Who needs digital? Minor White didn't.

More to the point he didn't have a choice, though he could choose between a plate camera, med format and one of those new fangled SLR 35mm camera's.
 
I have 2 comments:
What’s film vs digital got to do with it.
I’m not particularly impressed by those, most weeks ‘images of the week’ contain better pictures.
 
Phil V said:
I have 2 comments:
What’s film vs digital got to do with it.
I’m not particularly impressed by those, most weeks ‘images of the week’ contain better pictures.
Click to expand...
Hmm I like them
 
Phil V said:
I have 2 comments:
What’s film vs digital got to do with it.
I’m not particularly impressed by those, most weeks ‘images of the week’ contain better pictures.
Click to expand...
At the time they were taken they were much better. :D
 
Phil V said:
I have 2 comments:
What’s film vs digital got to do with it.
I’m not particularly impressed by those, most weeks ‘images of the week’ contain better pictures.
Click to expand...

Agree......I think if were not for the nostalgia and interest in a by gone age, looking at images taken +70 years ago then the shots are good but not great. The one of the iron bridge is very flat.......maybe that was intentional but........
 
Last edited:
GaryLaird said:
Agree......I think if we're not for the nostalgia and interest in a by gone age, looking at images taken +70 years ago then the shots are good but not great. The one of the iron bridge is very flat.......maybe that was intentional but........
Click to expand...

I appreciate that this is taking us into turbulent waters, so I'll make this my single entry in this thread (unless it takes a different turn).

1. Does this also mean that paintings from before the second world war are also "for nostalgia only"? If not, then why are photographs unless you start with the presupposition that they are "merely" records?

2. "maybe that was intentional" - why not give him the benefit of the doubt, grant that it was, and ask yourself "why did he make it like that, as I've missed his point"?
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I appreciate that this is taking us into turbulent waters, so I'll make this my single entry in this thread (unless it takes a different turn).

1. Does this also mean that paintings from before the second world war are also "for nostalgia only"? If not, then why are photographs unless you start with the presupposition that they are "merely" records?

2. "maybe that was intentional" - why not give him the benefit of the doubt, grant that it was, and ask yourself "why did he made it like that, as I've missed his point"?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that was the point?
A couple of these images stand as good (not great) and the rest only have their historic significance to justify them.
Old ‘art’ is the same IMHO, some is ‘great’ and some is only useful as a record. But the same can be said of all modern photography too.
 
mmmm ok, well not really sure what to say, the images are ok. I'm not getting any sense of style or direction from them, nor do I really see any real storytelling. I have seen far better from that era or of that ilk (for want of a better word) - I wish I had the vocabulary to articulate my thoughts better too ... these images don't inspire me or make me think or ponder. They just don't - that may well be my failing, but they are to me nothing more than snaps (a couple are quite decent snaps ;) ) and as such just don't hold my interest.
 
I'm sure if Minor White did have digital technology back then he would have embraced it (he seems to have been at the cutting edge of technology to be able to produce images like this in those days) and his photos may well have been better as a result.
 
StephenM said:
I appreciate that this is taking us into turbulent waters, so I'll make this my single entry in this thread (unless it takes a different turn).

1. Does this also mean that paintings from before the second world war are also "for nostalgia only"? If not, then why are photographs unless you start with the presupposition that they are "merely" records?

2. "maybe that was intentional" - why not give him the benefit of the doubt, grant that it was, and ask yourself "why did he make it like that, as I've missed his point"?
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point totally. A photograph is a photograph regardless of when it was taken. Likewise a painting. If you look at the above referenced images, to me they are OK and I'd be happy to say I had taken ones of a similar standard. BUT are they great images deserved of an exhibition.....???. I contend the interest in these is more driven by the fact they record a moment in time 70 years ago. That makes them interesting rather than them being great images that stand the test of time compared with great images that could be taken today.

Art is subjective and personal. I believe that if anybody posted an image similar to that bridge shot for critique on this forum the overwhelming comments would be lack of contrast! Not to say that's right........it's just an opinion/feeling. Everyone sees things differently.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
To form an opinion solely on the handful of pictures on the Grauniad site is unfair.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. You really need to see a full exhibition or a monograph for a proper appreciation of any artist or photographers work. In an age of wizz bang, saturated, contrasty, high impact photography, its easy to be underwhelmed by photography from another era. Contextually, its also easy to dismiss the subject matter if you’re not American or have an historical interest in the era, but there are other things to appreciate in this kind of photography.
 
GaryLaird said:
Art is subjective and personal. I believe that if anybody posted an image similar to that bridge shot for critique on this forum the overwhelming comments would be lack of contrast! Not to say that's right........it's just an opinion/feeling. Everyone sees things differently.
Click to expand...
Open it in Photoshop and click the Levels black eyedropper on her handbag and I think you might get a "better" image for critique here, but that would be a modern PS type interpretation and not the one that Minor White envisaged. Fully agree that everyone is entitled to have their own opinion on mono images in particular, but surely that also means respect for the choices of the photographer?
 
Ed Sutton said:
To form an opinion solely on the handful of pictures on the Grauniad site is unfair.
Click to expand...
Surely not if the opinion is of those images?

It's not like anyone's saying that he's a crap photographer based on the article, or that his entire body of work is worthless. I believe some people posted that the images on the article weren't a particularly great set of images. Which surely only needs the article for appraisal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top