Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 36 of total 36 in this topic |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 31, 2007 - 01:20am PT
|
just got it.. didn't read it carefully yet... some nice pictures, but not of the kind of climbing I do, really...
here's this year's picture breakdown:
18 bouldering
10 sport
9 trad
4 ice climbing
3 landscape
2 solo
2 aid
1 mountaineering
1 slackline
dude!, guess I should by a pad and one of those knit caps...
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:27am PT
|
they totally screwed up on who has the most climbing magazine cover shots.
any one care to take a guess? (it's not what's-his-name at thirteen covers, btw)
plus the real champ has four covers to the annual "gear guide" issue.
i can't believe the freakin' numbnuts who work on editorial for the mag can't even get this one right.
the MAN has 16 covers, and reinvented rock climbing photography in 1985.
that should be a hint.
|
|
climbrunride
Trad climber
Durango, CO
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:30am PT
|
Without actually pulling out the boxes of old climbing mags, I'll just guess. Based on the above clue, probably Greg Epperson.
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:01am PT
|
Yo... the new paper they are using (recycled) makes the photos look dull and I thought the overall quality was not up to those in past years. Several were poorly focused shots and some were just not interesting from a photographic standpoint. Guess that they need to look at Alpinist. Good to see Greg E. get some shots in as he does such outstanding work.... my $0.02 worth.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:14am PT
|
bingo. epi.
16 covers, plus four covers of the annual "gear" issues.
my tally:
1-103
2-104
3-114
4-118
5-121
6-123
7-132
8-136
9-141
10-144
11-153
12-162
13-176
14-177
15-180
16-212
yeah...i thought the photo repro quality in teh latest ish was an insult to the photogs...seen better quality repro in the fvcking local paper, on newsprint...check out epi's "classic curl" shot in the latest mag, then compare it to the original, uncropped version in the BD catalog...two different pics...one great, the other sucks...if yer gonna print photos that have been created as works of art, better to suck it up and print on decent paper than to take great pics, crop 'em, manipulate 'em, outsize 'em, downsize 'em, generally fvck 'em up, and make 'em look like crap...
the BD catalog and the patagonia catalog always seen to maintain respect for the artistic intent of the photographer....what's with climbing these days??
i mean. fvck.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:23am PT
|
The paper definitely sucks and has a lot to do with it. It also has to do with the fact that the final product is really up to the eye of the guy doing the CMYK stuff, which is really a different beast, altogether, than the color managed system photographers are (should be) using.
My shot in Alpinist this month looks entirely different than it does in printed (photo) or monitor display form. Just the nature of the beast, really, in a lot of ways. You're going to lose some when you go from print (photo) or screen image to print (CMYK)no matter what.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 12:01pm PT
|
I would concure with the many comments made so far. Some professional photographers, who have the stature, maintain some quality control when their images are published and get to review a proof pre-press copy. But, you better be Galen Rowell, or Ansell Adams if you are going to ask for that kind of treatment.
I did find the essays comparing digital to film somewhat interesting. All I got to say is, what would Galen Rowell say and do?
I can't help but think he would still be film all the way. He wrote many essays regarding his view, and when a client/customer wanted to see the real deal (the slide) he could always provide that proof. Something about doing all the magic and manipulation in camera and on the scene, using advanced skills, and letting the photons of light reflected by or being emitted from the original scene to refract through the lense, and hit the plane of film at the speed of light reacting with the chemicals and film directly to capture a moment in time.
Digital does this to a point, but the photons of light just hit a sensor, and record the data with ones and zeros. You don't get something that was originally there on scene, experiencing the same conditions that you did. Think about it. With film you are carrying another companion that was really there at that moment and experienced the conditions you did. That slide film really went to the summit of Everest, or where ever you climbed, and actually went with you. Can you really say that with digital? I don't think you can.
After the image is captured on high resolution professional film like Velvia, then go nutes with the digital darkroom. You always have the original work of art that was really there to begin with. I agree with Galen, the digital work should only project what the film/eye saw, nothing more. If you are really into digital enhancements great, then identify it as such, and go nuts. That's another art medium and has value on it's own merits and its beautiful and wonderful to look at.
There is a great arguement with the tradition of light and film. I like it best, and I can still make use of the digital technologies. Galen said this, and I think Galen would still agree, and still hold to his guns even now, even though in the last 4+ years since he has passed away we have seen a lot of change.
Now, hopefully Fuji and Kodak and other film companies will always continue high quality films, and high quality film cameras will still be produced. I've seen too many great labs in San Diego, that I once used, have to close their doors within the last 5 years. Very sad.
I think both traditional and digital have their place, I just prefer the traditional art of film. Although, digital is great for snap shots for sure, and has its proper use. I use my wifes digital just for that reason. It's time to get my Nikon/film system out again and start shooting like I used too. I'm feeling very nostalgic right about now . . .
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:11pm PT
|
Hey bvb,
Has Epi gone digital all the way, or is he still shooting some film? Just curious. I knew at one point he and I were using the same lab "Chromacolor" in San Diego in Little Italy, but sadly the lab has closed it's doors. Very sad. They did great work.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:36pm PT
|
Jerry Dodrill,
I would like to know your thoughts on the film vs. digital debate if you wouldn't mind commenting.
I know you were also heavily influenced by Galen. One, other question: Did you ever work for Galen, when he still only had just the one office in Albany? My wife and I stopped in there many years ago on our way through during a summer vacation once upon a time.
Hopefully you and bvb will sometime see these questions. Just curious what your thoughts are on the matter. No rush. Thanks.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:43pm PT
|
Hi Klimmer,
Thanks for you insights on this. I worked for Galen from '96-'00. He moved out of the Albany office in '95 I believe. I looked in the window once, but never was there when he occupied it.
As to color accuracy, I clearly remember his scathing letters to editors for f*#king up his photos with poor reproductions. He always stood for the highest standards of reproduction. When I first started working there he was working on the Bay Area Wild book, which required several rounds of proofing and tweaking images before the book was printed, and he still bitched about poor reproductions. The magazines didn't give him any more preferential treatment than anyone else, they just received more of his anger.
On digital fine art printing and photoshop, It was interesting watching the transition in the late '90s from Type C prints using internegs to drum scans and lightjet prints. He had a distinct line in the sand that he would not cross regarding manipulation of content within images. He would not take out or move any part of the image that was part of the scene. Photographic artifacts like lens flares could be removed. We didn't see eye to eye on the issue of color saturation. I always thought he was pushing beyond believability, and as the Gallery Manager had to constantly explain to customers that the prints represented a balance between what Galen captured on film and his recollections of the scene as he remembered it. -Pretty vague. So it didn't really matter if he was using digital or film in the finished print. I stopped arguing with him about saturation because dark room work wasn't my job, and it wasn't helping my situation there. I do take pride in the mutual respect we had for one another's opinions and perspectives, even when they were at odds. He was always careful to ask what I thought and would listen with great consideration. It was a period of time in digital history where there were no real manuals or how-to guides for photographers. So it was fascinating.
Your arguement about the film being present as an artifact of the experience is great. I haven't heard it put that way, but it really nails the intangible sense of nostalgia that I have for film which digital just doesn't have. Each have their place certainly and quality can be argued. I would guess that if Galen was still alive he would be using both film and digital, for different purposes. In his later years he was doing so much landscape work, and for that, film is great. For journalism, editorial work, and for teaching workshops, digital is a logical medium. Anyhow, that's my two cents.
JD
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Jarhead City, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:55pm PT
|
Klimmer:
I asked Epi that same question back in the fall. He said he's all digital now.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 04:59pm PT
|
Jerry,
Thanks for your detailed response. I learned a lot.
Yea, about saturation. I know what your talking about, but having grown up looking at a lot of Galen's work, and constantly comparing mine with his, I think I like saturation also. I can see both sides to the arguement though. I think Verne Clevenger feels much the way you do, having been a protoge of Galen's. When I have talked to Verne and looked closely at his large format images, it is sometimes very hard to see when he has used a nuetral density filter to holdback portions of the scene. He uses them very subltely. And he is also on the more "normal" side of color saturation. I guess sometimes what we remember, is sometimes more vivid than what we really witnessed at times. I know color can be very intense in dreams. The saturation question is another hard choice to make when it comes time to expose or to produce an enlargement for display. I think the "Wow" effect with color saturation is hard to avoid, if that is the response you want from those who view the work. You make good arguements.
I know digital is a wonderful tool, especially for learning or using as a tool to see what results you might get on film before actually burning the film. And I agree, it seems both are very useable and have their applications, and now digital resolution is getting very close to film (although in large format aerial photography/remote sensing cameras, digital is miles away). I just hope the camera and film manufactures don't let this wonderful technology that has been perfected for over a hundred years with film go the way of the Doe-Doe bird.
Maybe we could have the best of both worlds in one camera? Maybe Nikon could develope a system that combines the two? One moment you are using digital to set-up the scene, and set all controls, then take a quick digital to see what you got. Then turn the dial and shoot the same settings on film. Now you have both. This would be awesome for landscape photography, as well as other applications.
I would just hate to see film leave altogether. Who knows, maybe the film resolution can continue to improve as well? They shouldn't stop trying just because of digital. Seems all their efforts are into digital at this time though.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 05:01pm PT
|
El Cap,
Thanks. Yea, it seems everyone is going that way :-(
I can see why, but I still think it would be great to marry the two as I spoke above.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 05:37pm PT
|
K-
Film isn't quite completely dead. I understand Fuji is releasing a new version of Velvia 50 soon that will replace the original one that has been discontinued. We'll have to wait and see if it's any good.
If you want a film/digi camera just get a digi back for a medium format so you can change back and forth. Better have some serious $$$ though.
JD
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
Scan and post, beyotch!!!
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
Greg Epperson DID re-invent the wheel and he DID make a better mousetrap. Many have copied his "style", but none are the real thing. Bow down before the Eppulator.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 1, 2007 - 03:26pm PT
|
What I worry most about is that the trend to digital images will expand the class of ephemera to include most photography. Without the film recording, the image exists in an ever rapidly changing digital universe. The storage of these images depends on technologies which simply disappear over time, and once that happens, the images are lost.
I love the old images preserved by people who just keep the negatives... or maybe some printed images that can be scanned.
The reasons that I enjoy these visuals from back in the day is not clear to me. Good literature is also enjoyable. I guess the story is enhanced by the melding of the two. Going digital is inevitable... but I like the time in film.
|
|
BadInfluence
Mountain climber
Dak side
|
|
Hassleblad has Digi back 39 mp that supposely surpassed the quality of film.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
You ARE a bad influence. How many dollars would one have to throw to the dark side for a setup like that? Assuming I don't have a Hasselblad already, which I don't.
|
|
BadInfluence
Mountain climber
Dak side
|
|
too much money for me to spend. i was at B&H recently and some dude dropped $70,000 on the 39mp blad and lenses. i could commute to El Chalten for a month with that loot
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
i shoot digi. but every photo i take that i really like, i print with archival quality paper and ink and put in these big photo albums i keep. i think the debate is a non-issue. i've got a couple of beautiful prints of dave edward's photography hanging framed on the wall. shot digi. same with a bunch of signed hatcher prints. they look great -- every bit as good as any film print i ever paid for. ephemera? ...'m looking at this gorgeous photo on my wall as i type...i think not. quite tangible, thank you.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
The film vs. digi argument is pointless. It's like the ethics arguments here; you're going to stand on one side of the fence and never move. Regardless, digi is the way of the future and inevitable.
Unfortunately, film is slowly dying off. Regardless of them adding a new Velvia film to the line... We must also look at the fact that companies like Kodak, Illford, etc. stopping production B&W film, paper, etc. in the last year. As well, both Canon and Nikon have dropped film cameras from their line-up. Sad. We are slowly losing the roots of the art.
Back on topic... I finally went and had a look at the magazine that started this thread... I was largely unimpressed. A lot of the shots were pretty mediocre. The cover shot had been on my desktop, off and on, for about the last 4 months though. Nice shot.
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 03:11am PT
|
Greg Epperson; One of the best.
Epperson on ice. (Not to be confused with Bourbon on ice)
Clark Canyon
Fisher Towers, Sun Devil Chimney, Titan, Moab, Utah
Secret Climbing Area
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 11:29am PT
|
I don't presume to know much about these technical issues you guys are talking about, but I thought that the technical issues were only important to the extent that they serve the artistic ones. You've put Ansel Adams on a pedestal, but of all people, he believed he was doing much more than recording nature, and didn't he manipulate his images a tremendous amount to achieve the image that He Wanted? I mean we're talking about a fine art, aren't we?
I'm just having a little bit of trouble with the whole idea of showing nature or reality "as it really is."
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 11:32am PT
|
Didn't see this thread first time around. Thanks for refreshing it Todd with your shot of Epi. I'll add my huge respect for his artistry...
Jerry's inside report from Galen's print shop really enlightened me. Thanks! I finally understand why I drifted away so disappointed from my old friend and climbing partner. Still liked aspects of the man, still admired many of his ideas. But nowadays I go back to Galen's old writing, not his later prints.
I am drawn as if to the dark side, to walk into the gallery in Bishop. But it is a weird fascination with what I've come to think of as the "glitter effect." Weird how turning up the saturation ends up sailing those images right out of the realm of believability. Now they're eye candy. To represent the Sierra that I recognize, I have no Galen on my walls but rather Vern Clevenger, and even moreso Claude Fiddler. Claude doesn't own a filter.
When Galen maintained there was "nothing in the prints that wasn't in the original slide," I would look at the sample slides displayed on a light box right there in the Gallery, look back at the prints glittering at me off the walls, and call Bulls#$it.
Jerry said, on the issue of color saturation I always thought he was pushing beyond believability. Finally I see from your explanation that Galen was referring to not manipulating objects in the photo. Obviously he thought that contrast and saturation were fair game for digital manipulation. He went too far IMHO, and the results grated on me. And from what you say, they raised questions among patrons too which made "doin' the shuffle" a job qualification for gallery manager. And which sent me briskly out the door to see the real Sierra light, then down the block in search of Vern's and Calude's prints instead.
So thanks, Jerry. You gave me language for a very uncomfortable dis-ease. I'm quite enlightened by what you and the other pros here have to say about capturing images. I am still fond of some of Galen's content, especially animals. And my friend Bob Tyson, a fine art photog and professor, helped balance the fiercenenss of my view by bringing me back around to appreciating what he called that sense in Galen's landscapes that you have just topped a rise to be hit in the face by the full force of a gorgeous Sierra vista.
I think Bob's sense of being there actually explains some of Galen's argument that his tweak of saturation and contrast brought him closer to what it felt like behind the lens. My studies of brain chemistry strengthen the view that the more effort you exert in the mountains, the more perceptual brightening -- as I call it -- you experience. The degree of that effect differs a lot from one person to the next. Some people, for instance, claim they never experience runners high. They're right, even though most of us do. And some, including me -- them's the lucky ones -- can get swept right into a transcendental experience. I'd put Galen "just an excitable boy" Rowell in the same group. When he pressed too hard on the Glitter Button, a part of him was just being over-enthusiastic. Another part, though -- the part that you see advertised on billboards driving toward Bishop -- seemed to be supporting the 17,000 very-square feet of a temple to the Pop-culture Galen legend.
A complex person. I can no more write him off than I can wholeheartedly support him.
|
|
prunes
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 11:55am PT
|
The quality of the print in the magazine is also subject to human error in the pressroom. does the pressman have a hangover, having a
crappy day or has he bothered th pick up the densitometer to check for dot gain or loss.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 11:59am PT
|
I use both (digital and film)and each has it place. I also carry a medium format for landscapes.
Most of my shots never seem to be what my mind eye caputured.
As to the climbing mag...two hundred bucks isn't worth my time and effort to send my photos.
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 12:00pm PT
|
Photography IS manipulation of reality, it's as simple as that. Think of it this way, no photography system, digital or chemical can come close to the range of contrast and sensitivity to light that the human eye possesses. In other words, no machine of any sort can actually capture what your eye really sees. It is left to the photographer to interpret his vision through his or her equipment. I think it is a very common thing to crank up the saturation through film choice (velvia/kodachrome) or equipment (graduated nuetral density filters) in order to try to match the emotions felt as the photographer witnessed the scene. It is not a lie, it is an interpretation of the real.
Michael Smith
|
|
SamRoberts
climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 01:38pm PT
|
Doug, I think you nailed the reason that Galen liked to pump up the volumne on his prints. The last time I saw Galen in Bishop he was right in the middle of making some list for his upcoming trip to Tibet. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he put his pen down, jumped up, said follow me and proceeded to show me some images he made of a mountain lion that were spread out on his light box. He was so excited about those shots that he went on to give a dissertation on mountain lions in the eastern Sierra. He could hardly contain his passion and enthusiasm, so I suppose it follows that the intensity of his prints would match the intensity he had inside him.
Hard to believe that in a couple of weeks it'll be 5 years he's been gone.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 01:46pm PT
|
Great posts!
"You cannot capture reality, only interpret it"
True. So perhaps we ask; when you interpret reality, in what language are you speaking? Its likely that some may fail to understand.
Hi Sam!
5 years. Wow. Aug. 22nd I think. What are you doing then? Seems we should be raising a Heinekin toward the sky.
|
|
SamRoberts
climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 01:57pm PT
|
Hey Jerry!
We'll be in Lhasa then- probably gaze off towards the Potala Palace and raise that beer. It'll be hard to look at it without thinking of that amazing rainbow rising out of it!
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 02:11pm PT
|
I know what you mean. Have fun over there.
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 03:40pm PT
|
I'm jealous that you guys go to Tibet.
Beneath the interpretations of artists is a vision of new or better ways of looking at the world. Whereas science discovers what is, art creates ex nihilo. That's why I made my comment about the technical versus the creative. Many budding artists don't seem to get the distinction and think that art is application, technique, or approach. What they most lack is a vision. Don't get me wrong: visions are really hard to create. It took Picasso an entire lifetime of drawing to come to his final renderings, which look to be drawn with the hand and eye of a child (but with the genius of . . . well, a Picasso). Look at photographers like Penn, Cartier-Bresson, and Winograd. All three give us views into unseen human but commonplace worlds all around us.
For me, and with all due respect to this audience, that's one of the problems I have with mountain and landscape photography and painting. It never seems to give me something new or unseen that was not greater than or what I could not make out in person. In person, the mountains and the earth are always more than what a camera or canvas can show. But with people, . . . I don't know, I guess don't see them nearly as fully as I can when I am drawn to a startling image of a person or social situation (ala, Penn, Cartier-Bresson).
I would recommend Lisa Kristine's images, as I think she is coming to her vision these days. Right now they are still very affordable.
http://www.migrationphotography.com/home.html
Here is one of her images that I wanted to buy, but my wife said NO, it was too depressing to hang.
I would also suggest this hilarious set of comments on some world-class photos at this site, just for fun.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
EDIT: I forgot to tell a joke about what's creative and what's scientific.
A bunch of scientists call up God and tell him that they can now create life out of dirt just like He can. God is intrigued, and he says, "I'll be right down." After he gets there, he asks the scientists to show him. They begin to by taking him to their laboratory and picking up some dirt and putting it into a test tube. At that point, God interrupts: "No, no, no, . . . you have to get your own dirt."
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 04:23pm PT
|
I have gone on to expanding a post I made last year.
I think there is a subtext here, that is interesting. It is: what was Galen’s place in photography and specifically, mountain photography. And there seems to be plenty of respect for him and some doubt. He became somewhat of a sacred cow to us, unfortunately, as many do, and he was, yes, one of our own and had become quite renowned.
Galen worked constantly and was really bright. And once his “second” life became kind of organized in the early-mid 70’s, he was compulsively very productive. It was wonderful to watch him transition from climbing to general outdoorsmanship and really serious photography. So passionately and frankly competively. He was awfully driven.
In my opinion he was more just productive than a successful artist, just as Werner has intimated in the Mountain Light thread of 9/06. To those of us who grew up with him and knew a great deal about him personally, his recollection is not only sad of course, but also a little critical. I think some of us want to make the note here that there was honest analysis of him as well as of his oeuvre throughout his life. There were some hard feelings too. What you expect when someone achieves this stature. Jerry D. thought I should go on with this but I can’t really, out of respect and some sadness too.
Doug Robinson asked me what I thought of Galen a year or two before Galen died. I paused, then said: I knew too much about him to answer that question. Doug then remarked, “that’s a good answer”. But then we went on to the details anyway! You see I knew him from 1963 onwards in Berkeley. Dougie knew him awfully well too.
I suppose this question we are kind of flirting with here, is better answered by John Cleary and other pros who in fact have bothered to review Rowell in the past.
But for myself, I would have to say that in Galen’s work, there is a lot of amazing viewing, a tremendous volume of work and traveling, a lot of charming anecdotal, usually vigorous imaging that serves a general purpose. I even own one of his originals btw from 1972-4 (an arctic lynx about to pounce on a rabbit out of view). And I saw his show at the Cal. Academy of Sciences a while back too.
I think that the most powerful and successful aspect of his work lies in the vibrant “where” of it, rather than new cogent interpretation in it. And that is pretty much how he lived as well.
As far as the battle over digital versus film-based photography and as far as the arguments over photo-manipulation are concerned, in the end, that which really matters is what the resulting meaning of the photograph becomes, rather than near-ecumenical furor over rules of process or the faithful application of some formula.
Uelsmann who manipulated his silver negatives and prints to the deepest degree, really, is a very cogent, thrilling and nearly magical artist of the best sort---he is successful in his pursuit thoroughly. Meanwhile a very important part of the final meaning of Ansel’s work is “His Recordation”, that he was there then and did see and experience this moment, in heightened seeing, what he called “the strongest way of seeing”. All this does in fact emerge in viewing his best prints---it is very much why his work can often be so astounding. Many of his best pieces are momentous, in his sense. And as MikeL notes here, Cartier-Bresson revealed no so much with the best photographic techniques but with an insanely uncanny sense, nearly surreal everyday human events, another world, right under our feet---astounding!
But the approaches of these artists do not preclude other approaches, honestly. And yeah, Galen had his self-imposed rules and approach as well, and though way more naively and with naive techniques such as color saturation and gamma, he was kind of getting around to putting on some weight, frankly, in his work....in his own right.
And furor over digital versus chemical imagemaking gets even more arcane and purposeless in my view with such high resolutions headed our way and if we keep in mind once again that the point of all work is not to go through a “whatever” process but to produce vital visual ideas, or rather artwork regardless of process, and if including the moment of seeing is not part of the meaning of this work, fine; there are way too many many fish to fry so to speak, in the visual arts, in photography to justify the establishment of a single School of thought.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007 - 05:12pm PT
|
Thanks for the thoughts Peter, and Mike. Many thoughts and points come to mind. I'll have to pull them together so I don't end up writing a book here. But in brief, I agree with what you're saying.
I remember him telling a group of photographers that the more educated about photography you are, the less successful you are likely to be as a photographer. Your Masters degree will get you a great job in the photo industry, but won't make you a better photographer unless you have a vision to plug the education into. Futhermore, he said the best photographers for NGS are biologists, divers, climbers, scientists, humanitarians, archaeologists, etc. who are passionate about their work and learn photography as a means to express their point of view, illustrate their research, or document their projects. So basically, photography is a necessary by-product of meaningful experiences.
Technique is secondary to vision, and certainly, Galen was passionate about his work, more dedicated than anyone I can think of. Astoundingly prolific. He was indeed fiercely competitive, pissed folks off, and burned many bridges.
Read Barbara's "Flying South." Its extremely revealing.
Mike, You're the second person in two days that has mentioned Lisa Kristine.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 36 of total 36 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!