• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Edward Weston Philosophy -- Newbies please read

+1 Brad!

I don't stop by here much anymore because I get tired of the 'I need a new developer for **** film' or 'Brand X developer is so much superior to 'Brand Y' or 'How did I f**k up my negs so bad?' Kinda miss the good ol' days when photography was about art instead of equipment/materials.

Someone once said, 'That's progress.' I beg to differ.

PS. I love the one over on photo.net: 'Can I use Photoflo in my dishwasher?' Unbelievable!
 

Boy does this describe me. I can now toy with all the stuff that would have cost me more than my house 20 years ago. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the digital revolution coincided with the graduation of my kid. So not only are the prices falling through the floor, but they're doing so at a time I have an empty nest.

I've picked up more pretty decent gear in the past few years than I could have ever imagined, and all of it together cost less than the used car my wife is barking for right now.

Now, is it a distraction? Sure. It's been very hard trying to figure out what's "good for me" and what's not. But I'm honing it down, and in the long run I think I'll be better off for the couple of years experimenting.

And if there's any doubt, I used to buy 135 Tri-X at Wal-Mart, and now even finding film at Wal-Mart is getting harder. Not only did the digital revolution open doors for me, it closed familiar doors and forced me to move along. So even if I didn't want all the new toys I would still have to change. Since I'm forced to change, let's open up the doors and experiment.

MB
 
yeah,I know what you mean

I'm a serious artist--I used only one color and one brush, Everything I paint is green.Some people think I'm and OCD nutjob and try to lead my down the slippery slope of the primary colors. When that happens I just show them my paintings(of bell peppers).
They are usually quite impressed.

You think I'm bad-----I know a Shaolin Priest that went in the darkroom in '98--

he hasn't been seen since---THAT'S serious.
 
wblynch said:
I'm still excited simply to get visible images!!

I'm amazed everytime I pull a strip of film from the tank.
Click to expand...

Pure science/chemical process aside, I'm glad to see someone mentioning the simple joy of [re]discovery that makes up part of the act of image-making. I go through the same thing.
 

This is an odd quote since both Brett and Cole told me Edward never used a light meter.
The Weston meter has nothing to do with Edward or any of his sons or grandson.
 
My 2 cents...

Weston's philosophy is a sound one but let's not forget that it is from a very different and fairly distant time, so its application can be difficult to apply in today's world. We live in a quickly moving society and, thanks to the internet, everyone is constantly bombarded with new information and temptations. Frankly, in relation to film and its most ardent followers/purists, this is a classic case of "you can't have your cake and eat it too". What I mean is that one of the main reasons film is still alive is indeed because of "newbie" who may have to some extent some form of temporary ADD and jump around to different cameras, lenses, films, formats, developers, etc. Experimentation, the constant search for the Holy Grail, or simply the thrill of a new toy, is at least keeping interest in film alive and possibly bringing in new blood. The drawback may be the dilution of talent and that "Jack of all trades master of none syndrome." Unfortunately, ( and let's be realistic and forget about all the silly elitist comments), if it was up to the very few professionals who actually make a living shooting film, sticking with a single camera/lens and being darkroom masters, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc, probably would have stopped producing altogether already.
So, yes, the endless questions about which developer or film is best for a given application can be annoying to some but I don't see that as a negative (no pun intended), as it keeps the flame alive and allows others to indeed master their craft with one camera, one lens, one developer, and a single film stock if they indeed chose to do so.
 
Excellent point, Max, the newbies really are 'keeping the market alive.' The alternative could be much worse in today's declining film market.
 
Really this thread is about two different things:

1. "Mastering" your photography, either following the Weston quote method, or by being more playful.

2. Peoples views on the function of an internet forum.

This forum serves a great purpose, one of which is to help the new people. So it will continue until the end of time (or the internet) that people will post "magic bullet" threads. A great function of forums is one doesn't have to read every thread. I mean the only way around it is to create a highly moderated board that deletes all those threads, and eventually a bunch of others I'm sure, and that becomes elitist and besides the point.

I've been a member of a Bass Guitar forum for many years, and there are ALWAYS "which amp will give me the best sound!!!!!" threads. Every week if not every day. Its unavoidable, and everyone has to start somewhere.

So uh .. yea. I'm not about to blindly follow Weston and I also learn little tidbits of info from various threads that I read and never post in. Take what you need and leave the rest has always been my plan. That said, the quote is good advice (for just about any discipline really) but without exploration and play, photography would never advance, nor would new people gain interest.
 
Rich Ullsmith said:
So which is worse, the group described by Weston, or the (presumably smaller) group who take a more methodical, measured approach, one paper/one film/one developer, until they get bored silly and simply walk away?
Click to expand...

One flaw with Weston's outlook is he obviously assumed that photographers aspired to be equally good technically and artistically. The reality is I have met as many photogs that comfortably rely someone in "post" to get that stuff right (people bringing their stuff to a pro lab) as I have with the attitude that they can "fix it after". It doesn't fit with Weston's view but is equally valid.
 
My philosophy is to get it right when making the photograph with my camera.

People ask me, every once in a while, how much time I spend in the process stage and are usually amazed how little I do. Every once in a while I spend a wee bit more, usually it's capturing beautiful ladies and things like stray hair and some other things can be corrected.

Time is perhaps the most important ingredient in my life. Only 24 hrs. to each day and I enjoy a glass or two of wine most evenings and spend time with my beautiful wife of 33 years and our grand children! Lots of smiles!
 
5stringdeath said:
I've been a member of a Bass Guitar forum for many years, and there are ALWAYS "which amp will give me the best sound!!!!!" threads. Every week if not every day. Its unavoidable, and everyone has to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
Once I asked a great professional guitarist, who is a friend of mine, how he gets that great sound out of the shitty amp he played on. Smiling as bright as possible, his answer was:

"If you want a good sound, go and buy a metronome!"

I almost couldn't stop laughing, he unmasked my musical impotence with this simple and friendly advice. Learn the basics, practize! The amp doesn't make the music, the camera doesn't make the image, the developer doesn't make the negative. It's up to you.

Cheers - Reinhold
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Noel said:
This is an odd quote since both Brett and Cole told me Edward never used a light meter.
The Weston meter has nothing to do with Edward or any of his sons or grandson.
Click to expand...

Weston was using a photoelectric light meter within a few years of the introduction of the Weston meter. In an article that appeared in the 1939 February issue of Camera Craft, he lists a Weston meter among the equipment used for the first Guggenheim Fellowship. In the U. S. Camera Annual 1940 he lists the meter with the gear he used for both Guggenheim Fellowships. In an article in the May 1939 Camera Craft, he wrote:

". . . A beginner seriously interested in becoming a good photographer will be wise to learn to judge light accurately on his ground glass before he gets an exposure meter. The average reaction to this statement will be that I am a fuddy-duddy, insisting one learn to drive a buggy long after it has been replaced by the automobile. But let us examine the facts. A photo-electric cell will give you an exact reading of light in canclepowers which, by twirling a few dials, you can translate into the correct expsure under given conditions for a given aperture. But what is the "correct" exposure? The only correct exposure is the one that will produce exactly the effect you want in your finished print, via the negative. And for this purpose you may not want an average negative at all.

The photo-electric cell is an invaluable instrument--I am never without one--but its reading should not be become the photographer's gospel. Rather it should be used to give him a quick and accurate point of departure from which to guage exposure.

In the hands of a beginner the danger is that the meter may become a barrier. When it is but a moment's work to take a reading, the photographer is inclined to pay little attention to the all-important element of light itself."

The above information is from Bunnell, Peter C., ed. Edward Weston on Photography/I]. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., Peregrine Smith Books, 1983.

In Willard Van Dyke's 1948 movie The Photographer Edward Weston, Weston is shown using and recommending a light meter. We should remember that he was using Kodachrome during that filming, so exposure was much more critical than the B&W he could develope by inspection.
 


Thank you for the citation. Now if I could just find the citation for Edward Weston stating that there is nothing worth photographing more than 1,000 yards from a car ....

Steve
 
At one time , pre f64, Weston and most other photographers were pictorialists.More artist than scientist.
Post f64,everything changed.A highly structured system based on sensitometry,film curves ,and other distasteful scientific measurements took over.Content became less important than logic or mathematical computation.The zone system became an algorithm---sort of hand made digital photography. An atmosphere existed where you could get "lost in the machine" before the actual machine was invented.

I'm sure it was all very exciting at the time----I couldn't be less interested in it now.
 
Some of my best photographs happen when I don't think too much about the technical stuff. I try not let the machinery and the process get in the way. I used to obsess about Fstop, shutter speed and what kind of film. It's the same with any artistic endeavor. You learn how to play the notes on the piano, then for get it all to play music. I think getting stuck play scales is very boring. The machinery and process should serve the art. Obsession with process and technique is just science. The science part should come as second nature like breathing. 99% of the struggle with photographing is seeing. the 1% is just the photographic nuts and bolts.
 
Jim Noel said:
This is an odd quote since both Brett and Cole told me Edward never used a light meter.
The Weston meter has nothing to do with Edward or any of his sons or grandson.
Click to expand...

Edward did use a light meter. Brett, however, did not use one except for the color work that he did briefly in the 1950's. He believed that anyone who photographed daily, as he did, should be familiar enough with the materials and process to judge light and correct exposure without a meter.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Thank you for the citation. Now if I could just find the citation for Edward Weston stating that there is nothing worth photographing more than 1,000 yards from a car ....

Steve
Click to expand...




Look for Brett Weston and you should find it.
 
Well I tend to agree with this quote. Howeveer I am not at a stage in my (photographic) life that I can fully embrace it. I just love to try out new camera's and film and procedures too much to stop that and concentrate on just one camera, one format, one film etc. I will do probaly but not yet. I started education last year and now I want to learn to judge light without a meter. And so I want to keep learning till I can make decent shots......I'll be old and bendy by that time probably.
 
Jim Noel said:
The Weston meter has nothing to do with Edward or any of his sons or grandson.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Light meters are based on work by the english Edward Weston who died in 1936.
 
Donmck said:
Content became less important than logic or mathematical computation.The zone system became an algorithm---sort of hand made digital photography.
Click to expand...

That was exactly the vibe that I got about the Zone System wen I first heard about it. It was The Way, not a way.

Imagine my surprise when, 20-ish years layer, I actually read Adams' book series and saw him (though not in such words) distance himself from ZS as a religion. Wish I'd read that years earlier.
 
<Posted via APUG mobile wap service..>

Oh, and by the way, it was 100 yards. And it was made partly in jest at his good friend Ansel.
 
It depends entirely on what you want to achieve with photography.

1. Either you care only about making the best photographs and prints you can. You seek to make materials an item you don't think about, but just know what they will deliver.
2. You are a curious person that wants to know everything, and you dive headfirst into trying anything between heaven and hell, just because you think it's fun.
3. Anything in between.

I can only speak from personal experience, and here it is:

It wasn't until I stopped experimenting with different films, developers, and papers that I could start making the prints I wanted. To intimately know your materials, to know them so well that when you shoot you don't even have to think about what the reulsts are going to be. You just know.
So you expose your film, knowing how much time it's going to need for that particular lighting scenario, do it, and then go print negatives that require little to no manipulation to make not just a good, but a brilliant print.
You can't do that if you experiment a lot. You have to find the limitations in order to fully exploit your materials. You have to think outside the box, push what you have at hand to the limit and beyond.
But I'm in camp 1. I don't subscribe to getting a cool lens just to make a cool photograph. I don't believe that different films will vary enough in 'characteristics' to make a damn bit of difference in my prints. I believe in practicing, practicing, practicing, using the same materials over and over again until I can do anything with them.
My prints are better than they ever have been. I gain more and more control over the process with every bit I learn. It does not feel stagnant or unimaginative at all to do it this way. It feels HIGHLY creative, highly repeatable, and printing these negatives are SO much fun.
I detest going back to print old negatives, even if it's a good picture, because it takes so much work to get the prints right.

I agree with knowing what the heck we're doing. Every step of the way. However you get to your nirvana is your choice. I have found my printing nirvana in consistency.
 
I endorse the quote and the OP's views, but I'll ask newbies (I hate that term outside it's correct context - at least he didn't say 'n00bs'!) to remember that Weston moved from fuzzy Pictorialism to 'straight photography' a la Group 64, exploring different techniques and materials as he went. There is no correct answer; experimentation is a part of learning and the lesson is to find out what *you* want to achieve then to choose your materials and methods accordingly. That's how we learn, folks.

All IMO, of course.
 

You make an excellent point, one to which I have given thought over the years.

Edward did not arrive at Pepper #30 without a long journey of experimentation and questioning. He learned a great deal from his son Brett, who from the age of 13 never questioned what he was doing. Brett was very direct, Edward was searching for the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register