Too many pictures?

I love Lee Friedlander's photography. It's simple and pure and

honest. I bought "Sticks and Stones" recently and it strikes me as

being too much...just too much. There's about 200 architectural

photos in the book, all done with a Hassy Superwide in the

Friedlander style. While I can appreciate the photography, 200

pictures are just about 100 too many. Friedlander's other recent

book "Family", on the other hand, works a lot better for me.

Any comments or opinions on either book?

You're just biased because of your name :) I happened to be in downtown SF today, so I stopped in at the Fraenkel gallery to see what was new, and they had just put up "Sticks and Stones". I was about to leave when I noticed a group of people had gathered around an old man, listening quite intently to what he was saying. It didn't take me long to figure out that it was Lee Friedlander himself. I had just been reading about him in "Bystander: a history of street photography", and now here he was. I didn't know what to say, so I just listened in as the others asked questions.

He had some dire things to say about the future of film. I don't know if he knows more than the rest of us, but he was talking about Ilford's bankruptcy and the possible necessity of freezing large quantities of film. He also said that Spotone is now completely gone because the maker just died and nobody has picked up the ball on it, which I wasn't aware of.

I like his work very much, but he's never been my favorite. The "Sticks and Stones" prints look very good in person, but I could see how 200 would be a bit much in book form.

Anyway, how about my timing, eh? Was anybody else there?