Digital BW, The Print

I apologize for the length of this post, but it deals with issues I have
been thinking about for a long time. Also, since I get the list in
digest form, this conversation might be dated.

I found Ken's reference to Gene Smith's photo of Dr. Schweitzer
interesting, as it brings up a prime example of what many of us have
been discussing regarding image manipulation, digital printing and can a
digital print be considered "fine art". The photo Ken refers to, for
those not familiar with it, is "Dr. Albert Schweitzer Marking Timbers
During Construction Project, 1954". It shows Schweitzer in a white shirt
from the waist up, framed by construction timbers with a man seated
behind him on an elevated section of timber. The tone of the print is
fairly dark, with Schweitzer in white, "glowing" in the center. The
element within the image that always made it work for me, is a black
silhouette of a hand and a saw in front of Schweitzer's white shirt. It
gives the image that dimension, interest and an additional informational
element which always made me remember it. The thing is, the hand and saw
weren't there when Smith made the exposure, he added it in the darkroom.

Fifteen years ago, I was going through an exhibition in a New Orleans
photo gallery and came across this image without the silhouette. Since I
was quite familiar with the more popular version, I asked the gallery
owner about it, but he wasn't even aware it was a different version.
Within the next year, an article came out in one of the photo magazines
about the image and how Smith had photographed the silhouette earlier
that day and once back in the darkroom thought it would add to the
image, so he double printed it. It never bothered me once I learned it
was double printed. I still loved the image and the rest of Smith's
work, but the story continues.

This past summer, a friend of mine attended an international "Visual
Sociology" conference in Europe. Visual sociology is a combination of
sociology and elements of documentary photography. It is the "label" I
give my work when telling someone I am a photographer doesn't satisfy
them. Anyway, during the conference, a Spanish photographer/sociologist,
made a presentation on Smith's "Spanish Village" series. This body of
work was Smith's reaction to the policies of Franco's government. What
the Spanish photographer did was go back to the village and find those
people still around who were either photographed by Smith or remembered
him working there. His research will be coming out as a book, but what
he found was that Smith "manipulated" many of those images also. Now, he
didn't manipulate them in the traditional sense by doing something in
the darkroom, but he manipulated the people in the scene and what they
were doing. In one image, a young girl is photographed walking in her
communion dress, apparently to church. The problem is that communion
ceremonies are traditionally held in spring and Smith was there in the
fall. The girl in the photo said Smith asked her parents to dress her up
and have her pretend she was walking to church. In a more famous image,
"The Wake", he arranged the women around the body in the coffin and
directed them to where they should look.

Knowing all this doesn't change my love and respect for his work, but it
does add to the perspective when we are confronted with the argument
that "traditional" silver/chemical printing techniques are more "real"
than anything we are doing digitally and therefore are "fine art". The
fact is that all forms of photography are "manipulated". In this group,
we all manipulate a world seen in color and represent it as shades of
black, white and gray. But before we even get to the medium in which we
output and share our images, we have made multiple choices that
"manipulate" the viewer. A few, but by no means all of the factors which
form how we manipulate our viewer include the subject we choose to
photograph, camera/format, film or digital capture, lens, shutter speed,
composition, moment of exposure, developer (electronic or chemical),
..... Once the images are sitting there in front of us on a screen or
contact sheet, we choose which frames we are going to allow our viewers
to see. We might make hundreds of exposures, but we only choose the few
that say what we want the viewer to hear. As we print them, we make all
kinds of changes via chemical or electronic form, which affects how the
viewer will react to the image. We also make decisions regarding the
order in which the images are seen, whether on a wall in a gallery, in a
portfolio, the web or page sequences in a book. All of these choices
(and many more), are forms of manipulation. The thought that because one
person chooses to share these images with us via exposing silver to
light and chemically developing and fixing them makes it more "real" and
some how "fine art", makes absolutely so sense to me.

Some perspective on my background. I went to school for photography in
the mid 70's and my 101 photo class required us to learn the basics of
the medium with a 4 X 5 view camera and the Zone System. Like many of
that era, I wanted to become the next Ansel Adams. After ten years of
making technically perfect boring prints that didn't say anything, I
found my "voice/passion" and for the past fifteen years have been doing
work that I feel really says something about me (add this to the
manipulation list since no matter how hard we try, we are never
objective in the images we make). I subscribe to the old adage that a
picture is worth a thousand words, only if you have a thousand words to
say, and those beautiful "zone system" prints of mine, didn't say
anything. With that said, don't get me wrong, about my passion for the
technical side of printing. After I abandoned the view camera for a
range finder 35 mm, I continued using the "tools" I had learned over the
years while developing and printing my images. Without breaking my arm
patting myself on the back, I did earn a reputation for the quality of
my B&W silver/fiber based prints, so when I came back from the Cone
Workshop last year and announced I was only going to make "digital"
prints, it made a few people in the Atlanta area take notice. When asked
about the conversion to a different output technology, I tell people
that I had to learn to master a new set of tools to output my image to a
paper base, but the aspect of the work that really makes it "me" hasn't
changed.

Now, about this Dylan thing. I relate his (and all music), to what we
are discussing about our images. I agree that his voice is terrible and
he can't sing, but I have to admit that his "work" has always been my
absolute favorite. I love the "message" I get from the lyrics (I know,
sometimes you can't understand what he is saying, but then again there
are many works of art or music I don't understand). Now, Mariah Carey
(or any other number of polished, popular singers, I'm not picking on
her), has a beautiful voice, but in my opinion, doesn't have any
message. I sort of equate her music to my technically perfect boring
Zone System prints and Dylan's music to my digital prints. You can spend
the rest of your life arguing the pros and cons of the technical aspects
of the presentation, but the bottom line isn't how it was done but if it
says something to you. When I read a good piece of literature, I don't
think about if it was written and composed using a word processing
program, a manual typewriter or a group of monks in a cave with quill
pens. I also don't care if I am reading the hard cover first edition or
a paperback version, I react to what I read, not to the form in which it
is presented. I, for one, am taking the same attitude with my art.

Mark Maio

p.s. Since I get this list in digest form and will be on a business trip
all week, if this post generates any more discussions and I don't
respond in a timely manner, I will once I return.


>    From: "Ken Carney"
> Subject: Re: Ah, the digital argument...
>
> In his bio, AA alluded to future generations using techniques to print his negs better than he
>
> (or his assistants) could.  My guess is that Gene Smith would have traded in his ferracyanide for
>
>  Photoshop in a New York minute.  We'd probably have Richard Nixon looking down on Dr. Schweitzer by now...
>
>   --Ken
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Truman Prevatt
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 9:06 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ah, the digital argument...
>
>
>   Yes I have always respected AA's work and it will technically knock your
>   socks. While I have some of his books and even have a print hanging on
>   my wall, they are missing something - maybe passion. Adams was a master
>   technician - none better. He gave us some wonderful tools.
>
>   I recently say a W Eugene Smith exhibit and there are many images burned
>   in my mind from that day. The man caught the passion with his camera.
>   The photos reach out and grab you. Not the greatest of all technicians,
>   but good enough.
>
>   It would have been interesting to see how either of these master would
>   have approached the digital age.
>
>   Truman
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]