I like the craft more than the pictures shown...the fact that he is experimenting with cameras, materials and exposures is pretty impressive and creative. :)
Thank you Ted for introducing this amazing body of work - you are right, we need to really push our own boundaries in the pursuit of our visions with imagery. This is incredibly stimulating food for thought!
His text from Candela Books is wonderful... a real gem in my "collection" of books. I love photographic texts. I have a small and meager collection but its growing.
I remember when for my photography degree, we were doing some pinhole, and in my workbook i used some of his "Sunburn" photographs. As these are kinda similar in style, or technique to a pinhole, or more specifically a solargraph. Capturing a passage of time in a single frame. And when it came to my lecturer marking my work, he took note that it wasn't relevant to pinholes photography THEN 6 months later, Justin Quinnell who is a very well known British pinhole camera photographer, came to do some lectures, and he in fact did a semester at my university, but he wasn't called back because he was as nutty as a fruitcake. He did his guest presentation, and who did he feature... Chris McCaw. So, to cut a really long story short. My lecturer said sorry and bought me a pint of beer.
Very interesting indeed. Amazing work and the fact that the images are burned in the literal sense, it really adds character and depth to such an already outstanding photograph.
Thank you so much for sharing this! This is the first time that I've been "exposed" no pun intended :-) to his amazing photography. I am deeply moved and so inspired and you did a great job of reviewing his art, his book and his method. Cheers to you and cheers to him!
Agree Ted photographers need to push the limits and experiment, in a sense, back to it's primitive roots as you suggested. Hard to see in the video, but how much depth is in these images ?
Certainly a departure from the concept of the "multiple prints from one image" ethos that we consider to be normal these days. This work that results in one off images (or lower than the actual images quality reproductions), that are more like traditional objects of art - works in the singular.
Agreed Brian Richman - that actually might make an interesting show topic. Printing over the years in some ways has become part of the process, not necessarily the method of reproduction.
Ah yes. Several things come to mind: 1. With digital it can be almost something invisible. "I'll just click the print button" is the thought process (well, with perhaps a little bit of sharpening added in). 2. With analog techniques, the very process itself forces you to think about it all in much more detail and possess a level of skill and ability to manipulate "things" that digital does a run round. It's different and you are more likely to get different results from each. 3. We take it for granted that an image file or a negative will be printed from more than once. The work you showcased this week does not have that as a central concept. How many times can you have a work that is uniquely burnt by the sun exposure reproduced? To sound a little bit academic about it, the 'artistic intent' is not going to be the same is it? How has THAT evolved over the decades?
Not my kind of photography which is ok. I don't have a problem with a different mind set and a new eye. I like the experimentation and pushing the medium to its limits.
WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE TIME; AND THE AUTOMATION OF THE STAGES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESS THE MANUAL LABOR IS MISSED. WITHOUT THE REAL MANUAL WORK. THE ONLY THING THAT TODAY CAN BE CONSIDERATE VALUABLE IN A PHOTOGRAPH; IS THE VISION THAT HAS THE PHOTGRAPHER AND HIS CAMERA PERFORMANCE. ITS A BIG PITY FOR ME PERSONALLY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART OR CLOSE I ENJOY IT TO PLAY WITH DIGI CAMS BUT IS NOT ART ; IS JUST A REFLECTION OF WHAT IM SEEING; BUT NO A CREATION BECAUSE THE DIGITAL CAMERA CREATE THE PICTURE CLOSE ALONE I CAN JUST ADJUST . APERTURE; ISO; SPEED; WHITE BILANCE ETC ETC. SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO RETURN TO THE ROOTS TO BE ORIGINAL TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS AND NO JUST MAKE "PERSONALLY" COPIES THATS NO VALUE: THE DIGITAL ERA DOSNT HELP TO BE AUTENTIQUE WITH WHAT WE DO BECAUSE ARE SO MUCH STANDARDS ; WE MUST SEARCH FOR AN OWN STYLE OF PHOTOGRAPHY; YOU CAN NEVER TRANSCEND WITHOUT BREACKING RULES AND LOOK BEYOND WHAT YOU KNOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO INTRODUCES TO US THIS ARTIST.
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
This is unique. I have never seen anything like his works before. Thank you for doing what you are doing. Your channel is the eye opener for me.
I like the craft more than the pictures shown...the fact that he is experimenting with cameras, materials and exposures is pretty impressive and creative. :)
Thank you Ted for introducing this amazing body of work - you are right, we need to really push our own boundaries in the pursuit of our visions with imagery. This is incredibly stimulating food for thought!
absolutely beautiful
As soon as I see his book on the retail shelf, I'm buying it. Thanks, Ted.
His work is really beautiful and inspiring, i can't wait to see his future works.
Great feature - which isn't much of a surprise considering how good all your videos are!
Wayne Simon thanks Wayne
Amazing Work...
Fantastic, would love to see them
His text from Candela Books is wonderful... a real gem in my "collection" of books. I love photographic texts. I have a small and meager collection but its growing.
Excellent as always Ted!
I remember when for my photography degree, we were doing some pinhole, and in my workbook i used some of his "Sunburn" photographs. As these are kinda similar in style, or technique to a pinhole, or more specifically a solargraph. Capturing a passage of time in a single frame.
And when it came to my lecturer marking my work, he took note that it wasn't relevant to pinholes photography
THEN 6 months later, Justin Quinnell who is a very well known British pinhole camera photographer, came to do some lectures, and he in fact did a semester at my university, but he wasn't called back because he was as nutty as a fruitcake. He did his guest presentation, and who did he feature... Chris McCaw.
So, to cut a really long story short. My lecturer said sorry and bought me a pint of beer.
At least he bought you a pint!
Very interesting indeed. Amazing work and the fact that the images are burned in the literal sense, it really adds character and depth to such an already outstanding photograph.
Amazing art and very inspiring. Thank you Ted.
Thank you so much for sharing this! This is the first time that I've been "exposed" no pun intended :-) to his amazing photography. I am deeply moved and so inspired and you did a great job of reviewing his art, his book and his method. Cheers to you and cheers to him!
Great show, loved this insight into Chris McCaw!
Stunning stuff!
Wonderful episode, thanks Ted (I want some of these prints..., but I guess they are very expensive, not?)
Agree Ted photographers need to push the limits and experiment, in a sense, back to it's primitive roots as you suggested. Hard to see in the video, but how much depth is in these images ?
I actually frame a lot of his works. It was incredible, kinda fragile too because it's burn the chips might come off from the print.
Cool stuff. If it any of his work comes through Cleveland, I'm going to try to see it.
this is amazing!!!
Wild thought. What is the ISO of the paper? lol
Certainly a departure from the concept of the "multiple prints from one image" ethos that we consider to be normal these days. This work that results in one off images (or lower than the actual images quality reproductions), that are more like traditional objects of art - works in the singular.
Agreed Brian Richman - that actually might make an interesting show topic. Printing over the years in some ways has become part of the process, not necessarily the method of reproduction.
Ah yes. Several things come to mind:
1. With digital it can be almost something invisible. "I'll just click the print button" is the thought process (well, with perhaps a little bit of sharpening added in).
2. With analog techniques, the very process itself forces you to think about it all in much more detail and possess a level of skill and ability to manipulate "things" that digital does a run round. It's different and you are more likely to get different results from each.
3. We take it for granted that an image file or a negative will be printed from more than once. The work you showcased this week does not have that as a central concept. How many times can you have a work that is uniquely burnt by the sun exposure reproduced? To sound a little bit academic about it, the 'artistic intent' is not going to be the same is it? How has THAT evolved over the decades?
Love it… totally agree!
But is a book priced at over $700.00 worth it?
Great episode!! You still talk to much before the images, but oh well!
Not my kind of photography which is ok. I don't have a problem with a different mind set and a new eye. I like the experimentation and pushing the medium to its limits.
WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE TIME; AND THE AUTOMATION OF THE STAGES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESS THE MANUAL LABOR IS MISSED.
WITHOUT THE REAL MANUAL WORK.
THE ONLY THING THAT TODAY CAN BE CONSIDERATE VALUABLE IN A PHOTOGRAPH; IS THE VISION THAT HAS THE PHOTGRAPHER AND HIS CAMERA PERFORMANCE. ITS A BIG PITY
FOR ME PERSONALLY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART OR CLOSE I ENJOY IT TO PLAY WITH DIGI CAMS BUT IS NOT ART ; IS JUST A REFLECTION OF WHAT IM SEEING; BUT NO A CREATION BECAUSE THE DIGITAL CAMERA CREATE THE PICTURE CLOSE ALONE I CAN JUST ADJUST . APERTURE; ISO; SPEED; WHITE BILANCE ETC ETC. SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO RETURN TO THE ROOTS TO BE ORIGINAL TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS AND NO JUST MAKE "PERSONALLY" COPIES THATS NO VALUE: THE DIGITAL ERA DOSNT HELP TO BE AUTENTIQUE WITH WHAT WE DO BECAUSE ARE SO MUCH STANDARDS ; WE MUST SEARCH FOR AN OWN STYLE OF PHOTOGRAPHY; YOU CAN NEVER TRANSCEND WITHOUT BREACKING RULES AND LOOK BEYOND WHAT YOU KNOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO INTRODUCES TO US THIS ARTIST.