[LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared images
Michael Sullivan
largeformat@f32.net
Thu Mar 11 08:40:32 2004
Dear Diane,
Again, the images posted are merely tests of a new technique. Nothing
more.
Including the original is there for others to gauge the "how" of the
technique.
You'll note that they don't rate their own "gallery" on my site.
But I do plan on eventually creating a body of work entitled
"Adventures in IR-land" which I hope to build into a show.
I'm glad to hear that you too have experienced people "hating"
something for a gratuitous reason.
Unfortunately, there is a bias endemic in our industry (the
photographic art community) towards "B&W as art" and color as merely
representational. I am opposed to this trend. This is why I admire
Christopher Burkett's work. (http://www.christopherburkett.com/ --
notice his vociferous anti-digital stand!!! hahaha) I happen to love
color no matter how it is achieved: real color, pop color, subtle
color, false color, analog color, digital color, hand-painted color,
etc. The trick of course, is how the individual artist makes use of it.
My response was less against what YOU said, than what thousands of
others in our industry actually think. Sorry you feel I was personally
pummeling you!
MJS
On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 07:35 AM, Diane Maher wrote:
> I'd say that I got the pummeling for saying what I thought, Brock.
>
> As for IR looking like IR, Michael, it doesn't HAVE to. I shoot IR
> too (b/w & color) and I do like to see the effects, though they don't
> always have to be apparent. Perhaps it's your choice of subject
> matter with the buildings behind that tree which is unappealing to me.
>
> I've had at least one person tell me up front that they "hated color
> infrared" and the same person, when shown a different color IR slide,
> asked me what film I used to take the shot, it felt good for me to say
> color IR. The effect of the IR was not as apparent as usual because I
> had used a different filter.
>
> However, since you INSIST on posting both the 'original' and the
> 'manipulated' image, I told you what I thought. Now if you just
> posted the manipulated image, I wouldn't have any reason to say that I
> liked the 'original' one better. Why do you post the original?
>
> Color photographers don't have to be pigeon-holed into "representing
> what they see" any more than b/w photographers are "free to > interpret".
>
>> Things that are at once familiar yet no longer representationally
>> "real" -- that is the surrealism I seek.
> I guess that I just don't see this in your IR shots on page 2 of your
> site. The ones on page 1 look more 'balanced' color-wise to me. The
> ones on page 2 with those annoying yellows are really 'in my face'.
> So maybe the colors aren't as 'normal' as I previously thought.
>
> I've never heard of Christopher Burkett and haven't seen his work, so
> I can't make any comments on his style/technique.
>
> Diane
> -----Original Message----
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:36:45 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: Diane Maher <colrehogan@earthlink.net>
> To: largeformat@f32.net
> Subject: [LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared
> images
> Reply-To: largeformat@f32.net
>
> I guess I'll be the one to say that I don't like it. The colors look
> too 'normal' to me. I like the originals much better. At least
> there's a hint of it being IR in the originals.
>
> Diane
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:00:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared
> images
> From: Michael Sullivan <michael@haywood-sullivan.com>
> To: largeformat@f32.net
> Reply-To: largeformat@f32.net
>
> Dear Diane,
>
> Why does infrared *NEED* to look like infrared?
> If I hadn't told you they were infrared would you still "mind"?
> Why must color photographers be pigeon-holed into representing
> *EXACTLY* what they see?
> I find such arguments the main reason color photographers "get no
> respect" (think Elliot Porter).
> Whereas B&W photographers are free to interpret -- quite a double
> standard don't you think?
>
> Further, it is not my intention at all to represent reality.
> The negative is the score, the print the performance -- remember?
> My images attempt to describe a subtly surreal world of common things.
> Things that are at once familiar yet no longer representationally
> "real" -- that is the surrealism I seek.
> And I achieve that look in the darkroom -- just like Ansel did. (only
> my darkroom is Photoshop)
> For now, I'm just experimenting with my new "film" and learning its
> secrets.
>
> Ironically, one of my inspirations is Christopher Burkett -- his
> zen-like 8x10 color prints are so real they border on the unreal for
> most people. He takes them to a place they likely will never go. In
> short, his breathtaking images are powerful precisely because they
> represent another world. It just so happens to be nature. And he just
> so happens to use exact color to further the effect. The fact that he
> is a pure representationalist and is distinctly anti-digital is not a
> problem for me, for I too approach my photography from a spiritual
> point of view.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>
>
Michael Sullivan
J MICHAEL SULLIVAN PHOTOGRAPHY
Marshfield Hills Massachusetts
***************************************************
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/photography
"It's as though there's a wonderful secret in a
certain place and I can capture it. Only I, at
this moment, can capture it, and only this
moment, and only me." -- Walker Evans