Heath's samples of Hahnemuhle Satin paper arrived (thanks Heath). Several black and white prints done either with the 2200 and ImagePrint or the 4800 with Mat Black Ink and the 2200 profile. I can see that the tonal rendition, especially in one wedding shot, is excellent.
But it still has that thick watercolor paper feel to me with an attempt at some shine, but I don't like it much better than the regular photorag paper (which I know people love but still doesn't feel photographic to me). Matter of taste. What I would like is a thicker Ilford smooth pearl. Anyway it's a good thing that I didn't care much for the Satin paper because to really test it would have meant switching to mat black ink in the 4800 which is not something I relish.
12/25/2005
Paper and Street Shots
This year for Christmas, I took about 30 matted 5 x 7's with 10 frames (different types) - spread them out on the table and let anyone mix and match and grab what they wanted. Big fight over a couple of the frames.
What I found fascinating: the same images that sell on the web were snatched up first.
"Isn't this that famous place in Central Park, what is it called?" (Promenade)
"Is this picture on the Seine? (Hug), "Wow, that's the Flat Iron, I never saw it from that angle before..." (Flat Iron Tilted)
People shots that were picked up usually had a sweet feeling (Man with Accordian & Monkey) from Paris. A kiss. A hug. Holding hands. Skipping girl. The faces are usually in profile and not important.
I'm beginning to get an idea about why hard-boiled (let's call it that) street shots are so hard to sell and it's not just subject matter or style. It has something to do with how present the feeling of the time period is. There's some sort of psychic distance that the viewer needs before it gets appreciated, i.e. if you show the shot 40 years later, when it doesn't feel so current in time and fashion - the photograph becomes easier to approach. So that's what New Yorkers looked like in the 40's. Cool.
Let's say that there is a temporal place that make it harder or easier for people to appreciate the the image.
What is Van Gogh's most popular print? Starry starry night? No people in it.
Sunflowers? No people from his time. The reason his paintings didn't sell within his own time was that his painting style was not accepted.
One of the problems with people is that their clothing places them so quickly in a particular time.
Even with nudes, the hairstyle and even the type of model considered attractive changes.
But the clouds you photograph today, will be recognizable today, tomorrow and a hundred years on. The photographic medium may change. The style may change. But half-dome isn't going to change much during man's span on earth.
Poet's Walk - though it may eventually change - is going to be pretty much the same for a long time. If I had included many people walking around it would not have been as immediately appealing, though it may have become even more appealing n years from now. The two small figures in the shot are just there for scale.
What are you saying - people aren't appealing subjects?
That's right. Not everyday people. Not today, unless they're expressing something that you want to see every day as you sip your morning coffee.
That's crazy? What about the Mona Lisa?
The enigma transcends time, but there are a couple of things I'd note about the painting:
Everything in the painting moves you to the face. Clothing is dark and simple. Nothing in the hair. The gown she's wearing is so dark and lacking in details that there's almost nothing to look for there, but where there are some ripples, they move you towards the hands which are also unadorned.
Van Gogh painted lots of "everyday" people but of course his work was deemed worthless while he lived. It wasn't just that he painted "everyday" workers, but his style which was new, made it equally impossible for the average Joe to get into it at the time.
I'm thinking, according to this theory, that the most popular street photography would be the most abstract. What jumps into mind is HCB's big shot of the guy jumping the puddle. I don't think you can read details in this guy, which makes him more universal.
Well what about the famous street photographers like Garry Winogrand? Maybe someone else could answer that one and see if he's the exception or whether there was something about his photographs which during his own time made them accessible to the average Joe - or whether they were at the time.
You know what really got me to thinking about this was listening to the Allman Brothers Band last night. The music did not seem dated at all, whereas if I put on an early Beatles song it brings back a specific time. The style of the Allman Brothers goes back a long ways - very pure and innovative blues riffs - and it's the riffs and to a lesser extent the singing - that are timeless. Not the arrangements (these are damned good as well), but the actual playing and singing that lives on and doesn't seem dated. Nothing new in the Allman Brother's lyrics which have their roots and sometimes more than their roots in Elmore James songs.
The Beatles are dated for me. They they were fantastic song-writers and arrangers, but not known for their instrumental virtuosity. The ability to find expression through virtuosity will live on long after the subject of the song (the lyrics) are forgotten. But that may take a generation or two to discover.
Which brings me back to street photography: today's virtuoso of the street will be tomorrow's genius - once the proper amount of aesthetic distance is achieved. And conversely, today's most popular photographers may be forgotten because they are so caught up in the current style of the times.
What I found fascinating: the same images that sell on the web were snatched up first.
"Isn't this that famous place in Central Park, what is it called?" (Promenade)
"Is this picture on the Seine? (Hug), "Wow, that's the Flat Iron, I never saw it from that angle before..." (Flat Iron Tilted)
People shots that were picked up usually had a sweet feeling (Man with Accordian & Monkey) from Paris. A kiss. A hug. Holding hands. Skipping girl. The faces are usually in profile and not important.
I'm beginning to get an idea about why hard-boiled (let's call it that) street shots are so hard to sell and it's not just subject matter or style. It has something to do with how present the feeling of the time period is. There's some sort of psychic distance that the viewer needs before it gets appreciated, i.e. if you show the shot 40 years later, when it doesn't feel so current in time and fashion - the photograph becomes easier to approach. So that's what New Yorkers looked like in the 40's. Cool.
Let's say that there is a temporal place that make it harder or easier for people to appreciate the the image.
What is Van Gogh's most popular print? Starry starry night? No people in it.
Sunflowers? No people from his time. The reason his paintings didn't sell within his own time was that his painting style was not accepted.
One of the problems with people is that their clothing places them so quickly in a particular time.
Even with nudes, the hairstyle and even the type of model considered attractive changes.
But the clouds you photograph today, will be recognizable today, tomorrow and a hundred years on. The photographic medium may change. The style may change. But half-dome isn't going to change much during man's span on earth.
Poet's Walk - though it may eventually change - is going to be pretty much the same for a long time. If I had included many people walking around it would not have been as immediately appealing, though it may have become even more appealing n years from now. The two small figures in the shot are just there for scale.
What are you saying - people aren't appealing subjects?
That's right. Not everyday people. Not today, unless they're expressing something that you want to see every day as you sip your morning coffee.
That's crazy? What about the Mona Lisa?
The enigma transcends time, but there are a couple of things I'd note about the painting:
Everything in the painting moves you to the face. Clothing is dark and simple. Nothing in the hair. The gown she's wearing is so dark and lacking in details that there's almost nothing to look for there, but where there are some ripples, they move you towards the hands which are also unadorned.
Van Gogh painted lots of "everyday" people but of course his work was deemed worthless while he lived. It wasn't just that he painted "everyday" workers, but his style which was new, made it equally impossible for the average Joe to get into it at the time.
I'm thinking, according to this theory, that the most popular street photography would be the most abstract. What jumps into mind is HCB's big shot of the guy jumping the puddle. I don't think you can read details in this guy, which makes him more universal.
Well what about the famous street photographers like Garry Winogrand? Maybe someone else could answer that one and see if he's the exception or whether there was something about his photographs which during his own time made them accessible to the average Joe - or whether they were at the time.
You know what really got me to thinking about this was listening to the Allman Brothers Band last night. The music did not seem dated at all, whereas if I put on an early Beatles song it brings back a specific time. The style of the Allman Brothers goes back a long ways - very pure and innovative blues riffs - and it's the riffs and to a lesser extent the singing - that are timeless. Not the arrangements (these are damned good as well), but the actual playing and singing that lives on and doesn't seem dated. Nothing new in the Allman Brother's lyrics which have their roots and sometimes more than their roots in Elmore James songs.
The Beatles are dated for me. They they were fantastic song-writers and arrangers, but not known for their instrumental virtuosity. The ability to find expression through virtuosity will live on long after the subject of the song (the lyrics) are forgotten. But that may take a generation or two to discover.
Which brings me back to street photography: today's virtuoso of the street will be tomorrow's genius - once the proper amount of aesthetic distance is achieved. And conversely, today's most popular photographers may be forgotten because they are so caught up in the current style of the times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)