Fred Picker ratio: arrogance /auction value
CONGREVE
there. Now I've just finished his article in the current Camera& Darkroom
magazine, where he describes in tedious detail taking a picture of a
beaver pond in Vermont (reproduced; boring, as all his work is), and how
superior he was to two Austrian tourists with Leicas who upon seeing him
stopped taking their fall-color slides, and began (according to him)
watching him with awe. He even reports with pride having gotten a pruning
saw and shears out of his car to cut down bush and small trees to improve
the composition----no mention of who owned the land, or if the rest of the
world wanted Picker pruning).
So I've come up with a new ratio for photography, which I propose to call
the A/A ratio: the ratio between the arrogance of the photographer and the
prices he gets for his work at the regular photo auctions held by Sotheby,
Christie, and others.
I'm not aware of a Fred Picker print ever having sold for more than a few
hundred dollars---correct me, please, if I'm wrong. Edward Weston's
regularly go for upwards of $100,000. Prints by some people still alive
and working (eg Cartier Bresson, with one of those tacky little Leicas)
routinely bring $5,000 at auction.. Sebastio Salgado, with another of
those tacky little Leicas, also comes in at auction at close to that. And
none of them approach Fred Picker in arrogance. Some of them even have a
bit of humility, or respect for other ways of doing things.
So if maximum auction price achieved by a still-alive and working
photographer is one side of the ratio (eg maybe $10,000) and arrogance is
the other end of the ratio, with Fred's prints ---if I'm right about this,
and I'm sure I'm not far off--- bringing maybe one-tenth of that on the
rare occasions when one of his prints comes on the market at auction, then
Fred by definition gets the highest A/A ratio. The lowest ratios (lower
=better) would, I propose, go to Arnold Newman, John Sexton, Sebastio
Salgado, Bill Clift (who, like Picker, works in 8 x 10 but SUCCESSFULLY),
Joyce Tenneson, Mary Ellen Mark, Bruce Birnbaum......any other nominees?
Any better formula or ratio?
Alan Heldman, B'ham AL
R. Urban
>I've gotten Zone VI catalogs for years, and have read Fred Picker here >and
>there. Now I've just finished his article in the current Camera& >Darkroom
>magazine, where he describes in tedious detail taking a picture of a
>beaver pond in Vermont (reproduced; boring, as all his work is), and how
>superior he was to two Austrian tourists with Leicas who upon seeing him
>stopped taking their fall-color slides, and began (according to him)
>watching him with awe.
Let me state right off that I don't own a Leica or Zone VI camera, nor
have I read the article.
The post sounds very bent out of shape over the article and made it very
clear that Fred Picker doesn't even rate a Christmas Card. I'm curious,
are you a Leica owner?
From time to time I've seen other similar 'trendy' postings that take
pot-shots at Fred Picker. Although I'm not a fan of Freddie, I can't
confirm or deny the roasting he got from this posting. However, it
would be interesting to trace down the When, where or who that started
the 'lets burn Freddie at the stake' witch hunt.
--
Roger a#ur...@cwemail.ceco.com
"Never attribute to malicious conspiracy what can adequately be
explained by simple stupidity." - Lazarus Long
John Sparks
>... However, it
>the 'lets burn Freddie at the stake' witch hunt.
Well at least the "who" is obvious :-) !
John Sparks
Oleg Volk
>So if maximum auction price achieved by a still-alive and working
>photographer is one side of the ratio (eg maybe $10,000) and arrogance is
>the other end of the ratio, with Fred's prints ---if I'm right about this,
>and I'm sure I'm not far off--- bringing maybe one-tenth of that on the
>rare occasions when one of his prints comes on the market at auction, then
>Fred by definition gets the highest A/A ratio. The lowest ratios (lower
>=better) would, I propose, go to Arnold Newman, John Sexton, Sebastio
>Salgado, Bill Clift (who, like Picker, works in 8 x 10 but SUCCESSFULLY),
>Joyce Tenneson, Mary Ellen Mark, Bruce Birnbaum......any other nominees?
>
Would Mapplethorpe and Canningham have qualified during their
lifetimes?
http://www.ddb.com/olegv (new-Thanks DDB!)
http://sunsite.unc.edu/otis/pers/Volk_O.html (old)
Looking for a position of multimedia developer
or photographer or WWW builder.
Kevin Bjorke
> Would Mapplethorpe and Canningham have qualified during their
> lifetimes?
Actually, my wife once worked as an assistant to Mapplethorpe's
accountant. I'm not sure of the arrogance portion of the ratio,
but he certainly had a very healthy day rate.
--
Kevin Bjorke, Animation Scientist
Pixar Animation Studios
Charles Dharapak
>(eg Cartier Bresson, with one of those tacky little Leicas)
>Sebastio Salgado, with another of
>those tacky little Leicas,
and the "tackiness" of things, but I don't seem to follow here.
Please elaborate.
-- Charlie (cdh...@pipeline.com)
"It ain't in the horn, man. It's only me." -- Charlie Parker
Eric Larsen
cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE) wrote:
>
> So I've come up with a new ratio for photography, which I propose to call
> the A/A ratio: the ratio between the arrogance of the photographer and the
> prices he gets for his work at the regular photo auctions held by Sotheby,
> Christie, and others.
>
I've met Picker personally. (I took the Zone Vi workshop all those years
ago.)
Picker is a first class snob, and he tends to remove the art from photography,
and replace it with mindless technical formulas. That's the main reason
I think his photography stinks. He enjoys his "I wanna be the Ansel Adams
of New England" style of photography, and that's great. He's making more
money at it than most of us, so he's doing SOMETHING right.
But I'll tell you this, there is NOBODY IN THE WORLD I would rather have
at the enlarger printing my negs. He is the consummate printer. He has
also written the easiest to understand explaination of the Zone system.
So what if he'll never be remembered as a great photographer, he's still
done photography a considerable service with all his writing and his
store, which IMHO stocks the best stuff in the world. I just wish
I could afford his 4x5 enlarger, and a few other things he makes.
//-------------------------------------------------------------------------//
// He who shits in the road will : Eric Larsen : Southernmost Internaut //
// step in a turd on his way : er...@ibm.net : in the Continental US. //
// way back - African Proverb : Key West, FL : Vive le Conch Republic! //
//-------------------------------------------------------------------------//
Pete Bergstrom
> But I'll tell you this, there is NOBODY IN THE WORLD I would rather have
> at the enlarger printing my negs. He is the consummate printer.
I agree that he does very nice printing work.
> He has
> also written the easiest to understand explaination of the Zone system.
His explanation of the Zone System is also wrong. Don't listen to him when
he advises you to place the highlights and let the shadows fall where they
may on your negative exposure. This probably works well for him under the
lighting/contrast conditions he works in, but it does lead to problems when
you want full-range negatives in varying contrast conditions.
Pete
Scott Nichol
: I've gotten Zone VI catalogs for years, and have read Fred Picker here and
: there. Now I've just finished his article in the current Camera& Darkroom
: magazine, where he describes in tedious detail taking a picture of a
: beaver pond in Vermont (reproduced; boring, as all his work is), and how
: superior he was to two Austrian tourists with Leicas who upon seeing him
: stopped taking their fall-color slides, and began (according to him)
: saw and shears out of his car to cut down bush and small trees to improve
: the composition----no mention of who owned the land, or if the rest of the
: world wanted Picker pruning).
boy, there was always something about him that i really didn't like, but
now i know. i didn't get to that article just yet, but if that is true
about cutting down shrubs and small trees, someone should take Picker out
and cut some of his limbs off!
the very nature of being a nature photographer is having a respect for
the land. i guess we can all take solice in the fact that, by pruning
those bushes and trees, they will mostlikely only grow in fuller and
larger for the next time Picker decides to compose at this spot.
scott nichol
CONGREVE
stirred up the natives, which is, of course, what I had hoped to do. But
I'd love to see the "conversation" get back to original question, which is
a varient on the ancient "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?"
question. If Fred is so good, why aren't people collecting his prints for
large sums of money? And (we all know) they are NOT collecting his prints
for large sums of money, NOR are his books selling nearly so well as (eg)
Sexton, Caponigro, Salgado, Gibson.....
So isn't Fred really the photo equivalent of the (a lot of you are not old
enough to remember this) the audio nerds who used to build stereo
equipment with the lowest possible distortion, etc., with panel meters to
show the low distortion, etc., and sit around and watch those panel meters
and never really listen to music?
Ansel Adams may be "in" or "out" this year (and whichever it is, it will
switch soon), but he not only wrote books on technique and gave workshops
but sold prints in his lifetime for tens of thousands of dollars. This
gave him, if you will, a sort of "right" to pontificate. What has Fred
Picker done to give him the "right" put on the "Picker knows best" manner
that he has, and particularly what gives him the "right" to snicker at
Austrian tourists with Leicas who are at the same beaver pond taking color
slides? The man is simply insufferable, which is a characteristic which
we tolerate in geniuses, but which I see no reason to tolerate in a person
who has proven no evidence of creative or artistic ability at all.
And, in closing, I'd add "amen" to the person a couple posts upstream who
talked about the eco-vulgarity of Fred chopping down the saplings which
were in the "wrong" place at the beaver pond. Can we at least all agree
on this conclusion: Leave it to beavers?
congreve
cong...@aol.com
Greg Finn
I'm back---Congreve, who originated this "thread." Delighted to have
stirred up the natives, which is, of course, what I had hoped to do. But
I'd love to see the "conversation" get back to original question, which is
a varient on the ancient "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?"
question. If Fred is so good, why aren't people collecting his prints for
large sums of money? And (we all know) they are NOT collecting his prints
for large sums of money, NOR are his books selling nearly so well as (eg)
Sexton, Caponigro, Salgado, Gibson.....
What's your point? That Van Gogh was a terrible artist? Try a line
of argument that's a bit stronger historically.
Hal Pawluk
writes:
>
>I'm back---Congreve, who originated this "thread." Delighted to have
>stirred up the natives, which is, of course, what I had hoped to do.
But
>I'd love to see the "conversation" get back to original question,
which is
>a varient on the ancient "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?"
>question. If Fred is so good, why aren't people collecting his prints
for
>large sums of money?
I think it's pretty simple if you've been reading the magazines he and
folks like Wisner publish in: they don't take good pictures.
Technically, they're wonderful prints but it's nothing you much care to
look at. The beaver pond is a good example.
CONGREVE
knowing how to do accent marks on the internet). However Van Gogh was
quite crazy, and Fred...... I think Fred gets a fair 'earing.
congreve
cong...@aol.com
CONGREVE
I don't think the peasants are "revolting." I think they're delightful!
I do think Fred is revolting.
cong...@aol.com
au...@halcyon.com
> I'm back---Congreve, who originated this "thread." Delighted to have
> on this conclusion: Leave it to beavers?
>
Not being a professional photographer I guess I'll have to
provide the "unwashed peasants view" here.
Measuring the artistic merit of a photographers work by how
much money he makes is an interesting thought -
Is the full ramification of this the idea that: "we know what we are -
we're just negotiating the price???"
There is another name for that too!
And how GOOD we are as artists, what ever that adjective means, is
measured by money for current works?!! Well - that surely
elevates this to a whole new plane!
And he cut down a shrubbery!! A holy shrub!! As if only beavers are fit
to modify the earth for their own purposes. Men are wholly unworthy
of such assumptions of perogative?? After all - they were put here by
thier creator with no purpose but to worship every tree and bush
for its bushiness.
Gimme a break!! There are people who walk the earth that seem to
be lower life forms than the animals, and probably have less rights to
use the earth for people purposes, but I don't consider myself
one of them, nor most of my house broken friends that way either.
However - if the shoe fits . . . .
And quite frankly some of this self righteous indegnation is getting to be
a little too much. Look - Ansel Adams was an excellent artist, and a great
teacher. Be he didn't create a new religion, and shouldn't be treated
like a demi-god. Picker is another artist - and another teacher too.
I wouldn't worship at his feet either. Learn from each, assimilate what you can -
grow and evolve your own styles , and stop acting like there was such a thing as
absolute truth!
You're right CONGREVE - you stirred the natives - and even the
peasants are revolting!
Interesting revelation of the thought processes going on around us
though - leaves pause for concern!!
Take care -
Norm
R. Urban
>I think it's pretty simple if you've been reading the magazines he and
>folks like Wisner publish in: they don't take good pictures.
>Technically, they're wonderful prints but it's nothing you much care to
>look at. The beaver pond is a good example.
Ahhhhh, I am beginning to understand this thread! YES! I have now read
some mags that Wisner and Freddie publish in and the pix just leave me
with a 'blah' feeling, like it was a waste of time to even read. I've
reviewed one of Freddie's books and have to admit that not only was I
terribly underwhelmed but the reproductions in the book looked
underexposed as well. For me, Freddie's pix were dull and boring.
The Freddie 'hit index' count in now up to 4.
What's more disconcerting is this: Freddie has published a lot more than
most of us other photog's.
--
Roger a#ur...@cwemail.ceco.com
"No one gets in to see the Wizard, not no one, not no how."
- Frank Oz, Doorman at the Emerald Palace in 'The Wizard of Oz'
Hal Pawluk
>
>paw...@ix.netcom.com (Hal Pawluk) wrote:
>
>>I think it's pretty simple if you've been reading the magazines he and
>>folks like Wisner publish in: they don't take good pictures.
>>Technically, they're wonderful prints but it's nothing you much care to
>>look at. The beaver pond is a good example.
>
>Ahhhhh, I am beginning to understand this thread! YES! I have now read
>some mags that Wisner and Freddie publish in and the pix just leave me
>with a 'blah' feeling, like it was a waste of time to even read. I've
>reviewed one of Freddie's books and have to admit that not only was I
>terribly underwhelmed but the reproductions in the book looked
>underexposed as well. For me, Freddie's pix were dull and boring.
My problem with a lot of their stuff (Picker did do some nice stuff in
Iceland 10 years or so ago) is that it's "stuff on paper" rather than
something that I can get into and make the paper disappear. Like with
prints from any number of other photographers who cover the same types
of subject (Sexton, Birnbaum, Englander, Dusard, etc.)
>What's more disconcerting is this: Freddie has published a lot more
than
>most of us other photog's.
You don't have to be a chef to be able to tell if the food is bad.
John Sparks
>If Fred is so good, why aren't people collecting his prints for
>large sums of money?
One problem is that he's not dead yet. Most people won't collect prints
for large sums of money when they can still be bought for relatively low
prices. The are some exceptions where the artists have artifically limited
quanitites, but even so, most really large prices go for the re-sale of art
generally after the artist is dead.
>Ansel Adams may be "in" or "out" this year (and whichever it is, it will
>switch soon), but he not only wrote books on technique and gave workshops
>but sold prints in his lifetime for tens of thousands of dollars.
Prints may have sold for that much during his lifetime, but not by him.
When he was still taking orders (he stopped taking orders in the late
1970's if I remember right), you could still order a print for $800
(probably 11x14 or 16x20, I don't know the details). Larger prints
probably cost a bit more but I'm sure that none where as much as $10,000.
After he stopped taking print orders, the prices (for resale) started rising
and soared up after he died.
The sad truth is that many now famous artists were struggling to make
ends meet during their lifetimes (this doesn't really apply to Adams
who had a successful commercial photography business, but does apply
to Edward Weston and many others).
John Sparks
CONGREVE
the "starter" of this thread I didn't mean ONLY to bash Picker but also to
start a serious discussion going, on what in retrospect I should have
called the arrogance/excellence ratio: A/E. We could then give deserved
high marks to any of several people who have done marvelous teaching work
(or produced great unrecognized work) through the years without becoming
egomaniacs or disdaining the work of others, in other formats, or other
styles. Some years ago a person who claimed to have been there told me he
heard a remark of Ansel Adams upon first viewing the (very highly
regarded) work of Bruce Davidson, taken---at some personal risk, as I
understand it---of horrible slum conditions in parts of New York. St.
Adam's remark, I am told, was "The fellow has a problem with shadow
detail."
Of course shadow detail wasn't what Davidson was "about," and anyway the
remark may be apocryphal. But Picker does the art or craft of photography
a disservice by simultaneously puffing himself up and suggesting that his
way is the only way.
So having read this discussion develop, I amend my proposal to A/E ratio:
arrogance/excellence. Or maybe (anybody capable of following zone system
instructions could follow this although it's a bit complicated): E/A x
T, in which T stands for Tolerance (or openmindedness). I welcome further
amendments offered by others.
congreve
William Bell
>From: cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE)
>Subject: Re: Fred Picker ratio: arrogance /auction value
>Date: 18 Jun 1995 11:46:51 -0400
Don't read Fred, don't look at his images, don't take his classes. I many
not much like his work, but he is a wonderful printer and some of his photo
tools are great improvements over the standard items. In spite of his
seeming self-importance his reputation does seem to be based on what he
does well.
Barry Sherman
>start a serious discussion going, on what in retrospect I should have
>called the arrogance/excellence ratio: A/E. We could then give deserved
>high marks to any of several people who have done marvelous teaching work
>(or produced great unrecognized work) through the years without becoming
>egomaniacs or disdaining the work of others, in other formats, or other
>styles.
I think that "excellence" above needs to be further defined. When I was
just starting to do darkroom work I bought one of Fred's sample fine
prints which he instructs us to hang in our darkrooms to use as an
example of wonderful printing. As it happens I'm of two opinions:
* It *is* wonderful printing. Really deep, lustrous blacks. Whites
that sing. Marvelously printed.
* Utterly boring.
So it's excellent in a pure technical sense and, for me, not excellent in an
esthetic sense. This is particularly sad as I can think of so many
photographers who produce prints of equal technical perfection but
which I find aesthetically exciting as well.
So I'd find that Mr. Picker has a relatively high A/E ratio if we're
defining excellence to mean the aesthetics of his work as a whole but
somewhat lower if we're defining it to mean the technical caliber of
his printing.
>Of course shadow detail wasn't what Davidson was "about," and anyway the
>remark may be apocryphal. But Picker does the art or craft of photography
>a disservice by simultaneously puffing himself up and suggesting that his
>way is the only way.
Actually, I suspect that he may be doing the art/craft a *service*. Those
photographers who lack the ability to think critically will follow him
blindly. This is, in a sense, natural selection and those who are
able to develop their own understanding of the processes will not follow
his techniques and will grow. People who think that by placing highlights
on Zone VII they're following the Zone system will have problems with
shadow detail when in high contrast situations while those who place
their shadows where they want them and control highlight density through
development will have less trouble. Natural selection. :-) (ok, ok,
I realize that Darwinian natural selection has to do merely with
reproduction. Don't take me too literally. :-)
>So having read this discussion develop, I amend my proposal to A/E ratio:
>arrogance/excellence. Or maybe (anybody capable of following zone system
>instructions could follow this although it's a bit complicated): E/A x
>T, in which T stands for Tolerance (or openmindedness). I welcome further
>amendments offered by others.
But the result would be 0: A/E x 0 = 0.
:-)
Interesting, isn't it, how most of the other photographers, the ones
who produce really wonderful images as opposed to technically
perfect prints, are quite happy to have everyone do everything however
they find works best for them?
Barry
--
Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | Dunno which I dislike more: ideologies,
b...@oes.amdahl.com | ideologues or those who follow either.
My opinions, not Amdahl's |
Don Baccus
>And he cut down a shrubbery!! A holy shrub!! As if only beavers are fit
>to modify the earth for their own purposes. Men are wholly unworthy
>of such assumptions of perogative??
The point the original poster made was, in part, that there was
no indication in the article as to ownership of the land.
If it were my land, and if he was cutting my shrubs, I'd get
pissed and he'd leave well aware of it. Regardless of actual
harm, the principal being that one should respect the rights
of others, and ask permission before cutting down their
shrubs.
And the article also made it quite clear that the Austrians
weren't photographers, in his eyes, but snapshooters overendowed
with expensive equipment.
Which may or may not have been true. They may just've been
too polite to start cutting down shrubs in a foreign country.
Or, perhaps they stared with fascination through Picker's
camera because they thought the shot was boring (I did).
--
- Don Baccus -
Kevin Bjorke
>
> Don't read Fred, don't look at his images, don't take his classes. I many
I will, in Fred's defense, say that there is ONE photo I
rather like in "The Fine Print" -- the sunbathing fur-robed
woman on the NYC park bench. That one is cool, despite his
annoying accompaniment about equipment. Oddly, this great
shot is very, very, different from the rest of his book (and
his ongoing work). Go figure.
au...@halcyon.com
> In article <3s0fr2$m...@news.halcyon.com> au...@halcyon.com writes:
>
> >And he cut down a shrubbery!! A holy shrub!! As if only beavers are fit
> >to modify the earth for their own purposes. Men are wholly unworthy
> >of such assumptions of perogative??
>
> The point the original poster made was, in part, that there was
> no indication in the article as to ownership of the land.
>
> If it were my land, and if he was cutting my shrubs, I'd get
> pissed and he'd leave well aware of it. Regardless of actual
Therin lies the rub - you set out to assume the worst about
ownership of the land - or whether prior permission was arranged -
and then having assumed evil intent proceed to rail against the
individual for being a devil. It could be that there was permission
to modify the trees. The real question is why are you judging
an individuals behavior based on pure speculation about the situation.
Since there is no knowledge of intent or circumstances it
would be charitable to assume the best, not the worst.
To do less is most disquieting - "I don't like him - so I will assume
he is doing evil things for evil reasons - after all - he must - because I've
already judged that he would!"
> And the article also made it quite clear that the Austrians
> weren't photographers, in his eyes, but snapshooters overendowed
> with expensive equipment.
>
> Which may or may not have been true. They may just've been
> too polite to start cutting down shrubs in a foreign country.
> Or, perhaps they stared with fascination through Picker's
> camera because they thought the shot was boring (I did).
>
Then again - they may have been people with more money than talent -
again - I sure hate to judge things that I haven't experienced directly, based on
hearsay and magazine articles. Kinda seems a little narrow minded - eh?!
This whole thread seems bent on determining which people are
"Good" artists versus meer craftsmen, and judging them as people.
Kinda scary thought isn't it. Its one thing to love or hate the work an
individual does, or to admire or disdain his technique - but sitting
in judge of other peoples motives and personalities is a little
bizarre.
I think I'll stay away from this thread and go read some others,
I have the terrible fear that some junior thought police wanna-be is
reading this and his whole fabric will get bent by it!
Enjoy your judgements.
take care -
Norm
Michael C. Taylor
>I'm back---Congreve, who originated this "thread." Delighted to have
I can remember Sexton's prints in _Quiet Light_ (1990) looking amazing and
Caponigro's prints looking dull and boring in _Landscape_ (1975) from the
library. I was wondering how the originals differ. I also was wondering about
what size the originals are (typically)?
-Michael Taylor
John LaFountain
one of his Zone VI enlargers with the variable contrast head and
compensating timers.
Any takers?
-john
MarB1
Mark Bau.
Lou Kipnis
[snip]
>I'm now looking at the MetroLux timer which meters the light and has
>all of the above, ... and has a built in shutter timer.
FWIW, I've used a MetroLux for years. Excellent piece of equipment!
Different principle than Zone VI timer. Recommend highly.
Course, your other choice is a color head, esp. if you want to use VC
papers.
>Also, I played with the Zone VI enlarger at a trade show a year or so
>ago and thought that it felt cheap. The oversized knurled knobs were
>loose on their shafts and there was slop in the movements. Maybe this
>unit was beat from the trade show circuit but it certainly didn't
>impress me.
>So, hold on to that left testicle ... at least until you try the
>equipment. Don't summarily believe Freddie's hype in his catalogs.
Agreed! Enlarger unimpressive. P's hyperbole more than exaggeration,
often just wrong!
---
Lou
<lki...@i-2000.com>
___________________________________________________________________
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
--Bob Dylan
Lou Kipnis
>I can remember Sexton's prints in _Quiet Light_ (1990) looking amazing and
>Caponigro's prints looking dull and boring in _Landscape_ (1975) from the
>library. I was wondering how the originals differ. I also was wondering about
>what size the originals are (typically)?
Sexton's "Quiet Light": Originals mostly 11x14 and smaller, esp.
prints from 120 negs. Caponigro has not had good reproduction. I
understand he wants it that way. His originals, that I've seen, are
11x14 to 16x20 mostly and larger (20x24?). While not as flashy as
Sexton's prints, Caponigro's prints are profoundly subtle, revealing
more with each viewing. For me, I carry Caponigro's images in my head
long after Sexton's are forgotten. Just my opinion.
John LaFountain
> It must be sad to not have a sex life!
>
>
> Mark Bau.
Hey, even with one wheel, the cannon still fires, Buddy! 8-)
-john
WS62186
sort of *put* himself before us! There are plenty of great printers out
there and plenty that read this list. How come we can't put ourselves
before the world and announce we're geniuses?
Perhaps, I'm just jealous of Picker's success because it seems so
undeserved. Whenever I see his work I begin to think he only became
famous because he sells great equipment and to me, selling great equipment
doesn't make your work good. He's "I'll make you a great photographer if
you follow my advice" routine reminds me of that guy in Hawaii who will
make me a millionaire if I follow his real estate tips.
Maybe someone will force him to hang his work with Sally Mann or Jock
Sturges or Harry Callahan or Joel Meyerowitz. Then we'll judge him
thusly!
W. Summerville
*****************************************
* undeveloped silver wants to be free! *
*****************************************
Edward Gosfield
: mct...@mailserv.mta.ca (Michael C. Taylor) wrote:
: >I can remember Sexton's prints in _Quiet Light_ (1990) looking amazing and
: >Caponigro's prints looking dull and boring in _Landscape_ (1975) from the
: >library. I was wondering how the originals differ. I also was wondering about
: >what size the originals are (typically)?
: Sexton's "Quiet Light": Originals mostly 11x14 and smaller, esp.
: prints from 120 negs. Caponigro has not had good reproduction. I
: understand he wants it that way. His originals, that I've seen, are
: 11x14 to 16x20 mostly and larger (20x24?). While not as flashy as
: Sexton's prints, Caponigro's prints are profoundly subtle, revealing
: more with each viewing. For me, I carry Caponigro's images in my head
: long after Sexton's are forgotten. Just my opinion.
I have a 16x20 of Sexton's White Branch, Merced River, which is quite nice,
with great detail in the lower tones, and an obvious bleach job (which
works well) on the brightest highlights. I don't think his published
images are as effective as the live prints, but i think they come closer
than Caponigro's.
On the other hand, I have met Caponigro and looked at many of his images,
and I must agree that the reproductions in his published catalogs and
books are very poor representations of his work. I believe that his wife
was responsible for the choice of paper and texture in his most recent
book. I assume he approved of her choice, but i am not sure why he was
satisfied with that quality of reproduction. I agree strongly that he is a
more profound photographer than Sexton (whatever we mean by that), but
Sexton is still at the beginning of his career as an "important"
photographer.
I also find it interesting that Caponigro told me (10 years ago) that for
a long time he pursued a printing philosophy which he felt resembled that
of A. Adams: to separate the tones as much as possible. Later on he
decided that he was more interested in " blending the tones" than in
separating them. I believe he feels this evolution is also connected with
his philosophical development, which was initially influenced by Zen and
Minor White (?perhaps Gurdjieff), although we didn't discuss that
explicitly.
I have an Alan Ross print from A.Adams negative (Vernal falls) and i don't
think published versions catch the subtleties of the highlights very well.
A friend has a couple of Brett Westons (Mindenhall Glacier and another)
which are considerably more effective in person than on the printed page.
The wider the contrast range (both local and global) of the original
print, the less likely that the printed page can reproduce it well. So i
suppose it's possible that some lower contrast photos may reproduce
reasonably well in print.
The American Federation of Music has the motto "Live Music is Best". I
think we all agree that "Real Prints are Best".
best wishes,
Rob Clevenger
Speaking of the Zone VI Compensating Enlarger Timer, I bought one of
these pups (yup, layed down ~US$400), used it for a coupla days, and
sent it back for a refund. It did a fine job of metering the light
(coupled to a Zone VI Cold Light Head) but had deficiencies that I
just couldn't live with (not for 400 bucks anyway).
* No "pause" feature. You start the timer and it must run to
completion. The only way to stop it prematurely is to hit the main
power switch. This is very disturbing as I like to lay down a base
exposure and then without touching the time controls would like to
begin the dodging/burning process. I had hoped that I could hit the
start button/footswitch to begin a timed session, count metronome
clicks to time the process, and hit it again to end it prematurely.
* There is no way to dim the panel lights. I wanted to position the
timer close to the printing easel but could not because the panel
lamps are too bright.
* There is no way to determine "time remaining" short of counting
metronome clicks. I know that I should have realized this from
reading the info in the catalog but it did not register. I really
want a timer that has a numeric countdown display so I can tell at a
glance how much time remains.
I'm now looking at the MetroLux timer which meters the light and has
all of the above, ... and has a built in shutter timer.
The Zone VI folks were very good about taking the timer back - no
hassles.
Michael O'Henly
:Maybe someone will force him to hang his work with Sally Mann or Jock
:Sturges or Harry Callahan or Joel Meyerowitz. Then we'll judge him
:thusly!
Why judge? What's the point?
Michael O'Henly
-- o
moh...@amtsgi.bc.ca --/-- AERA COMMUNICATIONS
aer...@amtsgi.bc.ca __\ Box 27025 Colwood Corners
604-478-6377 voice/fax \ Victoria, BC Canada V9B 5S4
Paul T. Winkfield
: So having read this discussion develop, I amend my proposal to A/E ratio:
: arrogance/excellence. Or maybe (anybody capable of following zone system
: instructions could follow this although it's a bit complicated): E/A x
: T, in which T stands for Tolerance (or openmindedness). I welcome further
: amendments offered by others.
I Love this thread! one must remember that photogs are very opinionated, a
friend told me a story of being interviewed for an assistant job of a
portrait photog, the man showed him his studio with 4x5,and 8x10s then
open a closet full of every Nikon from F4 to F and said 'this is where
I keep the toys'. Leicas because of their history gets bashed by many
and praised by few(i have 6 of those tacky cameras paying my bills).
<paul>
I Love my LeIcA! r
Don Baccus
>Therin lies the rub - you set out to assume the worst about
>ownership of the land - or whether prior permission was arranged -
>and then having assumed evil intent proceed to rail against the
>individual for being a devil.
You may be unaware that he (Picker) wrote the article. I write
occasional pieces for my local daily and a regional magazine, and
when I speak of opportunities to view wildlife, etc, or first person
experiences I believe it is my responsibilty to educate about
ethics as well as the natural world.
If Picker knew the owner or had permission, etc, he could've
worked it into his description. From the narrative, though, I'd say
he didn't, and didn't care. That was the message I got: it's
OK to cut down someone's shrubs if you're after a good photo.
If that's not the message he intended to give, he needs to
learn to write better.
>The real question is why are you judging
>an individuals behavior based on pure speculation about the situation.
We're not. We're basing it on his own description of the
event. Have you read it?
>Then again - they may have been people with more money than talent -
Sure. The point is, though, that PICKER was in no position to
either. Yet, he did, in a very negative fashion.
And in print.
Again, we're judging Picker by what he wrote. He implied they
were dirt in his judgement, which seemed to be based on 1. camera
brand 2. activity ("there to shoot foliage") and 3. probably film
choice (color, not B&W)
>This whole thread seems bent on determining which people are
>"Good" artists versus meer craftsmen, and judging them as people.
>Kinda scary thought isn't it. Its one thing to love or hate the work an
>individual does, or to admire or disdain his technique - but sitting
>in judge of other peoples motives and personalities is a little
>bizarre.
Actually, there have been two parallel threads. I certainly
don't judge his work by his actions (though I'm not real
thrilled with either). My comments have been strictly about
his article, and I'd feel the same way even if I loved his
stuff. Nor would my feelings about his statements change
my feelings about his work if I happened to like it.
Barry Sherman
>Speaking of the Zone VI Compensating Enlarger Timer, I bought one of
>these pups (yup, layed down ~US$400), used it for a coupla days, and
>sent it back for a refund. It did a fine job of metering the light
>(coupled to a Zone VI Cold Light Head) but had deficiencies that I
>just couldn't live with (not for 400 bucks anyway).
>* There is no way to dim the panel lights. I wanted to position the
>timer close to the printing easel but could not because the panel
>lamps are too bright.
One solution might be what I did when I put a stereo in my darkroom:
the display was way too bright so I fogged some sheet film and
taped it over the display. It's now just barely bright enough
to read in room light and dim enough to be safe for all but
the fastest materials. For those, and I use fast materials very
seldom, I just tape a piece of black construction paper temporarily
over the display.
But you shouldn't have to go through those gyrations after spending
that kind of money. I'd have sent it back as well. My Zone VI
compensating *Developing* timer has a dim (film) mode and a
bright (paper) mode. Seems strange that it didn't occur to them
that the enlarger timer just might be used in the same darkroom
as that in which film is developed.
>* There is no way to determine "time remaining" short of counting
>metronome clicks. I know that I should have realized this from
>reading the info in the catalog but it did not register. I really
>want a timer that has a numeric countdown display so I can tell at a
>glance how much time remains.
But don't forget that Fred says that a metronome is the only
enlarger timer that you need. I'd really enjoy watching him count
metronome beats during a 6 minute Ilfochrome exposure!
Bill Patterson
> ...
> But don't forget that Fred says that a metronome is the only
> enlarger timer that you need. I'd really enjoy watching him count
> metronome beats during a 6 minute Ilfochrome exposure!
>
> Barry
In the "Printing with Fred Picker" video that I've seen, Picker doesn't use
a metronome. He makes repetitive 3 second exposures using using a foot
switch. This is for B&W, of course. I'm not sure I'd want to want to use
this technique either for your 6 minute Ilfochrome exposures.
Bill Patterson (wpatt...@asap.bus.wisc.edu)
Guy Teague
: I've gotten Zone VI catalogs for years, and have read Fred Picker here and
: there. Now I've just finished his article in the current Camera& Darkroom
: magazine, where he describes in tedious detail taking a picture of a
: beaver pond in Vermont (reproduced; boring, as all his work is), and how
: superior he was to two Austrian tourists with Leicas who upon seeing him
: stopped taking their fall-color slides, and began (according to him)
: watching him with awe. He even reports with pride having gotten a pruning
: saw and shears out of his car to cut down bush and small trees to improve
: the composition----no mention of who owned the land, or if the rest of the
: world wanted Picker pruning).
--------
Isn't the Zone VI catalog the one that has a blurb on the front saying
something to the effect of: "Be sure to hold onto this catalog so we don't
have to print so many" implying that they're trying to save trees?
--
Regards, [dteague 73 de "They're out there" -- K. Kesey
Guy @csc.com] KG5VT "Brown shoes don't make it" -- F. Zappa
Lartigue
(which seems to be the consensus here). Perhaps --this time-- he should
have left the shrubs intact. A better image than he usually gets might
have been the result.
Alan Bell
: And he cut down a shrubbery!! A holy shrub!! As if only beavers are fit
: to modify the earth for their own purposes. Men are wholly unworthy
: thier creator with no purpose but to worship every tree and bush
: for its bushiness.
The point is not intentions of the divine creator of the universe, but
rights of the person who owns the bushes. We might expect birds to take a
crap on our cars, but we don't expect men to to it. Beavers, indeed!
Edward M. Lukacs
As a point of interest, he's not the only photographer to'improve'
the scene he photographed. George Tice comes to mind, scrupulously
sweeping the entire lot of a White Castle hamburger place in Elizabeth,
New Jersey before he unlimbered his 8x10.... Basically, each wanted
to do the same thing; optiomize the shot.
So what's the big deal and why all this unnecessary breast-beating?
I thought that was for gorillas and not homo-sapiens. (Unless
some of you are regressing, that is!) Lighten up! Let's keep it cicil!
Fred did what he felt he wanted to to make his shot. I'm quite certain
your daily newspaper did more ecological harm to the woods when they
printed the sunday advertising supplement! I'm willing to bet you didn't
complain bitterly about that! We all do some when we discard processing
effluent. Is that any less harmful? Is it any more harmful than
(I believe it was, but can't remember, exactly) Timothy O'Sullivan's
purposely photographing his own footprints in a desert sand dune to
lend perspective? You do what you feel is justified. It will be
accepted or rejected by others. Does it matter? I think not.
Alan Bell
To me, the problem isn't that he damaged the ecosystem. As far as I'm
concerned, he could have cut down all the bushes if he owned them, or if
he had gotten permission to do so. But because the article doesn't touch
on that, the reader comes away with the impression that violating private
property is perfectly okay if you're onto a great shot.
R. Urban
Just as long as every other shot isn't with blanks....but then
again,there could be advantages that way. And disadvantages as maybe it's
a little bit like Russian Roulette then! 8-)
--
Roger a#ur...@cwemail.ceco.com
"No one gets in to see the Wizard, not no one, not no how."
- Frank Oz, Doorman at the Emerald Palace in 'The Wizard of Oz'
G1w2
B&W
aficiandos. As the last message read He also teaches the 3 second series
of exposure for printing so there is no need to keep count. But I agree
with you on the need for a dim switch if the display is too bright. I
would also like to see a counter for the number of times the foot switch
is pressed.
Don Baccus
>As a point of interest, he's not the only photographer to'improve'
>the scene he photographed. George Tice comes to mind, scrupulously
>sweeping the entire lot of a White Castle hamburger place in Elizabeth,
>New Jersey before he unlimbered his 8x10.... Basically, each wanted
>to do the same thing; optiomize the shot.
>So what's the big deal and why all this unnecessary breast-beating?
The point has nothing to do with manipulating the scene. People
are bitching because he wrote about doing so without mentioning
any notion of asking the owner for permission, first.
It's the same disregard for private property that has led to
so much of the private woodlands in the Oregon Coast Range to
be posted "No Trespassing". Once upon a time, the timber
companies didn't care. But when large numbers of drunken
hunters started trashing such areas, they just kicked folks
off.
Now, the fact that I say that doesn't make me anti-hunting,
does it? The message isn't to stop hunting, the message is
to show some respect for the rights of the owners of private
land.
I suspect George Tice had permission to sweep the WC parking
lot in the case you mention. If the image were sold for
commercial use, he would also get a property release, no?
Mark Meier
: As a point of interest, he's not the only photographer to'improve'
: the scene he photographed. George Tice comes to mind, scrupulously
: sweeping the entire lot of a White Castle hamburger place in Elizabeth,
: New Jersey before he unlimbered his 8x10.... Basically, each wanted
: to do the same thing; optiomize the shot.
: So what's the big deal and why all this unnecessary breast-beating?
R. Urban
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but there's a certain bush and
beaver that I've been known to worship from time to time! 8-)
--
Roger a#ur...@cwemail.ceco.com
"Never attribute to malicious conspiracy what can be adequately
explained by simple stupidity." - Lazarus Long
Ben Weiner
>As a point of interest, he's not the only photographer to'improve'
>the scene he photographed. George Tice comes to mind, scrupulously
>sweeping the entire lot of a White Castle hamburger place in Elizabeth,
>New Jersey before he unlimbered his 8x10.... Basically, each wanted
>to do the same thing; optiomize the shot.
point is, some of us have a principle that you shouldn't just
go around destroying vegetation unless you have a good reason for it,
and taking a photograph doesn't strike me as a good reason
(much less taking a photograph while sneering at Leica-toting Austrians)
sweeping a White Castle lot is not comparable. Also consider the
rights of the owner of the property (which if it was public land
could be you 'n' me). I imagine the owner of the White Castle didn't
come out and tell Tice to desist. That is a nice anecdote though,
so thanks for bringing it up - where did you hear it.
>So what's the big deal and why all this unnecessary breast-beating?
>I thought that was for gorillas and not homo-sapiens. (Unless
>some of you are regressing, that is!) Lighten up! Let's keep it cicil!
OK, I'm trying, but calling people gorillas is not exactly civil.
>Fred did what he felt he wanted to to make his shot. I'm quite certain
>your daily newspaper did more ecological harm to the woods when they
>printed the sunday advertising supplement! ...
Yeah, well, I'd rather they didn't, but they do have a reason for
doing what they want, and nominally also they are paying for the
privilege.
Clickstop
>hundred dollars---correct me, please, if I'm wrong. Edward Weston's
>regularly go for upwards of $100,000. Prints by some people still alive
>and working (eg Cartier Bresson, with one of those tacky little Leicas)
>routinely bring $5,000 at auction.. Sebastio Salgado, with another of
>those tacky little Leicas...
It's seems kind of myopic to judge how great an photographer is by how
popular his prints are in the marketplace... In addition Cartier-Bresson
and Salgado have produced very different genres of work than Fred Picker
that would not have been possible using larger and clumsier instruments
(or a ZONED system. This sort of discourse reminds alot the upper division
photo snobs I used to meet in art school who were of the "bigger is
better"
mindsect.
-click
CONGREVE
distressing how shallow and off the point it's becoming. What I was
trying to suggest, in what I hoped would come across in a witty way, was
that the great photographers (measure their success however you like:
prices, book reproduction; fame; peer regard) generally tend to have, I
suggest, some human character traits which are admirable, which Fred
Picker very glaringly lacks: humility; grace; a decent regard for OTHER
ways of doing things, a respect for alternative traditions and methods.
If Picker was, by consensus, one of the top dozen photographers today, his
arrogance, his "my way is the only way" attitude, his equipment snobbery,
etc., would STILL be inexcusable. (Although we would respect his work).
For him to have those unattractive traits and ALSO be a truly third rate
character in the world of contemporary photography makes him, I submit, an
appropriate object of derision, especially as he seems to snooker people
into buying expensive stuff by puffing himself up and sneering at other
approaches. It is possible to gain a certain amount of fame and fortune
by being an ass. Or even the backquarters of one.
Alan Heldman
Birmingham AL
---congreve
cong...@aol.com
BART FINK
I agree with everything you say in re Fred Picker. But, let us not forget,
in a market economy the end justifies the means and if being an arrogant,
pompous, condescending ass is what it takes for Fred to sell his stuff, so
be it.
Personally, I find that I use whatever piece of equipment lends itself to
fulfilling the needs and inherent aesthetic of the photograph. If that is
a pinhole camera or a Leica so be it.
Carl S.
Leonard Seifert
words on behalf of Fred Picker (who appears to be the subject of some
vitriol) in connection with his influence on my photographic
activities.
Some time about (I would guess) twenty-five years ago, I picked up his
book, read it cover-to-cover, and thus began the start of some serious
photography on my part. For me, and I know for others with whom I
discussed this, he popularized the more arcane work of Ansel Adams.
Never having met the man, I am certainly in no position to comment on
his character traits, nor do I consider them relevant to a discussion
of his work.
CONGREVE
of Camera & Darkroom, where an article by Picker, at p.34 etseq, struck me
as the paradigm example of his arrogance, his unwillingness to appreciate
views and types of work other than his own, his sneering attitude (you'll
have to read it for yourself!) towards two European tourists with Leicas,
and his enthusiastic description of hacking down small trees (on property
which presumably he did not own) to "improve" his composition. The
article displays the resulting "art" ---one more boring picture from Fred
Picker.
If the world was standing in line to buy his work, or museums were
exhibiting it, or if he was highly regarded by top photographers, then I
might consider whether we ought not to allow such gall, and such ego, in a
"great" person. But despite his self-puffing, Picker does NOT have great
success in any of the several ways that art or photography are judged. He
is simply a shameless self-promoter who has conned a lot of people into
buying over-expensive, artsy-craftsy equipment from his company, thinking
that by doing so they are dealing with a master and that something
successful may rub off on them.
How many Ansel Adams images can you call up in your mind immediately?
How many.......Edward Weston....
How many Cartier-Bresson....
How many ...(you get the idea)
And how many Fred Picker images have stuck in your mind?
When ICP or MOMA has a show of Picker's work, or his prints start going
for big bucks; or a book of his becomes a big seller, then I'll eat my
words. Until then, read the article and see if you don't think he's a
pompous, self-righteous, self-promoting, landscape-hacking, arrogant,
second-rate ass.