Large Format Landscapes

[EOTS]

Wow, pretty rude comments I think. Richard Hofacker's post is a suggestion to look at old masters. I agree that that's a fairly superfluous comment, but not enough to ruffle feathers to the point of name calling or and saying he should read more posts to get to know us before he makes such comments. And telling Preston to ignore his comments???
Calling his comment lame and calling him a bollock is really unnecessary.

Geeze, I think he was trying to be friendly.

You're right Peter!

Well, sorry Richard Hofacker, I have to apologize for getting emotional and the use of harsh words!
I also might have misread your post as a direct criticism/reply of Preston's photo.

Having said that, perhaps a poor choice of words as a non native speaker,
with "bollocks" I was not referring to a person, but to "nonsense" (in regards of the relevance of the supposedly misread criticism).

Well ... let's get back to enjoying great photographs.

Best,
Martin

[Peter Lewin]

I also refrained from saying something about Mr. Hofacker's advice, although I was surprised that his moderate comment really got an emotional "no" from me. Purely on the grounds of photographic criticism (in the sense of a classroom, not of critiquing someone's work) I think he is wrong. As has been pointed out, most of Ansel Adams' work did not include people, animals, or the hand of man. He was pretty much making images of pristine wilderness (at least made to look pristine by the very absence of human artifacts). The photographer to exemplify "the hand of man" would have been Robert Adams, who working in a similar Western landscape took the opposite approach to AA. Weston's best known works were not landscapes, but either his "Point Lobos miniatures" or his nudes. (I would love to make some witty remark about "the hand of man" in Weston's nudes, but my quick wit has deserted me .)

In fact there was a long thread a while back, discussing contemporary versus classical large format photography, and the "Western School" in general. At the time the concern was whether the images we were posting were almost all in the style of Ansel Adams, William Clift, etc., versus the contemporary staged theatrical large format works which are now being made by "gallery photographers." My point is simply that as a group, we are pretty familiar with a lot of photographers work.

[Harley Goldman]

I also refrained from saying something about Mr. Hofacker's advice, although I was surprised that his moderate comment really got an emotional "no" from me. Purely on the grounds of photographic criticism (in the sense of a classroom, not of critiquing someone's work) I think he is wrong. As has been pointed out, most of Ansel Adams' work did not include people, animals, or the hand of man. He was pretty much making images of pristine wilderness (at least made to look pristine by the very absence of human artifacts). The photographer to exemplify "the hand of man" would have been Robert Adams, who working in a similar Western landscape took the opposite approach to AA. Weston's best known works were not landscapes, but either his "Point Lobos miniatures" or his nudes. (I would love to make some witty remark about "the hand of man" in Weston's nudes, but my quick wit has deserted me .)

In fact there was a long thread a while back, discussing contemporary versus classical large format photography, and the "Western School" in general. At the time the concern was whether the images we were posting were almost all in the style of Ansel Adams, William Clift, etc., versus the contemporary staged theatrical large format works which are now being made by "gallery photographers." My point is simply that as a group, we are pretty familiar with a lot of photographers work.

X 2.


I was not sure if the comments were referring to Preston's image and if they were, I found it a total disconnect. If Mr. Hofacker likes to add the hand of man to his work, that is great. i infrequently do in my work and that works for me. To each his own.

[h2oman]

At the time the concern was whether the images we were posting were almost all in the style of Ansel Adams, William Clift, etc., versus the contemporary staged theatrical large format works which are now being made by "gallery photographers."

I knew almost nothing of William Clift before the summer, when I saw his exhibit in Santa Fe. Since then I have familiarized myself with his work. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or argumentative, but I find it very different than Ansel Adams' images. Yes, they both do landscapes, but their compositional and printing styles, choice of lighting and the feel of their images are very different.

My point is simply that as a group, we are pretty familiar with a lot of photographers work.

You're definitely correct about this - I feel like I become far more so in the past five years, and yet my knowledge and experience of the work of accomplished photographers is still quite short of many here.

[Vaughn]

...I was not sure if the comments were referring to Preston's image and if they were, I found it a total disconnect. If Mr. Hofacker likes to add the hand of man to his work, that is great. i infrequently do in my work and that works for me. To each his own.

I am a man, and sometimes my hand gets into my work...

[bill2424]

Thank you for your comment sometimes you just get lucky the light and sky at the same time.

Bill

[pdmoylan]

X 2.


I was not sure if the comments were referring to Preston's image and if they were, I found it a total disconnect. If Mr. Hofacker likes to add the hand of man to his work, that is great. i infrequently do in my work and that works for me. To each his own.

For what is it worth (and perhaps this should push to another thread), I have a good friend, now fighting for his life with cancer, who is an art collector (de Kooning, Klee among others), curator, gallery owner, and gallery manager of a college gallery which has hosted cutting edge artists and photographers over more than 30 years. His opinion, for which I have only the greatest respect, is that the only viable and lasting photography is of the human condition. While I have never sought any human artifact or other indication of our presence in my images, I tend to feel that pure images of the landscape are really personal, theraputic and, as stunning as they may be, do not rise to the level of impact that say does portrait photography our photojournalism. This may be strange coming from a "nature" photographer. When I taken images of people in their environment (not snapshots) the emotion is wider ranging; but I am not compelled to seek such images out.

Anway, Preston and Harley, keep the aestethic stuff coming. No humans or other critters need to present.

PDM

[Peter Gomena]

PDM -

So, why would this be true of photography and not the other arts? Not to pick a fight with you or your friend, but I would think landscape painting would be as therapeutic as landscape photography. Is religious art or other depictions of the human form a "higher" form of painting?

I have no pictures containing a human being in any of my current work. I've photographed many people in the past. I worked for a newspaper many years ago. I find nature to be a constant source of wonder and renewal, so that's where I go. I was a pretty decent "people photographer." I think I connect better with the land.

[Thad Gerheim]

I believe that all photography is a reflection of some kind of human element and not least of all the photographer that clicked the shutter. Is there not poetry and emotion in landscapes?

[Vaughn]

I believe that all photography is a reflection of some kind of human element and not least of all the photographer that clicked the shutter. Is there not poetry and emotion in landscapes?

+1 (in other words, you wrote exactly what I was thinking as I read PDM's post).

Some people who have responded strongly to my work have mentioned sensing my love of the landscape and light in the photographs. That sounds a little silly and trite in this cynical age, but there it is.