Posts
In selling photographs I have come to realize that often the public can't see a lot of the fine tuning we sweat over in our images. Show them two images, one on a warm tone paper, and the other neutral and they can't see the difference. Give them a pair of images, one with some dodging and burning over which we sweated for hours and they don't notice the difference.
That begs the question then as to whether it's worth all this trouble, and in fact if we really aren't doing the work just for fellow photographers - rather like a group of model aeroplane flyers who discuss the relative merits of a series of motors or landing wheels or radio control units - a foreign language to those of us on the outside, yet of fascinating and endless discussion for those in the know.
I think our efforts are in fact rewarded. The 'great unwashed masses' may not be able to describe to us what they are seeing, yet react to our efforts. We may react to the enigmatic smile on the Mona Lisa whithout having a clue as to how that was achieved, what tricks of painting and light that DaVinci used to create that effect, yet react to it we do none the less.
It's no accident that the general public revere Ansel Adams - the wonderful tonalities of his images are apparent to all who view them. Michael Kenna sells well because of the mood and simplcity of his images which strike a chord with the viewers, educated or not.
The image above has cost me at least 10 hours of work, not because it's a poor image - it isn't, rather it's cost me that much because the subtleties of the image require perfect placement of the tones. I have been perfecting the image for three years now. In addition, every time I change papers or printer, it's another hour or more of work to express myself as I want. And of course, I can't help fine tuning the image a little at the same time.
The image I made yesterday and rejected this morning as not being good enough is so subtly different from the final image this morning that even I have difficulty figuring out which is which at first glance, but differences there are and even if I can't quickly say what those differences are, I still suspect that the viewer is going to react more strongly to the latest version.
1 comment:
Who do we make the art for? We are our own worst critics. Besides being a photographer I'm also an audiophile who spends far more than average on my audio gear, where most people are perfectly happy with their MP3s and iPods.
To me, the entire process of photographing is part of the final image. Everything from simply getting out to photograph to making those final, hardly noticable tweaks to the file to getting the final print. I see the difference and that's why I do it. If I spent hours and hours on it, and someone who is not a photographer spends only 3 seconds looking at it and saying "oh, that's nice," I'm still pleased.
One more thing. I think in photography a lot of what we see in the final print started in our mind's eye. So weare closest to it and more able to appreciate the finesse the final print took to come into being.
Post a Comment