Below is my response to Tim Parkin's comments
made on my blog post Why I won't mourn the demise of Velvia: a counterblast.
For those of you who aren't aware, I count Tim as a good friend, we have known
each other for many, many years both online and in person. And we have
frequently argued long into the night, but we do share an abiding passion for
landscape and actually agree on far more than we disagree. As if I now need to
point this out, this was not a personal attack on Tim, but an opportunity to
give landscape photography an occasional and much needed proverbial kick up the
arse.
Tim: Blastproofing
Rob Hudson has recently posted a ‘counterblast’ to the demise of large format velvia film.
In the post he declares that the death of Velvia is actually a boon to
landscape photography. And whilst I respect his write not to mourn such a niche
product, I thought I’d write a short rebuttal covering a few statements from
the article.
“what it looks like should
probably be driven by what you are trying to say, rather than because you
happen to like strong colours or prefer a particular palette”
Hmm, agree… but this predicates on a
dichotomy between saturation/colour and communication/art – surprisingly I
think you can have one and other at the same time.
Rob: Of course you can, and no doubt should,
I have done so myself. It is a pity that so few seem to realise its even
a possibility.
“Until very recently the chosen
format for virtually all colour landscape photographers of any degree of
seriousness has been a large format camera very probably loaded with Velvia.”
Tim: from Stephen Shore, Charlie
Waite, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Ernst Haas, Saul Leiter, Jim Brandenburg,
Philip Hyde, Paul Wakefield, Neil Armstrong, Christopher Burkett, Shinzo Maeda,
Edward Burtynsky etc
Rob: Well I was commenting predominantly on
British landscape photography which should remove a fair few of those, but
whatever, I'm pretty sure that was Velvia in Charlie's Hasselblad. It does
rather make me question if the UK isn't a bit backward in these things?
“This hegemony has in turn bred
an orthodoxy of approach.”
Tim: Hegemony is strong word – implying the
threat of of some sort and the imposition of a universal world view. Large
format may be my particular pleasure but considering I could only find a
hundred or so large format landscape photographers online compared with, lets
say a few more digital or MF/35mm film users, it’s difficult to say it has been
enforced in any way.
Of course in every genre of photography and
in every type of equipment or medium there will be good and bad. From wet plate
to iphone there are creative genii and derivative idiots. And in large format
landscape photography there is sometimes a difficulty getting past the
representational and to experiment. However that is why all the large format
photographers I know use big and small cameras, film and digital to
‘experiment’ with.
Rob: Of course if you'd read down a little
further you will have noticed that I said "I'm not saying this as some
sort of paranoid, conspiracy theory, I'm sure nobody set out to create
such an environment, but does it exist as much by default, because of the
structural investment in equipment and film itself?" See another
reply below for what I mean by "structural investment"
.
“For the majority (but thankfully
not exclusively) of these leaders in our community the illustrative is still
their primary aim.”
Tim: – being representational
doesn’t correlate with being merely illustrative. Romantic does not mean
lacking in a meaning or metaphor. etc.
Rob: Again - why is metaphor and meaning such a rarity? And
when expressed often trivially and shallowly? I'm not waving a finger
specifically at LF here, I know it's widespread throughout photography and the
art world, but does the self perception of the format as perfecting
representation photography not mean there is added entrenchment?
“When in fact alternative
approaches to the art exist, but as they don’t fit in with the orthodox view,
they are dismissed as inferior.”
Tim: Oooh! You’d better back this one up
Rob!!
Rob: Again I'm not saying this as if its a
conspiracy, simply that the constant reiteration of superiority will have the
impact of dismissal of other formats and approaches.
“but does it exist as much by
default, because of the structural investment in equipment and film itself?”
Tim: … Me and Dav Thomas specced out a
full large format system for under 1,000 pound including tripod and bag and two
excellent L class lenses. I’d be interested in a digital set up that had just
one L class lens that would cost the same. And the cost of film over a year
would probably add up to the upgrade cost of most digital photographers
(£600-1000 a year?).
I know of quite a few photographers who have
recently moved from Canon to digital, selling all of their cameras and lenses
(and a few who then went back again!). In comparison with that sort of burn
rate large format – amortised – is not significantly costly
Rob: By "structural investment" I
wasn't talking about money, but the edifice (some of which is economic) around
LF in terms of sales, teaching, writing, promotion, books. It becomes a self
fulfilling fantasy that is difficult to step away from without alienating fans,
galleries, magazines etc.
“One thing is certain, as the
price of colour film is on a seemingly never ending upward spiral, a more
haphazard, playful, exploratory approach becomes increasingly inconceivable
amongst LF film users.”
Tim: is the one area where most
people commenting on large format seem to get wrong. Just because you use large
format doesn’t preclude the use of other cameras. In fact I would go as far to
say that large format camera users tend to own and use a larger variety of
cameras in different ways. They almost always own smaller compacts to
‘experiment’ with as well (sometimes transposing their experiments onto LF –
sometimes not)
Yes film costs can be expensive but they can
compare with the amount spent on digital camera upgrades, lens collections,
etc. LF photographers don’t tend to replace lenses as nearly all of them out
resolve the film they use.
A set of four lenses (a typical collection)
can be bought for about £200-300 each – making a full collection of lenses add
up to less than half the price of a 24mm Canon tilt shift.
And the cost of colour film is a minimal
expense with large format photography – the biggest expense is time for each
exposure. And large format itself is not a limitation on experimentation – take
a look at the work of Brett Weston for example or Frank Gohlke (colour too!).
In summary I think Rob is right – Fuji Velvia
exerts a magical influence on people and makes the mere representation of the
world enough for many. And large format ends up attractive to magic bullet
chasers – however in my experience most of the people who are just after
resolution will have migrated back to digital by now – hence curing themselves
of the Velvia virus.
However, Rob is also wrong –
illustrative/artistic is not an either or. Large format doesn’t preclude
experimentation – and large format cameras don’t preclude other cameras.
Fine art photography has a certain level of distaste
for the vernacular and also has a soft spot for the experimental and
‘alternative’. Sometimes this produces interesting work but on occasion it
ignores work that doesn’t fit with preconception. Like all walks of life,
the good and the bad live along side each other in various proportions,
but no media or material dictates the message or lack of it.
I know Rob was being a little ‘Devil’s
advocate’ so I know he won’t mind the strong response
Rob: I don't mind the response at all! :-) As
I said above, I wasn't talking about financial investment, so I'll happily
accept your premise that the costs may be lower. However, the fantasy that upgrading
will improve your photography is a common fallacy right across the photographic
spectrum, indeed it seems to have taken on epidemic proportions. It is certainly another way
of avoiding confronting the gaping hole in most people's photography, which is
ideas, and concentrating on the technical and the artistic superficialities.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me on that, but from a personal
perspective I don't need to be in the toyshop before I play.
There really needs to be a significant shift towards ideas and creativity
in most photographer's time and energy. Having said that, if LF promotes itself
as "the ultimate upgrade" then there is the risk that it will attract
just these type of people disproportionately. Technical skill and creativity
should not be confused, they are separate entities that with luck may combine
successfully. The trick is finding the balance. Landscape photography in that context is unbalanced!
Hi – It’s good to read such interesting stuff on the Internet as I have been able to discover here. I agree with much of what is written here and I’ll be coming back to this website again. Thanks again for posting such great reading material!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/amir-a-bajoghli-md/31/b90/989
The post is a reply to Tim Parkins response. Useful post
ReplyDeleteSalon
Salon Singapore
This is a great blog. Glad I stumble upon your site. Keep it up. thorough ageexperts.net website
ReplyDeleteHey, great blog, but I don’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Can you Help me please? akne
ReplyDeleteCool! blog! http://topallthebest.com/
ReplyDeleteit is a nice sky image, It’s good to read such interesting stuff on the Internet as I have been able to discover here. I agree with much of what is written here and I’ll be coming back to this website again. Thanks again for posting such great reading material!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.allthetop10.com/top-10-seductive-perfumes-women-2014/