Edward Weston - Daybooks

[Michael A. Smith]

The book by Cartier-Bresson is "The Decisive Moment." It is long out of print (well over 40 years) and at $450 is a steal. However, you do not need tp get the book to read the essay, "Introduction to the Decisive Moment." It has been reprinted a nuimber of times.

I recommend you look for the book, "Photographers on Photography" edited by Nathan Lyons. The "Introduction" is there as well as many other important writings by Weston, Minor White, Stieglitz, Strand and others. It was published in the 1960s. There are two versions of this book. I am back in Europe now finishing the printing of our forthcoming books so don't have access to the books and the ISBN numbers, but the two versions are this: The hardbound version has a section of reproductions by each of the photographers. It tends to be expensive on the used market. The other, the softbound version, has no reproductions and should be quite reasonable. If you can find it, grab it.

 

[lee]

I just have the softbound book with both books in one book.(the Weston Daybooks) It can be a slow read but it is fascinating if you hang in there.


lee\c

 

[bmac]

For anyone who has a hole burning in their pocket... Cartier-Bresson is "The Decisive Moment."

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3585181844&category=29284

 

[lallan]

A 1999 book, "The Mind's Eye: Writings on Photography and Photographers", Henri Cartier-Bresson, Michael L. Sand is in print. ($19.95) It contains "The Decisive Moment" as well as other essays published in various journals.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Last night, I became involved in discussion of Edward Weston's work, over coffee and my copy of "Forms of Passion".

Weston, in 1927, prodcued a series of photographs, some of which are reproduced in the book: "Nude(s) 1927 -28"; pages 143, 144, and 145 - and "Dancer", 1927, page 146; "Dancing Nude", 1927; and "Nude", 1928, page 148.

The question arose to the lighting / darkroom work that produced the "outlining - shadow" effect in these images. My first impression was that of something like a "semi-solarization", where there is not quite enough solarization exposure to produce the full localized image area reversal ... but ??

I know that Weston favored natural light - I don't know if he did any work involving solarization - I have not seen any, if he did ... but that means very little.

I was asked if I could duplicate the lighting. darkroom manipulation or whatever, to recreate the effect. My answer: "I wouldn't have a remote clue of how it was done. I'd have to work at it."

Is anyone here familiar with the photographs" -- And an anyone shed some light on the method/s involved in their production?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Last night, I became involved in discussion of Edward Weston's work, over coffee and my copy of "Forms of Passion".

Weston, in 1927, prodcued a series of photographs, some of which are reproduced in the book: "Nude(s) 1927 -28"; pages 143, 144, and 145 - and "Dancer", 1927, page 146; "Dancing Nude", 1927; and "Nude", 1928, page 148.

The question arose to the lighting / darkroom work that produced the "outlining - shadow" effect in these images. My first impression was that of something like a "semi-solarization", where there is not quite enough solarization exposure to produce the full localized image area reversal ... but ??

I know that Weston favored natural light - I don't know if he did any work involving solarization - I have not seen any, if he did ... but that means very little.

I was asked if I could duplicate the lighting - darkroom manipulation, or whatever, to recreate the effect. My answer: "I wouldn't have a remote clue of how it was done. I'd have to work at it."

Is anyone here familiar with these photographs? -- And can anyone shed some light on the method/s involved in their production?

 

[PaulH]

ed, Ansel Adams discusses this in his basic photo books. It is referred to as the 'limb effect'. Here is his definition: "The limb effect occurs when a curved white object like the egg is placed against a light background and photographed with axis light ... The dark edges are due to the reflectance angle, as the surface bends away from the camera, progressively less light is reflected back to the lens..." This is on page 133 in 'The Negative' in the New Ansel Adams Photography Series. He also discusses it on pages 8 & 9 in Basic Phot 4: Natural Light Photography. One of the examples he gives in the older book is an Edward Weston Nude on sand dunes.

 

[Ed Sukach]

.. Ansel Adams discusses this in his basic photo books. It is referred to as the 'limb effect'....

... light background and photographed with axis light ...

.... One of the examples he gives in the older book is an Edward Weston Nude on sand dunes.

Thank you (!!) for the quick reply. I don't have a copy of "The Negative" -- I'll have to track one down.

I'm just a trifle puzzled by the "axis" definition ... does this indicate "On Axis" light , closely parallel to the optical axis of the lens ... and, if so, the positioning of the photographer and the camera, to control the shadows of both - must have been critical -- or was some sort of reflector arrangement used to augment the lighting?
Now that you mention it, I do see something of the same effect in Weston's nudes of "Charis, Oceana, California, 1936" ...
Come to think of it - one of the "Great Camera Club Judge's Sins" is evident - her eyes were closed, or she was facing away from the sun ... in all of the images here.

I think I'll try for the same effect by "clustering" four DynaLite heads - both "bare" and with softbox modifiers - closely around the camera and positioning the model against a Savage "Super White" background.

The more I see of Weston's work (and I've been looking at it for a number of years, now), the more I continue to be awestruck by the man's sheer brilliance.

 

[PaulH]

Ed, one of the parts I left out was: axis light(light directed at the subject along the lens axis). The copy of 'The Negative' I am referring to was printed in 1981 as part of a 3 book series.

 

[garryl]

When the photo was taken. Weston was on top of a dune and the model was half way down on another. Since the sun was coming over his shoulder, it was in a direct line(paralell to) to the axis of the lens.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

You really should read the Daybooks, Ed. YOu would learn that EW never "solarized" and after his soft-focus period ended never did anything that was other than straightforward and simple. No reflectors. No lights. No soft focus. Just natural light.

He did have a screen mounted on wheels, which hid the kitchen from the rest of his one-room cabin. It was painted gray and he did use it as background for portraits. By turning it at an angle to the light he could get any background tone from white to black.

I now recall your writing that you did have the Daybooks. If you read them once, I suggest read them again.

 

[Ed Sukach]

You really should read the Daybooks, Ed....
I now recall your writing that you did have the Daybooks. If you read them once, I suggest read them again.

Interesting suggestions, Michael. When I find some time...

You are mistaken ... I do not have a copy of the "Daybooks", nor have I ever read them. I recently referred to an "over coffee" discussion of the photography in "Edward Weston - Forms of Passion."

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Sorry I had that wrong, Ed. But since you have become a Weston aficianado, hie thee to Amazon or bookfinder.com or somewhere else and get a copy of the Daybooks. Forms of Passion ain't nothin' compared to the Daybooks, or to about a half dozen other Weston books for that matter.

Very short list of required reading in Weston: "California and the West" with text by Charis, "California" (think that is the title--not sure, I'm in Belgium "on press" with no access to my library), edited by James Enyeart,"Edward Weston" aka "Flame of Recognition" (nice small book with excerpts from Daybooks), "Nudes"--that should intrest you, the two books from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts; "Edward Weston and Modernism" (think that is the title), and the other is, I think is, "Weston's Westons, " (and there may be a third also called "California and the West," though a different book from the original of that title--but don't quote me on that).There are easily another dozen that are worthwhile.

And then, of course, is the book we are publishing, which (unplanned for ad coming here folks, so get ready to pounce), will be the most sumptious Weston book yet: 252 pages and finally with reproductions that are true to Weston's originals including matching the color of his platinum prints. Over two years in the making, it will finally be out in April. It better be. This has gotten ridiculuous. Hope to have it at the LF Conference in April.

 

[mwtroxell]

"Very short list of required reading in Weston:...There are easily another dozen that are worthwhile."

'Through Another Lens: My Years with Edward Weston' by Charis Wilson". I just recently finished reading it. Presents Edward Weston as Charis saw him. Very interesting book.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... But since you have become a Weston aficianado, .....

I admire Edward Weston's work a lot, Michael, but that admiration hasn't risen to the level of obsession. There are others I consider to be of equal importance, and having made equally significant contributions to the art.

It is interesting to consider the effect personality - the soul - has in determining the style and final work of the photographer.

When I get a chance, I've got to get to my local Library and get the specifics of that video tape of Ansel Adams....

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Through Another Lens is also a great book. Anything that Charis wrote is wonderful. By the late thirties she was writing wrote all of the articles that carry Weston's signature. His ideas and thoughts, of course.

I'm no longer obsessed with Weston, Ed. I just happen to have all of his books--something started a long time ago, and it seems easier to continue than to stop.

I'm curious, Ed, who you think is Weston's equal among twentieth century photographers. There are a few that come to mind to me, though they worked in a different mode. I think Weston was certainly the preeminent modernist. Although a good case can be made for Brett. It is little known that Brett was a major influence on Edward. Brett came of age as a photographer just as Edward was entering his high-modernist period. It was Brett who first photographed at Point Lobos and discovered what has come to be called Weston Beach. And it was Brett was first photographed the sand dunes at Oceano. Brett's contribution has been overlooked. We hope to remedy that with our nineteen-volume set of his portfolios. Most of the work in them has never been reproduced before. First one, "San Francisco" should be out by April.

 

[mwtroxell]

Although I think that Edward Weston was one of the greatest photographers of our time, what really draws me to the Daybooks, and other books about Weston, was his complete dedication to photography. Wheither you like his work or not, wheither you would like him as a person or not, there is something about someone who dedicates their life to photography, to the exclusion of nearly everything else, that draws us to them.

 

[Francesco]

I apologise right now to EW fans BUT I just have to say that I cannot separate the person from the artist. It is one thing to completely dedicate oneself to photography it is another to do so at the expense of the family you fathered. I love his work but not what he did to achieve it. I have a son and will gladly throw away every piece of equipment I own to make him happier. To leave him to pursue my artistic calling would be suicide. The fact that EW was able to do so shows how shallow his value system was. He is a great artist no doubt but is that really enough. For me it is not.

I feel that in life we must strike a balance between our selfish reflexes and our responsibilities to our family and friends. The ends does not justify the means.

 

[photomc]

Franseco, interesting point - I do not disagree, but I think AA is held with more respect in some ways than EW, but in many ways he was like EW when it came to his family - at least from what I have read. I wonder if the same is true for others of that era, such a Dorothea Lange, Elliot Porter, Ernest Knee, Imogen Cunningham, Paul Strand, Minor White and many others...these artist do not share the fame of EW or AA, yet there work in my mind is just as important. What EW and AA did was bring photography to the general public - without them photography would not be the same today, but the cost to their families was probably higher than any of us would be willing to pay.

Justified, they could only answer the question - I can not pass judgement or cast a stone....we all live our lives the best we can and do our best with our families and our hobbies.

 

[Francesco]

Thank you Mike. I do try to separate the man from the artist but every since my son was born I realise that certain things just cannot be separated from him. I am no longer a photographer but a father who likes to take pictures now and then. Unfortunately for me I feel that artists are more than just the result of their body of work.

 

[lee]

Edward's sons did live with him and he took them on trips. It is not as if he abandoned them. Their mother and Edward were the ones with the problems not Edward and his sons. Cole was the one that learned to print his father's negs and Brett was a photographer in his own right. The other son slips my memory right now. He may not have won any "Father of the Year" awards but he was not evil.

lee\c

 

[bmac]

I'm with you Francesco!

 

[mwtroxell]

I certainly agree that Edward Weston wasn't anyones idea of Father of the Year but he wasn't the uncareing, disintereted father that some people have made him out to be:

Daybooks: October 29:

"...Brett's net swishing through the ari, butterflies captive in its meshes or sailing away to his chagrin. This was our day togeather in Tlalpan, a happy day for both, though my joy was most in seeing his!"

 

[Michael A. Smith]

You have it dead wrong Francesco. Edward and his sons were very close. HIs sons ordered their adult lives to be near him. Their choice. Neil built Edward's cabin for him. He taught Cole to print his negatives. He worked almost side by side with Brett for many years. Brett gave up two years of his own life to print almost 6,500 prints for him as well as the 50th Anniversary Portfolio. Chandler, the oldest was not as close. Edward was closer to his sons, from what I have seen, than about 99% of fathers are to their sons today. His work and his sons, equqlly, came first. Per Nancy Newhall, "The ladies came last."

So, Francesco, I think you are misreading whatever it is you are reading. And, I think that you do not know the whole story. There was a time when he was away, but only for three years when he went to Mexico--but he came back for six months in the middle of those there years for one reason: to be near his sons. And he wrote often about caring for his sons. On one of his trips to Mexico he took Chandler. On the second trip, he took Brett.

Question for you: Do you think it would have been better had he not gone to Mexico? I don't. Yes, he would have been with his all of his sons for that time , but he would have been miserable. That inner misery would, in my opinion, have brought resentment and in the long run he and his sons would not have been as close as they were. If one is the best one can be for oneself, one can be better and more "there" for others. Sure, there was hurt for a few years, but in the long run everyone, and most especially his sons, was better for his time in Mexico.

Another interesting note. Every day, including up to the late 1940s and 1950s Edward sent a penny postcard to his sister, May, in Ohio. It was May who got him to come to California in the first place back in 1905 and who, more or less had raised him after his mother died when he was young. So, Edward really was a family man, in all regards, much more than most.

Someone brought up Ansel Adams. Ansel Adams was a son-of -a bitch to his wife and kids. He neglected his kids totally, and he neglected his wife, too. It is my understandings that as an adult, his son Michael barely and rarely spoke to him.

Think about it. In Weston's Daybooks, Edward often mentions his sons. In Adams's autobiography, I don't believe they are mentione at all, or if they are it is only in passing. He really had nothing to do with them.

These misreadings of and myths about Edward Weston are sorry distortions of who the man was. When he died, Ansel Adams said about him, "Once there was a great man who was also a photographer." And from my having known many people who knew Edward, I have never heard a different take on him as a person as well as as a photographer.

 

[Francesco]

I stand corrected.