Not if its content is of equal greatness.

I become mesmerized every time I look at a print by my good friend Jim Fitzgerald. They’re that beautiful! I feel like I’m transported to a different place and I can actually see deep into the three-dimensional carbon transfer contact print surface. When I look at his work or day dream about it, I sometimes think about something I read almost fifty years ago. In a 1976 Newsletter, Fred Picker wrote:

“When Strand or Adams or Caponigro spend hours or days printing a negative they are following a linear path to the end. They know where they want to go, they visualize the print without getting sidetracked, and finally they produce.  Good photographers are almost always food printers …. I once read an asinine review of a very beautiful Paul Caponigro show. The headline read, ‘Making Jewels out of Jewels’ and the reviewer stated that ‘Caponigro is fighting a battle between technique and esthetics.’ Why? Because ‘the prints are so beautiful that he must be over-involved with technique.’ Nonsense: The truth is that no photographer is a better or worse printer than he is a photographer. The same ability to see photographically comes into play in the darkroom as existed in the field at the time the photograph was made.”

Yes, yes and yes … incredibly well said! What’s more boring than a technically perfect rotten photograph? And what’s worse than an overly dramatic and obviously grossly manipulated digital print? The finely executed carbon transfer print made by a true master like Jim is a meaningful piece of art because the content itself is as engrossing as the striking beauty of its presentation.

There are a lot of photographers that obsess over owning the finest lenses and perfect technique, but their pictures are not worth a damn. There are also other photographers whose technique leaves a lot to be desired but their vision is pure. I’ll take one of those photographs over a technically perfect boring image any day! William Klein’s work is fascinating case in point (last week I discussed his show at the International Center of Photography). It doesn’t emphasize technique and even goes out of its way let you know that, but it is nevertheless incredible!

Back to Jim Fitzgerald and his sublime images. Can an average photograph be visually improved through technique and processes like carbon transfer? I suppose, but only to a limited extent. It will never be great.

So, what can we do? It’s pretty obvious – work to be the best we can be in the field and in the darkroom! And here’s the thing, it’s a lifelong process, often filled with frustration. Why? While technique can be learned and improved upon with continued effort, it’s the seeing that’s hard. Adams famously said, “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.”  Think about that for a moment.  Adams made thousands of images most of us would die for, yet very few made the cut.  We all want more than a dozen significant photographs a year but let’s be honest with ourselves; are they really good, or in other words are they truly what we had in our mind’s eye when we made them? And then if we are lucky and they are good, do we make the requisite effort to create the best print of our ability? Jim does and it inspires me to keep working to be the best I can be.

My 35mm and medium format negatives will never yield the clarity and depth of a large or ultra-large format-based carbon transfer print, let alone an enlargement made from a large format negative. They just won’t and they don’t have to! If I put in the effort the keepers I get will be visually and esthetically beautiful. What matters for all of us is that we work as hard as we can and give the entire photographic process our best shot.

Stay well,

Michael