 |
|||||||||||||
Sow's ear syndrome |
|||||||||||||
 |
Oops – the Thornton school of charm and diplomacy at work again. I mentally felt my arm rising up my back. This guy was a good customer too. OK, so I was a coward. I sat there and I signed them all. Here are your calendars he announced afterwards, as he pressed a pack of fifty of the signed prints on me too. I drove home angry and ashamed in equal amounts. I worked some of it off by tearing up the prints. But then, as I got to the last ones, thought 'No, hang on, I might be able to use these at any workshops and seminars I give as a teaching aid about what not to do'. So I do. A few weeks ago, I took a journey to go and see a show put on by a large group of monochrome photographers. That's the word they use, 'monochrome'. I was really looking forward to it. They have a great venue and, as mostly amateurs, they can be totally free in their subject choice. They don't have to pander to anyone's commercial whim, or to club judges. They can be themselves. Nor do they have to generate synthetic shock to please a world of art pseuds. I am not going to name them because I have no wish to embarrass or offend genuinely nice people, and they only reflect what is happening elsewhere anyway. I came out angry, after an hour or so of looking at about 200 pictures. Yes, angry. And bitterly disappointed. Was it because the prints were poor quality? Well some of them were, but no quibble with that – some of the members will be novices after all. Was it because I didn't like the pictures? No, not that either. I always enjoy encountering images, even, or especially, ones that challenge my preconceptions. I don't have to like them to appreciate being challenged by them. Too many of these were clichéd, but I can still recognise and enjoy good craftsmanship in the most mundane shot. So what was it that got the Thornton goat about having travelled so far for this? I came to see monochrome pictures, that's what! What I got was about 20 fine stimulating monochrome pictures in the whole 200. All the rest were tricksy, toned, tarted-up, transitory triteness! If I want to see colour pictures (not that I often do), I want to see them done in colour, not bastardised black and white. And didn't the local dealer do well selling Kodak High Speed Infra Red Film! Almost as well as the one selling lith developer and paper. And the group must have bought shares in Adobe. 'Gosh, here's another Photoshop filter – I must try that.' Epson must be rubbing their hands too, because I think this group have a bulk buy on their ink jet cartridges. Oh, and we must have 'impact' as well. Apparently we get that by putting on an ultra wide lens. No, sorry, we zoom out to ultra wide. Having a sharp picture might reveal that the subject is pretty trivial too, so we'll hand hold a zoom at widish aperture and/or slow speed – that's bound to soften things down a bit. The mounts mostly weren't a joy to behold either, nor were the plethora of resin coated prints, but that's not critical. If the picture is strong enough, it will overcome almost any badly chosen or made mount or paper. And that's just the problem isn't it? There aren't strong pictures. There's just being 'creative'. Next Page >> |
||||||||||||
Barn front and timbers, Caerwent: Ilford Pan F Plus, DiXactol© single bath developer, Agfa Record Rapid paper, Neutol WA developer 1:14 @ 24°C, selenium toned.© Barry Thornton Page 2 of 5 |
|||||||||||||
• Latest Issue |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
This website is © 2008 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|