[Leica] RE: Eggleston: art photography

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Mitchell

>>When I looked at it I said this is nothing. Now I
remember it, and strangely, I don't know why, I'm beginning to like it in
memory whereas I didn't like looking at it. Go figure.<<

It hit me this way, as well. I keep asking myself why. Is it because it has
some very strong graphical elements? Or is it because I'm curious? Is there
some mysterious thing I've overlooked? Or is it because I think I'm
supposed to like it? After all, once I know it's an Eggleston, I can't
separate the photograph from the photographer. Maybe it's just because it
inspires me to think; not the photograph, so much as the surrounding
discussion.

Eggleston aside, it has caused me to question how many times I've looked at
a photograph only to dismiss it too quickly. We're accustomed to being
shaken by sensationalism today. If something doesn't grab us right away, we
move on.

Digital media has really opened my eyes to some things. I was a very lazy
printer. I have thousands of negatives that I never felt were worth
printing. Most of them probably aren't, but I know I've overlooked some
that are.

Recently, I discovered a photograph by accident. I scanned a neg that I
never would have printed, not in a million years.  It was on a roll Kodak
IR. On that frame I used my 21/2.8 Elmarit ASPH M. It's full frame. I used
a dark red B+W filter -- standard, not the WA version -- yet there's no
sign of vignetting. I scanned it to send it to another LUG member, as part
of a sidebar discussion we're having. At first I thought the photograph was
crap, but it's growing on me. (I don't have a web site or ftp sight, but if
anyone wants me to e-mail it to them, let me know. I'd be glad to do so and
I would appreciate any feedback. It's a very small file, only 89K.)

Criticism, bad or good, is a lot better than indifference, IMO. The fact
that the Eggleston photo generated some discussion says something about it.

David