Lenswork publishes inferior portfolio

<< the issue that didn't want to be published >>

I don't spend a lot of time on the LensWork website. Why did it not want to be published?

While I don't really care for any of the portfolios in this most recent issue (though the "Yangtze Remembered" was at least geographically and historically interesting), I don't see any "lack of professionalism, finesse and control." I'm not sure I even understand what you mean.

Could you elaborate a bit?

Sure Rob,

http://www.lenswork.com/overviewcurrentissue.htm

This link will take you to a posting by Lenswork explaining why the issue "didn't want to be published." In the upper left of this page, a link says "Download a PDF preview of this issue." If you download the pdf and go to page 13 you will see an excerpt of a portfolio done with 11x14 and 8x10 cameras of French countryside. Some of the images look fine, but a few show very careless burning and dodging, with dark edge and corner burning bleeding into the subject matter below the area intended to be burned. The image on page 13 is small, but you can see it if you look carefully. Other images in the portfolio are similarly poorly executed, almost arrogantly so, exhibiting a lack of care and craftsmanship I've never seen in professional and high quality publications such as lenswork.

Why do you assume the photographer didn't intend it to look that way? One person's creative liberties is another person's "appalling lack of professionalism."

I think you have to allow for a bit of artistic license. The work is by Olivier Mériel and printed on pages 35-49 of the magazine. IMO the pictures are stunning, I don't like all of the effects but on the whole I think his approach works. I am sure the presentation is deliberate.

I think you simply disagree with the stylistic aspects of this photographer's work. I do not think these issues you point out are mistakes. It does not have the earmarks of mistakes but more purposeful edge, sky, corner, and sometimes middle, dodging and burning.

Being a fan of Lenswork and it's great printing / appearance of each issue, I flipped through the issue with the portfolio of Olivier Meriel and had the same response as Doug. I had seen the book of Meriel's from the Nazaraeli press catalog, and wanted to see more of the images.

There does seem to be something wrong with the prints; I very much understand artistic license, burning at the edges for effect, etc. but this is something different. The skies with clouds are printed way too dark, burning effect is very noticable, as is the foreground burning in some other shots. It truly is surprisingly odd interpretation of a negative. That was the first effect of seeing these photos "what was this guy thinking with this printing?" I don't think this was due to the ink mix up from the first run-

Before we lynch Doug, take a look for yourselves at the issue in person- there are many more images there, and you can see the quality better.

Dave

My reaction in looking at the magazine yesterday and again this morning was that the quality of those images doesn't appear consistent with what I would expect from a photographer who has chosen to use 8x10 and 11x14 cameras. I cannot judge whether what I see was what the photographer intended, or a production anomaly, but the net effect is to create a negative impression about that photographer's work.

<< If you download the pdf and go to page 13 you will see an excerpt of a portfolio done with 11x14 and 8x10 cameras of French countryside. >>

I subscribe to LensWork and I've read this issue twice on the train this week. However, I don't often visit their website. I did read through the hardships of getting this issue out, thanks for the link.

I still do not agree that the dodging and burning is careless nor do I consider it "unprofessional." Olivier Mériel's printing was (to me) quite deliberate. I may not /like/ the resulting image, but I don't think you can call his work unprofessional or lacking finesse and control. In fact, I see a lot of "control" (which is not the same as restraint) in these images.

<< There does seem to be something wrong with the prints; >>

I think there is a difference between what you like and don't like in printing method and something being "wrong" with the prints. Something being wrong, to me, would indicate unintended results (ie. bad chemicals, cross-contamination, dog eating the final print, etc etc).

<< It truly is surprisingly odd interpretation of a negative >>

This is clearly the answer: it is an interpretation. It is not wrong or right it just is what the photographer saw in his minds eye. It is not what I would have done, but then again, I have very limited experience in the darkroom.

I'll be one of the first to say that an artist should be free to express his, or her vision, but I am not one to sit back and accept ~whatever~ they produce as quality work. In terms of darkroom craftsmanship, the images in question, in my opinion, are just unacceptably primitive.

Consider this exchange between Marc G and Bruno Tremator in Miguel Angel de Arriba Cuadrado's POW last week,:

Bruno: "If the photographer reached what he envisioned, discussing is useless. I had a look at Miguel's portfolio before posting my comment, and I had the impression that he knows what he does."

Marc G: "I disagree. Yes, Miguel knows what he does. So do many of us. But this doesn't mean we get it right all the time. And sometimes - quite often actually as far as I am concerned -, we get what we wanted, but wanted "the wrong thing" in the first place."

This is what I'm seeing, that this photographer wants the wrong thing. If his intentions are to produce images like this, then I think his aesthetics are bass ackwards, I'm sorry to say. Burning and dodging this blunt, this crude, is what I would expect from someone attempting it for the first time, not from a seasoned professional. I would truly like to understand the reasons behind this technique.

I begin to wonder if his success arises in small part from his subject matter, in small part from his eye for composition, and then in big part from his big camera. Another case of poor aesthetics disquised behind interesting gadgets?