Digital BW, The Print

> >>[T]he prints that [Adams] did mid-career are considered better
> >> (by the market forces and art historians) than his later
> >>work that was *much* more luminously rendered, how can that be?.
>
> >...
>
> >Again, would you like to see the classic Ansel prints that had only a
> >charcoal gray for a black? ...
>
> Have you ever seen the early "Moonrise, Hernandez?"  At first AA printed it
> fairly straight -- complete with dull gray sky.   Maybe those early Moonrise
> prints have some collectible value now, but if so, it is only because AA
> later printed it with more contrast and a nice black sky. It is these later
> versions of Moonrise that, in my view, made AA a household name.
>
> Of course, I too am into landscapes.
>
> I look at composition on two scales -- "macro patterns" and "micro
> patterns."  We just don't "see" things unless they catch out attention.  In
> color, we are hard-wired to respond to red, and other bright colors to a
> lesser degree.  In B&W, we don't have the ability to add red to get the
> viewer's attention. (And most of us landscape types don't throw in a
> beautiful nude woman to get the men's attention.)  So, what I've found works
> best is a high-contrast, fairly large pattern.  I call this the "macro
> pattern."  It's goal is to get the viewer to notice the print from across
> the room and cause the person to come over and take a closer look.  Then, of
> course, the rest of the composition (it's "micro patterns") most hold the
> viewer's interest for as long as possible.

Have you considered the work of Paul Caponigro (not his son, John Paul Caponigro).  He is unquestionably
recognized as one of the modern masters of B&W landscape photography.  While his work might be considered more
'spiritual' than 'operatic' (Ansel), he does just incredible work, and his prints look good enough to eat.
They, many times, don't have that enormous 'pop' of tones that you describe above.  Not all of his images do
*scream* at you across a room, but I will always be drawn to them.

I never considered that the job of an image was to make you cross a room for a closer look (that sounds more
like the attraction of looking at an accident).  It was my understanding that if you made the image big enough
to see (across a room), and if it was a good image, one would be drawn to it and more would be revealed as you
got closer.  Using 'contrast', to sucker people in, limits the scope of information that can be communicated.
It would seem a shame to *only* have these kinds of images....It's a big world out there.

I guess what I'm try to express, and what surprises me, is the lack of acceptance of other kinds of imagery.
Yes, we all have limits, but why set them so short?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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