"Paul Strand in Mexico"

[Bill_1856]

I just got my copy of "Paul Strand in Mexico," a 350 page coffeetable book from Aperture. Yes, I realize that it's been out since Christmas, but I'm always late in knowing about these things.
To start with, it IS certainly comprehensive. It even has a DVD of Strand's film "Redes" glued inside the back cover. It's very wordy -- I'll certainly never get most of it read. Lots of images by other photographers of the period in Mexico, particularly Tina Modotti and Manual Bravo, with a few by Weston.
Reproduction is excellent, although perhaps a trifle below the two volume overview of his life's work, "Paul Strand," and "Time in New England," (my favorite photo book of all time), both from Aperture.
What can I say about the pictures? I was taken by two characteristics: 1) how soft many of the images were, not pictoralist soft but more like I have always thought of Leica Elmar images -- soft but sharp (whatever that means), and 2) how static his subject matter was -- no "decisive moments" there. I didn't count them, but there were certainly lots and lots of images of religious idols in the churches. I'd love to know which of the images were made with his 8x10 and which with the 5x7 Graflex.
Anyhow, is the book worth having (at over $50)? Yes, yes, oh yes!

[Ken Lee]

There is a catalog of images in the book. It mentions the size of the negatives in most cases.

The catalog shows not only the images which appear in the book at full size, but also the "duds".

To me, seeing the rejects is extremely revealing and encouraging.

When Strand was alive, he liked Gravure printing for his books. (At least the books I have, those on Egypt, Hebrides, Italy, etc. I can't remember how Time in New England was printed). The gravure images look a bit soft, but they capture a wonderful richness of tonality. As I recall, even his early printed images for Camera Work, were described as "hand-pulled gravure".

I saw the Paul Strand Retrospective exhibit in 1971 in Philadelphia, and his prints were not soft. Most were contact prints, and were sharp as a tack. There was an enlarged version of his famous photo "The Family", and because it was from a 5x7 negative, it was still quite nice. My recollection is that it was something like 20x24 in size.

[Andrew Plume]

Interesting stuff Wilhelm - a book that I've been building up to for sometime....or when I have some cash, that is

As far as I know, Strand never used 'pure portrait lenses' instead relying mainly on his 12" Dagor and another lens, details presently escaping me etc - in fact and again from memory, he only used two lenses for most of his career

andrew

[Jeremy Moore]

What can I say about the pictures? I was taken by two characteristics: 1) how soft many of the images were, not pictoralist soft but more like I have always thought of Leica Elmar images -- soft but sharp (whatever that means), and

Are you making evaluative judgments about Strand and his photographic vision based on a book printing made how many years after his death?

Granted this just goes to show we need more accurate words to talk about these things as the image is obviously something that changes based on the physical form it takes when we're forced to interact with it (computer screen, book print, hand-pulled photogravure) and I'll stick my neck out and say a photograph as an image is recorded light (so digital and film capture apply), but a photograph as object requires a light-sensitive emulsion. So in terms of talking about objects the photograph (to me) means something where the output involves a light-sensitive emulsion and is Fixed in that state to the best ability of the printer. Inkjet paper is an ink-sensitve emulsion -- it's made to be receptive/to accept ink -- this is a printmaking process. We don't call screenprints that are photorealistic photographs nor do we call photorealistic paintings photographs - so why do we do call inkjet prints photographs? Maybe it's because people are appealing to the authority of an earlier process to legitimize their medium, *cough, cough* just like photography and painting during the burgeoning of photography. Take this one step further and look at how inkjet printing can be used to print digitally created paintings on canvas - should we call those photographs because they were made with an inkjet printer and we can use the same thing to print "photographs"? Preposterous.

There is NO valuation on better or worse in these statements, just I find the language confusing and this makes more sense to me.

Get ye to a location where you can see the hand-pulled photogravure portfolio of Paul Strand in Mexico before you comment on sharpness/softness. This portfolio was signed by Strand and approved by him as being representative of his vision. There is a copy of this portfolio one floor above my head - I'll get a copy of the Aperture book via interlibrary loan and compare to the photogravures if I don't forget (my memory is shite).

[Bill_1856]

Jeremy Moore -- I didn't say that Strand's pictures were "soft," but only that many of the images in the book appear soft to me. It could certainly be in the reproduction, and not in the original prints.
I should point out that, while the Dagor is my personal choice in lenses, it does not and never has had the crispness in the center of a modern Tessar or Planar.

[Ken Lee]

I recently studied this book and scanned an image for my regular "column" here. The images in the book are a touch soft.

But as you say, it's a marvelous book. It also includes a DVD with a copy of his Mexican film "The Wave".

[mdm]

I think we are unhealthily obsessed with sharpness. Stephen Shore's book The Nature of Photographs has an interesting section on the very subtle use of focus (he defines the photographers tools as point of view, framing, focus and time). Paul Strand often uses focus in this way, to draw you through a print, but it is very subtle and it takes a little care to notice it.

[Jeremy Moore]

Jeremy Moore -- I didn't say that Strand's pictures were "soft," but only that many of the images in the book appear soft to me. It could certainly be in the reproduction, and not in the original prints.
I should point out that, while the Dagor is my personal choice in lenses, it does not and never has had the crispness in the center of a modern Tessar or Planar.

No, you didn't Bill.

You said:

What can I say about the pictures?

You never said book - am I to assume you're talking about just the book and not Strand's images in general. Well, based off of the level of education regarding photographs and the image -- No, I cannot assume you're just talking about the book.

Bill, this isn't me trying to be an asshole to you, it just points out the tedium in discussing a topic where we don't have accurate language to discuss highly complex issues easily because people on this forum think any discussion of language above a photograph as a "pitch'r" is jargon -- yes, that's a swipe at those people because I'm feeling feisty. This is NOT a swipe at you, Bill. I think you understand exactly what I'm saying and I get what you were saying, but I think there are too many who -- sadly -- don't, but say they do.

1) how soft many of the images were, not pictoralist soft but more like I have always thought of Leica Elmar images -- soft but sharp (whatever that means)

Note the comments which then started to take place about Strand using a Dagor in relation to softness and such -- the thing is IT DOESN'T MATTER what lens he used because it was the reproduction which limited the presentation of his work -- if he had used a modern plasmat his work wouldn't be any sharper in the reproduction so it's logically and rationally useless to talk about in a very real sense. And I'm going to say the reason people started talking about lenses is because you made them start thinking that route by mentioning a specific lens. So the photogs here start thinking what lens from Strand's time would he have used to make work that then looks like that -- but Strand's work DOES NOT look like that -- the reproduction of Strand's work looks like that. It would be like judging the lenses Frank Petronio uses to make his 8x10 photographs of nekkid girls based off of his Blurb book -- yes, the Aperture book is better printed, but better isn't the same as how Strand found it acceptable to print his work -- hand-pulled photogravure. On the flip side, Strand may have found this book acceptable, but having seen many of his silver gelatin and photogravure prints I doubt it.

[Jeremy Moore]

I think we are unhealthily obsessed with sharpness. Stephen Shore's book The Nature of Photographs has an interesting section on the very subtle use of focus (he defines the photographers tools as point of view, framing, focus and time). Paul Strand often uses focus in this way, to draw you through a print, but it is very subtle and it takes a little care to notice it.

It sounds like Shore and Strand -- by being very subtle about it are obsessed with sharpness -- the sharpness being exactly what they wanted.

If the sharpness of the reproduction does not match the subtleness and way Strand and Shore's work draws you through a print then doesn't that mean the printer of the reproduction was NOT obsessed enough with sharpness.

Being obsessed with sharpness in regards to your own work has nothing to do with wanting it to be "more sharp" -- you're just assuming other people want more sharpness when we discuss the topic. I have no use for more sharpness in my images -- but my use of sharpness is something I am obsessed with (equally to and not more so than other design elements) because the image I make could have been more or less sharp than it was, but I didn't make it that way. I made my picture specifically the way I did because I am a craftsman in control of my process and I want the resultant output to reflect my vision as best it can within my ability to do so. The reproductions in this book we are talking about don't reflect Strand's use of sharpness based on the the best authority we have about what Strand considers to be the "truest" representation of his work -- prints Strand made himself and the hand-pulled photogravures he signed off on. Strand could have made softer prints - he didn't. Could he have made sharper prints? I don't know -- maybe if he had the facility to do so he would have wanted sharper images, but he definitely didn't want them softer as this book reproduction presents them.

[Doug Howk]

I would think that by its very nature a Photogravure can not be as sharp as an enlarged/contact print. Strand's acceptance of it as appropriate for his images reflects the continued influence of Stieglitz.
I'm looking forward to getting the "Mexico" book even if it is less sharp than some would want.