Talk:Laurence Aberhart

Weird stuff
I've tried to make this article a bit less unidiomatic and repetitive, but bizarre stuff remains. -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Collections
Aberhart travels often and has many photographic collections from around the world. What are these collections? How are they relevant to his work? -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a better word for "takes a series of photographs of a particular subject and releases them as a collection of work..." or something like that. IE, they're not his collection of other's photographs, but his photographs collected or again, something like that. Sorry I couldn't word things better, but they relate to his work as they indicate he doesn't just take pictures of New Zealand subjects, like others do. -- Spawn Man 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it; thank you. -- Hoary 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Developing
he first became interested in photography by reading the photographic books on display and seeing a friend developing photographs. The development of film is a pretty uninteresting spectacle. Does this mean enlarging and printing?


 * Oops, got them mixed up. Will fix soon - not everybody is perfect & considering time it took me & length of the article, it was bound to have a few mistakes. No need to make me feel crummy about it... -- Spawn Man 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed not. But really, that wasn't the intention. Thank you for making things clear. -- Hoary 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

each photograph would take in excess of eight hours to fully develop in Aberhart's darkroom The negative would take that long, or the print would take that long in the developing tray?
 * The print would take that long to develop. Again, wording incorrect. Cheers, -- Spawn Man 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK -- Hoary 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the time between Aberhart taking the photo and actually developing it was in some instances large; he would often develop photographs years later. Developing the film? Printing? -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, again printing not developing - should be "and actually printing it was in some instances large"... -- Spawn Man 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but I don't think that this is so unusual. -- Hoary 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have worked in Platinum for only a couple of years, but I find the claim of eight hour development questionable. An eight hour exposure of a print is feasable, under extremely poor conditions using the sun as the UV source, but when working in Platinum, the development is near instantaneous. For someone claiming to be so well versed in the process, the language of the article is technically very vague and misleading. Rbphoto 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, Rbphoto. Incidentally, you might take a look at the bit about "silicon prints". (Silver?) -- Hoary 01:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbphoto 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument has been resolved above, but if you are refering to the Mount Taranaki print which I state took hours to expose; it was taken under moonlight & wasn't using platinum either. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rbphoto asked about development time; you're answering about exposure time.


 * You've got me seriously worried now. I'm not familiar with Aberhart's work. I am familiar with Kazama's works so I'll use these to illustrate. Kazama sticks his monster Pentax on a sturdy tripod, opens the shutter, probably tries not to take a nap (he likes nighttime scenes in snowy winter Hokkaidō; it can be −20°C or colder), and, a considerable time later, closes the shutter: long exposures. But the development times for the resulting negatives (and prints) will be similar to those for photos he's taken in blazing sunshine without an ND filter.


 * I don't want to seem to be bugging you, but please reread the article and check that there's no confusion among:
 * Exposure time
 * Film development time
 * Print development time
 * -- Hoary 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No lol, I was making sure he wasn't getting the two mixed up. Misunderstanding really lol... :) Spawn Man 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Big claims
Aberhart has been featured in over 100 photographic exhibitions, Evidence, please.

His work has been shown in museums across the globe, including Australia, the USA and France. Evidence, please. -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, I've stated my sources at the end of the paragraph dum dum ), but if you need another, here's a link to an art gallery that also has the same info as in the book cite I've provided link. This page can also be accessed via the biography link in the first external link in the "External links" section in the article... -- Spawn Man 02:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Though I didn't bother to count, I also didn't get the impression that as many as a hundred were listed. Certainly an impressive number were listed. I've rewritten accordingly, and linked. -- Hoary 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Paper and money, money, money
''Aberhart bought an old camera to begin photographing. However, soon after he began using it in the late 1960s, the paper used to print the negatives on went out of production as well. Due to this, Aberhart has a unique style and the value of each image ranges from US$1,000-10,000 in value.'' Well, companies routinely take their papers out of production. What was this paper? Did he get a supply and freeze it? Does he just use unfrozen, outdated stocks? By "value", I suppose "price" is what's meant. Are these prints, or what? -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with photgraphic paper industries, all my book said was that the paper was no longer in production & that Aberhart, although having a collection of his own paper, was actively seekng paper of the same make from private owners. Don't really know what that all means, but if it answers your question, then that's great! :) -- Spawn Man 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. -- Hoary 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

''Perhaps one of his most expensive and memorable photographs was the "Prisoner's Dream" series of five photographs. At the centre of the series was Mount Taranaki. ... This is one of his most expensive photographs.'' How can one photograph be a series of five photographs? Were the prints expensive?

Incidentally, why this apparent obsession with price? I know of no other photographer with an article that rattles on about how much this or that costs. -- Hoary 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Prisoner's Dream" set of photographs was in fact a set of 5 (Not really all that hard to understand really...), and included in that set of 5 was the Mount Taranaki shot, which happens to be his most valuable photograph. Pretty simple really, I'm shocked with all these questions which someone with a little common sense could figure out how to resolve them... -- Spawn Man 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. For a photographer who's alive and well and presumably still possesses the required negative, it's strange to say that a photograph is expensive. He can have an assistant slip the negative into the enlarger and bang off a thousand prints, if he wishes. At the other extreme, he may have grandly announced that there would only ever be a single "edition" of perhaps as few as ten of each of these prints. (For melodramatic effect, he could even promise to destroy the negatives thereafter, though that would be over-icing it.)


 * I'm perfectly happy to be accused of lacking common sense. I can often guess what you mean. But sometimes I can't, and more worryingly I'm aware of a distinct danger that I could guess wrongly. Let's make sure that the information in this article is correct, not merely that information/misinformation mix is plausible. -- Hoary 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has worked in photography for any length of time, particularly black and white, will tell you the materials are ALWAYS changing. It goes with the territory and we have all found ways to work around it and keep working. To say the discontinuace of a particular material has forced the intrinsic value of your work to rise is quite a boast. Rbphoto 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not making the boast & frankly, if it's sourced (which it is) then I thoguht it was allowed? Also, I don't really know of many current photographers who use a turn-of-the-century camera & paper that no longer exsists. Spawn Man 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A camera that's now over a century old (if this is what you mean) is indeed an unusual choice. But the article talked of an out of production model camera in the 1960s. That could have been anything from the ancient camera that Bill Brandt was using only slightly earlier for Perspectives of Nudes to something like a Canon VL that went out just a few years previously. Either way, the choice of camera has no intrinsic connection with the choice of paper (unless I've misunderstood something): A photographer is free to use a brand new, autofocus wonder-camera for platinum or bromoil prints, or an ancient camera for sheet film that will be scanned and printed digitally. -- Hoary 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the "series of human portraits"?
A conundrum of cause/motivation: I suppose debunking a stereotype and breaking a typecast could be two ways of saying the same thing. But I don't see how they are (or how either is) the same as "pressure to photograph another subject". Better to express the reason(s) carefully, once. -- Hoary 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * However, when he was typecast as a building photographer, Aberhart took a series of human portraits to debunk the stereotype.
 * However, due to the pressure to photograph another subject, he released a series of photographs of his children in the 1980s to break the typecast.


 * Don't really get this oppose here - He was being pressured & typecast as a building photographer by critics who aid he couldn't do anything else other than that subject - thus he debunked the sterotype that was being made against him & photgraphed something else... Sounds like being pressured to me eh? Cheers again -- Spawn Man 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think. (NB there's no opposition involved; I'm merely trying to work out what's meant.) -- Hoary 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Silicon prints
Although he mainly uses silicon prints: What are "silicon prints"? -- Hoary 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This name is probably not the correct name for the print - I had to give the books I borrowed back & won't be able to read them again for a while. It was something like silicon prints POP or something like that - I honestly can't remember that detail. I wish I could be of more help, but there's littlw I can do now sorry. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll guess that they're silver gelatine prints (i.e. the kind of prints that were standard till fairly recently). But guesses are dangerous, so I'm commenting this out. -- Hoary 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Silicone is by it's very nature non-photochemically reactive, nor would there be any advantage to making it so. I don't understand; why did you write this with apparently no reference materials, no notes, and no knowledge base ?  If you are not well versed in the chemistry, the process, or photographic criticism, or at least passingly familiar with the topic, why did you author this article?  Rbphoto 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe Span Man had the books at the time when he was writing. -- Hoary 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm yes, which is what I said above Rbphoto is you bothered to read it? I do have experience (not much) with photography, but as I said above, I had to give the books back. In any case, I did a pretty good job - I didn't see you creating the article now did I? :) Spawn Man 04:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to get defensive or huffy. Just take out the unverifiable stuff.  I did it. Dicklyon 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't huffy - if you read the ":)" you'd see I was only funning... Anyway, you removed content that was not disputed & that was verified - I've partially reverted you. Anyway, most of the incorrect stuff has been removed & corrected. The article looks pretty good now & I thank you all for your help. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing the facts
On "for god's sake Dicklyon!! The citation referes to the whole paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!! you don't have to cite every single little sentence - the paragraph is cited!!!!@!!"

The fact in question was: ''Aberhart bought an old camera to begin photographing. However, soon after he began using it in the late 1960s, the paper used to print the negatives on went out of production as well.''

First, if it's worth pointing out that his camera was old, it's worth elaborating at least a little. (Was it three years, thirty years, seventy years old? And although the particular brand is probably of little interest, what kind was it -- 6x6 TLR? 4x5 view camera?) Secondly, the juxtaposition of the first sentence and the second (compounded by "however") suggests that there's some kind of connection between camera and paper. Now, I can hazily imagine that there could be some kind of connection. But as I've already said, there's no obvious inherent connection: Somebody with access to Atget's plates could print them via the most modern methods; somebody with sufficient patience could hand-coat paper in some nineteenth-century fashion in order to print negatives produced by a sparkling new Nikon F6. My guess is that, like me, Dicklyon doesn't have access to any of these works on photography in NZ, and was merely trying to get at what this was all about.

In general you indeed don't have to cite every single little sentence, but it's an excellent idea to source specific facts (as is done in for example Hiroh Kikai), and of course it's also an excellent idea to clear up real or apparent oddities. -- Hoary 08:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoary, thanks for your support here. Spawn Man is the only was with easy access to the sources, as far as I know, and I'm trying to encourage him to take a look and clarify exactly what they support.  Especically concerning is the eight hours development, which makes no sense.  Also, if an important paper went out of production, why aren't we told what paper it was?  Maybe the ref says, and maybe it doesn't, but it would be nice to at least what ref to check in case we find it.  Anyway, it seems that he added the refs; whether they actually do support the statements is hard to check. Dicklyon 16:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... It almost reads as if you're calling me a liar Lyon. I've provided the name of the photographic paper & if you find the 8 hour development time unusual, don't bring it up with me as I'm not the one who wrote about it or researched it for their book. The camera was made at the turn of the last century, but as I've said before, I don't have the books any longer so cannot tell you the name (not really all that hard to comprehend). No need to accuse me of making up facts, as I do not. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So the camera was made at the end of the 19th century. Good, we're now starting to get somewhere.


 * Dicklyon was not calling you a liar. He said nothing that suggested he thought you're a liar or that you made up facts. You misread what he wrote. His user page suggests that he has some degree of expertise in photochemical processes, enough for him to find most remarkable any claim that development took eight hours. He made a very legitimate request for more information about this and other seemingly odd assertions.


 * A library or other source that is at least intermittently available to you has the books. They're not in any library that's accessible to me or, I think, to Dicklyon. So please get the books, and check exactly what they say. If you don't understand some bits, please ask about them on this talk page (while minimizing the amount that you quote directly).


 * I (and, I suppose, Dicklyon) look forward to reading more information. -- Hoary 08:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what he said. Dicklyon 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is going to be a bit tricky as they're in this special archive library which I only got into on an off chance due to a family member being in the justice department. I asked them to see if there were any other books on Aberhart after going to one of his exhibitions where I found one of the books, ("Aberhart"), but was unsatisfied that it didn't give huge amounts of detail. The books were only available for a short while & I could only get some facts without reading every single page in full detail. The facts presented here are correct but the information could be more detailed. I cannot get the books back now without getting my family member to retrace the books movement which would take some time. In the run of things, I don't see this worth it. I've been to the library in town & they have a couple of books with mentions of Aberhart in them, but nothing too detailed nor anything about the 8 hour exposure times or other stuff we're disputing here. Cheers & sorry I couldn't be more help... Spawn Man 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laurence Aberhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624010020/http://www.suecrockford.com/artists/biography.asp?aid=2 to http://www.suecrockford.com/artists/biography.asp?aid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925081330/http://www.suecrockford.com/artists/images.asp?aid=2 to http://www.suecrockford.com/artists/images.asp?aid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050704094249/http://www.darrenknightgallery.com/artists/aberhart/cv_aberhart.htm to http://www.darrenknightgallery.com/artists/aberhart/cv_aberhart.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)