CCC Forum

In my post in response to the query about selling work (http://forums.croydoncameraclub.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26#p118), I mentioned the price for which Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez is currently selling and how much the man himself originally charged. Of course, Ansel Adams' negatives still survive and it is possible to buy "special edition" prints which have been made by Alan Ross, who worked with Adams and was familiar with his printing methods in the darkroom. Similarly, it is possible to get prints made from Edward Weston's negatives by his son, Cole.

This got me to thinking that all prints made in the darkroom are unique, even if they are broadly similar. The main difference for the casual observer between the originals and those made by others are that the first will have been processed by the photographer and thus touched by greatness. This got me thinking about digital reproduction, where given the same paper and printer inkset, all that is needed is the original file from which the print is made for every copy to be identical. Actually, even a high quality JPEG rather than the file from the image editing program would probably be sufficient. It simply would not matter whose hands operated the computer and printer.

True, but does it matter that much? By which I mean that given the end result from one experienced darkroom technician using the same kit as another, you're likely to get as-near-as-makes-no-difference identical prints?

Thinking about it, even subtle differences like how we've configured our printers or monitors to view the image can result in different digital outcomes.

The legacy seems to be the emotional attachment we the viewer attach to the finished product - YOU know who developed the print and value it higher than if any old joe did it. In a similar way to a signed book often being more valuable to us than an equivalent unsigned one, our emotional attachment to it changes how we feel about something.

A similar example was my first 550d, it went to Hawaii with me, was my first proper camera and took some of the shots I love the most. When it was stolen it was gutting, and the replacement just "felt different", even though the cameras were identical. It's taken time and a range of new memories for me to get an attachment to the insurance replacement

I guess in a roundabout way what I'm saying is that I think digital products will end up giving us a similar legacy as older prints by virtue of what they mean to us.

What digital has brought is a far greater level of control. When shooting, we can review our shots instaneously and adjust our subsequent shots based on that feedback. Afterwards, in front of the computer, we are able to experiment with various manipulations before committing to the final image. Once completed, the picture can be repeated ad infinitum without variance. It does not even require a system which is fully managed for colour, only that the correct profile is used for the combination of inkset and paper chosen. Yes, a skilled darkroom worker can produce photos which will be very similar those produced either by themselves or others, but the manual process ensures that no two will ever be exactly the same.

Talking to a darkroom worker, I expounded the benefits of the undo button. He assured me that he had something very similar, except it is called the redo button!

I have no doubt that the fascimiles reproduced from original negatives are clearly marked, as much as anything to retain the value of the images made by the photographer, particularly once the supply of those becomes finite. Whilst there must be quite a temptation for the unscrupulous to provide their own additions to that inventory, this will be constrained by the availability of the paper used for the genuine prints. With digital, the situation is more complicated as there is also a dependency on the printer inkset. By contrast, it is much easier to replicate the chemical formulations for print developers.

Does any of this matter? Clearly it does, otherwise why would anyone pay the outlandish prices we have seen for some works of art? Leaving aside issues such as speculation and conservation of wealth in appreciable assets, surely the purchaser would get just as much enjoyment from a good reproduction at a fraction of the cost and without the drawbacks of conservation and security? As a species, it seems we need to have as direct an association as possible with the good and the great who have gone before us.

Back from holiday now, catching up on the discussions

I totally see your point and mostly agree I think. However, I think a large part of what is perceived as valuable in an image is based on it's age and who took it. A sideways example is the Mona Lisa. It's not THAT great a picture but because of who painted it and when, it's thought to be a masterpiece and incredibly valuable.

I think if one of our pictures was printed today (rather than developed from film) and survived 500 years into the future it'd probably be as highly valued as an Ansel Adams print at the same stage.

I sort of disagree that it matters at all. The people who can afford to pay outlandish prices will usually pay it for anything, regardless of what it is. The cost to them is probably inconsequential. I also am not a fan of the "hero worship", for want of a better phrase, of a number of artists, photographers etc.

I think I might be nudging the original discussion onto a different albeit related topic here, and this might be controversial, but... I don't like/rate highly most of the work of such "classic" photographers as HCB, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and so on. For example, last season's talk about Edward Weston - I was so surprised to see photos that are thought so highly of in "the photography world" which to me looked dull & amateurish. Though I enjoyed the talk without question, I did find myself coming out wondering why people see any value in most of those pictures. The same for Ansel Adams too, and even more so for HCB - I look at the vast majority of their work and wonder what other people see in it that triggers such strong emotional responses that make them such reknowned photographers! What am I missing?

For example, take this "classic" image from Edward Weston -



I'm going to be extremely blunt here and say that I think this is absolute rubbish. I see no artistic merit in it at all, no technical skill, and it doesn't trigger a single emotional response either! I get more emotional at the people who say it's a masterpiece

Likewise this - it's taken by a Magnum photographer called Martin Parr, a guy in the same circle of "elite photographers" as Henry Cartier Bresson. Magnum is supposed to be an organisation of the best photographers of all time.



I think it's absolute garbage! How does it differ at all from this photo of a burger I took last week? Why aren't I working for Magnum?



I guess my underlying point to all of this is I often don't see what makes "legacy" images, regardless of format, so highly regarded in the first place. Particularly when it's so easily achievable by anyone else. You might argue that the likes of Adams & Weston are notable because they were pioneers in the field, achieving things when no one else was - but I'd argue "immature technology" that priced others out of trying their hand at it doesn't make someone a master. I could take my camera to a national park in the US and get pics as good as, maybe even better (?) than Adams.

Sorry, this has kind of ended up being a much longer reply than originally intended but assigning labels like "good and great" to photographers and images almost always confuses me I'm desperate to understand why!

Welcome to the world of subjective assessment. The truth is that we all have different tastes and like different things. I cannot disagree with a lot of what you said, but it is not dissimilar to what happens in competitions. Sometimes you will agree with a judge and sometimes you won't. Sometimes the judge's view will sway your own. On occasion the judge has been the only person in the room who has liked a particular image, which gives rise to some interesting dynamics.

You are not alone in your views about Edward Weston, Ansel Adams et al. I have a book of images by Ansel Adams and I was surprised how mundane most of them are. Similarly with HCB, although some of his pictures I really do like. In fact, I also quite enjoyed the Edward Weston picture you showed, as it has some interesting shapes and composition.

Whilst I was on holiday, I came across a copy of Martin Parr's "The Last Resort" which has been reprinted at least once. One image from that book is regularly reproduced, the girl serving ice cream, and deservedly so in my view. The rest I am not too bothered about, but they do represent a record of something which no longer happens in the same way.



When the "masters" such as Adams, Weston, HCB etc. were around, there were fewer people doing photography which made it easier to establish a reputation. Even today, their names are more familiar than many contemporary photographers. Ask someone to name two famous photographers, the answer is likely to be along the lines of "Ansel Adams and the other one"! There are any number of reasons for this, many arising from the greater acceptance of photography as an art form during the 60's and 70's which resulted in more photographers coming onto the scene. The ease of digital capture has also meant that many more people are now able to participate and they are encouraged by the greater number of publications available, which is made possible by digital publishing. It is easy to get lost in the crowd, harder to find the wheat amongst the chaff.

Not all modern art is by any means bad, but time has the effect of filtering out the good from the indifferent and downright rubbish. You have a great opportunity to find good unknown artists, photographers or otherwise, and buy their work cheaply to sell on at a vast profit in a few years. Because, as we know, people would always rather have an original rather than a reproduction.

One final point. Over time your tastes will change. Things which you like today, you will wonder why later in life. And vice versa. If you stick with photography, your images will also change. The types of photographs you take today will not be the same five years hence, or even five years after that, as you will have gained experience and have a different outlook.