East coast landscape and pictorialism

[gbogatko]

First, an opinionated analysis.

After having read many of the publications of the early pictoralists, I came to the conclusion that at least part of their approach to making pictures stemmed from their being in cluttered environments. Over and over I read about their hatred for "wiry sharpness" because it caused confusion in the result. Examples abound where they show the straight shot followed by the final print, and the final print has had most of the mess reduced either by erasing it or blurring it. This makes sense when one considers that the bulk of their available subject matter was cluttered with stuff -- twigs, branches, overgrowth etc. that really made a mess of things. Various methods of deliberately softening (blurring) the result are discussed and so forth. Cheap achromatic lenses advocated over astigmatic lenses, a transparent layer between the negative and the emulsion, true soft-focus lenses...

A random run thru the current forum for large format landscapes reveals a lot of West coast shots; grand Adamsesque vistas of rugged coastlines, mountainous regions, brooding deserts and so forth. A minority address the 'clutter' problem that East Coast photogs face. Out in the great West, surgical sharpness is warranted, and indeed encouraged since the tradition is so strong, and softness discouraged since the tradition is less so. (Some, in fact, dismiss softness and the use of soft focus lenses as the musings and ravings of cranks. )

Hence my wanting to have a different thread -- one that is limited to the problem of landscape photography in the kind of flat cluttered environment as exemplified by the U.S. East Coast area, in particular the southern New York, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania area (because that's where I live). Here, the mountains are not so high. There's no such thing as being above the tree-line, and on the rare occasion when you are high up and not much is in the way, the view is of more flatness. For landscape subjects, this leaves you with: 1) Urban settings -- cities, towns and the like, and 2) Rural settings -- quaint towns, state forests, abandoned places and so forth.

In this setting, I find it very difficult to produce good and satisfying landscape pictures that are other than closeups, anthropomorphic cartoons, cute horse and cow stuff, and so forth. Sharp focus simply produces a mess. The smaller the aperture, the worse the mess. Wider aperture starts to help, but is still difficult to gauge (and the subject of endless debate as to just where to set the narrower focal plane). Really wide open sometimes helps de-clutter the foreground branches, but not always.

Hence the first paragraph. The early pictorialists lived and practiced in similar surroundings. Their pictures (in the main) are not of west coast subjects. I believe part of the reason for the very softness of their landscapes, the brooding darks against blinding highs, the times when things look almost deliberately blown out is their answer to de-cluttering their pictures.

SO.... To start the ball rolling, here are three shots of the same subject -- a watershed area in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area as the sun was coming in at a low level producing lots of contrast and so forth. The first and second are taken with an ILEX Acutar 14 3/4 inch lens at f/32; the second being a crop of the first. The third is taken with a Wollensak Verito, wide open at f/4. The one with the Verito has been photoshopped to simulate a typical pictorial Gum Bichromate print -- brooding shadows against contrasting highs. #3 is definitely de-cluttered as compared to #1 and #2.

I would like to see other examples of how y'all have tried to deal with the "East Coast Clutter Problem" in landscape photography (other than chain-saws, which are not looked on very kindly by the park rangers).

Lay on!!!

George

[Greg Miller]

I agree that a pictorialism type of approach can help deal with the chaos of the eastern forest, and have dabbled with hat a bit myself. As an example of "straight" photography that deals with the chaos, and if you don't mind color work, Robert Glenn Ketchum's book "The Hudson River and the Highlands" has many examples of using the chaos in as an asset and not a liability (not to mention the east coast work of Eliot Porter).

[Toyon]

"Clutter" isn't necessarily a problem. As a lifer in such environments, I have learned to find coherence in busy scenes. Although I like Adams' work, a lot of mountain shots are pretty dull to me. East coast scenes are so layered with history, you just need to know how to read them. However, I can see you point in the scene you illustrated. I like the way that the Verito reduces or crystallizes a scene that has no particular focal point, or much change in scale, into one that more purely focuses on the light and shadow cast by a young forest. Here you are using the technique to reduce variables and highlight the overall sense of the place. Another interesting feature of soft-focus lenses, is that the give far greater depth of field, in rendering subjects near and far in relatively the same degree of (softish) focus. A number of early lens designers exploited this capacity in devising "multifocal" lenses that increased depth of field at the cost of some sharpness.

[Ken Lee]

Respectfully:

Perhaps the issue is less about clutter versus simplicity - and more about finding a subject that is really beautiful and worthy of your photographic attention.

[brianam]

Here's a link to work by Stuart Rome, which takes on forest clutter with abandon:
http://www.gallery339.com/html/artis...s.asp?artist=6
Nazraeli published a book of this work:
http://www.nazraeli.com/bookdetail.php?book_id=100096

Just submitting it for discussion.
Personally, I love it, and own the book as well. My only complaint is that the photos aren't large enough. :-) I could get lost --in a good way-- in some of the photos, and spend a good while soaking in the entanglement. (pun intended)

[JR Steel]

I am certainly not a photography historian or expert but I always thought pictorialism was more a movement borne out of romanticism in the world of painters at the time. I've read that realism was considered a flaw of early work presented as art.

I live in the west but grew up in the east and understand your perspective. BTW, your NY, NJ and Penn are destinations if you live in the cornfields of northern Indiana.

Any land has it's charms. No, you are not going to have the long views of the west but interesting compositions are everywhere whether your view is from a romantic perspective or a more classical approach.

[Bill_1856]

Thank you, George, for introducing an interesting concept. Your illustrations are particularly pertinent.

[gbogatko]

Perhaps the issue is less about clutter versus simplicity - and more about finding a subject that is really beautiful and worthy of your photographic attention.

Absolutely, and your pictures are exemplars of this.

Just after your reply is one from Brian Midili with the link to Stuart Rome. His is truly embracing the chaos with abandon. I have to assume that his pictures work when viewed on a grand scale. Lee Friedlander has also "embraced the chaos" in his Olmsted park photographs.

Perhaps this holds a clue to a solution of how to make more modern sharply focused pictures of this kind of subject matter, but I can't put my finger on it, hence this thread. Color certainly helps, but probably not so much in winter?

Thinner planes of sharp focus?

My only encouragement is also from an early "pictorial landscape photography" book (not at hand at the moment) in which the author says that a) it's really hard to do, and b) expect to expose lots of "plates" before you get a really good result.

George

[gbogatko]

Thank you, George, for introducing an interesting concept. Your illustrations are particularly pertinent.

Thanks. I was beginning to think I'd proposed something really stupid.

gb

[gbogatko]

I live in the west but grew up in the east and understand your perspective. BTW, your NY, NJ and Penn are destinations if you live in the cornfields of northern Indiana.

I have relatives in Indiana, one of which lives next to a corn field. They present their own photographic challenges. Talk about FLAT!!

gb