"The elements that create the sense of abstraction in color are very different than the elements that hold that function in black and white because color is more descriptive and informational."
Philip Perkis: Teaching Photography, notes assembled, 2nd edition
"You know how few of the pictures you take turn out to be any good."
William Gedney's notes, August 1971, a week after Diane Arbus' death, (the above statement is from a conversation between Gedney & Arbus, it is unclear from his notes which of them was speaking).
A few years ago whilst browsing in a bookstore in Brooklyn I picked up a book about a photographer whose name was new to me and whose work I was unfamiliar with.
Since then "What Was True" The Photographs and Notebooks of William Gedney has become one of my most treasured and valued books on photography. I often bring this book out of the bookshelf and keep it near to my desk, reading passages and viewing images over the course of a few weeks. I never fail to be impressed and a little inspired. The images are rare examples of a great photographer's mind at work. All the necessary elements are there; composition, timing and most importantly content. I'll save the rant on "content" or "lack thereof" for another post.
So how do we know when an image is "any good"? Besides the necessary decent composition, timing and subject matter and a given degree of technical competence, or even excellence Is there such a thing as an easy definition of "good" given that many great images, and here I'm thinking not only of historically significant or important images but also of more than a few current ones, are certainly lacking at least one of these elements? There are of course many images which while being technically perfect are devoid of anything that would elicit the slightest desire to view it a second time.
Therein lies the key to my own personal defination of good;
Is the image worth a second look? or does it bring pleasure or stir emotions and can it do so over a long period?
In the book "Contact: Theory" Elliott Erwitt said, "Contact sheets should be as private as a toothbrush and ought to be guarded as jealously as a mistress."
He continued by saying that "A dozen contact sheets tell far more about a photographer than a dozen "good" pictures taken by that same photographer."
It was also suggested by Erwitt that careful examination of a dozen random contact sheets would be equal to a complete (photographic) psychoanalysis of a photographer. I do believe that this is very true indeed and although I personally am not ready, nor willing, to undergo any psychoanalysis, either private or public, I did however share the complete shoot, in contact sheet form, from one assignment in my most recent seminar.
Sheet One: 5:41PM - 7:13PM
Sheet Two: 7:15PM - 7:43PM
I believe, firmly, that in addition to being a private task editing one's images requires time and should not be rushed. My editing procedure is a three stage process.
1. I eliminate the absolute trash, in film days this always included two shots of my feet at the start of each roll, nowadays it is usually confined to the "flash misfire" shots :)
This is always done without enlarging to full screen view.
2. I then run through all the frames quickly, looking for one thing only; and that is the "gut feel" of "Yes, I want to look at this again".
3. I close the folder of images and leave them alone for two days at which time I come back with a fresh eye to select the best.
On Monday I'll post the above two contact sheets with the 11 frames I marked as possible keepers along with some thoughts as to why they were chosen.
