So we’ve established in the beginning, I was interested in what I would call a fine print. Based on the concerns of other photographers who’ve gone before me. Such as Ansel Adam’s Technique, and later, feebly attempting to explore the surreal and philosophical underpinnings of Frederick Sommer’s ideas.
The next and final question is how, do you make/get a fine print? When one starts to get serious about your prints, it easier to produce good prints from good negs, plenty of shadow detail, not too blown out in the highlights, with hopefully a long scale of tones, [all based on a well published list of characteristics of materials.]
Long scales of tone, then give you license to manipulate them, the tones. Grain was a no-no, and high contrast was considered bad form, unless you had a good reason for it. Remember this is based on the ideas that the f64 group had pioneered.
This necessitated knowing your materials intimately, both film and paper. [I still use the same film today as when I started exploring materials over 30 years ago, but not the same developer or paper.] It also often meant lugging a tripod EVERYWHERE, because like good ol’ Uncle Ansel, you shot at the smallest possible aperture to get the maximum amount of Depth of Field. Usually on Medium Format or Large Format Cameras to help keep grain to a minimum. To keep your images sharp, you not only ALWAYS used a tripod, but a lens hood as well. Depending on your film developer combination*, even on bright sunny days, the best you sometimes could get was 1/8 a second at f22. Being a ‘landscape’ photographer, I never practised hand holding at low speeds, and today I still feel a little weird shooting wide open.
As a consequence I rarely photographed on a whim, and unless I was lucky enough to have a boot full of gear with you at all times, making images required a level of preparation and planning that would make trips to the Himalayas look like a picnic in the park.
So; given the effort required to get your gear to the spot and with hopefully good light, you also needed to get the best neg you could, you were always trying to make sure you exposed the negative correctly, and then developed it to it’s full potential, if you were developing your own black and white film. I think I’m pretty good at developing my own b&w, but when compared to the ‘masters’ I learnt from I’ve another 20 years of practice to go.
Bad negatives, and I have plenty of them, were the bane of my life, but often got fewer and further between, as I became more skilled at my craft. Ever wonder what to look for in a bad neg?
Here’s a list of ‘straight photography’ no-no’s unless the idea or the print is enhanced by it**.
- Camera Shake, not to be confused with poor/incorrect focus
- Dust and scratches on the Negative/Print
- Poor/Incorrect focus, neg or print
- Empty blacks with no detail in a print
- Highlights with no detail, in your prints unless spectral like chrome
- Flat or Muddy tonality in your prints
- Poor tonal separation in your prints
- Chromatic Aberrations or other lens defects, in your print
The one thing bad negatives taught me, and many other people was, “How to make a good print”.
So how many photographers on any of the social websites out there walk EVERYWHERE with a tripod, a medium or large format camera, have tested their materials and equipment extensively and know their place in the broader history of photography?
Well not me that’s for sure. That’s why I love my mobile phone and my desktop publishing software, and flickr and the web in general.In part three, I will elaborate.
*At one point in my experiments, I used a Developer called pyro, with a recipe for it, that lowered my favourite film down from 400 ISO, to 6 ISO, it gave beautiful long scale negatives, but was very tricky and messy to work with, in the end I settled for, my own hand made D25. I’m now using a 2 bath developer solution, with a long PH buffer after the developer.
**Artists Like Joel Peter-Witkin and The Starn Twins, took this all to another level, as their work is the antithesis to these ideas, and I admire and respect these artist’s work immensely.
☛ Website | Flickr | Instagram | Photography links | s2z digital garden | Tumblr | hipstamatic
5 thoughts on “How I Got Here Part Two?”
You don’t say what the he surreal and philosophical underpinnings of Frederick Sommer’s ideas are. My crude understanding of Sommer is that he is known for his desert landscapes in Arizona of the 1940s with their cacti, prehistoric fossils, rock forms, bleached desert bones, and carcasses of animals. These are flat surfaces as they had no sky, no horizon line and no imposed meaning. They were titled Arizona Landscapes or Horse or Coyotes. The desert is the desert with its death and disintegration. He sees the desert for itself.
I was aware that Sommers wrote a book entitled The Poetic Logic of Art and Aesthetics. I haven’t read it have you? Pictorial logic is an intriguing idea.
I have a copy of Sommer’s book titled Words. I haven’t read it in a while. Guess it’s time I stepped away from my computer and immersed myself in another medium.
I did come across an article by Ian Walker re Frederick Sommer and Surrealism
However, it doesn’t discuss the philosophical underpinnings of Frederick Sommer’s ideas about images.
Sommer’s book ‘Words’ looks to be the key text.
It brings together previously published writings from Aperture 10:4, a booklet entitled “The Poetic Logic of Art and Aesthetics,” a revised talk given at the Art Institute of Chicago in 1970, and several other writings on aesthetics.
yes and I have a copy, I can convert it to a pdf if if you like?