Cracked Wall, Kristiansund July 2008 © Martin Doonan
OK, so I’m posting a day early.
Something a bit different a I’ve been doing a lot of black and white printing recently. This is from a series of photos that I think really nail what I’m trying to say and will open the way to a lot more along these lines.
Hi Martin,
Since I’m being lazy, I haven’t send my prints yet, but now at least they are packed and ready. Off to the post office tomorrow.
More comments on your print to come, just wanted to say that it arrived in one piece.
I received you print some time ago, in perfect state. Now straight to the comment!
For this kind of photograph, I think I would have preferred a rougher paper, to enhance the texture of the wall that looks so important. I noticed that the contrast of the print is quite a bit higher then the web version, is it something that you wanted? I’m not sure which one I prefer in this case… But I think that the printed version lost some highlights. And maybe it could have been a little bit sharper at pixel level.
I have to say that all these things came to my mind looking at it from a close distance, like 15-20 cm… So now, waiting for the next round!
PS: I sent my pictures this morning, sorry for the delay, I’ll be in time the next time!
I think what’s missing in the print is just a little bit increased contrast in the whitest part of the wall. Maybe just a little bit more sharpening as well in the white lower half. The crack in the center, and the iron … uuhm, whatever it is … is nice and sharp.
This is a kind of photography that I like, but I just can’t put my finger on exactly what it is.
This photo is what I in my head calls “A picture of nothing”, and by that I mean that it only becomes interesting once it is capured on … sensor (I was so close to saying film … hey, wait, you do shoot on film, it could be..). In real life it is often not interesting to look at, but once on paper it is converted into a slightly more abstract arrangement of shapes and colors/grayscales.
After some thinking, I may have found what triggered my interest in this picture, and why I find it a bit better on screen. There are two parts. First is the center of the image, with the big crack. This part is constantly shifting in my mind between being flat, and being 3D. When 3D, it looks like it’s sinking into that vertcal black line, like somone is pulling it from behind. Anyway, this effect is equally strong to me both on screen and on paper.
The white surrounding, which I mentioned in the previous comment, is what makes the big differense. On screen, it looks sharper, and my eyes are more pleased with looking at this part. This becomes an area where my attention spirals, and I investigates the details. On print, it does not look as sharp, and does not require the same attention. This make the picture “smaller” to me.
The last thing I find a bit disturbing is the mangenta cast. At least I see it that way. I’ve tried it under several light sources, and I still see it. It is not much, but still something I noticed even without looking at a neutral reference.
I’ll continue posting when I manage to gather some more thoughts on this.