Don McCullin "Looking for England"

Melancholy

Melancholy

To grain, or not to grain
Local time
11:47 AM
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
587
Here is a very nice documentary movie with Don McCulling, following him documenting his own country. Also, some rare moments in his darkroom making prints, and talking about the difference between analog and digital photography like he experience it. There is also a great moment where he is laughing very much, a bit amusing since he is always serious when talking and doing photography.

I´m sorry if this is a double post (or posted in wrong topic), tried to search the forum but could not fine the one hour film here, so I hope more will enjoy this hour with one of the greatest photographer we have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOTedHe-_lg
 
What a nice chap! I love his sense of humor, that he spends so much time just observing and taking it in, talking to people.

And of course I admire that he uses medium format film, always wide open, and does his own wet lab work -- how classy!
 
Wow! Great documentary about a great man. I was delighted to see that he still prints in the darkroom. Thanks for the link.
 
filmtwit said:
I'm suprised that he's not working with gloves when he's printing
Click to expand...

Many don't use gloves these days, as long as no toning is involved.
But not tongs is really something.

He made best definition why I'm still using film.
 
Interesting quote...

When asked about the rise of digital photography, he said: "Digital photography can be a totally lying experience - you can move what you want, the whole thing can’t be trusted really"
 
Contarama said:
Interesting quote...

When asked about the rise of digital photography, he said: "Digital photography can be a totally lying experience - you can move what you want, the whole thing can’t be trusted really"
Click to expand...

This is what quite a few dedicated film shooters claim to think. But I think its really only a rationalization for them continuing to shoot film. (Although they do not need to rationalize or justify it - if they like doing it, keep doing it).

The truth is that (a) most people don't take picture elements out or put them in - or have the skill to do so for that matter. (b) in any event doing this really only matters in some situations - if you are recording something which explicitly or implicitly requires the image to be an accurate representation of real life then it matters. If you are making a shot which is explicitly an artistic interpretation and do not pretend its any more than this who cares?

I tweak images in post all the time. I change tonal values to brighten or darken, I change saturation to increase or reduce it, I add vignettes to focus attention where I want it and I will not infrequently add texture overlays. I am perfectly upfront in saying this is how a given final image has been arrived at. Mostly it's obvious that changes have been made in post anyway and what's more, some of these changes might well have been made by analogue film shooters too. Just using different processing techniques and tools.

So when folks say something like that guy did I am kinda like "Yeah, whatever!"
 
Thanks for that.
I`ve seen it previously but it`s well worth repeating.
His biography "Unresonable Behaviour " is a good but terrifying read.
From being captured and interrogated by Idi Amin`s police , staying behind at the battle of Hue ,when the press left , to help evacuate US personnel(the Marines regard him as one of theirs) ,throw in Biafra and Rwanda its a wonder he`s still sane.
 
peterm1 said:
This is what quite a few dedicated film shooters claim to think. But I think its really only a rationalization for them continuing to shoot film. (Although they do not need to rationalize or justify it - if they like doing it, keep doing it).

The truth is that (a) most people don't take picture elements out or put them in - or have the skill to do so for that matter. (b) in any event doing this really only matters in some situations - if you are recording something which explicitly or implicitly requires the image to be an accurate representation of real life then it matters. If you are making a shot which is explicitly an artistic interpretation and do not pretend its any more than this who cares?

I tweak images in post all the time. I change tonal values to brighten or darken, I change saturation to increase or reduce it, I add vignettes to focus attention where I want it and I will not infrequently add texture overlays. I am perfectly upfront in saying this is how a given final image has been arrived at. Mostly it's obvious that changes have been made in post anyway and what's more, some of these changes might well have been made by analogue film shooters too. Just using different processing techniques and tools.

So when folks say something like that guy did I am kinda like "Yeah, whatever!"
Click to expand...

Whatever, guy.
 
Wonderful documentary, thanks for the link. I have seen many interviews and docs about him and it is so nice to see him laughing for a change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom