Eliot Porter

[gth]

Yesterday I had the fortune to come across an Eliot Porter book, which promptly became mine. (Pict of Front cover below)

It's a biography book, titled simply "Eliot Porter" and has a quite lengthy biography written by EP himself and in the back 129 gorgeous plates of a selection of his prints. The little I have read so far of his bio, it seems to be a more of a timeline of his life, rather than a discussion of his techniques and artistic choices.

I'd like to bring up a few questions about his (to me) remarkable work.

The pictures and subdued colour palette of these prints resonates with me, perhaps because the i recognize that light, from the Swedish woods, to the light in a Redwood grove or in a deep Canadian hardwood forest.

1. First of, I don't think I have see any of his prints in real life so I don't know if the reproductions in the book have "faded"..... they are certainly not "faint" - or if they indeed a valid view of how he printed. It's a rich palette of colour, with (to me) a lot of tonal range, although frankly I don't really know what I mean when I say "tonal range".

2. The listing of the plates in the back of the book, says nothing about what film used nor camera or lenses, but all his colour prints are dye transfer prints!!!

From one website I gleaned the information that he was using Kodachrome, which considering the timespan he worked in is not surprising. He also used 4x5 and strobes for his bird pictures. That's as far as I am right now.

It would be great get get more info on EP, his life, techniques and printing ability. Did he do his own dye transfers for instance? Some of you must have been contemporaries with him in his latter years and your early career. Anyone today that print in the EP style?

3. How is he considered, by the photographer and art communities today?

4. As a side issue, considering the time this book was printed (1987) how were his dye transfer prints captured to the print process? Copy camera? Scanning?

5. It's a bit sobering if these prints were made be techniques largely lost, that is KodaChrome and Dye Transfer? How would you print these today and stay true to Eliot Porter's vision?

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know the answers to most of your questions but I've always understood that he was a master dye transfer printer and did his own printing. As for his regard in the "art" community, not very high unless it's changed in recent years.

[JW Dewdney]

he used a variation of the following process however:

http://www.airwreck.com/dnloads/E80.pdf

[KJ Smith]

As for his regard in the "art" community, not very high unless it's changed in recent years.

Dr. Porter passed in Nov. 1990.

[Brian Ellis]

Dr. Porter passed in Nov. 1990.

What's that have to do with opinions about his work changing? Opinions about artists often change, in some cases centuries after their death.

[KJ Smith]

What's that have to do with opinions about his work changing? Opinions about artists often change, in some cases centuries after their death.

Sorry, miss read your post, big difference between "in" and "on".

[Bill Burk]

I have the paperback "In Wilderness..." which I enjoy for the Thoreau quotes interspersed with Eliot Porter photographs.

I have no problem holding them in equal esteem for their poetry.

[JW Dewdney]

Hmmm... I've always had the impression Porter was always considered a real 'master' much along the lines of Ansel Adams or anyone else - so I'm not sure where Brian's coming from. VERY HIGHLY respected and a favorite of many. Dye transfer was always 'his thing' - I think he shot on color transparency film (could be neg. though) and used the standard kodak dye transfer process to make his separations - since he worked this way- (CMYK plates) - it was a very easy jump to use positive copies of the same plates (on film) to print the book etc... straight up.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hmmm... I've always had the impression Porter was always considered a real 'master' much along the lines of Ansel Adams or anyone else - so I'm not sure where Brian's coming from. VERY HIGHLY respected and a favorite of many. Dye transfer was always 'his thing' - I think he shot on color transparency film (could be neg. though) and used the standard kodak dye transfer process to make his separations - since he worked this way- (CMYK plates) - it was a very easy jump to use positive copies of the same plates (on film) to print the book etc... straight up.

No Brian is right at least in the "high" art academic crowd. UNM had first shot at his archives but they had denigrated him so often that he sent them to Texas. Seriously? That is what I heard from an inside source and I had personally heard the denigrations as far back as the early 70s and heard they had found their way back to Porter.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As for his regard in the "art" community, not very high unless it's changed in recent years.

...Brian is right at least in the "high" art academic crowd...

Yet another reason to totally ignore "art" and those who claim to be arbiters of it. If the OP finds Porter's work remarkable, he should enjoy it. No other opinions ought matter to him.