East coast landscape and pictorialism

[h2oman]

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.

Take a look at some work by Wright Morris or David Plowden. Cornfield type country didn't (past tense for Plowden only because I think he is not photographing any more) seem to be a handicap for either of them! I guess they don't count if you are talking about uninhabited landscape...

[gbogatko]

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.

Yes. A wonderful history, "Impressionist Camera -- Pictorial Photography in Europe, 1888 - 1918" proposes Eugene Carriere as a very strong influence.

On the other hand, there's that revulsion of Kodak's allowing any fool into the game ("you click the shutter and we do the rest") as an equal influence.

The Buffalo group, in their "Pictorial Landscape Photography" (Page 15 "On Lenses") go into the subject of lenses as a means of reducing clutter ("wiry sharpness") fairly deeply.

The rest of the book, incidentally, is a wonderful read, especially for you carbon and gum printers out there.

GB

[KOG]

George, you make some good observations.

I think the original pictorialists were faced with the same problems. Clarance White taught his students to simplify compositions. Karl Struss typically used a 12in lens for 4x5, to tighten compositions and flatten the depth of field. Even Ansel Adams had to shoot through trees (Winter Scene, Yosemite [Trees in Snow from the Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite National Park, California], c. 1928.)

When I look through my books on pictorialism, grand vista's (typical of AA) were not an important part of the pictorialist aesthetic. I think this was mostly because scenic views were what tourists took pictures of, not what a dedicated amateur would aspire to. California pictorialists concentrated on detail just as much as their east coast counterparts.

You also have to consider that a 4x5 camera of the day, would be considered a point & shoot camera today. Not the same image quality that a large glass plate negative would be used to record the necessary detail for a landscape photograph. They had to concentrate on smaller slices of their surroundings to gain the visual impact needed for smaller print sizes.

For ideas on how to handle your tree problem try to find "Gradient Light" and "Creative Elements" both by Eddie Ephraums. He has some examples on how to separate the tree from the forest.

Kevin

[jp]

First, an opinionated analysis.

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

The use of pictorial style is a valid way to reduce the impact of clutter. I think your chosen scene is a challenging composition to adequately portray; it's sort of a 3d scene scaled back to 2. The height and layout of the trees is 3d, the texture of the ground is not. It is nice to explore the options of course.

Eliot Porter produced my favorite east coast landscape method of non-pictoral photography. Get in closer. I bet some of the grass enveloping the downed logs in your photos have some good potential. Find compositions defined by color if you do color. Seek ways to represent chaos. Borrow one of his books to see.

Sometimes I've take my dSLR with a 300 2.8 and a 50mm macro into the woods to see what I can get. It's quite productive. I've only done LF for less than a year now, so we'll see what happens next year for LF landscape.

[gevalia]

I get what the OP says, but I just don't agree. I grew up in CT, spent a few years working in Phoenix, and came back. I don't see it as clutter but I do see that I get to familiar and my creativeness needs to recharged from time to time. So I travel out west. And when I return, I always see things differently. I can't force this. It needs to come as a result of being out of my environment.

Now, that being said. My relatives were all from PA and whenever I drive thru, I love the scenery. October is amazing with the colors. I travel I80 to Nebraska and down into CO and UT. I'm refreshed with every state. Foggy mornings in IN, OH barns, morning light over the fields in IL, the patterns in the cornfields of IA, the light just before sunset as it hits the silos in NB, and that I80 stretch in western CO the morning after a storm. Every state in this country is freakin' amazing and I would have no problem spending a few months in PA shooting or in any other state.

I'm told I will be layed off come the end of February. 1 of my plans is to spend a month walking around the city I have lived in for 11 years photographing. Walking everywhere. And while my passion is large sweeping landscapes, I'm taking the time to pull myself out of my comfort zone.

So clutter? Are you pushing creativity or letting it come to you?

Have you noticed how cool "frost" is in B&W?


My 2 cents.

[Greg Miller]

It is clutter, or chaos. But, while challenging, it is possible to organize it in impactful ways, whether using pictorialism techniques or not.

On a side note, fog can be a great tool for simplifying with the chaos.

[Ken Lee]

These were made - not with a view camera - in a woods in Illinois. No blur necessary, but walking along, lots of "just say No".

Some of us find the forest to be a difficult subject. We have to be willing to return home empty-handed.

[gbogatko]

I'm told I will be layed off come the end of February.

So clutter? Are you pushing creativity or letting it come to you?

Layoff's suck -- try to enjoy yourself when photog'ing.

"Are you pushing creativity or letting it come to you?"

Could you elaborate on that?

GB

[Toyon]

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.

The problem is that your understanding of "beauty" is not universal, and may be quite limiting. In addition, not all subjects are on the surface "worthy", some work to take a mundane subject and bring out something powerful and resonant. I think George Tice's work sometimes achieves this.

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_ima...eorge-tice.jpg

[Ken Lee]

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