Elliot Erwitt on Robert Frank

Thomas Bertilsson said:

It's about both the darkroom and the picture. It's about your entire process. That's how you get a picture anyway. Without the process there is no picture. You have to do both. But where do you spend your time? What's important to you? Do you strive to make one perfect print every month? Or five proof prints every day? What matters to you?

Click to expand...

Ah! I feel you're on the brink of losing a good point, of allowing yourself to be dragged into the "photography is a craft" Temple of Doom again.

It's not about the process. It's about the end result of the process. But that even only in a small way.

It is about, as Erwitt said about Frank, your intention. The "why", as you put it so well.

Q.G. said:

Ah! I feel you're on the brink of losing a good point, of allowing yourself to be dragged into the "photography is a craft" Temple of Doom again.

It's not about the process. It's about the end result of the process. But that even only in a small way.

It is about, as Erwitt said about Frank, your intention. The "why", as you put it so well.

Click to expand...

OK. I'll rephrase. But first: a process, (any process), is important. Or else there would be no pictures at all. With process I mean the whole work flow from thinking about photography and reacting to subject matter, to the finished print - beginning to end. It's the work that represents what's in our heads and hearts.

The question that needs to be asked is: How did we reach the conclusions that made us choose one approach over another? Those decisions matter, and should be subject to scrutiny when we decide what we do and how we do things. That defines our own intent.

What do we want to achieve, and why did we choose the path we did to get there?
I think the answer is different for everybody.

I'm with you, Thomas, and I think I understand what you were trying to convey here - before you got sidetracked, I think.

The original question (or issue), as I see it, is difference between obsessing about technicalities and taking photos... (which is, perhaps, a rather simplistic take on the issue, since those are not mutually exclusive - on the contrary...).

I've been having some discussions of similar kind lately, with some other photographer friends: we've all been taught that the "technically correct" B&W photo needs to have the full tonal (gray) scale.
Even today, the "old school" guys, when taking a look at a B&W photo, will usually say: "Bah, it's technically incompetent, it doesn't have the full tonal scale from black to white!" - to which I say: bollocks! (pardon my French).

What about "high key" and "low key" photos? I mean, the issue is similar to what you are trying to say, I think: (over)obsessing with technical aspect usually results in boring photos

Wasn't it St. Ansel himself who said (quoting from memory here): "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"?


For such "old school" guys, a perfectly mundane photo of a horrible cliché is an example of "how it's done", as long as it has a full tonal scale
(Meaning that any "technically perfect" photograph is "worthy of admiration" due only to its technical perfection.)

Anyway, my quick take: you need a good working knowledge of your materials and technique. You need to know your film, your camera and your paper (and chemicals), so that you know in advance what kind of result you will get. So, the familiarity with the technicalities will actually free you from worrying, and liberate you to actually concentrate on the "art", if you will.

You can't be free to actually see and photograph if you are unsure of the final result (i.e. "Was the exposure proper for this light? Did I point the light meter in the right direction? Will those shadows show as pure black, or will there be detail in there? Will those highlights be totally blown?").

On the other hand, does it really matter that some of Frank's photos are rather fuzzy/blurry? Some are obviously under/overexposed/whatever...

Don't get me wrong: I'm not anti-Ansel or pro-Frank. I'm not taking sides in this false dichotomy: I'm just sayin...

Sometimes a powerful photo cuts through the technical BS... "Sloppy technique" or not...

I've often heard that about Sally Mann, for example. "Sloppy" is an adjective often used for her work by some other photographers. Her work still moves me a lot more than Ansel's, if I may be allowed to say...

So there... My 2 cents' worth...

So true. It's also true with music. Classical is very precise while jazz is very capricious and free. You can't say classical music is better than jazz. I love Sally Mann's work too. Looks sloppy to the casual observer. I think all those wonderful streaks is made when she was coating the collodion plates which the music of chance plays into. She couldn't coat a glass plate exactly the same even if she tried. So each plate and photographs she makes is unique and one of a kind like a jazz performance.

You know... I think the Erwitt quote is a little off base for what your point is, Thomas, and apologies in advance if I'm off base here. As you mentioned "intent"... I think both Frank and Adams (and Erwitt for that matter) are pretty clear in their intent with the tools they use for the pictures they each have made. They each have a voice that is as individual as they are.

Just as some folks get critical about technique and ignore the image (fairly or unfairly) when viewing work, a lot of photographers also spend way too much time and effort on technique without giving much thought to the images they are making. (It's an easy mistake to make, and many have, myself included.) The challenge is... finding your voice as a photographer while you master your craft. Each photographer's journey will be different there, but it's instructive to know the work of photographers with a strong vision no matter how they made their pictures, and sometimes getting past the process as a viewer and a photographer will help you find your own voice in the medium. I'm not a particular fan of Ansel Adams (preferring the likes of Frank far better), but I find it hard to completely dismiss his work as merely technical fireworks, and indeed... I think Frank might have been a better technician that was my own impression after seeing a lot of his prints together in one place.

Both of their work has informed my own understanding of this medium.

The trouble with Adams is that people appear not to know about the intent of his type of photography.
And in large part, that is Adams' own fault.

Both (though it is really only one and the same reason), because what his voice was saying (i don't like the voice metaphor: it's not about the voice, not about the medium, but about what is said) was that technical excellence (of the Adams type) is what the medium photography should be about, and because he rarely, if ever, talked about the why of his type of photography, but quite a lot about how to achieve his type of technical excellence.

Threads derail so easily. I just wanted to make people think critically about what they do.

Hopefully it doesn't end up as academia, but actually make someone wonder about why they do things a certain way, and enables a fresh approach to photography, and form their own opinions of what works for them, and why.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Threads derail so easily. I just wanted to make people think critically about what they do.

Click to expand...

Has it derailed?

It can, though, once you too begin to talk about "what" instead of "why".

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Hopefully it doesn't end up as academia, but actually make someone wonder about why they do things a certain way, and enables a fresh approach to photography, and form their own opinions of what works for them, and why.

Click to expand...

There was another thread recenty, that asked about the raison d'etre for our photos.
It didn't end up as academia. If anything, it ended in a poor imitation of the joke thread.

People don't like "why" questions, except when they can put them to others.

I see the point about the Adams photos being post cards. They have great aesthetic and commercial appeal – so much so that we rarely hear anything abut the concepts expressed by them. We are also taught that they are the pinnacle of photography, both technically and artistically, due in no small part to extremely aggressive marketing, and this can become grating. I can also see how some would fail to see that there is anything there beyond the aesthetic beauty of the print itself. However, having been forced to discuss Adams' work at length in a conceptual way, I feel that his pictures are more than commercial work that exists solely for the purpose of bringing aesthetic joy. The work is very emotionally expressive, and it places nature on a supernatural and iconic level, as well as exploring our relationship with it (as he did not only photograph rocks and trees, but many human-made elements within the landscape). Just because it is a simple concept does not mean that it is not an important one, or does not reflect the feelings and thoughts of the photographer. Nature and our relationship with it may not be an issue that is typically at the social forefront, but it is certainly a personal – perhaps "spiritual" for many – thing that in my experience is incredibly emotional and humbling. Maybe Adams was not keen on – or skilled at – expressing this feeling with words, so he photographed instead.

Frank's photos in "The Americans" do exactly the opposite. They smash cultural icons and bring things down from pedestals, exposing their status as being worthy of reconsideration. They make me feel and think about our society on an external level, aside from the raw internal emotional reactions I have when seeing them.

In many ways, Adams' work is more subversive to me, as it contains a very heavy message and impact, but is dressed in a pretty package. I'll bet Adams' photos have caused a higher percentage of their viewers to take up an interest in nature and conservation (and photography, for that matter) than Frank's photos have inspired people to more closely examine the things that are culturally important to us and enact social change.

Frank and Adams basically did the same things to make their photos. They traveled the U.S.A. and shot what they felt like shooting, as they reacted to it emotionally and thoughtfully. Frank was interested in expressing the things he wanted to express – it is just that the things he felt like expressing were not the same things that Adams focused on. If you want to get down to conceptual, artistic techniques (not photography technique), they both did the same things. It all just comes down to vast differences in style and subject matter. I do not think that either Adams or Frank was any more conceptually, or technically, vapid than the other. Both used technique in close-to-ideal ways to express their intended messages.

On the other hand, Elliot Erwitt has never produced a photo I have seen that has stayed with me for very long after viewing it, or made me really think or feel anything but a short-lived reaction.

2F/2F said:

On the other hand, Elliot Erwitt has never produced a photo I have seen that has stayed with me for very long after viewing it, or made me really think or feel anything but a short-lived reaction.

Click to expand...

What... this doesn't stay with you?

Sorry, Suzanne. Now THAT is a post card pic to me.

This is the destiny of threads Thomas. You never know where they go because we are not face to face.

Every photographer (will or should / maybe one day / maybe never) has his own language and uses the appropriate tools that fits his own language. The right camera, film / dev combo and the final print being at the end of his mental process. They are just tools.

And it's like riding a bicycle. When you are good to go... You go.
And you shoot before the subject vanishes in front of you. Shoot first think after. Sometime there is no other choice. And the more you shoot, like bicycle, the better you get.

But :

There are rules. But rules are so good to break when you know them.
There are mistakes that are magical some changed so many works and careers.
There is the tripod that I would never take on street photography but some, few, do beautifully.
It's endless.

Some care for content, some don't.
Some will fight against grain, other will not.
Some will hate lith, some will say "Lodima Praise the Lord".

It's about obsession.
You can't do anything against that.

So you ride the bike, like Franck or Adams did.
And you are on your own.

I hope I didn't derail too much. I am drunk.

G,

I think I might go on a bender tonight too...

Or, I might make a print. Or both...

I know what I want to do. I think I should just go do that.

One of the problems with referring to Adams' work as being "postcard" like is that we have seen so much of it.

I have little doubt that his work was more revolutionary when it was new, whereas by now it is very familiar.

For Adams, it seems to me the quality of the print was important to what he was trying to communicate. It was relevant to the "why" question. For Frank, maybe not so much.

On the other side of the coin, I think Adams' work suffers more than Frank from poor reproduction. Sort of like hearing Oscar Peterson on a cheap, poorly tuned apartment sized piano - it is still Oscar Peterson, but you really miss the visceral presence of that incredible left hand.

To continue the jazz analogy Miles Davis said something which I think could equally be applied to photography or any creative endeavour " You learn to play the trumpet, then you learn to play the trumpet".
For me, because that's the type of person I am, I need to feel I have a process buttoned down to be able to concentrate on a vision of the subject and how to produce that in the final output (for want of a better word) which is, for me, a print. I'm not a disciple of any particular 'system' but I want to know how the materials behave to enable me to either push or manipulate them to achieve that final print. Some don't need that type of 'control'.
I look with envy at the apug gallery sometimes and see various techniques been used to achieve the photographers vision - Holgas, wet-plate etc. - and sometimes it makes me want to try them but often, if I do, it doesn't sit right with me. The challenge for me is finding my 'voice'. It will happen but in the meantime I have to keep photographing and let the muse work her wonders......if it doesn't happen I'll have had a damn good try and enjoyed the journey.

adams and frank had a lot in common.
they both learned how to use their cameras
to show us their world.

as guillaume said, ride the bike.
stand on the seat, pedal with one foot, bare feet, put your feet
over the handlebars, give a friend a lift on the wheel pegs, stick playing
cards in the spokes, it doesn't matter ... just ride the bike.

there are plenty of ways to use a camera, no way is right or wrong,
just use it and see and enjoy the ride.

When the eye of the artist is connected to the hands of the technician there is magic. For those of us that lack the hands we must put our faith in those hands whose skills are developed to the level that ours will never be. Not to say that the hands of the technician don't have artistic talents. Just the ones at the end of my arms.

2F/2F said:

On the other hand, Elliot Erwitt has never produced a photo I have seen that has stayed with me for very long after viewing it, or made me really think or feel anything but a short-lived reaction.

Click to expand...

I was with you up until this point. You can't seriously believe that, right?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...S5RYDYUFK3U&ALID=2K7O3R14CQ3W&PN=37&CT=Search
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...2K7O3RQ5YFW&ALID=2K7O3R14CQ3W&PN=38&CT=Search
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...2K7O3RYMU76&ALID=2K7O3R14CQ3W&PN=46&CT=Search
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...S5RYDYI9O1W&ALID=2K7O3R14CQ3W&PN=50&CT=Search

Erwitt knew what he was doing.

On the other hand, let's take the Ansel side to extremes and start talking about the Westons.

Technical perfection of a pepper portrait? A pepper? People bow down to this stuff.

Ansel Adams work is rather like Salvador Dali's painting, see it in a gallery at 16 years of age and it'll blow your socks off. If it's still your barometer of excellence at 40 you need to get out more.

clayne said:

I was with you up until this point. You can't seriously believe that, right?

Click to expand...

There is nothing to believe or disbelieve. It was only an honest description of my reaction to someone's work.

Robert Frank is a trained photographer, I ... assume, that he knows very well what he is doing and that he deploys his technique to realise his visions, but so did Adams, Erwitts' remark is just stupid.

As far as I'm concerned - Photography is a technical medium, there's no denying that. And so, I have to master this technical side of the medium to a degree that allows me to realise my visions. My technique is basic, which doesn't mean that I work sloppy, I just never felt tempted to endlessly explore the possibilities of yet another film/chemistry/paper combo, to much danger of getting nowhere at all. My technique serves me, it doesn't come in the way, I know it works and so I can concentrate on what I'm shooting.

In the end, there's only the picture and I don't think that the casual viewer cares about with what camera the picture was taken and which chemistry was used to process it (unless they are photonerds, they are hopeless cases and I'm not
talking about them), but he might care about if the picture talks to him, which in turn means, that I should be able to say something about my pictures and by something I don't mean which camera and film but what intention, what's the idea behind the picture. That's more difficult than naming camera and film, and I confess, I don't why I took some of my best shots which is quite embarassing, at the moment there's only a faint, distant whisper but maybe one day they start talking to me, this will be very interesting, thrilling experience, but in the meantime I only want to go out with an open mind and have some fun while shooting.

i don't really see how the comment was "stupid" ...
there are plenty of people who aren't "wow'ed" by adam's work.
one person i met ( a professional photographer, artist and teacher )
went so far that he said adams wasn't even a good photographer and it was too bad that his work
has been considered "iconic" because it is just "technique without soul" ...

it's just an opinion ... and everyone seems to have an opinion ...

It's not the fact that he regards Frank as being superior to Adams that disturbs me (I can easily live with that), but the fact, that because of that superiority, he grants Frank and his own mind and therefore intention, while poor Adams has to content himself of only being able to balance a picture, denying him any intention.

Maybe "stupid" wasn't the right word, but to me, behind his statement there's an attitude of looking down on people who happen not to be or not to fit in his scheme of values. I admit I don't know Mr. Erwitt but that's how his statement came across, I don't like it.

The great thing is that Erwitt can say whatever he wants, and we can think whatever we want about what he says, if we listen to it at all. He is just a guy saying stuff when he really should be shooting, just like all of us.

And Erwitt's quote may not have been the most politically correct, but I believe he spoke his mind, and it was pretty thought provoking. And that's why I put it here.

I'm glad that an interesting discussion followed.

2F/2F said:

The great thing is that Erwitt can say whatever he wants, and we can think whatever we want about what he says, if we listen to it at all. He is just a guy saying stuff when he really should be shooting, just like all of us.

Click to expand...