Irving Penn show in DC

[Jim_3565]

"Is Jim talking about the same show here?:" -------Matt Miller

Such violently negative reactions had me wondering. Maybe I was suffering from severe macular degeneration that day. Perhaps diabetic retinopathy or a cataract had clouded my vision. So, I went back down to the National Gallery today in order to look at the prints again. The show closes tomorrow.

I agree that some (particular emphasis on that word) of the prints have too much contrast for my taste. I also will state that some of the highlights are certainly pushing the envelope. I do not agree, however, that any of them is "completely blown out". I would have printed them down a very little bit just to cool them off tonally, but they all have detail. Penn has a flair for the dramatic and he made great efforts to imbue these prints with dramatic contrast. I have no doubt that all aspects of the process were under his complete control and that nothing was left to chance. If the highlights are what appears to my eye a little hot, it's because he wanted them that way.

Where I must strenously disagree with Bruce is with regard to the shadows. I looked at every print very carefully in order to find plugged shadows. I couldn't. In fact, remarkable detail was present everywhere. In the picture of the two hooded Moroccan guedras (http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2005/penn/penn_ss10.shtm), the viewer can see the complete outline of their faces through the hoods. You have to look, but the detail is there. (It doesn't show in any reproduction.) I think the lighting is a big part of the problem with the shadows. In the portrait of Marc Chagall, who is lying on his side and leaning on his elbow wearing a dark suit, every fold of cloth in the suit is visible. Ditto the portrait of George Lyons and H.L. Mencken as well as the portrait of Edmund Wilson (my personal favorite in the show).

There is very little platinum work out there that I like. To me, phrases like "subtle highlight detail" and "smooth midtones" are usually (strong emphasis on 'usually'-it's not always true) rationalizations for washed out, weak printing with no blacks at all, mushy highlights and complete mud and lack of local contrast in every zone below middle gray.

Yes, some of these Penn platinums had a 'chalk and soot' feel to them. Yes, some of them had too much contrast. I also have real problems with the great degree of enlargement in nearly all of them. I wanted them all to be contact prints.

But, everything taken on balance, I have to call these the most effective platinum/palladium prints I've yet seen. Despite the low light levels, they make for an enthralling show. I'll just have to agree to disagree with anyone who feels differently about it.

[Bruce Watson]

Jim,

I agree that we disagree on the Penn prints, and I'm glad that you posted.

When I say blown out highlights, I mean a spot on a subject's forehead that goes to paper white, where the wrinkles and spots in the skin cease to exist. No detail and paper white to me is a blown highlight. So we differ there.

When I say lack of shadow detail, I'm talking about being able to see the texture of the clothes. Yes, you can mostly see the gross detail - the folds in the cloth. But the cloth itself goes to black. When you are talking about fashion, this is part of it. You need to be able to tell the difference in the photograph between silk and wool, and I couldn't, because Penn didn't print it.

The most effective platinum prints I've seen were in an exhibition of Edward Weston prints shown at the Phillips Collection several years ago. Those prints were highly impressive with solid blacks, excellent shadow detail, excellent tonality, and beautiful airy highlights. So I've seen good platinum printing before. I just didn't see it at this exhibit.

Not that I don't understand what you are talking about. No doubt, these are strong prints. No doubt, they have extraordinary blacks. No doubt they have dramatic contrast in spades. No doubt they all have an edgy, almost gritty "feel" to them. No doubt these prints are true to Penn's vision.

But there's no doubt that Penn's vision is one I don't share. But now I think I have a clue as to why other people do like his vision. More understanding is a good thing.