|

I like to think of my photographs as a fusion of classical 19th and 20th century photographic ideals with 21st century technology. Many of my images pay homage to classic photographs and I consider myself, photographically, a direct descendant of a very traditional line. I never would have become a photographer had I not fallen deeply in love with pictures by Carleton Watkins - and Gustave Le Gray - and Duane Michals - and Jerry Uelsmann (and many others). In fact, I have a nice little collection of 19th and 20th century photographs by Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, anonymous "vernacular" photographers, and several as-yet unknown masters.
I made traditional B&W silver prints in a "wet" darkroom for many, many years, and have always held myself to a very high standard of photographic craft. These days, I'm making the most beautiful prints of my life - mostly inkjet, although sometimes LightJet - and I'm thinking about making some platinum prints from digital negatives. I work primarily from digital capture, but I'm also in the process of scanning and reworking film from my archives. I use a Mac and Adobe Photoshop, and make every exhibition print myself. I enjoy doing all of the digital "darkroom" work personally because, for me, especially with black-and-white, interpreting and transforming the image is just as important a part of the process as taking the picture in the first place.
A Few Words About Digital Prints
Whether digital prints are worthy photographic objets d'art is an interesting question - that's often obfuscated by a false dichotomy: "traditional or digital?" That's not the question. Digital prints (both ink-on-paper and on light-sensitive materials) are merely the latest in a long line of photographic printing processes. I found a lovely treatise by William Leyshon, who details no less than eighty-one different photographic printing processes! Daguerrotype, Talbotype, cyanotype, tintype, albumen, Ceroleine, Woodburytype, Ambrotype, platinum, gum-bichromate... these are just the most well-known. Each successive process did not obliterate the previous, though. In fact, many of these older (and very beautiful) processes, are undergoing a contemporary renaissance. The real question is whether a photographer is making beautiful prints, and whether her work moves you. Generally, arguments that favor "traditional" printing over digital assume that wet-darkroom silver prints require greater mastery, and that there's no craft involved with "digital." Ironically, this thinking closely parallels the sentiments of many 19th (and 20th) century painters and art critics who, concerned about the implications of photomechanical reproduction, argued against the acceptance of photography itself as an art form.
Ever wonder if daguerrotypists thought those albumen "upstarts" had things way too easy? I know they both would have looked down their noses at photographers who bought their paper pre-coated from a store. ; )
For more about traditional processes, check out:
Bostick & Sullivan
and
The Center for Alternative Photography
|