Its called being a monitor for 4 years......
Its called being a monitor for 4 years......
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
The negative may be the score and the print the performance but someone else besides the actual photographer is probably at a disadvantage playing another's score because the photographer actually saw the scene that inspired the score. The original perception, reaction, emotions, et of the photographer to the subject matter is a relationship that is hard to equal or better. It would be fascinating to see what someone else might draw out of your negative, but they are late to the game and at a disadvantage when an experienced photographer is at work I would think.
Hey, fellas, what do you say we knock off all this thinkin' and philosophyin' and pour ourselves a beer?
The opposite possibility is interesting, too. Perhaps the original photographer, when he or she looks at their own image "accidentally" includes in their own reaction to that image stuff that isn't really in that image--how comfortable the air temperature, how tired they were, what was going on in their lives. But none of that "on the screen" so to speak. Another photographer, reacting to just what is in the image and not to all that other stuff, might have a purer view of that photograph...Originally Posted by Robert Langham
The negative may be the score and the print the performance but someone else besides the actual photographer is probably at a disadvantage playing another's score because the photographer actually saw the scene that inspired the score. The original perception, reaction, emotions, et of the photographer to the subject matter is a relationship that is hard to equal or better. It would be fascinating to see what someone else might draw out of your negative, but they are late to the game and at a disadvantage when an experienced photographer is at work I would think.
--Darin
A purer view of that photograph but not a better sense of the experience of actually being there at that time interacting with the landscape. In my case I am far more interested in getting the feel of a place rather than just an accurate representation of what it looked like.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Going from Doug's statement into Ansel's words that you quoted isn't distillation, it's a total non sequitur.
"Oftentimes, the composers intention goes lost. Every "interpreter" believes they have an insight in to the intent of the composer, but with the myriad interpretations out there, who can say anymore what the composer really wanted."
OH SHIT
help people understand that creating a negative was part of a whole that included printing, a perfect negative is not the goal.
A golf swing that gets the ball deep into the fairway and onto the green is a good one
it can be ugly but still good
an ugly swing is more likely to produce errant shots so you at the very least need to perfect your ugly swing
..into a perfect ugly one.
a photographer who does not care about the negative beyond "barely good enough" is really just being lazy
My question
if a songwriter writes the lyrics and has another talented singer perform them
why is it nobody knows who these songwriters are?
Shouldn't they be nearly as famous?
Even legendary singer/performers have written lyrics to beloved songs that they can not themselves perform for various reasons
yet who knows that they actually wrote the song? not many at all.
If you don't perform the song nobody -on the whole- gives a crap
seems strange
What hasn't been mentioned here yet is the obvious extension to the analogy.
It's easy to imagine the score and the performance- I think it was ROL who mentioned the dance that described the act of printing, itself analogous to the antics of the conductor driving all the instruments at his disposal. It describes a live involvement in a moment in time that can never be exactly replicated twice, even if the nuances of different performances may be very difficult to differentiate.
The question is, does the analogy still hold true in the age of synthesizers? Digital music has been performed live since the sixties, and can be as exciting as any other form of music, to those who are willing to listen and not pander to their innate prejudices.
Can the analogy be extended to ask- If the negative is the score, and the print the performance, is an inkjet print the recording? Can it be described as a Unit?
By the same token, nothing interferes more with a great concept than a lousy execution.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks