[LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared images

[Diane Maher]

I'd say that I got the pummeling for saying what I thought, Brock.

As for IR looking like IR, Michael, it doesn't HAVE to.  I shoot IR too (b/w & color) and I do like to see the effects, though they don't always have to be apparent.  Perhaps it's your choice of subject matter with the buildings behind that tree which is unappealing to me.

I've had at least one person tell me up front that they "hated color infrared" and the same person, when shown a different color IR slide, asked me what film I used to take the shot, it felt good for me to say color IR.  The effect of the IR was not as apparent as usual because I had used a different filter.

However, since you INSIST on posting both the 'original' and the 'manipulated' image, I told you what I thought.  Now if you just posted the manipulated image, I wouldn't have any reason to say that I liked the 'original' one better.  Why do you post the original?

Color photographers don't have to be pigeon-holed into "representing what they see" any more than b/w photographers are "free to interpret".

> Things that are at once familiar yet no longer representationally "real" -- that is the surrealism I seek.
I guess that I just don't see this in your IR shots on page 2 of your site.  The ones on page 1 look more 'balanced' color-wise to me.  The ones on page 2 with those annoying yellows are really 'in my face'.  So maybe the colors aren't as 'normal' as I previously thought.

I've never heard of Christopher Burkett and haven't seen his work, so I can't make any comments on his style/technique.

Diane
-----Original Message----
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:36:45 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
From: Diane Maher <colrehogan@earthlink.net>
To: largeformat@f32.net
Subject: [LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared images
Reply-To: largeformat@f32.net

I guess I'll be the one to say that I don't like it.  The colors look too 'normal' to me.  I like the originals much better.  At least there's a hint of it being IR in the originals.

Diane

--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:00:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Re: Some more large format digital infrared images
From: Michael Sullivan <michael@haywood-sullivan.com>
To: largeformat@f32.net
Reply-To: largeformat@f32.net

Dear Diane,

Why does infrared *NEED* to look like infrared?
If I hadn't told you they were infrared would you still "mind"?
Why must color photographers be pigeon-holed into representing 
*EXACTLY* what they see?
I find such arguments the main reason color photographers "get no 
respect" (think Elliot Porter).
Whereas B&W photographers are free to interpret -- quite a double 
standard don't you think?

Further, it is not my intention at all to represent reality.
The negative is the score, the print the performance -- remember?
My images attempt to describe a subtly surreal world of common things.
Things that are at once familiar yet no longer representationally 
"real" -- that is the surrealism I seek.
And I achieve that look in the darkroom -- just like Ansel did. (only 
my darkroom is Photoshop)
For now, I'm just experimenting with my new "film" and learning its 
secrets.

Ironically, one of my inspirations is Christopher Burkett -- his 
zen-like 8x10 color prints are so real they border on the unreal for 
most people. He takes them to a place they likely will never go. In 
short, his breathtaking images are powerful precisely because they 
represent another world. It just so happens to be nature. And he just 
so happens to use exact color to further the effect. The fact that he 
is a pure representationalist and is distinctly anti-digital is not a 
problem for me, for I too approach my photography from a spiritual 
point of view.

Michael