Ansel liked mountains, Edward liked women.

[bdial]

Link and an assistant with some of his gear;

Part of the current show at VCP; http://vcphoto.org/steam-steel-photographs-by-o-winston-link/

 

[jtk]

Brett

How could that be a scary question? I resonate with Weston. The most important (only important) photo book I've read is his Daybook II.

 

[jtk]

It seems to me that all three men spent plenty of time "setting-up" their subjects and tripped the shutter at just the right time, then threw the ones away that were not "right". They did not stumble onto a subject, "hand holding" a camera. All three made good use of tripods, and knew (no pun intended) their subject matter. Maybe a good tripod is just as important (or even more important) than a "great lens". O. Link Winston frequently used several different formats and cameras on the same shot and all were mounted on some sort of stable mount.......Regards!

Did he have carnal relationships with his choo-choo trains? Did he write about that?

 

[36cm2]

“I can’t tell you how swell it was to return to the freshness, the simplicity and natural strength of your photography … I am convinced that the only real security lies with a certain communion with the things of the natural world”
— A letter from Edward to Ansel in 1936

I couldn’t agree more. +1 Ansel.

 

[Pioneer]

I enjoy both Ansel and Weston very much. They are both amazing photographers.

But I am far more inspired by photographers such as those employed by the Farm Security Administration during the depression years or by the likes of Lewis Hine.

 

[jtk]

https://www.icp.org/exhibitions/lewis-hine

Weston and Adams both had positive impacts on society. Weston wasn't much interested in commerce but was interested in the arts beyond photography, whereas Adams apparently enjoyed commerce and saw his businesses (photography, teaching, book) and philanthropy as ways to promote public interest in the grandeur of nature. (that's just my interpretation).

Neither is greater (whatever that means) but some of us are attracted more to one than the other. I think that's an almost biological reality. For some reason Weston had more women and children...and he may have had more patrons (may have).

 

[jtk]

In the life of Stieglitz there seems to have been one big love affair and marriage. He made some very sexy photos of this woman (not just the nudes).

 

[jtk]

http://www.hunterdphilp.com/full_bloom__the_art_and_life_of_georgia_o_keeffe_36563.htm

 

[Nodda Duma]

Comparing Adams and Weston is like comparing oil to watercolor, digital to analog, or Michael Jordan to Mickey Mantle.

Both Adams and Weston were great photographers in their own right, for their own reasons.

 

[Tony39]

Like many others I admire both of these brilliant photographers. Adams certainly inspired me to become a complete addict of the craft at an early age. They must be taken in context with their time though, the technology available and the "mood" of the period. Adams was very accomplished and professional, whilst Weston was much more intuitive. I remember reading a comment of his on portraiture where he said he kept the shutter open as long as he could until he though his subject would move! No doubt then adjusting his development to suit but probably by inspection. Adams would have it all worked out.
Either way they were highly influential in their own way. Brandt was another of my inspirations and I know he and Adams were in touch at one point. Like life, photography is a moving picture not a single canvas.
I think 36cm2's Weston quote puts its finger right on it. These two men knew and admired each other and each had his own place in the history and deverlpment of photography.
Tony.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It seems to me that all three men spent plenty of time "setting-up" their subjects and tripped the shutter at just the right time, then threw the ones away that were not "right". They did not stumble onto a subject, "hand holding" a camera. ...

Adams did stumble onto the scene for Moonrise and had to act quickly to get the image. The story of that photo is interesting and I wonder if many could have done it.

Even so, yes, they did plan ahead - perhaps weeks or months in preparation. But part of making that noteworthy image is imagining or setting it up beforehand. They probably sucked at street photography and were perhaps the opposite of HCB.

 

[removed account4]

if someone put a squirt gun to my head and i had to choose >> eddie
=
emmanuel radnitzky

 

[jtk]

 

[jtk]

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some people who see my photos regularly among anothers are saying what my photos are recognizable to them. Just today I received this kind of comment. For this:


I like people as subject, as society and individual stories. I also like to visit mountains and eat veggies. It is healthy.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

They probably sucked at street photography and were perhaps the opposite of HCB.

HCB wasn't into landscape much. But those he did...
Dead Link Removed
Sorry to Mr. Adams and his fans club, some of us have different taste, landscapes included.

 

[Sirius Glass]

HCB wasn't into landscape much. But those he did...
Dead Link Removed
Sorry to Mr. Adams and his fans club, some of us have different taste, landscapes included.

As I would expect, with rare exception, people are included whether or not they are needed.

 

[Arklatexian]

Weston.

Adams bores me these days. Weston was a far better photographer. Adams was just popular.

Which Weston are you talking about? The actual prints made by Edward Weston that I have seen look like the maker needed darkroom lessons from Ansel Adams, whose actual prints I have seen also. As to subject matter, when Ansel took pictures of a woman, his pictures showed that he liked women. It seems that when Weston took pictures of women, his pictures showed that he liked sex but not women. Yes, I know the routine; form, lines, and all that. Maybe that was so they would come back and pose again. If you don't know what I have been talking about, get a woman to explain it to you.......Regards!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

HCB wasn't into landscape much. But those he did...
Dead Link Removed
...

HCB's work inspires me. Those are beautiful photographs.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

HCB's work inspires me. Those are beautiful photographs.

All three are inspiring. Adams for how good print could be. Weston how veggies are good as photography subjects.
And HCB for how photo with meaning should looks like

 

[Arklatexian]

As I would expect, with rare exception, people are included whether or not they are needed.

I think it was Adams who said there were always at least two people involved in every picture he took. The person behind the camera who took the picture and the viewer of the print Just as you said. Don't believe I have ever seen a camera that took pictures by itself. Not even a Hasselblad. I don't feel like I have enough "ego" to "defend" Ansel Adams. If I had that kind of "ego", I might run for.......No! I not going there...........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Ansel’s most famous works were about the insignificance of man. Edward’s most famous works were about the significance of man. They probed the same question from two different perspectives. So no, they weren’t that different from each other. In the end, what made them great photographers wasn’t their technique or subject matter, but their unquenchable curiosity. They didn’t fear to explore the unanswerable questions ad nauseam.

+1

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I can see the appeal in photos made with Sirius' viewpoint of excluding clues to time, where the image of a landscape could have been a minute ago or 10,000 years ago (had cameras existed).

Personally speaking as a photographer who likes to record history, I like clues to the time the photo was made.

 

[jtk]

Which Weston are you talking about? The actual prints made by Edward Weston that I have seen look like the maker needed darkroom lessons from Ansel Adams, whose actual prints I have seen also. As to subject matter, when Ansel took pictures of a woman, his pictures showed that he liked women. It seems that when Weston took pictures of women, his pictures showed that he liked sex but not women. Yes, I know the routine; form, lines, and all that. Maybe that was so they would come back and pose again. If you don't know what I have been talking about, get a woman to explain it to you.......Regards!

Wow! Terror and ignorance in one post!

I've seen lots of genuinely lousy prints by Ansel (his early work was technically far inferior to Stieglitz and Strand, not to mention his own later more famous versions). Bizarre to think Weston didn't like women. Seen his portraits?

Bizarre to think men who like women don't like sex

 

[DREW WILEY]

Different styles. Weston took some wonderful shots in the mountains whenever AA managed to drag him up there. But a shot of a juniper tree looked sensual just like his nudes, while AA's portraits look brilliantly detailed and analytic just like his landscapes. I saw actual Weston prints long before AA's, which I knew only from magazine repros or student copies. We lived just across the river from Yosemite and my parent didn't let me go into Best Studio because it was rigged with all kinds of fragile little ceramic chipmunks and so forth, hoping that some little brat like me would knock them over, which did happen once, and my dad had to pay. At that time, one could buy ten small AA prints for forty bucks (assistant-printed, no doubt). I never saw AA's personal work until I was doing my own color gigs practically in his backyard on the coast; and at that point, I became far more impressed with Brett Weston as a printmaker than either of the elders. But having grown up in the
Sierra, and having since traveled tens of thousands of miles of backcountry with large format cameras, I certainly have the capacity to appreciate AA's sensitivity to the light in a manner his flatlander naysayers do not, like my older brother's instructors at the Brooks Institute back then. Yeah, at times I do get annoyed with images that are overtly theatrical; but there are many others out there less well known that are remarkable. ... and of course, tons of so-so near-misses. But some
of those were deliberately low-contrast printed for sake of offset reproduction, and inadvertently made their way onto the peripheral print market. The notion that anyone hits a home every time is just nonsense. Even Babe Ruth struck out far
more often.