Tag Archives: negative

Commentary

Holding an Artifact

Leave a comment
Holding an Artifact
Holding an Artifact

Holding an Artifact. Wildcat Hill, California. September 28, 2014. © Copyright 2014 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

Holding a Brett Weston negative — “Brooklyn Bridge, New York, 1946”

During our visit to the Weston Home at Wildcat Hill in late September, Kim Weston shared a wide range of photographs and photographic objects , and accompanying stories, with us in his studio. (That’s him at the lower right of the frame.) He shared and talked about work by many of the Westons, from Edward Weston to himself. He even passed around various photographs and objects for closer inspection, including this negative of a very important Brett Weston photograph, “Brooklyn Bridge, New York, 1946.”

And — no surprise! — he has a lot of stories to tell. If I have this one correct, it goes sort of this way. Brett Weston’s photographs are very much about the print and the initial image in the negative served as source material for the final interpretation. That interpretation was the thing — not the negative. As I understand it, he wanted the prints, not the negatives, to remain as his legacy, and he had announced that we was going to destroy the negatives for many great photographs. He discussed this with Edward (?) Weston, who did not feel the same way about limiting editions and who apparently convinced Brett to let him pick a few negatives to save. Brett agreed, Edward chose, Brett went and brought back the selected negatives… which he had defaced with a hole punch. (You can see the holes near the four corners of this negative.)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’

12 Comments

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for a series of posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes — a new series: “Photographic Myths and Platitudes.”

I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’ →