Edward Curtis

[Ulophot]

I was looking again at some of the Curtis work the other night, and want to ask what part of the spectrum he had available through his plates. Were they just blue sensitive? Skin tones seem sometimes exceptionally dark, though he prints down anyway. Many of his images appear to be made from negatives developed quite fully to restore range in flat lighting conditions. It's all very painterly, with portraits in which the short depth of field, rather than making a spectacle of itself, seems to be an organic part of the subject as portrayed, if you know what I mean; it's never distracting.

[CreationBear]

I’ll definitely be interested in what shakes out in response to your question—otherwise, if you’ve not already seen it, Quinn Jacobson has an interesting YT interview with Paul Unks, who has produced a contemporary series of prints from Curtis negatives/plates. At any rate, following from Christopher Cardozo, I was interested in the percentages of the media Curtis used—overwhelmingly photogravure, then orotone, with platinum prints being really rare.

[Drew Wiley]

It depends. His work overlapped into the panchromatic film era. Frontier times were basically over, and he either sought out what little was left of it, or more often dressed up Indians in alleged traditional costume, often using clothing and props brought along with him which weren't even authentic to the specific tribes being posed. He was more an artist a fabricator of a nostalgic frontier ethos than a faithful ethnologist. Many of his subjects had been on reservations for quite awhile, and had to be dressed and posed as if they were not. That is what he was paid to do by J.P.Morgan, as well as what the public wanted in terms of Native American stereotypes.

He ended up as a Hollywood still photographer; and that latter genre isn't worth much today like his classic Indian work. But even then he was distinctly a "pictorialist", even when it was finally getting out style. Most of his Indian work being sold was gravure printed, it seems.

[BrianShaw]

It seems to me that the plates he used is only a part of what we are seeing. His prints included orotones and photogravures… much of what we see being reproductions.

Here’s some interesting reading that includes estimates of how many prints he made in the various print mediums he used. I can’t seem to find any estimates of how many reproductions were made in the various qualities they were produced.

https://azphotoalliance.org/the-many...ward-s-curtis/

[jp]

He also gave cyanotypes to some subjects along the way. (confirmed by a photographer who spent some years on a reservation in the 1980's)
He started as a portrait photographer, so yes, it's going to be strong and formal in that sense.
We was a pictorialist for a while, but seemed to change styles along with the times. Some images are more pictorialist, some are not at all, depending on the years they were made.

[Drew Wiley]

I've seen some of his 1920's era Hollywood cyanotypes selling for $35. Just not very collectible subject matter in his case.

[BrianShaw]

Also low budget but a future collectible are those by his long-time partner and son-in-law, Mag. He deserves more credit for his portrait work than the minor footnote he sometimes gets.