That may be true, but Picture-making is light years more important to me than printmaking. The quality of Brett's prints varied wildly over his career - when he started using the smaller camera in the 60's, print quality naturally suffered, but his vision always evolved over the 50+ years he photographed. He was simply a visual tour deforce.
No argument there. My favorite image from the White Sands portfolio was made with the Rolleiflex. In reproduction I definitely can't tell the difference, and probably can't tell the difference with actual prints. I suspect that the recent BW show I saw at the Phillips Collection contained some enlargements.
Last edited by c6h6o3; 01-22-2010 at 09:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
HOLY MACKERAL !
I am very grateful to Ken for sending this article to me. Not only is this a revealing and interesting look at two photographers that most of us are at least familiar with, it serves as a really valuable lesson in the whole business of "seeing" as a photographer in general.
Last edited by Timothy; 01-22-2010 at 11:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I see now that I was able to access the article and download since I am at a university where the library has arranged for access. So, if any of you are in a similar position or can VPN into a university you may be able to use the link.
Last edited by henrysamson; 01-22-2010 at 04:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.