Topic: Mark Sink's latest wet plates

[Ed Wenn]

Gary Moyer posted this link to Mark Sink's Summer 2009 wet plate output http://marksinkphotography.blogspot.com/ on Twitter & I took a look. The material has left me wondering. On one hand the guy's been around a long time & clearly knows his trade. Also, I like his work in this medium far better than his toy camera work. Pretty much all of the Summer 2009 work is outstanding on some level, but when taken as a whole they make me wonder why he's bothering with the Julia Margaret Cameron look in 2009. Examples:



It's the more contemporary images that stand out for me because I love the mix of the old technique and the modern subject matter....in as much as a face can ever be 'modern', but I hope you know what I mean. The other images seem to be trying to hard. Here are a couple that I really liked:



Of course, I'm just blathering on in my usual ill-informed way. There could be hundreds of good reasons why Sink's chosen to shoot these images in this way - he might be getting paid to do so for one thing - but to me the whole thing smacks a little too much of when someone takes a song idea from another artist and then proceeds to produce their version in much the same way. It always seems more exciting to me when an idea is airlifted into your work, but then you twist it and place it in another context.

[gothamtomato]

I think the look they get from being wet plates is the most interesting aspect of the work to me. But I have to say I LOVE the still lifes that are farther down the page, like this one (I think it is simply beautiful):


[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[beck]

If it were indeed Mark's intentions to shoot this style, he certainly nailed it with these two examples. Obviously he did seeing that he went out of his way with clothing and the like. Particularly the right frame. Man is that spot on Victorian with the hair and pose, etc. The left frame is nice as well but looks more modern. I have to applaud his efforts. I seen this work when he posted them and prompted (is that the right word?) me to pick up a Halloween Victorian wig and play around with the self timer on the 195. Which I will do soon...

[original_ann]

I can only say that his wetplates make me fall out of my chair.  So, so, so, beautiful. 

[gothamtomato]

I wonder if he is also using one of those old lenses as well. I believe they are called Petzval lenses (from the 1800's).

[Ed Wenn]

I think the look they get from being wet plates is the most interesting aspect of the work to me. But I have to say I LOVE the still lifes that are farther down the page, like this one (I think it is simply beautiful):

Yeah, I agree; those still lifes are pretty special and the one you've chosen is a particular fave of mine too. One thing bothers me though; do you think he dressed them up in Victorian leaves especially?
 

[sapata]

Wow.... his work is amazing.... I just love wet plates and those are stunning!

[Heather]

As someone who is a big fan of JMC (if nothing else, she was quite business savvy) I think the ones made by Mark Sink are beautiful and see nothing wrong with it.

I've got my petzval magic lantern lenses back from loaning them out so now I have to make a new lensboard for them for the MPP.  I never have people around for sitting though, so it'll have to be still lifes.

[CarlRadford]

Now that is some blog with some great images too!  Wet plate really does have to be seen - when it is done well it has a 3D like I have not seen on any other process. I have seen plenty of crap wet plate images mind you - the same with pinhole, plastic cameras etc etc. When people can marry up a vision and process that is when things really come together.

[vicky slater]

oh wow, most of these pictures make me feel like i haven't even taken baby steps in photography yet...staggeringly beautiful.
not a fan of the two at the top (too over stylised or reminiscent to me) but everything else leaves me in awe.
inspirational work.

[CarlRadford]

Another site worth a browse: http://www.merfeldcollodion.com/collodion/index00.html

[Ed Wenn]

Carl, thanks for the link. I thoroughly enjoyed looking through the Portraits galleries. Really amazing work there.

Judging from the other comments in this thread it seems that no-one else shares my misgivings and that the obvious qualities in Mark Sink's work either outshadow or neutralize any concerns about his subject matter. I've looked at the work again and it's absolutely astonishing on so many levels, but I still can't bring myself to love it like I can the Merfeld Collodion material that Carl linked to. To me the work still feels too much like someone using the same instruments as the Beatles did to re-record 'Revolver' in as faithful a way as possible....OK, that's overstating it somewhat - not to mention that JMG probably used glass negs instead of wet plates (I'm guessing here), but that's how the photos leave me feeling.

I know, I know....who the hell am I to get this one started, but I'm enjoying actually having an opinion about photography again. It's been a weird summer.

 

[sapata]

Another site worth a browse: http://www.merfeldcollodion.com/collodion/index00.html

I came across with Merfeld work few years ago, I can't remember exactly where (on the web...) but he saying that was pretty tired of all the digital madness of spending time in front of the computer and decided to spend most of his time in the darkroom. He inspired me to buy my Victorian camera and do wet plates (I've got the camera but couldn't try wet plates yet...) and whenever I want to show someone wet plates, I direct his website because I think his work is fantastic !

[CarlRadford]

Ed - in the wetplate world there is a real division between the civiil war re-enactors in the USA who attempt to use period everything to make there images and the images are mostly of the re-enactments themselves and those that do contemporary wet plate images. Let me just say that I am not talking of every re-enactor and that there are some that float between the two. Many people choose to make images in the style of .... and although many can do a good job the first thing that comes into many peoples mind is thats a Kenna, Bailley, Penn, JMC or whoever. I really admire Kerik Kouklis - he makes stunning images using many different mediums but he has his own style. It is difficult to have you own style these days and when people get to this point they really start to make images - there is a difference to placing you tripod in someone elses tripod holes as to standing on their shoulders as it were - having appreciated their work and started to put your own slant on things.  Any look on apug for instance will show how people follow trends - toning, lith, plastic cameras etc etc and if they are happy all the best to them. I really did not want to like wet plate - but having been in the USA with Kerik and made a few with him it was really difficult to get it out of my skin. I thought the problems with chemistry etc etc would be an uphill struggle and initially it was but I have found a process and a voice - I just need to continue to develop (no pun intended).

Oh i seem to have waffled on a bit

[Heather]

Any look on apug for instance will show how people follow trends - toning, lith, plastic cameras etc etc and if they are happy all the best to them.

You forgot trees.

trees trees trees trees trees.

I'm sort of getting a style. As a lovely What The Duck comic pointed out a month or so ago...  "Talent isn't necessarily being good at something ... but staying away from the things you're not."

[gary m]

For me, I just love wet plates. I have close to 100 tintypes that I have collected, all vintage, nothing new. I prefer Marks nudes and still lifes as they seem to strike a chord with me. The straight up portraits are nice, but I prefer something a little more "artsy"  Glad to see everyone checking out his work though, thanks Ed

[LT]

I really struggle with techniques/ processes that heavily dominate creativity.  By that, I mean where the look and feel of a certain procedure reaches over and above the content of the picture.  There are many circumstances where this is an issue and it's not always to do with trend or popularity. Toycameras, collodian, lith printing, even LF gear can, and often does become the sole reason for taking the picture. I've often been presented with a lacklustre landscape, poorly undertaken still life, badly shot holga pic (or whatever) with the inference being either obviously, or subtly made that it is "good" purely because it is taken on a 10x8, or lith printed etc etc.  project/ Series based work can often lead to the same result -  a good idea for a theme does not make a bad shot better.

When this really grinds on m nerves is when it is presented with an unfound confidence by the artist that their work is really good based purely upon the process they are using - and this does happen.

I guess this all depends upon what the purpose of the picture taking is.  New users developing styles, or just enjoying a process for the sake of doing it, rather than wanting to create an artistic masterpiece, is not what I am discussing here.   

As far as derivative work is concerned, who am I to bemoan it?  I love JMC and I really like MS's wetplates, but I agree that the ones with the modern subjects are stronger ? I?m not sure that the process adds much to them and suspect they would still be great portraits if on film.

My philosophy is pick your tools, learn to express yourself through them but dont rely on them to tell your story. Or, just enjoy using them for what they are.

[Ed Wenn]

I really like MS's wetplates, but I agree that the ones with the modern subjects are stronger ? I'm not sure that the process adds much to them and suspect they would still be great portraits if on film.

While I agree most strongly with virtually everything you say here - and not having actually seen a wet plate 'in the flesh' - I suspect that the characteristics of the end product have to be influenced by the process used and at a very practical level the physical activities required to actually take a photo using a process as idiosyncratic as this.

In the much the same way that your own prints are siginificantly more wonderful when viewed up close than their already gorgeous on-screen counterparts, I suspect that Mark Sink's wet plate portraits may exhibit a certain look and feel precisely because of the process that produced them. Won't argue with you that the material is strong enough to look good on normal film too, but they would look different, surely?

...erm, there's actually an awful lot I want to add at this point (this thread's got me thinking), but I'm at work & simply don't have the time to write it all down. We might want to pick this up in a future podcast, or even the next time some of us meet up for a drink?

[CarlRadford]

Some interesting points Leon but I can't say I agree with some of them - but that is ok as we are allowed to disagree.

First, I think it is a little odd that we are having this interesting debate on process over creativity on a forum that is purely film based - a barrier has already been put in place that excludes a great deal of creativity. Same as on the Film And Darkroom Forum where I needed to have a discussion with Trevor Crone on digital negatives instead of inter negs as it was outside of the forums rules.

Lots of areas of photography are process dependent - and one learns to work within the constraints of what the tools can do.

Crap images are crap images whether they are in a series or not but for me I'd rather see a series of crap images that the photographer was trying to tell a story with then a a sequence of best of images. I certainly stand by the statement that one really does need to see a wet plate image in the hand - much as one does a plt/pd, salt or gum over etc - but there are lots of crap images that are supposed to have status just because the photographer can use them.

What grinds for me is a repetition of the same sort of images that everyone else has done over and over. That said, when I get to Yosemite rest assured I will be taking all the standard images on the tourist route. In much the same way as those of the Paddling Pool at Broadstairs 5 mins walk from my folks doorstep.

I do agree that if Sink were using large format film in his camera with the same lens etc that the results would be close but they would not have the same uniqueness that a plate has which is a one of an near impossible to duplicate due to the organic nature of the process. Yes one could scan a plate and run any number of digital copies off.

The last point I would add is that I have found the tools and process that allows me to express myself in the manner I want to as opposed to being dominated by the tools - in the same way that this forum is dominated/constrained to using film.

Interesting discussion and debate - be nice to hear other people views/thoughts too?!

An afterthought - some of Leon's images that strike a chord the most are those of his dogs, images of things that people care about often show a greater depth of emotion/feeling!

 

[LT]

An afterthought - some of Leon's images that strike a chord the most are those of his dogs, images of things that people care about often show a greater depth of emotion/feeling!

carl - maybe it's the way you've written this, but be careful not to assume that what you think is the same for everyone else. There are plenty of cat lovers out there

[CarlRadford]

An afterthought - some of Leon's images that strike a chord the most are those of his dogs, images of things that people care about often show a greater depth of emotion/feeling!

carl - maybe it's the way you've written this, but be careful not to assume that what you think is the same for everyone else. There are plenty of cat lovers out there

It would be a dull world if everyone thought like me and liked the same images I like too I am happy to clarify to expand on any point that appears ambiguous if this were to help.

Off to make more images of the farm for the exhibition next year at the Museum for Rural Life (Scotland) Need one or two good ones amongst the dross The current exhibition is still up at the Lillie Gallery Milngavie Glasgow if anyone is around. One of 13 Photographers including Thomas Joshua Cooper although I need to work on my art appreciation for his work.

[LT]

I am happy to clarify to expand on any point that appears ambiguous if this were to help.

really no need from my point of viewing Carl - I think I've got the gist of it all.  I was just making a little joke

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

Very interesting thread. Others have said similar - a crap print is a crap print, no matter how it is presented that old maxim "you can't polish a poo" always stays true and stands the test of all automated technology.

I lectured for quite a number of years and at every assessment there would be a student trying to sell me on a technique of an image where the content was just garbage.

To me it comes down to the confidence the artist/student has in their abilities to  "see" and then present to the audience what they "saw". My barometer was to see if the content caught my eye first or the technique.

I do not like to be "sold" parlour tricks, I like to see good visual expression then see it supported my a particular technique, presentation style whatever.

If there is one process in the digital world I loathe it is HDR images - YAWN

[LT]

good stuff Ken - and I like the polishing poos maxim, wish I'd remembered that for my post.

As an addendum - the reason why I'm proud of being part of FWs is that we are all so much not about polishing turds, and more about laying golden eggs.  and remember, you can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead (or something)

[CarlRadford]

.... but you cant force it to drink.

Why do we make images - when we are gone will someone else care about them and will what we have produced mean anything?

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

Why do we make images - when we are gone will someone else care about them and will what we have produced mean anything?

I guess, as a general unsubstantiated view, people take photos for enjoyment. Photographers make images for ego, I don't mean in a negative way, well I do if you are an emulsion shooter, however I digress.

I believe no matter how much you wrap up your creative output in a connection to the soul via hippy wavy dancing, listening to a didgeridoo while hand darning your muesli - we all do it for our ego.

Will anybody care, most probably not, we all hope to leave a legacy, however if you think about it, if you give your photos to your grandkids, their kids won't know anybody in the photos as all of those people will be dead. So they will more than likely print he cool hip townscapes of yesteryear and ditch the rest.

Will it all mean something in the future, well I really hope so, but I expect not.

[CarlRadford]

I made more images at the farm today. Whilst I was there the local minister just happened to visit and so I made a portrait of her using the wet plate process - she was trilled and talked of how disposable images were these days yet this plate somehow appeared precious. What amused me was that she said there was a sermon in this chance meeting. A legacy - well maybe not be it seemed to make her day and hopefully will provide for a humorous sermon - at least I hope fairly light-hearted. Just need to make sure I do not mess the plate up when I varnish it tomorrow.

Ego - very true! I have stopped participating in forums to a greater extent - certainly not as much as I used too. I was spending more time either on forums or looking on ebay for the next magic bullet that someone else had already tried and discarded I've no doubt. I'd check back often to see who had commented etc etc. A pattern soon emerged as to how commented on whose pictures and mostly always positively. Few people gave honest feedback on weaker images electing instead to say nothing as this was easier and didn't cause waves. Yes we are fragile and this is especially so when one makes images they care about and actually mean something too them. Which leads us back to why we make images - for fun mostly - and as mementoes. One of the most interesting books I have read lately was Family (?) a book on photographers making images of their families. An eclectic mix but one could tell that these were important images even though I knew none of the individuals concerned.

After the plates of the farm are exhibited I will give all of them to 'farmer Robert' whilst in years ahead the images will mean little for those that follow me I hope they may last a little longer in his family - it is already nice to know that his sons really like the images that have been made so far! How long they will last as people become more and more mobile and throwing out junk that has been collected prior to a move is anyones guess but I can only hope they last a little longer than I will.

[gothamtomato]

Will anybody care, most probably not, we all hope to leave a legacy, however if you think about it, if you give your photos to your grandkids, their kids won't know anybody in the photos as all of those people will be dead. So they will more than likely print he cool hip townscapes of yesteryear and ditch the rest.

Whenever I do to an antique flea market and see old pictures, I always wonder who these people were and why didn't anyone care enough about them to keep their pictures.

[CarlRadford]

Will anybody care, most probably not, we all hope to leave a legacy, however if you think about it, if you give your photos to your grandkids, their kids won't know anybody in the photos as all of those people will be dead. So they will more than likely print he cool hip townscapes of yesteryear and ditch the rest.

Whenever I do to an antique flea market and see old pictures, I always wonder who these people were and why didn't anyone care enough about them to keep their pictures.

My old man now lives in Canada in a place called Guelph which has some pretty old houses by Canadian standards. A friend of theirs found 3 original tintypes in the attic of their house and they have become a source of research and pride for them.  They could well be a recent purchase at a fair or whatever and have nothing to do with people that have been connected to their house but it was nice to think they thought them precious. Just for clarity they could've been any old photographic image it just so happens that they were tintypes. My father-in-law has a picture of his grandmother dating form 1901 which I think is pretty special.