Saturday, December 18, 2004
Here's a batch of new work from recent and older film.
Jamaica Bay Seawall 3, Brooklyn NY - 2002
Jamaica Bay Seawall 2, Brooklyn NY - 2002
Ice Abstract - 2004
North Minneapolis 3 - 2004
North Minneapolis 4 - 2004
The 2004 pictures were taken two weeks ago.
I don't know if you can see it but some of these pictures have a very fine scratch which is across the negative. This is an intermittent holga camera problem. No matter which camera I use it pops up. I don't know if there's some magic solution to put on the negatives that can fix this--I kind of doubt it, but I will investigate. I've tried to make the area in the camera where the film comes in contact as smooth as possible. Also, the scratches are not in the same place from roll to roll--gremlins... And I like some of these pictures.
Should I care about this scratch issue? I obviously care, but I've talked to some people and they say it goes with the Holga photos and probably isn't that big of a deal.
If I didn't care about the scratch, than I probably shouldn't be spotting the dust spots on my prints, but I am. I'm fine with what happens when the photo is taken--the lens flare, the vignetting, the out of focus, etc. But I want the print to be clean, with no dust spots, or scratches. So now what? Do I bag the Holgas and head off in a different direction. I've thought about getting a 4x5 press camera, maybe I could get a 6x7 back for it so I can use 120mm roll film still. Or get a Bessa 35mm range finder and don't look back. The frickin' saga continues.
* * * * * * *
So if the Ansel Adam's quote is true, which I agree with: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
Than the person who uses an inkjet printer or gets machine prints made is essential playing a CD (a digital file) and not performing the score.
I used to print with an inkjet printer for a time until I realized it wasn't right for me. And you do not print each print individually, you push a button and an identical copy is made--just like a recording.
In a song you can play the same notes every time but it will sound slightly different because of mood, how much energy you have, finger placement isn't the same, etc. It is exactly the same with printing your own work in a darkroom.
Of course the digital printing crowd will argue that their prints are originals just like a darkroom print. But being someone who has done both, I feel this is a hollow arguement. Even when I was using an inkjet printer I had a hard time believing this arguement. I've even seen digital printers use the above Ansel Adams quote in relation to their working in Photoshop to tweak the image file, but they leave out the "Each performance differs in subtle ways" part. I think they miss the point of Ansel's comment.
* * * * * * *
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." --Ansel Adams
Ain't it the truth. Ansel must be rolling in his grave...
Jamaica Bay Seawall 3, Brooklyn NY - 2002
Jamaica Bay Seawall 2, Brooklyn NY - 2002
Ice Abstract - 2004
North Minneapolis 3 - 2004
North Minneapolis 4 - 2004
The 2004 pictures were taken two weeks ago.
I don't know if you can see it but some of these pictures have a very fine scratch which is across the negative. This is an intermittent holga camera problem. No matter which camera I use it pops up. I don't know if there's some magic solution to put on the negatives that can fix this--I kind of doubt it, but I will investigate. I've tried to make the area in the camera where the film comes in contact as smooth as possible. Also, the scratches are not in the same place from roll to roll--gremlins... And I like some of these pictures.
Should I care about this scratch issue? I obviously care, but I've talked to some people and they say it goes with the Holga photos and probably isn't that big of a deal.
If I didn't care about the scratch, than I probably shouldn't be spotting the dust spots on my prints, but I am. I'm fine with what happens when the photo is taken--the lens flare, the vignetting, the out of focus, etc. But I want the print to be clean, with no dust spots, or scratches. So now what? Do I bag the Holgas and head off in a different direction. I've thought about getting a 4x5 press camera, maybe I could get a 6x7 back for it so I can use 120mm roll film still. Or get a Bessa 35mm range finder and don't look back. The frickin' saga continues.
* * * * * * *
So if the Ansel Adam's quote is true, which I agree with: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
Than the person who uses an inkjet printer or gets machine prints made is essential playing a CD (a digital file) and not performing the score.
I used to print with an inkjet printer for a time until I realized it wasn't right for me. And you do not print each print individually, you push a button and an identical copy is made--just like a recording.
In a song you can play the same notes every time but it will sound slightly different because of mood, how much energy you have, finger placement isn't the same, etc. It is exactly the same with printing your own work in a darkroom.
Of course the digital printing crowd will argue that their prints are originals just like a darkroom print. But being someone who has done both, I feel this is a hollow arguement. Even when I was using an inkjet printer I had a hard time believing this arguement. I've even seen digital printers use the above Ansel Adams quote in relation to their working in Photoshop to tweak the image file, but they leave out the "Each performance differs in subtle ways" part. I think they miss the point of Ansel's comment.
* * * * * * *
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." --Ansel Adams
Ain't it the truth. Ansel must be rolling in his grave...
Comments:
Post a Comment
