Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Something to think about

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    182

    Something to think about

    Man -O- Man! BR> It's no wonder everyone considers LF folks elitist and snobby!

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    68

    Something to think about

    to imply that weston and adams created some new vision or "visual philosophy" is surely to be completely ignorant of the history of photography. look at the work of edouard baldus and others who excelled at achieving wonderfully sharp mammoth plate images of landscape and topography dating from the earliest years of photography - look at the direct antecedents of adams work, such as timothy o'sullivan, muybridge, and carleton watkins. of the two photographers mentioned, weston was surely the more groundbreaking in terms of moving the artistic target, if simply through his unique choice of visually reinterpreting common objects. adams work, while technically excellent and often quite dramatic, is, philosophically, merely an extension of the work of earlier topographic photographers. just as the zone system is a refinement of basic developing principals that had been known and used for 50 years or more before adams came along.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    129

    Something to think about

    There is a continuing desire for picture of landscape. the difference of course is that the techology to do them is evolving and the public is saturated with the same images. The "dead horse" is the lack of new environments and ways of seeing. Ansel if I recall never added a nude to the landscape as Weston did or Bullock did. Eugene Smith dis landscape with people and of course Galen does 35 mm landscape . So is it dead? No. ou have to add and keep going. The old 8x10 can be used in many places and not just from the roof of a 1937 suburban. But you have to get outthere and sweat and experiment.

  4. #24

    Something to think about

    THIS is a terrific post.It really touchs the thread of what motivates any of our photographs. You shoot to sell to someone and the picture should be for the customer. You shoot for art and the picture is for the critic. If you are lucky you shoot some stuff for yourself and the result should be something you personally go back to over time and care about. I am selfish about the stuff for myself and I confess I hope some of it could be art, but it is not the prime mover determining the time I take printing and caring for these photos. So what about the Mono lake shots? Weston is everyones favorite to cite. There are famous pictures by Weston (Edward), Adams, Weston (Brett) and a host of others and while it took me a long time to really appreciate the differences, I am struck by the beauty of Brett Weston's versions of these overdone(?) scenes of a really beautiful place (I am only trying to contrast three different photographers here.) Brett clearly has value added over both Edward and Ansel..really beautiful images that really are different. Same place, straight photography, same tools...in some cases THE exact same tools and yet profoundly different. A different view of a place and not a copy and not fuzzy or distorted. Ansel was motivated to MARKET his stuff. He WANTED to make a living from what he shot and did a great job. A very great teacher, photographer and marketer. He admired Weston for his purity and in fact he recognized Weston gave up a LOT to be who he was..which is one of the reasons we love him. I asked Kipton Kumler (back in the 70's) why he didn't dedicate himself to being a photographer and his response was that he was used to living a middle class life and did not want to live in a garret. He was (is?) an excellent photographer and an upcoming star in the fine art photo world .

    Dead horse...that was the question. If you want to be on the leading edge, you should be working digital. Combine it with your LF negative s and subtly elevate the THING. Seriously study some art, learn to draw, visit the art museums and learn from the early masters...Weston did that..and use the new medium in combination with the old. A whole open field. Make digital negatives cause the ink printers still don't have it yet.

    You are going after the thing itself, the essence.

    But in the end, your own photography should be to please yourself. Don't worry if you don't make it to a dedicated issue of View Camera or Black and White. Life is short

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    68

    Something to think about

    Aron,

    Thank you for this complex thread. It is a good switch from the nuts and bolts questions.

    There are several different to angles to approach this. One is a histroical, educational point of view. Those who actually took photography in college know that the history, and development of the different processes are all part of the cirriculum. Just as the study of painting, or any fine art, includes the where we have been, to try to pave the way to where we are going.

    I do not think there is any serious, pro, amateur who hasn't read, poured over, romanticised the likes of, Steiglitz, Adams, Strand, all the usual suspects and at one point, tried to emulate there styles in the progression of their own style, vision. Many will not reach that height and be satisfied to stay at that level, or just do not have the raw talent to progress further.

    For me, the evolution of artistic vision starts with the basics, the mastery of the craft, techniques, so to gain total control. It is during this stage that most will go out shooting, looking for that Adams landscape, Weston still life, Strand barn, Bullock driftwood etc, etc. It is this stage that most will stay in, and not progress any further. Which in itself is not such a bad thing.

    However, to progress, there has to come a time when you start thinking for yourself and asking yourself, when you approach a subject, "How do I NOT that a photograph that looks like a Steiglitz, Adams, etc, etc. This is where self expression starts to take hold and develope. How far one goes depends on determination and just how much free time, and money you have. Let's face it, selling fine art photography is not the most profitable line of work.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    68

    Something to think about

    After thought,

    One thing about a dead horse, they don't buck when you beat it.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    101

    Something to think about

    The earliest photographers were trying to legitimize themselves to painters who were viewed as the "real" artists. They created softer, romanticized images because paintings of the times were generally softer and romantic.

    The camera can be forced to make soft images (probably more easily with the lenses of 150 years ago) but the medium is inherently sharp, providing detail few painters can paint. One could then argue that what Weston, Adams, et al did was simply break the pictorial bonds and let the camera do what it was designed to do: make highly detailed representations of what was in front of it. How the photographer sees what's in front of the camera is a different matter.

    What I find ironic is that today, there are many painters who paint (and sell) paintings that look like photographs. In fact, they probably made a photograph first and then painted from it. I always find myself asking why didn't they just frame the photo. Answer: because in the art buying public's mind painting is art and photographs are not.

    I don't know if I know what art is but in my opinion, not everyone who picks up a paintbrush is an artist just as not everyone who works behind a camera is an artist. I don't think we should be embarassed as photographers because the camera instinctively makes sharp images.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    77

    Something to think about

    two little thoughts on the above, firstly there seems to be a consensus that pho tographic technology has really advanced in the last 150 years, sureley apart from digital it is more or less the same, a similar cas e in point would be the internal combustion engine, sure the car people will sell you a ?thinking? car that will give you a massage when you are stressed and the camera people will sell you a camera that takes pictures on its own, but the basic technology seems to m e the same.

    and the other thing seems to me that everything we have seen is our inheritence, like it or not, so assimilate it, be grateful to all the past photographers who have left us such a legacy, learn from the mistakes, strengthen from the successes, none of them were ?right? or ?wrong?. Surley the deal is to be satisfied with your own work, if th at means emulating the past masters, fine. Have you noticed in the great Art institutions, how many painting look like a Picasso, lo ok like a Van Gough, look at the dates, seems like everyone is at the old emulation game.

    Anyway I think that old Aaron is a phsycologist, doing a clinical study of LF ph otographers, what better vehicle than his ?what is it all about threads?, what about it Aaron...

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    74

    Something to think about

    :-)

  10. #30

    Something to think about

    Turning what we see with our eyes in three dimensions and with instantaneous focus of every object in our field of view into a two dimensional more than likely half toned 8X10 piece of photo paper. The camera does not see things the way I do. I use a small diameter stop to bring foreground objects into the same sharp focus as the distance because this is the way the eye sees them. Although the rock in the foreground is truly out of focus as I look at the distant mountain. To look at the rock it becomes in focus at once and the brain says there is no depth of field only near and far. So to make something selectively out of focus is in the realm of seeing through the lens. To make everything in the photograph sharp as a tack is the way we would look at a scene. To use selective focus is to make the viewer regard part of the photograph differently than they would have. Sometimes to add art to what would be a straight photo. Movements correct the photo usually to more of what we would perceive it to look like not the way we might actually see it. The beauty of LF. What I now concentrate more now than anything is trying to turn the magic of light that I see onto photo paper. The aperture I use is more a tool to achieve the ends I seek determined by the light. I if I can get better results at f8 than f32 so be it. Not all of my lenses go down to f64 anyway and it is always windy when you want a long exposure. With my computer I can make all of my photos of Yosemite "look" like AA's. Something I really can't do in the darkroom. People say that looks like an Ansel Adams photo. Ahhh theres the rub it looks like his and not like mine or what I saw.

    Side note: On a backpack trip in the mid sixties out of Cedar Grove we past Mr. Adams on the bridge over the Kings River (I didn't know him from Adam). He was lugging a big camera on a tripod. We said "Hi" and continued over the bridge. As we went my dad and I had a conversation about big cameras and such. I wondered whether it was wise to carry such a large camera around when a small 120 TLR like I carried would be as good. My dad made the comment that some people hunted some fished and like us some backpacked. All in all it is an excuse to be out there. When I am in the darkroom I am longing to out there working the light.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •