Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jnhugo" <jacknadelle@h...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
> wrote:
> > Jack, I was the original poster -- two quick replies.   First, I 
> processed 
> > the film myself -- I didn't send it out to a lab.   Second, I 
> prefer the way the 
> > film develops a bit unevenly at short times (and yes, four minutes 
> for 
> > Rodinal is very short) -- what you consider a flaw, I consider a 
> virtue.   In fact, 
> > everything about how I shot that image is "flawed," right down to 
> using a 1910 
> 
> No offense intended-it is an interesting subject-as you know not 
> everyone tries to make photos as worse as they can- it is usually 
> the other way around


Jack, fair enough -- I'm sorry if I sounded defensive.  But I would disagree with you 
about what is "usual," at least in the world of fine art B+W photography, which is the 
concern of most here.  B+W is a level of abstraction beyond ordinary color 
photography, and I'm betting most here "usually" break the rules of focusing and 
exposure and processing in the pursuit of more creative avenues of expression.  
Witness, for example, the toy camera enthusiasts -- the Holgas and Dianas.  I have an 
especial fondness for uncoated lenses with a lot of spherical aberrations, like my 
1911 Goerz Dagor -- and judging from the prices they fetch on eBay, I'm not alone.  
Or diffuse-focusing lenses.  

I could go on with more examples, but the point should be obvious.  In photographs 
as in people, it is often their asymmetries and imperfections that make them 
memorable.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net