"movement" Now Official

[Paul_C]

...it's not a movement at all, but a reactionary aesthetic.

Sorta off topic, but how would you define a movement as distinct from a reactionary aesthetic? Are the two mutually exclusive? Which would f/64 fall into, if either?

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

Like I said, I'm not an art critic, but to me, a movement implies a cohesive aesthetic standard; something more than, "not like X". While I think the f64 group was reacting to the Pictorialists, I also think the alternative they offered was more than "Not Pictorialist", although I do believe that was the impetus for their movement.

[Paul_C]

Understood. Thanks for elaborating on that, Jay.

Cheers,
Paul

[Ramiro Elena]

But there is a trend of analog photography trying to balance out the world.
We see more and more posts with the title "newbie wanting to get into large format" everyday.
A movement has always been a reaction against the previous, [with a cohesive aesthetic standard.]
Same thing happens in the world of electronic music. Analog synthesizers are coming back strong after a period where everything was done with software. At the end, software and hardware meet happily.

[goamules]

... The idea that using a SF lens somehow distinguishes a film photographer from digital photographers is obviously ridiculous. .... If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad, and I think I'll sell my Verito before it's too late.

So you would only keep your Soft Focus lens if there was a bona fid, acclaimed, Movement? Well, you are free to sell, and hunt for what you need to join whatever "real" movement. I'm not sure most of us care about the difference between a fad and a Movement, but you added the modifier "insipid" so we know your opinion.

[jp]

Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement?

I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.



What sorts of things did you learn in the workshop? What made it better than some books on the subject?

It would be ridiculously simple for a lens company to build an old design soft focus lens or series of them. Bonus points if it works with a large and common shutter like a copal3. Without a shutter though it could still be used with dslrs, speed graphics, packards, etc...

I got out of the workshop:
* hands on access or experience with a larger variety of soft focus lenses than I had time or film to test.
* being a SF newbie, I got to meet some cool people who some have had decades of SF experience; they are not reactionaries as much as lifelong traditional oriented enthusiasts, friendlier than curmudgeon. Some of them can't be called reactionary because they never did digital much to turn away from it.
* Russ Young, who did his doctoral thesis on soft focus lenses provided some history and physics background.
* spent a good part of the day at the Olson house testing SF lenses on models (clothed) in a variety of lighting situations. Multiple other outdoor sites for testing SF lenses.
* cyanotype printing with Russ and Tillman. Russ was the author of the cyanotype chapter of a popular alt process book, and Tillman has a nice darkroom setup for professional alt printing as he does lots of pt/pd. Their advice far transcended the basics.

The next workshop is at Russ's not Tillmans, so it's likely to be slightly different.

[goamules]

Man, that sounds like quite an experience and a great workshop. I refer to Dr. Young's thesis all the time.

[jnantz]

i didn't realize that using an old lens was the hallmark or the pictorialist movement .
i always thought pictorialism was more than just using a soft focus lens,
it seemed more like photography painting and the arts/crafts movement all rolled into one.
there was an anti-machine-age-aesthetic, and photographs of soul
( romantic portraits, landscapes, and objects/still lives ) but it was the other stuff too.

lensbaby makes a imagon for small format users ... so it isn't
hard for someone with a small camera , or a computer based camera to make
romantic pictorialist photographs. i guess if they output a digital negative
and make a hybrid image ( bromoil, pt/pd, silver gel, carbon &C ) from it
it would be just as pictorial as anything else.

it isn't a hard to make your own soft focus lenses
it just takes a call to the surplus shed and a barrel, slow film or paper
and a lens cap.

YMMV

[Scott Davis]

The hesitation I would have with a modern petzval in a Copal 3 shutter would be just that- the Copal 3 shutter, and more precisely the aperture. A big part of the aesthetic of soft-focus and other vintage optics is the multi-bladed aperture iris yielding a near-circular aperture. A pentagram/hexagonal aperture is going to give you harsh, unpleasant bokeh and funky little specular highlights. And a modern petzval limited by the constraint of fitting a Copal 3 would have severe limits on its' application - you wouldn't be able to shoot it on anything much bigger than a 5x7.

[Jay DeFehr]

Garett,

I didn't mean to offend you, or anyone else with my amateur opinions about trends/fads vs movements. Insipid is just the modifier I intended, but in conjunction with another one you seem to have missed...."if", as in; If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad. I would also add quixotic and misconceived as further modifiers, because nothing mentioned by anyone claiming that Pictorialism is a way to distinguish film photographers from digital photographers does so. I would venture to predict that if something like a New Pictorialist movement does develop, it will be led by young people using digital cameras; perhaps the cine lenses on 4/3 cameras Ramiro mentioned. This is the only context in which such a movement makes any sense at all, and my impression is that digital photography is much better suited to a pictorialist-type movement than film photography is. It would be more than ironic if film photographers, in an attempt to define themselves as photographers, rejected everything the f64 group stood for. I other words, this question was settled, as far as the art world is concerned; how does the advent of digital photography change the original debate about Pictorialsim vs straight photography?

All I meant by mentioning I should sell my Verito before it's too late, is that there might never be a better time, because I believe this whole SF aesthetic is a fad and like all fads, will soon pass away. When it does, I could buy my beloved Verito back, if I wanted to, but for the time being, I don't want to be associated with any "New Pictorialist Movement".

I've been using SF lenses, and fast lenses shot wide open, for many years, but never meant my photos to be any kind of statement about film photography vs digital photography, or Pictorialism vs straight photography. I make my photos the way I do because I like the qualities of the images, and I feel no need to compare them to those made by anyone else, whatever equipment or processes they might use. Photography for me is neither competitive, nor commercial, and I have no stake in either film or digital photography, but it seems no photographer can completely avoid the film vs digital debate.

In my opinion, "New Pictorialism", as practiced by film photographers, is the consequence of film photography being abandoned by forward looking artists, and left to hobbyists with sentimental ties to their equipment, materials and processes. If the idea is to distinguish film photographers from digital photographers (a misguided notion, in my opinion), Pictorialism is 180 degrees from a fruitful path to doing so. If the question is; what can film photography do that digital can't?, or what does film photography do better than digital?, the tenets of Pictorialism lie at the opposite end of the spectrum of possible answers to those questions. Pictorialism is a pretty good answer to the opposite question; what can digital photography do better than film photography? It seems to me the methods of this "movement" are inherently at odds with its stated goals. If you want to find a place where film photography is superior to digital photography, Pictorialism is the wrong neighborhood in which to look, and I think anyone who honestly looks at the problem will find it's not really a problem at all, and should accept that there is nothing film photography can do that digital can't also do, from an artistic standpoint. We have one group here who make chemical prints from digital negatives, and another who make digital prints from film negatives,and both groups retain a claim to being "traditional", but it requires no great leap of imagination to see that similar work to either group could be produced, perhaps even better, by digital capture for an all-digital workflow in the case of the digital printers, or a hybrid workflow in the case of the digital negative contact printers. The idea that the use of a SF lens makes any of these workers non-digital is patently ridiculous.

I guess my point boils down to; be careful what you wish for. If you want to suggest that the ideals of Pictorialism best represent photography as an art form, don't be surprised when digital photographers beat you at your own game.