Pictorialist Gertrude Kasebier

[gbogatko]

Go here:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html

And type in "Gertrude Kasebier" in the search box.

Now get a copy of "Camera Work -- The Complete Photographs"

CW contains the prints, and the LOC site contains the originals.

Wonderful to compare.

gb

[Toyon]

Can you post the two side by side?

[gbogatko]

Can you post the two side by side?

Only one. These are link-thrus to the library of congress collection. One, apparently, is a scan from a photogravure, the rest are the glass negatives of the originals. The thing to note is that the originals are not out of focus. One uses a "fuzzy" lens, but the rest are straight. It was in making the print that the artist introduced the "pictorial" look. The print of "Blessed Art Thou..." is from Wikipedia.

You'll need to borrow a library book about the photo-secessionists and "Camera Work" to see prints. These are famous photos, so examples of prints should be easy to find.

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/12000/12081v.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Gertrude_Kasebier-Blessed.jpg
http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/12000/12056v.jpg
http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/12000/12053v.jpg

[MIke Sherck]

I'm going to stop whining about dust on my negatives now...

[Dave Wooten]

Good post. Sharp lens of the Pict era. Did'nt many of the now popular "soft" "pictorialist" lenses arrive on the market after the Pict era? The sharp neg and or print was modified to interpret impressionist/pictorialist techniques and expression.

[Jim Galli]

Good post. Sharp lens of the Pict era. Did'nt many of the now popular "soft" "pictorialist" lenses arrive on the market after the Pict era? The sharp neg and or print was modified to interpret impressionist/pictorialist techniques and expression.

Dave, the pictorialist era never ended. It was only silenced slightly by the f64 fad. :D

[Toyon]

Thanks George, wonderful example. The photogravure process smoothed things out considerably as well as adding that ineffable texture.

[Andrey Vorobyov]

Indeed, it is astonishing, almost shocking to me.
I could never believe before that that these famous prints are made from such sharp negatives. Softening in post-processing inherent to photogravure process... What a surprise!...

[Mark Sawyer]

The gravure process has a softening effect of its own, also evident on Edward Curtis' photogravures.

Forman Hanna often used his Pinkham and Smith lens closed down for depth-of-field, then reintroduced a different kind of softness in the enlarging phase, with a thin layer of cheesecloth below the lens.

And some early converts from pictorialism to "straight" photography kept using their pictorial lenses, but well stopped-down. This very sharp self portrait by Alma Lavenson was made after she'd moved away from Pictorialism, but the lens is a Cooke f/3.5 Portric at a small f/stop. (It's clearly visible in the original, which was hung at the CCP a couple of years ago.)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/AlmaLavenson-Self-Portrait-Hands-1932.jpg

And having seen quite a few original pictorialist works, some seem simply out-of-focus, with not even a hint of clear rendering anywhere in the image. They could have been made with almost any lens.

[Jim Galli]

The gravure process has a softening effect of its own, also evident on Edward Curtis' photogravures.

Forman Hanna often used his Pinkham and Smith lens closed down for depth-of-field, then reintroduced a different kind of softness in the enlarging phase, with a thin layer of cheesecloth below the lens.

And some early converts from pictorialism to "straight" photography kept using their pictorial lenses, but well stopped-down. This very sharp self portrait by Alma Lavenson was made after she'd moved away from Pictorialism, but the lens is a Cooke f/3.5 Portric at a small f/stop. (It's clearly visible in the original, which was hung at the CCP a couple of years ago.)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/AlmaLavenson-Self-Portrait-Hands-1932.jpg

And having seen quite a few original pictorialist works, some seem simply out-of-focus, with not even a hint of clear rendering anywhere in the image. They could have been made with almost any lens.

Dang it! You mean in spite of having most of the holy grail silver bullet lenses on earth hoarded in Tonopah, I'm actually going to have to find something interesting to photograph and think about light and such.

[Mark Sawyer]

Dang it! You mean in spite of having most of the holy grail silver bullet lenses on earth hoarded in Tonopah, I'm actually going to have to find something interesting to photograph and think about light and such.

Yep, don'tcha hate it? :D

[Armin Seeholzer]

This theory with defocusing is not new, I have a old portrait book where it is written thad many photogs just did a bit defocusing to get it in the right softness!
But the masters used almost the SF lenses;--)))

Cheers Armin

[Drew Wiley]

With Steichen forming a stylistic bridge between pictorialism and harsh straight photography, and now setting record auction prices, the attention and value given to
some of these other notable pictorialists is likely to skyrocket. I find them fascinating.

[Drew Wiley]

It's the "carving" of space, and the ability to "outline" negative space around the
subject and come into its own, and not just selective focus, which makes practitioners like Gertrude or Clarence White so brilliant. There's more graphic sophistication going on than most people realize. Though some of these themes are Edwardian in subject, the compositional strategies are thoroughly modern.

[Bill_1856]

Edward Weston made his early portraits with a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graflex, then enlarged them using a soft-focus (Verito?) lens on his 8x10 camera stopped down to produce his desired effect in the direct copying process.
It has never been clear to me if he made the copies directly from his glass negatives or from working contact prints. Multiple attempts to resolve this question have been unsuccessful.

[cowanw]

Thanks George, wonderful example. The photogravure process smoothed things out considerably as well as adding that ineffable texture.

I am sure no expert but I have a Curtis gravure and its sharp enough. Stieglitz was quoted that Photogravure was the equal of the print.
Didn't they make the photogravure from the print. (Wiki says from a positive)
I am pretty sure that photogravures can be as sharp as the original print (paper excepted)
Regards
Bill

[Marko Trebusak]

But the masters used almost the SF lenses;--)))

Cheers Armin

Well, that might not be. Contrary to US, in Europe gum dichromate was the main process for making prints. And I remember quite long article arguing about nature of Robert Demachy's art on base, that his negatives and his photos of his family are sharp. I also saw the book about local pictorialist photographer that has only reproductions of his negatives. Well in my opinion, that just misses the point, which is the final artifact.

Marko

[sun of sand]

i think it's mostly the process or paper texture or whatever it is and the toning whether part of the process or not
that deep red orange russet color will make whites glow all the more

so
i don't think the photogravure is ALL that less sharp than the original
i think its texture and tone mostly
but


It needed to be cropped. too much junk with the flooring and dresser and wall opposite
threw off the balance of the mother and child in the frame
all the vertical lines make the photo
its warm and soft in feeling yet still "modern" and somewhat cold/streamlined in the framing

really just classic sense

pictorialist wasn't the only way they shot early on, either
it seems people think there was soft/pictorialist and sharp/f64 and that's it