Photo Fight Club #2: Bullock v. Adams

[ageorge]

Hyperbole Super Bowl: Wynn Bullock versus Ansel Adams

... and the winner is ... you decide

http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/images/detail/Wynn_Bullock_Stark_Tree_1456_67.jpg
Wynn Bullock: Stark Tree


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg/749px-Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg
Ansel Adams: Tetons and Snake River

[Colin Graham]

Bullock rocks! http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/049.gif

[Maris Rusis]

I voted for Wynn Bullock but it isn't a fair contest. A.A.'s body of work is greater and grander but the very first high quality reproduction of a perfect (!) large format landscape I ever saw was Wynn Bullock's "Horsetails and Log, 1957."

That was in 1962. I was a smart-alek kid interested in the arts and I was reading the big photo books in the Toowoomba Municipal Library. Turning the page brought up Horsetails and Log. I had no idea a photograph could be so good. It still gives me goosebumps to think of it.

[Walter Calahan]

Saint A is wonderful, and when his content and print quality merge he's great.

But there is an emotional quality of Wynn Bullock that goes much further.

[ageorge]

Adams and WTF are tied! How sad.

[Frank Bagbey]

Bullock was fantastic, especially his way with models like his daughter, if you know what I refer to...but to me it is like comparing apples and oranges. I love them both. Sometimes I feel like an apple and sometimes I feel like an orange. Both are pretty good.

[Merg Ross]

I see nothing to compare. They were two masters who used film and printed gelatin silver. Where is the fight?

[ageorge]

Frank says they are apples and oranges and Merg says they are the same, nothing to compare. Hummm, interesting.... I probably have more in common with Franks point of view. Their esthetics are very different in some fundamental ways, but they also have a lot in common. For one thing, they both employed hyperbole, Bullock's is more otherworldly, ethereal. Adams use is more theatrical in nature (ha ha). Anybody think there is a connection between the hyperbolic and modernism? Is hyperbole a modernist trait? Maybe. Would anybody say Crewdson is hyperbolic?

[Ross Chambers]

Ah, we're slowly reaching the keyword: "Hyperbole"

Shorter Oxford: excess, exaggeration
1 (Rhetoric) A figure of speech consisting of exaggerated statement, used to express strong feeling or to produce a strong impression, and not intended to be taken literally.
2 Excess, extravagance.

It's a tie! Not that I'd fold up the Wista and leave if a shot like either presented itself! Not that I could ever achieve the result!

But they are both packed to the gunwhales almost to sinking point.

Regards - Ross

[MIke Sherck]

After thinking about it, I can't see any basis for choosing one over the other: they're both outstanding images.

I suppose I'd be lousy on an exhibit jury... :)

Mike

[Mark Sampson]

Luckily, making pictures is not a competition, except in the camera clubs. I wouldn't want to be without either of those images in my mind (and I have seen the original prints). If you want to compete, try playing a sport.

[Merg Ross]

I did not say, or mean to imply, that the images are the same. My statement was that I saw nothing to compare. Like Mike, I see no basis for choosing one over the other. They are very different and very well executed pgotographs.

[Deane Johnson]

I will admit to being a little surprised that any sort of contest is presented on a forum such as this which is populated by a lot of serious photographers.

To me, each photograph exists for it's own communication purpose. Each is a separate statement from a photographer. Each is outstanding. There cannot be any such thing as a winner.

I have never believed that one photograph could be compared to another. That's why I have always believed that photography "contests" of any kind are the pinnacle of uselessness.

[John Kasaian]

Two very different landscape images here IMHO. Two very different moods and which one I'd find most appealing depends on which mood I happen to identify with. Being primary election day here in California I'd probably favor the delightfully sinister swirling fog of Bullock but if there was a candidate on my party's ticket who wasn't a scumbag I'd favor the positive powerful grand view of Adams

OTOH if you're asking which original print you should buy to hang in your living room you've got more money than I and you should probably consult an interior designer to see which photograph will "anchor" the room :rolleyes:

[ageorge]

Luckily, making pictures is not a competition, except in the camera clubs. I wouldn't want to be without either of those images in my mind (and I have seen the original prints). If you want to compete, try playing a sport.

Neither of these photographs are mine, so I am not sure how you interpret this as me wanting to compete. They are both dead so I am not clear on how it would matter to them. And I am not suggesting that we must make do without either one of these images.

The point was to stimulate some discussion about photography in the context of two specific photographers and photographs. Perhaps you could lighten up a bit.

[paulr]

even if this were a competitive sport, i would only be interested in comparing two bodies of work.

any judgement you make based on an individual picture, out of context, will be too superficial to mean much.

it can be fun (and maybe even interesting) to compare pictures done by two photographers of the same subject or setting. you get a sense of the different ways they see things.

minor white took a picture of the tetons from that same scenic overlook. weston and charles sheeler went photographing together and made pictures of the same barns on the same day. it's interesting how much weston's pictures look like westons, and how much sheeler's pictures look like sheelers.

[rippo]

Adams has that thing jutting out into the river in the lower center of the frame, which i find distracting. it ruins the 'wildness' of the image, and makes me wonder if there's a freeway just out of sight. whereas Bullock's tree is complete unto itself, with no distractions.

What's with all you grumpy people? You're happy to debate the merits ad nauseum of 90mm lenses, but reluctant to talk about actual photographs?

[ageorge]

I will admit to being a little surprised that any sort of contest is presented on a forum such as this which is populated by a lot of serious photographers.

To me, each photograph exists for it's own communication purpose. Each is a separate statement from a photographer. Each is outstanding. There cannot be any such thing as a winner.

I have never believed that one photograph could be compared to another. That's why I have always believed that photography "contests" of any kind are the pinnacle of uselessness.

The point is not a "contest". Clearly there is no "winner". The point is to spark discussion about photography. Here my intent was to examine hyperbole as a photographic device using these two obviously hyperbolic photographs as impetus. Plus I liked the play on "Hyperbole Super Bowl".

But you do make a very interesting proposition, that photographs should not be compared to each other. I would argue that you can't not compare one photography to another. You can't view a photograph without the context of your "photographic" experiences which includes all the photographs, made and imagined, that you have experienced. Even if it was possible to have a "virgin" photographic experience, why would you want this? The "educated" experience should be much richer than the ignorant variety. I recall seeing somewhere about a group of researchers that presented photographs of various subjects to isolated cultures with no experience with photography, their reaction was similar to that of being presented with a rock or stick or some other very uninteresting mundane thing. They couldn't even draw the relationship between a rock and a photograph of the same rock, which I find very interesting. Life would seem a little duller if I contemplate not comparing photographs. What makes this image work and this one not? Imagine going to an exhibit or view a book of images and having to consider only one image at a time, somehow ignoring the whole. The sum is more than the parts. How could you consider a body of work without comparing the images that make up the body of work? Without comparison all images have equal value, no?

[ljb0904]

Alan, you stated "... and the winner is ... you decide," which, to me, clearly indicates a contest.

To me, between the images you presented, Adams work and Bullock's work is very different. Adams' is very crisp, detailed and grand, almost lofty. I get the feeling of this is nature, isn't it grand.

Bullock's piece makes me feel more though. There's a sense of mystery, almost loneliness, with the tree rooted in dark tones in a sea of cloud/fog and light.

In all honesty, I can't pick a favorite between the two, because I enjoy looking at them both. In my office, I'd hang the Adam's piece. In my office, I'd hang the Bullock piece.

That's my ignorant two cents.

[paulr]

...and makes me wonder if there's a freeway just out of sight.

There is.

[ageorge]

Alan, you stated "... and the winner is ... you decide," which, to me, clearly indicates a contest.

Fair enough, I was trying to spur discussion with this mock battle concept which I must confess is a concept that I did not originate. (here is one about legs (http://amysteinphoto.blogspot.com/2008/02/battle-photo-shes-got-legs.html) ) I suppose I should be more literal with my intentions.

[Colin Graham]

What, the loser doesn't get strung up by the thumbs?

[Deane Johnson]

I've been as vocal as anyone about my feelings regarding any type of photo contests, but I want to add that I appreciate Alan's attempt to provoke some discussion about these two well chosen photographs. Hopefully, next time we'll keep it on track and actually discuss the photos.

Both of these are awesome on my 22" Mitsubishi CRT monitor. I believe the photographers intended entirely different messages with each photograph. I believe Bullock was trying to evoke a very emotional response from his photo, while Adams was certainly trying to evoke an emotion, but more of a feel good relationship with the overall scene.

I remember becoming interested in Ansel Adams in about 1970 and b&w photography as a result. My next vacation after seeing this photo was to Grand Teton and Yellowstone with a brand new Hasselblad. I drove to the that exact spot and made some photos. I can assure you none of mine looked like that. They more nearly resembled the photos being taken by all of the other tourists with their little snapshot Brownies. No matter how long I stood there, the clouds never formed in that manner over the peaks.

But, I felt better after John Sexton showed me one of his early photos with the car's outside mirror in the frame. He didn't even bother getting out of the car to make the photo. I at least got out and used a tripod.:)

[Brian Ellis]

The principal difference for me between Adams and Bullock is that I can understand Adams' writing. I can't begin to comprehend Bullocks'. That used to bother me a little. Then I read somewhere that Minor White couldn't understand Bullock's writing either. I figured that if someone like White, whose own writings tend to be a little dense to say the least, couldn't figure out what a kindred spirit like Bullock was saying then it was entirely unreasonable for me to think that I should be able to do so.

As for their photographs, I think both were masters and I wouldn't try to pick one over the other.

[Sass Quatch]

Why does one have to win? Photography is not the Superbowl. They are both very high level, both different.

[pergorm]

Adams is the master!! ;-)

[lostcoyote]

my vote into the w.t.f. category.

personal taste is just that, personal.

why are some of you guys comparing apples and oranges anyways?
(shallow, imo)

it's like asking who is a better painter, picasso or klee?

they are both good painters and they are both different painters. one is not better than the other.

same with these 2 fine photographers. adams is good just as bullock is good.

to make a fair comparison, you'd have to give each photographer a duplicate negative and have them print the same image - then decide perhaps given the same starting point... but i suspect it would still be personal taste.

so...

wtf?

[Colin Graham]

Klee rocks!

;-)

[lostcoyote]

he's watching...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/20/K107KLEE.JPG

but on a similar note, i feel the same way about photography contests.
they seem rediculous when you have like 10 most awesome photographic contributions and yoiu have to select 1 out of those 10. i tend to think it's a sad reflection of a superficial society.

[Colin Graham]

Competition sucks, mostly. Unfortunately, that's life reduced to it purest state. I only wish I had the wall space, so to speak.

Thanks for the Klee, btw. I am an enthusiast.

[Justin Black]

The Bullock picture stands to me out because it is a great composition and print that hasn't been knocked off endlessly. The Adams picture is an incredible print (I've seen a few originals), but I've seen this composition improved upon. Of course, no one had done it better when Ansel made his version. At the end of the day, I just love Bullock's work because he was much more open to unorthodox approaches to photography and embraced experimentation. The variety of style in his work is as impressive as Adams' masterful control of the process. Like Minor White, Bullock deserves more respect.

[timparkin]

For all those people who were unable to compare two photographs with each other in order to make selection, could you answer the following question?

How do you go about choosing images for your own portfolio? Are all you images equal but the portfolio is chosen on subject matter?

For myself, I know that some of my photos are poor and some (very few) make me very happy indeed. I can apply these same reactions to other people's photographs also. This doesn't mean that I now 'know' which is better; I only know which one I think is better.

I'm quite interested in the results of discussions like this because it's enlightening sometimes to see how other peoples subjective answers differ from you own and why. The overall result will reflect the subjective tendencies of the community.

Tim

[lostcoyote]

tim,

the opening post had set up the two pictures as a contest. i believe that both images are simply exceptional images and stand on their own feet over time without the need to say that one is better than the other because [in my opinion, irregardless of the creators status and popularity] one is not better than the other. people may "like" one image better but that is personal bias and really has nothihng to do with saying that one image is universally better than the other. that's sort of what gets implied when a judge comes along and declares one a winner and the other a loser. not only is a declaration made for all to hear, but the judges declaration often has influence upon other people... and that just is not really fair.

now if it was a case of putting up one exceptional landscape image and a really poor landscape image, then that would be a whole different matter... which is what happens when we might put together a group of images out of our own personal reservior of images we have in our boxes to pull from. i don't know of one photographer out there that shoots 100% excetional images.... more like 1-5% and so we pick and choose based on feelings, right? are the feelings universal tho? i guess that's my complaint here.

just this dusty old coyotes opinion here of course ;)

[timparkin]

tim,

the opening post had set up the two pictures as a contest. i believe that both images are simply exceptional images and stand on their own feet over time without the need to say that one is better than the other because [in my opinion, irregardless of the creators status and popularity] one is not better than the other. people may "like" one image better but that is personal bias and really has nothihng to do with saying that one image is universally better than the other. that's sort of what gets implied when a judge comes along and declares one a winner and the other a loser. not only is a declaration made for all to hear, but the judges declaration often has influence upon other people... and that just is not really fair.

..snip..

just this dusty old coyotes opinion here of course ;)

I'd hope that anybody seeing a 'competition' like this knows that there is no universal truth that can say one thing is better than another. Perhaps there should be a sticky somewhere that says.. "Remember, opinions are like blah blah blah".

Do some people really think that there can be an absolute scale of images without given the context of a person or group of people and an environment (i.e. the environment here is so lacking that it's fairly neutral - but if it was a boiling hot day, people might like pictures of water or ice? Also people get asked to judge given some criteria)?

Are people unsure whether to make a decision because they don't feel qualified to judge? (if so who is qualified and why do you need to be qualified to have an opinion?)

I know where you are coming from but I just hoped that in a forum like this then some things don't need saying.

Tim

[Tim Hyde]

there is no universal truth that can say one thing is better than another

Yes, but there is something called a market. Both images sold at Sotheby's auction in 2007--both at a fair amount over estimate. Adams went for $60,000 and Bullock's for $12,000.