New edition Barnbaum's Art of Photography

[Ron Marshall]

Bruce Barnbaum has a new edition of The Art of Photography:

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Photography-Approach-Personal-Expression/dp/1933952687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290445179&sr=8-1

[Peter De Smidt]

I have and like the first edition. I expect that this one is even better.

[Kirk Gittings]

a classic!

[Joe Lipka]

First edition sounds pretty good. I have a copy from 1983 entitled, "Photography....An Approach to Personal Expression."

Would that be a prototype version of the current book, or something completely different?

[Ron Marshall]

First edition sounds pretty good. I have a copy from 1983 entitled, "Photography....An Approach to Personal Expression."

Would that be a prototype version of the current book, or something completely different?

I have the 1994 version, with the same title, labelled second edition. I assume each successive edition has been updated and augmented; the current edition has 364 pages verses 234 in the second ed.

I've ordered it from Amazon, I'll post a comparison to the second edition when it arrives.

[eric black]

I just did Bruce's Death Valley and Eastern Sierras workshop (with Jay Dusard and Jack Dykinga as well) and someone brought an advance copy hot off the presses in Germany for Bruce to look at. He seemed quite pleased with how the edition turned out and most importantly, how the photographs were reproduced. Im waiting on a signed copy from him and looking forward to a good read sometime in the near future.

[John Bowen]

I received a notice from Amazon that my copy shipped today.

[denverjims]

In talking to Bruce: the book is, indeed, an updated and enhanced version of his previous editions of "The Art of Photography...."

One of the things he had been less than happy about was the fact that he could not provide good reproductions of example photographs in his (spiral) bound, self produced editions. Also, he wanted to update to the latest and greatest information / expositons on each topic. This RookNook production has allowed him to do just that.

There were printing problems in getting it out on the original schedule but believe it is to be available via Amazon and Barnes & Noble soon, if not already. For those of us who have ordered through him, we'll have to wait as he left for a trip to South America a few days ago - before he got his copies. He said he intends to sign & ship after his return which should be sometime around Dec. 10.

Should be very good.

[JeffKohn]

I received a notice from Amazon that my copy shipped today.
Same here. Looking forward to it.

[gevalia]

In talking to Bruce: the book is, indeed, an updated and enhanced version of his previous editions of "The Art of Photography...."

One of the things he had been less than happy about was the fact that he could not provide good reproductions of example photographs in his (spiral) bound, self produced editions. Also, he wanted to update to the latest and greatest information / expositons on each topic. This RookNook production has allowed him to do just that.

There were printing problems in getting it out on the original schedule but believe it is to be available via Amazon and Barnes & Noble soon, if not already. For those of us who have ordered through him, we'll have to wait as he left for a trip to South America a few days ago - before he got his copies. He said he intends to sign & ship after his return which should be sometime around Dec. 10.

Should be very good.

I have the original as well as a spiral bound I bought through his website. If I had known there were no photographs in the spiral bound or that it was spiral bound, I would not have bought it. Period. And the photos could have been included as a seperate folio. The original is a great work that I reference often.

[peter schrager]

I re-learned the art of making prints in the darkroom thanks to his book...this is a MUST have in your reference library...just buy it!!!
Best,Peter

[Ron Marshall]

I finally found the time to read it. In a word excellent. More information and somewhat better presentation than the earlier edition.

A must for every photographers library.

[D. Bryant]

Bruce Barnbaum has a new edition of The Art of Photography:

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Photography-Approach-Personal-Expression/dp/1933952687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290445179&sr=8-1

Is this the Photoshop version? RDL.:)

[falth j]

Does anyone know if it is available in a kindle or nook version ? :)

[BarryS]

Oh no--another book to buy. :) Bruce Barnbaum has some of the flat out best prints I've ever seen.

[Bill_1856]

Just got my copy ordered months ago from Amazon.
From articles in Camera & Darkroom, and Darkroom Techniques I have always thought of him as an excellent pedagogue and printer but a medicore photographer.
Boy was I wrong!
The illustrations in this book are INSPIRING! Makes me wonder why Barnbaum isn't thought of in the class of St. Ansel, Paul Caponigro, etc.

[Thad Gerheim]

Bruce Barnbaum's book and photos are great! He doesn't beat around the bush with a bunch of art speak, he gets right to the point. Sadly, I don't think the contemporary art world is very kind to work that doesn't have some human element to it. I hope the best for Bruce and appreciate his book.

[jloen]

I'm disappointed with the darkroom concocted landscapes that are presented as actual landscapes, sort of like a taxidermist trying to fool you into believing that that a jackalope (a jack rabbit with antelope horns) is a real animal. If you have an understanding of landscapes, those photos will simply look phony. For example, don't tell me that the dunes in Moonrise over cliffs & dunes aren't spliced in from somewhere else. See also Drapery cliffs and cracked mud, and many other examples.

"If I did not have the opportunity, the strength, or the courage to get to a particularly rugged landscape with my camera equipment, perhaps I can create an equally rugged scene from two or more negatives in the darkroom"...
"there is an intended deception" --Barnbaum

Is it really necessary for a skilled photographer to resort to intentional deception, and then to present the deception as a real photo?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is it really necessary for a skilled photographer to resort to intentional deception, and then to present the deception as a real photo?

What's a "real" photograph? We deceive when we dodge and burn, or use bleach, do we not?

[Vaughn]

I have the 1984 edition -- I'll have to re-bind it someday.

Andrew nailed it -- we deceive the minute we isolate a portion of the landscape from the totality of reality, rob the scene of its color, and the like.

[Brian C. Miller]

I remember AA writing about photographers who did a bad splice job with their landscapes. Light would be coming in from opposite angles, brightly-lit landscape under a menacing cloudy sky, etc. Like bad magazine articles about how you, too, and add bad Photoshop effects to "spruce up" your lame images.

[Roger Cole]

I'm disappointed with the darkroom concocted landscapes that are presented as actual landscapes, sort of like a taxidermist trying to fool you into believing that that a jackalope (a jack rabbit with antelope horns) is a real animal. If you have an understanding of landscapes, those photos will simply look phony. For example, don't tell me that the dunes in Moonrise over cliffs & dunes aren't spliced in from somewhere else. See also Drapery cliffs and cracked mud, and many other examples.

"If I did not have the opportunity, the strength, or the courage to get to a particularly rugged landscape with my camera equipment, perhaps I can create an equally rugged scene from two or more negatives in the darkroom"...
"there is an intended deception" --Barnbaum

Is it really necessary for a skilled photographer to resort to intentional deception, and then to present the deception as a real photo?

Is it even deception if he clearly tells you what he's done?

I don't think so, and then the print stands or falls on its own.

I haven't seen these in the new book but I have the 1994 edition which I like a lot. Those aren't my favorite photos but there are plenty of others of Bruce's that I do like a lot.

[Drew Wiley]

I find his work a bit too theatrical, with an addiction to Farmer's bleach. But I hate
opera too. Maybe I biassed because of the run-in I had with the dude. Merely pointed out that he mislabeled a peak in the Sierra (off by 7 miles and 2500 ft in
elevation) and he flew off the handle, and how dare some "nobody" like me would dare question him. I've seen a helluva lot more of the Sierra than he has, with a view camera on board, and certainly don't consider him a printing god. Good, but
not god.

[Roger Cole]

Humm. I've heard other people say he's a bit touchy. That's ridiculous behavior.

I've never seen his prints in person but I like what I see in reproduction, and I like that he has at least pretty good (in my view) work in multiple fields, not just landscapes but also architecture and a few portraits. (May have more than a few but I've seen, I think two, in the 1994 edition of his book that I have.) But "good but not god" would be well to remember for anyone, or our opinions of anyone.

[denverjims]

In printing, don't you know that there is no god but Ansel (and Alan Ross / John Sexton are on his right in the pantheon of Valhalla)?

Now that that's settled I need, first, to make a disclaimer in that I know Bruce some (2 workshops and subsequent correspondence) & I like him a lot. Also, I've seen more than a few of his original prints.

1. He IS a man of convictions but, whenever I've questioned him on them, I've found them well grounded in personal experimentation and documentable facts. I know some find him opinionated and maybe abrupt but, from my personal experience, he has always been willing to take the time to explain his positions logically and with supporting detail. I think those who don't like him or his opinions are often those of equally strong opposing convictions. I'm not saying he's always "right", just that some don't like the fact that he won't "admit" that they are always "right".

2. IMHO, his photographs are superb. While his style is different than mine, I find his artistic creativity in composition and execution in printing are among the best I have seen. He has a mastery of a myriad of printing techniques and uses them appropriately. The originals are every bit as good as the reproductions promise they should be.

3. One of the things I admire about him is his holistic approach to the art of photography (hence the book's title) rather than just the technical aspects of photography in which we so often become overly involved. To understand this I suggest you look into the subject book and read his chapters like "Thoughts on Creativity" and "Toward a Personal Philosophy".

Finally, as to why he has not achieved the "fame" of an Adams ... Who knows why anyone does or does not capture the public's fancy? Was Monet that much better than Van Gogh? In the late 1800's you might have gotten one answer based on sales, today another. I can speculate that one factor might be his decision to not play the "numbered print" game. Having been involved in the gallery world, I can guarantee you that it does not make you popular in or likely to be touted by the majority of galleries. Without their kind of publicity support, it's hard to get "recognition" in the art world / public arena.

I guess I've (fairly typically) used way too many words to get to my point that I felt the book was a strong contribution to our art form - especially in areas well beyond just answering the question of which are the correct reciprocity values for TMAX film - by making us think about what it means to be an artist - who has chosen to use a camera as our medium instead of oils or pastels. Sorry. If I'd had more time, I'd have made it shorter.

[Roger Cole]

No problem Jim. I at least appreciate the input. Being prone to wax a bit wordy myself I've no problem with your post. If anything it's on the short side! (I often think people who complain about such ought to just try reading without moving their lips and/or following along with their finger... :D )

[Drew Wiley]

Just a matter of taste. Like I said, I don't care for either opera or over-the-top photographs which remind me of opera. I admire restraint, making the commonplace special, etc. Doesn't mean I print minimalist like Robert Adams, or choreographed like Barnbaum. He's doctrinaire, and that's OK, and has worked hard and deserves the
recognition he's gotten. But I don't look up to him. After awhile you learn to do your
own thing and all this hero-worship stuff gets pretty lame. I was just trying to help
the dude avoid a geographical embarassment and he thinks he's some kind of photographic god. Heck, I've probably pointed a view camera down from mtns he's
pointed up at.

[denverjims]

If all of the animals in the zoo were giraffes, it would be a pretty boring place.

[36cm2]

Barnbaum's a straight up dude. Touchy, opinionated? In my experience it's more like direct, experienced and helpful if you're willing to listen instead of spout off. He's an excellent teacher, a great lover of the outdoors (gained his fame helping the Sierra Club and there aren't too many photos he can't outclimb you too even these days), and he's a fine printer. Personally I think there was some sort of schism that occurred with Sexton back when the two of them and McSavaney were doing workshops together. Since then it seems Sexton's work has garnered more public acclaim. Personally, I've always preferred Bruce's. And he'd probably tell you his preferred photographer was Brett Weston. Walk a mile in his shoes, or at least a few miles with him on the dunes, before you lay into him people.

Leo

[Drew Wiley]

Spout off? I don't need his help learning to print. None of those guys intimidate me.
I've run into Sexton too, and he is a real gentleman, no high horse pretense.

[kev curry]

....

[Drew Wiley]

Kev - you don't have a clue what I do or don't do, or what kind of people have or have not collected my work. And frankly, I don't give a damn who's been canoninzed
in this business or hasn't. Mere reputation doesn't impress me. I'll hang my prints next
to any one of these guys any day of the week. I wasn't discrediting Barnbaum's skill.
I don't personally gravitate toward the overdone nature of some of it, but that's obviously a personal preference. Like I said, I don't care much for opera. Got the same
attitude from Ron Wisner once. Heck, if you want to sell cameras, all least be polite
to prospective customers and don't point your nose up; but his camera wasn't the pick of the litter anyway.