B&W landscape photography

[Ugo]

Who is your favourite B&W landscape photographer? And why, of course?
I am very curious.
Bye

[Bill_1856]

ANSEL ADAMS. His best work has a beauty and majesty unmatched by any other landscape artist. His original prints, even the lesser ones, almost leave me tingling with pleasure in their perfect craftsmanship. Of living photographers, I would rate Englishman John Blakemore at the top.

[ronald moravec]

AA hands down. For being a beautiful person and photographer. AA is to the landscape as HCB is to documentary.

[Bruce Watson]

Why, me of course ;-)

Other than me, I concur with AA. Adams had the gift for grand landscape, no question. Adams' work resonates with me - his vision, his compositions, his tonalities... it just speaks to me somehow.

John Sexton, AA's assistant and fine photographer in his own right, is no slouch, but his landscapes tend to be of smaller scale and more subdued light. He's the guy who coined the phrase "quiet light" which is an interesting concept. He too can see.

I also like Imogen Cunningham's work, although I did spend a couple of springs working diligently to capture a photograph of a magnolia blossom, only to discover in my third year of this quest that she had already made the perfect photograph decades ago. Sigh....

George DeWolf also does excellent work in B&W landscapes. He definitely can see. But it seems he's shifting over to more color work these days.

Sadly, the B&W landscape market has been the pits for the last couple of decades. The level of craftsmanship seems to have really dropped off. I don't know if the lack of vision I find in the current crop of B&W landscapers is due to that, or the reverse is true.

[Mike Davis]

While I love AA's work, I think that my favorite landscape photographers are the non-tradtional ones. Robert Adams comes to mind, his portrayal of the changing west and suburban sprawl combines fineart landscapes with a more documentary style. Lee Freedlander is another artist who blurs the traditional lines that define landscape.

I also very much like Edward and Brett Weston. While neither is completely traditional, their landscapes are inspirational.

[austin granger]

If forced to pick just one, I'd say Edward Weston. For a list, off the top of my head I'll offer: Frederick Sommer, Minor White, Harry Callahan, Wynn Bullock, Ralph Meatyard, AAron Siskind, Lewis Baltz, Morley Baer, Brett Weston, Philip Hyde and yes, St. Ansel.

Some of these admitedly stretch the traditional definition of 'landscape photographer' but that's just it for me; the line between the 'exterior' world and the 'interior' world (or for that matter, the line between the 'sacred' and the 'profane') for many of these photographers was not so distinct. That is to say, their subjects were obviously illuminated by what they felt for these subjects. (I think Stieglitz spoke of this)

I also like the fact that with any of these photographers, one could probably identify an image as theirs even if you didn't know it was beforehand; "That looks like a Ralph Meatyard..." etc. This is very different than so many landscape photographers (often color) whose work, while beautiful, seems quite detached from the person who made it and is thus rendered indistinguishible from the work of innumerable other landscape photographers working in the same vein.

[austin granger]

Yes, what Mike said. I forgot Robert Adams and Lee Friedlander, but they should be on my list too. Landscapes don't have to be beautiful to be worth doing.

One can use their camera as a sword sometimes too.

[John Kasaian]

Add Vittorio Sella and Bradford Washburn to the list!

[Ugo]

I agree with you John: Vittorio Sella. The power of his images is astonishing!
But what about John Wimberley. He created his own tools to express the extended range of tonality of his landscapes.
A vote also for Michael Smith: classical beauty.
I haven't yet had a chance to see Barnbaum's work.

[Ron_5198]

Ansel Adams. Seeing his pictures when I was young was a revalation to me. Don Kirby's Wheat Country are the first really exciting b&w landscapes I've seen since that first encounter with AA's work.

[Chris Gittins]

Paul Caponigro. Weston. Bernd & Hilla Becher. Robert Adams.

Their work is visually engaging, honest (i.e., not romanticized or conveying any forced emotion), and presents a strong coherent narrative.

[Frank Bagbey]

I was fortunate to see some very large framed Ansel Adams prints, made in his early days, that absolutely blew me away with their quality. Anything in books just does not compare. And subsequent Ansel shows I have seen displayed prints that just did not measure up to those magnificent prints from the early days. This is no reflection on whoever printed them after Ansel's death. In fact, the changes in paper alone may explain the differences.
If at all possible, seek out some of the early, very large Ansel prints wherever they may be displayed and make your own comparisons to later Ansel prints or to other photographers
prints.
Without naming names there is one great photographer who has gained success in recent years. His work is technically perfect and his prints technically perfect. However, his prints do not have the "umppph" that early Ansel prints have. Since Kodak provides him all his film and paper free, or so I have been told, why don't his prints exhibit the "emotion" that early Ansel prints do? I think it must be the differences in materials, especially film and paper.
It would be interesting to hear what those who printed with Ansel and those who printed Ansel's negatives after Ansel was gone have to say regarding current materials and the materials Ansel was privileged to work with..........

[Barry Trabitz]

I would agree to Ansel as a first choice. I was fortunate to have met the man and his personality matched his Art. I will never forget his greeting when I first met him and shook his hand and told him how honored I was. His comment: " my name's Ansel sonny, what's yours." He then said something to the effect that " yes I am a talented artist and you are probably just as talented at what you do."

I enjoy John Sextons work very much. Particularly the " Quiet Light " He was Ansel's assistant at the 1980 workshop in Yosemite and was a very fine teacher with the ability to critique ones work with an understanding of what the image maker was trying to say. This sensitivity comes out in his own work

The one who I would emulate if I could is Paul Caponegro. His best images have a darkness and mystery that just draw me into their depths. For me, they create a need to see deeper into the darkness.

[paulr]

It's hard to pick one ...

I think Ansel had a period betwwen the mid 1930s and mid 1940s when he was an extremely good artist. very little of what he did before or after that went beyond being pretty calendar photography ... although it is very good calendar photography, and in many ways defined the genre for all who followed. As a printmaker, I consider him to be bizarrely overrated, but as a conservationist and public relations person for the environmental movement, and as a photography educator, he was at the very top.

As a landscape photographer, he was simply not in the same league as Edward Weston, as even Ansel himself often attested. Weston's landscapes are incomparable.

As are Paul Strand's. One of my very, very favorites. Possibly one of the two or three best printmakers who ever lived, and someone wise enough not to make a big deal about it.

Looking back farther, it's almost a cliche now to point out how amazing Timothy O'Sullivan was. But I'll risk a cliche opinion and say I love O'Sullivan's work.

More recently, I'll agree with everyone who mentioned Robert Adams. I consider him to be a great genius, and the godfather of contemporary landscape photography. Someone said in reference to him that landscapes don't have to be beautiful to be great: I'd like to put a different twist on that and that and say that landscapes don't have to be pretty to be beautiful. I consider Rob Adams' best work to be stunningly beautiful, even if it may be a more difficult kind of beauty than people were used to at the time his work first emerged.

In the world of color photography, William Eggleston and Stephen Shore, though not strictly landscape photographers, blow me away whenever I see their work. Mike Smith may be in the same league, but I've only seen one body of work of his, so it's too early to say.

Gun to my head, though, when it comes to landscape, If I have to pick one, I'll probably be boring and say Weston. After all these years, he's still the man.

[Frank Petronio]

I like my work best. Seriously - that is the beauty of B&W large format - for not very much investment and training, you can produce prints that rival Ansel Adams' finest work. It is a very democratic medium. (By not much training I mean like a year or two of serious practice.)

[Chuck_1686]

My "new" favorite is Ray Metzker. His Landscapes. Hard to put into words but I just find his work visually pleasing. Probably not for everyone.

[paulr]

" not very much investment and training, you can produce prints that rival Ansel Adams' finest work. It is a very democratic medium. (By not much training I mean like a year or two of serious practice.)"

are you talking just about technical print quality, or are you talking about the quality of the work (depth of vision, contribution to the history of the medium, etc.)?

i'll assume that judgement of the work will be carried out by someone besides the artist or his/her mom :)

[Kirk Gittings]

Favourite? That changes by the week. Wynn Bullock, Minor White and Paul Caponigro have probably been at the top of my list the most over the years. I saw a show of Bullock's in 1970 at the museum in Santa Fe and it has haunted me ever since.

Most influential is perhaps easier to define. for Vision-Weston and Strand. for Technical-Ansel and the most influential vision in the Post-Modern age-Robert Adams.

Who has contributed most overall to the developement of b&w LF landscape photography as a genre in my lifetime? Ansel, Fred Picker, Steve Simmons. Honorable mentions to Gordon Hutchings and Dick Arentz and as a group the regular participants in this forum who I believe have had a huge positive impact on the genre.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I dont know if he can be classified as a landscape photographer, but I am susprised nobody has mentioned George Tice. I think he does beautiful work

[Frank Petronio]

I'm completely serious when I say that a beginner can make an image everybit as good as Saint Ansel. Maybe collectors won't pay the same amount of money for it, but we're talking about the quality of the image, not the perception of value (I hope.)

Harry Callahan and Arron Siskind taught this at RISD - after the first year of basic photo classes, they didn't accept any excuses from students for not showing world-class, exhibit quality work. Maybe you might refine your technique over a longer period of time, but I don't see anything to disagree with them about.

What do you find so objectionable?

BTW, my Mom doesn't get my pictures, but she loves them all the same, especially if grandchildren are in them.

[paulr]

Frank, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you mean. Are you talking about technical quality or artistic quality?
If you're saying anyone can learn to make an exquisite print (at least in terms of conforming to some established set of academic standards) then that's one thing, and I think it's an easy one to agree with. The implication is that being able to make a finely crafted thing does not make a person a great artist ... and that's something that a lot of people could be reminded of every so often.

But if you're saying anyone can become the level of artist of Ansel with a couple of years of study, then I'd say that this is either a dig against Ansel (which is a totally different conversation) or a suggestion that the average person can become at least a high level artist (implying a deep, clear, and developed vision) with a couple of years of study and practice. If this is the case, then where are all these good artists? The schools should be pumping them out by the hundreds every year (easily ... because students in MFA or even BFA programs didn't start out as beginners--they had to have impressive enough portfolios to beat out dozens of other applicants just to get in).

Anyway, I sure don't see it. The best MFA programs (like Yale) seem to produce someone really remarkable every year or two. But it's a far cry from showing that an average beginner (these programs don't accept average beginners, not by a long shot) can reliably be turned into an exceptional artist in a couple of years.

These programs (even good undergrad programs) can certainly teach people to be competent. They can teach a repertoire of revelent techniques, they can teach a lot of history and theory, they can teach people to have a potent critical vocabulary for judging their own and other people's work, they can teach people to pursue and refine their vision through a body of work, they can teach people to edit and sequence and present work in a professional manner, etc.. Maybe this is what Callahan and Siskind were talking about?? These are all serious skills, but by themselves they don't add up to being a great or even a good artist ... just a competent one.

[paulr]

oh, and a more on-topic reply ...
i recently discovered the work of Andrew Borowiec.
his photographs in the book "Along the Ohio" are absolutely stunning.
could be called urban, suburban, and industrial landscapes ... maybe in the walker evans tradition.

[Scott Rosenberg]

aside from a passing reference, i'm surprised to see such little support for one of my favorites... Bruce Barnbaum. i'd include him on my top 5 list for sure.

[Chris Gittins]

Several other people who do very good work but haven't gotten mention so far:

William Clift, Ron Rosenstock, and Dodo Jin Ming for her "Free Element" series

[Bill_1856]

Brett Weston is the only photographer in recent years that I would consider to be in the same league as AA in print quality.

[Gary Samson]

My favorite landscape photographer is Carleton E. Watkins. Watkins invented the western American landscape photograph aestheic in the 19th century and was a true genius combining sometimes abstract compostional elemements with technical perfection. His major landscape work was done with an 18x22 inch view camera utilizing the wet-plate process for negatives and the albumen printing process for finished prints. Interestingly Ansel Adams never acknowledged Carleton Watkins influence on his own work ( he was well aware of Watkins' work; Watkins studio was located in San Francisco but unfortunately destroyed during the great earthquake) and once you review Watkins' work you will realize that there would not be an Ansel Adams without Watkins. Make every effort to see the best of original Watkins prints - they are a visual treat that will redefine your appreciation and understanding of the landscape photograph.

[Frank Petronio]

Paul, I mean that a newcomer can produce prints that rival anyones' - Ansel's, Weston, whomever - on whatever grounds - print quality or artistic merit - given enthusiasm, good materials, and some talent. Especially if we compare print for print. Of course you can't compare reputations or entire bodies of work - but if you covered up the signatures, why couldn't some newbie armed with a Crown Graphic and No. 25 Red filter crank out as dramatic and "nice" a print as Ansel? If anything, our modern equipment is better - so what's to stop him or her?

Jeez, isn't there somebody in Yosemite at this very minute trying to recreate Ansel's shots? Or some neebish guy searching tidepools at Carmel? And side by side, given the right paper and developer and some hard work in the darkroom, why wouldn't their prints look at least as good as the masters? It would be totally subjective wouldn't it? Especially if you hid the print info from the viewer.

Also, in reference to competitive MFA programs, com'on - they aren't exactly turning anybody with cash away anymore... they need ever warm body they can get.

Oh, my other favorites are William Clift for traditonal stuff. He is a subtle printer. Most of those guys - Sexton, Barnbaum, etc. are heavy handed.

I'm going to duck now.

[paulr]

If learning to copy someone else's vision after studying their work counts as equalling them, then I grant you that there are quite a lot of people who could equal the work of just about anyone, at least on a sometime, hit or miss kind of level. But I don't think that this in any way means that they have done anything significant. It doesn't mean that they have somehow equalled the art or the accomplishment of the person they're copying, and it certainly doesn't tell me anything about how democratic the medium is. Hell, I bet that after a year of studying painting I could do a pretty good copy of a late Mondrian, but so what? Do I prove anything by copying someone's vision other than my own lack of imagination? Ditto all those people trying to plant their tripods in the same holes left by weston and anel adams.

The ability to produce a print that someone would confuse for a print by _________ (insert name of mighty famous big shot here) would demonstrate good technical skills, and good skills at esthetic mimicry. But these certainly don't make someone a good artist.

It is true, I suspect, that in photography it's possible for anyone to produce an ocasional great photograph, regardless of their talent or how well developed their vision is. This is why anyone checking you out wants to see at least a dozen prints in your portfolio. A photograph is a relatively small work (like a poem, a short story, or a song) so the vision of the artist (and the scope and depth of that vision) needs the context of a larger body of work to evaluate it--a collection, an album, or a portfolio ...

On the MFA programs not turning away anyone with cash ... well, I don't know which ones you've looked at. The good ones often turn away 25 to over 100 applicants for every one they accept. I was looking at them over ten years ago, and they've only gotten more competitve since then.

I agree with you on William Clift. Has he done anything lately? I mostly know hs work from the 70s and 80s.

[Frank Petronio]

I know RIT and VSW pretty well, here in Rochester. Basic functional humans can get in, I don't know about their pets.

I've haven't seen anything by Clift recently either, but his book and postcard reproductions are amongst the best I've ever seen. All Meridan Stinehour on Mohawk Superfine using a very fine screen.

I agree that copying work doesn't make anyone a good photographer beyond the skill required. But at the same time, I see a lot of photobloggers doing wonderful images without any (real) photo backgrounds.

http://www.slower.net/

Maybe not a large formatter's cup of tea. But the guy produces a lot of excellent photos.

I attended a Linda Conner workshop a long time ago, and she had first rate early work (first year - 8x10 contact prints - still life). I think Jan Groover did the same thing. William Wegman went from performance art to photography without missing a beat, as did Chuck Close going from painting to Polaroid 20x24. And Robert Frank only shot for a year or two before the Americans...

These are all extremely dedicated people though - photography took over their lives.

[paulr]

The artists you mentioned are all people of exceptional ability* ... as well as being extremely dedicated, as you mentioned. You can find similar stories of people skyrocketing to the top in just about any medium. The fact that Mozart was writing symphonies when he was barely out of diapers does not indicated to me that writing music is easily learned, or that I should be able to do great composition simply because I study and practice for a few years. There are always prodigies ... I'm just not sure what their unusual learning curves imply about the mediums that they work in.

It seems to me that people like that are relatively rare .. and that the experience is of plodding along slowly before finding a strong voice is more common (and plodding along slowly before finding not much of anything is more common still).

One thing I do see in a lot of people who rise to the top very fast: their vision tends to be powerful and crystal clear. They are not driven by camera fetishes or by the desire to make work that looks like someone else's. They are almost always driven the burning desire to say what they have to say.

Thanks for linking to slower.net, by the way. I enjoyed it. He's obviously a very talented photographer. I think he's actually someone who would benefit from some instruction (or at least some coaching) in terms of editing and sequencing. Right now at least in the portfolios on his site there's very little sense of what his body of work is about. This I think he could learn easily with the right kind of input.

*I'm not sure I'm convinced by Wegman, but the directors of the Whitney Biennial picked him and not me, so what can I say ...

[Mike H.]

Add Jody Forester, now from New Mexico. Why? Viewed dozens of his photos last Wednesday night at our Large Format class in Scottsdale. Abolutely fantastic images of Himalayan peaks, glaciers, ice fields, clouds - all with a scale that defies grasp: an icy cliff on the side of a peak that uses up 1/3 of the vertical in the image - and turns out to be over a mile in height. He spent months up above 18,000 feet taking some of them - and has shot all over the world, including months in the Antartic in addition.

[Merg Ross]

I have a favorite, and over a long career have personally known at least a dozen of those named. However, having a favorite in no way diminishes my respect for the work of the other very fine photographers mentioned. For his ability to reduce the landscape to pure form and convey it in prints of unsurpassed beauty, my mentor gets the vote. Brett Weston.

[tim atherton]

Robert Adams, Geoffrey James, Basilico, Friedlander

Interesting and at times different and new ways of seeing or choices of point of view.

[tim atherton]

and Sudek of course

[Struan Gray]

And Koudelka.

And some Brits: Michael Kenna and Fay Godwin.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

My favorite is Ansel Adams but my favorite that hasn't been metioned yet is Clyde Butcher.

[Chris Gittins]

>I agree with you on William Clift. Has he done anything lately? I mostly know hs work from the 70s and 80s.

My copy of "A Hudson Landscape" is dated 1993.

[Mike H.]

Oh, and Chris: Didn't Ansel come out with a new image in the early 2000's? :-) LOL, etc.

[Chris Gittins]

>Oh, and Chris: Didn't Ansel come out with a new image in the early 2000's? :-) LOL, etc.

Not sure I follow you. Certain Places was printed in 1987. The latest image is from 1984. A Hudson Landscape was printed in 1993. The photographs don't look particularly dated, so I'm guessing he was active at least through the late '80's or early '90's. Is that not correct? Admittedly, I haven't seen anything more recent than that.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Chris, I hope I can still be that productive after my death. Ansel Adams died in 1984 ;-}

[Chris Gittins]

Basic reading comprehension here folks: the subject was William Clift, not Ansel Adams.

Clift self-published two books, one in 1987 and the other in 1993. Paul wasn't aware of anything he'd done since the '80's. I'm not aware of anything since the '93 book. He's only 60. Anyone know if he's still working? Anyone seen anything he's done since '93?

Chris

[Jim Rice]

I would submit our own Ralph Barker.

[Oren Grad]

Chris -

I know Clift was continuing his sales tours as recently as three or four years ago, because I got a note from him at the time mentioning that he would be in my area and asking if I was interested in seeing some prints. Unfortunately, I couldn't in good conscience ask him to spend his time stopping by, because his prices were well beyond what I could afford.

So I haven't actually seen any new work from him since "A Hudson Landscape". I'd love to see more, though I know he exhibits rarely, and sponsors for another book like his first two are probably thin on the ground these days...

[johnmsanderson]

O. Winston Link

[Frank Bagbey]

O. Winston Link was a absolutely fabulous train photographer. I doubt too many in this forum might be familiar with his body of work. Researching what he accomplished, especially in harsh conditions, and especially his railroad worker portraits, would prove really rewarding.

[Ole Tjugen]

For artistic exellence under impossible conditions, I'll nominate Frank Hurley. But I have no ambition to repeat his experiences.

Closer to home (for me) there was Knut Knudsen, who photographed most of western Norway between 1880 and 1920.

[Bill_1856]

At the risk of being drummed out of the LF clique for admitting it, I think that the best of the grandiose Western color photographers is Michael Fatali.

[paulr]

I want to add Bradford Washburn to my list. I'm in awe of him as a photographer and as a climber. And these are just a couple of his many careers. The old codger won't even acknowledge himself as an artist, but that hasn't stopped the major art collections from hoarding his work.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael Fatali hmm.........he uses pyro right? Oh, No that's right he is a pyro (maniac).

Sorry I couldn't resist. He will never live that one down. Nor should he.

[Bob._3483]

Michael Kenna, at the moment...

Cheers,

[Chris Gittins]

>I want to add Bradford Washburn to my list.

Panopticon in Waltham, MA had a show of his work last year - most, if not all, images out of "Mountain Photography" I believe. They'd scanned a number of negs he'd taken with his aerial camera and printed them to 40"x60". I'm generally not real enthusiastic about oversize prints but there are notable exceptions to that rule. These prints were great. The scale was right for the images. If memory serves, they'd printed them with using a six tone printer, carbon inks, and a cotton rag-based paper. Long and the short of it, the prints were beautiful and should last for 500 years. I believe they have all his negatives and will print to order - and smaller than 40"x60" if that's your preference.

Chris

[Paul Kane]

William Clift

William Clift is indeed active these days and is preparing another book of photographs.