The image or its meaning?

[Dick Hilker]

Ansel Adams and Minor White were iconic, yet approached their art from quite different perspectives. Whereas Adams sought to create the perfect print, it was a picture of an object or scene that he wanted to depict in his own certain way.

Though similarly devoted to perfection, the more spiritually-oriented White sought to have his images represent the meaning he saw behind them, rather than merely glorify the subject.

Inasmuch as LF photographers are generally more thoughtful and deliberate in their approach to the making of a picture than those who work in other formats, do you feel they're more apt to follow in White's footsteps or Adams'? How do you feel about your own work?

[Ash]

I don't think about that. I've only been taking photo's for a couple years. I'm still young and haven't found direction. I don't know whether I would go for either of your mentioned photographers.

[Frank Petronio]

Geez I wouldn't want to follow in either's. And that is probably an question for the last generation -- White and Adams were in the prime fifty years ago. Nowadays it might be more appropriate to ask about Eagleston versus some German dude.

[John Kasaian]

I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams would recommend finding your own path rather than copycatting anyone else!

[Walter Calahan]

And nobody follow me, please, I ain't German, and I don't know where I'm going, I'm prone to drop things and then back-up suddenly.

Anyway, with size 14 feet I can't follow in these guys footprints 'cause my feet's too big. Ha ha ha.

Be yourself, not some guy with a crooked nose, or that other moody fellow.

[cobalt]

Seen a lot of "perfect prints" that are crap, artistically speaking. Consider this:
Are you...

a. an Artist who uses a camera to make art?
b. a photographer who makes pictures?
c. a photographer who makes art?

I strive for inclusion in the 'a' camp. But I've been making images for a long, long time with many, many a device ( pen, pencil, ink, oils, acrylics, watercolor, to name a few). Don't care about diffraction, multicoating, characteristic curves, reciprocity or any of that other bs...just want a pretty picture, to sum things up.

Not in awe of Minor; think Ansel was in camp b (and very likely a far better technician than I will ever be).

Now...Roy DeCarava...Herman Leonard...Sally Mann...these people have made images that move me. Pretty. Art. Their work inspires me..makes me spend money...practice...perfect...hone...practice...spend more money...practice....

[Ken Lee]

Part of us likes literal detail, while the other part responds to abstractions of tone, shape, and contour. Large format gives you lots of detail, so you can play with lots of abstraction too, if you like.

Like many of us, Ansel Adams waited a long time for mediocre weather and lighting to go away - so that he could capture his subjects under "ideal" circumstances. In that sense, his photos, no matter how clear and literal, are often very subjective. In the photo above, the words "Lone Pine Airport", carved into the mountainside in large white letters, have to be spot-toned away for every print.

Minor White explored, as he put it: "Things for what else they are" - the curious ground that lies closer to dreams and abstraction, and further away from literal realism.

In many of their images, Edward Weston (and son Brett) found their way somewhere in the middle-ground between waking realism and dreaming abstraction.

Using large format equipment lets you create lots of literal detail. If you want to balance that with lots of abstraction, it's up to you.

You're free to place each image where it belongs - at its own unique point along the spectrum.

[Lazybones]

Geez I wouldn't want to follow in either's. And that is probably an question for the last generation -- White and Adams were in the prime fifty years ago. Nowadays it might be more appropriate to ask about Eagleston versus some German dude.

I'm with Frank, 100%.

[Frank Petronio]

And even Eagleston is near ancient...

[MIke Sherck]

Hmm.

I've often thought about that, or something similar to it, anyway. The problem is, I'm not all that perceptive and not noted for deep thought. For instance, in his Daybooks Edward Weston repeatedly said that this or that picture was "important". I have no idea what he meant. Important to whom? One would think the obvious answer to be "himself" but that's not what I get from the context. To me, when Weston said that a particular picture was "important" he meant in some larger sense, to some aspect of the world beyond himself. I have no idea what, though, and it's confused me for years.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding photographers such as Minor White, who seem to me to be striving to evoke some sort of universal meaning in his photographs. The trouble I have is that meaning is, to me, relative to one's own experiences, beliefs, thoughts, mood. Does White (for example,) mean that I'm supposed to feel whatever emotion he felt when he tripped the shutter? Adams said much the same thing yet is accepted as a different sort of photographer. In any case, my life is very different from White's (or Adam's.) Even the cultural icons I've grown up with are different, which implies that White felt there to be some kind of mysterious universal common ground he was trying to evoke. How can we ever be sure that we "get" an image in the way he meant or assumed we would?

Over the years I've found that a particular photographer's photographs make the most sense to me when I've studied the photographer and his or her world. I seem to need to have some understanding of the photographer before I can make any sense of their work. From what I've seen, this attitude might be anathema to mmodern artists, which possibly explains why "modern" artists such as Jackson Pollock just confuse the heck out of me.

I guess that puts me more or less in the "photograph as object of art" camp, although as with most things in life the lines are a bit blurred. I've seen (and made!) my share of emotionally empty photographs which satisfied no one. I've also fallen in love with prints made somewhat less than perfectly, purely based on the content.

Maybe the best answer to the original question is, "something of both." I use large format in part because with a larger negative I can make a print which is, to me, more satisfying technically. I also like the deliberate nature of a view camera, which gives me opportunity to think about what is in front of me and wonder what about it has drawn my attention.

That's just me, I guess. Waffling to the end!

Mike