuff?

[bob carnie]

Sandys , current Carbon Prints are on a platform by themselves, absolutely beautiful prints.

[rdenney]

Sandy really hits the nail on the head, as usual. The problem is not with the flaws, the problem is with our sometimes inability to do things on purpose.

Yet another musical analogy: The battle between technique and expression is intense for musicians. Many musicians spend decades practicing drills and scales to achieve technical perfection, and the time they spend doing that must have an effect on their expression. Their expression cannot usually escape mental processes that have been trained all those hours on mundane technical skills.

The expressionists often complain about that effect and its stultifying effect on art. The technicians counter by saying that without technique, any art that emerges is an accident. The expressionist applaud those accidents as being an essentially human process. Blah, blah, blah.

Here's what I know from a life spent listening to music: Genius in expression shines through weakness in technique, but often only with great difficulty. There are certainly examples where the idea conquered the limitations of technique, and one example that comes to mind is the Ramones. By their own admission, they were not really good musicians, but they had an idea that resonated despite those limitations. Part of the reason it did is because they understood their limitations of technique and stayed within those lines.

Which brings me to another point: Great technicians can develop powerful expressions that take advantage of their superior technique, if that expressive genius is within them. Yes, it is possible to be a great technician without being an expressive genius, and it is also true that those who lack expressive genius fall back on technical mastery as a substitute.

Poor technicians can also develop powerful expressions within the limitations of their technique, adopting processes that are easy enough for them to implement without getting in the way of their expressive ideas. Yes, it is possible to be an expressive genius without attaining real technical mastery.

The problem lies with those who lack technical mastery attempting expressive modes that depend on it. The Ramones defined a whole new genre in popular music, but you didn't see any of them sitting in the New York Philharmonic. Yet there have been many popular musicians fully qualified to perform classical music, such as, say, Keith Emerson to pick just one of many examples. If the Ramones tried to do what Emerson, Lake and Palmer did, they would have failed miserably, but then what they did do was a reaction to the album rock that had become an excuse for interminable guitar and drum solos by (hopefully) master technicians.

One thing I learned in my years of play in my own darkroom is that I will never devote the time needed to develop the sort of technical mastery my preferred mode of expression requires. That leaves me with two choices: Find a different mode of expression, or find a different means of technical development. The digital world has actually opened doors for me, because of its precision and determinism. Does that make things too easy? I don't see how. The hard part for me has always been finding something worthwhile to say with a photograph, and that was no easier (nor was it more difficult) when using a wet darkroom.

My skills as a musician are limited at best. Again, I will never devote the time necessary to develop real technical mastery. But then I'm not trying to audition for the local professional symphony, either, nor am I scheduling recitals. No, I play in a community band where I can contribute positively and still gain satisfaction from having made those contributions.

Another important feature that I observe of expressive geniuses: They are driven by some internal motor to develop technical mastery over the form of expression demanded by their genius. If the music that drives a young musician requires technical mastery, you'll find them in their practice rooms playing those scales endlessly. Those who cannot muster up such devotion perhaps often lack the drive for that mode of expression in the first place. They end up frustrated, even when they do attain a high level of technique, because it isn't enough. They end up playing the same community band I do, and sometimes they come to terms with that, but often they just quit altogether.

I've quit photography a couple of times, and maybe that's part of why I did so. Maybe I just didn't have the drive to develop technical mastery because I'd already explored the limits of my expressiveness. But there's something there: I keep coming back.

Many years ago, I was having a beer at a bar across from the stage door of the Majestic Theater in San Antonio. My company was Lee Hipp, then and still the tuba player in the San Antonio Symphony, and we were chatting about the concert that had just concluded. Based on a discussion I was having with mates in an amateur orchestra, I asked Lee which was more important: Technique, or musical expression. His answer: "Yes."

For some photographers, the flaws of wet plate are their mode of expression, and they use it well. For others, it's a mask that they hope hides their limited expressive abilities. As with any "effect", one must ask: Does it support the artistic purpose, or does it distract from it? It's quite amazing how easy it is to answer that when viewing work, at least for oneself. Wet plate photographers from the time when wet plates were the dominant technology were mostly paid for technical perfection, not for artistic expression. Their mode of expression demanded high levels of technique, and they did what they had to do to develop that technique. I doubt it took more practice time than the average orchestral musician of the same era spent playing scales.

Rick "amazed when modern musicians 'discover' that century-old instruments can be played well" Denney

[goamules]

I think I agree with Rick, but it's a lot to read to be sure! Pouring consistent, very good plates (I think it's almost impossible to do perfect wetplate) has been my goal for the several years I've been doing wet plate. 'Tisn't easy. It does take work and some luck to get a good, clean plate.

Interestingly most of the comments on my or anyone's collodion shots talk mostly about the flaws. Many outsiders actually think flaws and other signs of carelessness are intentional methods the artist is using to make a plate more interesting. "Oooh, I love the way [overexposure, fogging, torn edges] dramatizes the intrinsic [evil, good, futility] of your [flower, face, skull...].

I guess because it's such a different look, people love even hosed shots, because you don't get any weird problems with most other processes. Unfortunately, these artifacts and problems have become the goal for a lot of shooters. Basically, when you can get rave reviews or even be on the cover of a photography magazine with quite flawed plates, some probably figure they'll just keep doing what they're doing.

[Dave Wooten]

Sandys , current Carbon Prints are on a platform by themselves, absolutely beautiful prints.

What Bob said.

[Ray Bidegain]

To answer Franks question about the old timers perfect plates. I think that they probably scanned them, and then they cropped the scene, adjusted the contrast and density, removed all the flaws and finally stripped on a fake stock wet plate edge. Why they would do such a bullsh**t thing is beyond me but it made for perfect looking photographs when they posted them on the web.

Ray Bidegain

[Mark Sawyer]

To answer Franks question about the old timers perfect plates. I think that they probably scanned them, and then they cropped the scene, adjusted the contrast and density, removed all the flaws and finally stripped on a fake stock wet plate edge...

Hell, today's photographers are photoshopping the flaws in: