• 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

Eugene Atget Appreciation

I don't know if I've seen the image on post 546 before or not. It is classic later life Atget. A perfect diminishing point perspective (those formal gardens were designed like that; but he took the utmost advantage of it). Hazy atmosphere accentuates the sense of depth. Perfect compositional balance. Daring blank sky giving silhouette relief to the shapes in the lower half of the picture. The signature quality of the statues surrealistically seeming alive, with the foreground one staring at the background ones as if they were about to attack. A truly remarkable image.
 

I'm kind of surprised by your take in this case.
 

Drew, what a wonderful description, I couldn't have put it better myself.
 
snusmumriken said:
No, they're not, Clive! They're mostly the marks of age and careless handling.
Click to expand...

They are still the mark of the maker and I would prefer an original that showed those marks than any pristine cropped or photoshoped image that was a distortion of the original image.
 
One find examples of both in books. Sometimes the original emulsion is so cracked and fungus ridden that there is no choice but to PS clean it up.
 
cliveh said:
They are still the mark of the maker and I would prefer an original that showed those marks than any pristine cropped or photoshoped image that was a distortion of the original image.
Click to expand...

I suggest they are the marks of the custodian. That could also be the maker, of course, we don't know how careless Atget was with his plates. But if we accept that Atget was an aesthete and not just a hack documentarian (and I suspect most of us do), do you suppose he imagined this shot with those ugly black blobs in the sky? I don't think so. I feel that if we want to understand his aesthetic, it is valid and instructive to view his photos in a discretely cleaned state - as well as warts and all. One could even argue that we owe it to him to do so. It is common practice to clean oil paintings, after all.

You may well prefer the blemished artefact, because it smacks of the era, of the hazards of glass plate photography, and the time that has lapsed since it was exposed. I understand that too, but I see nothing sacrilegious in considering the photo as Atget took it.
 
Interesting, although neither the one posted by @cliveh nor the one posted by @snusmumriken are actually the way Atget conceived the image to be seen. He made prints (if he did anything at all) on albumen and printing-out silver gelatin paper. What we have here is a way of showing what's on the print he made (or would have made). A similar digitized image of this photo, but of a different print, is on Moma.



That one has its own problems, compared to the one Clive posted. The sides are not as cropped as the first one, it features none of the edge issues (because the top and bottom are more cropped), but the print has darkened and stained.

And when we show these photos, we mostly discuss the composition and content. It's easier to discuss those things looking at the photo Clive posted than this one I just found. The version Jonathan posted is closer to this Moma print (made in 1902) in terms of content but you can more clearly make everything out. So, do we want to discuss the photo or the print, keeping in mind that the best we have here is a photo of some print out of possibly many made by him or Berenice Abbott, all of which could have been different.
 
Vintage prints and modern "improved" ones can be quite different. Atget tended to leave his plate retainer clips evident in the prints, along with his reference info scrawled on the image;
unclean borders too. He did this with an almost irreligiousness under the category of a "document". Somehow it all worked, for him at least (wannabees are another topic).

But sheer physical deterioration of many of his images must present serious challenges to those who wish to expand knowledge of his inventory. Many reference prints have been made
by others like Abbot from the original negs themselves, and others hopelessly left behind until the benefits of modern scan and PS clean-ups. Like many antique photo scenarios, maybe the modern versions do look better, but somehow lack a certain mystique and authenticity of Atget's own mood and vintage materials.
 
An original Atget warts and all are like an original Van Gogh. It has his fingerprints and spark of imagination.
 
snusmumriken said:
@cliveh , where did you source the image you posted?
Click to expand...

Off the internet, but that is seperate from the discussion about cleaning up his original images. The image I plucked from the internet was to show composition and the sense of presense and in no way reflect an original Atget or other variation shown on this thread. Some people seem obsessed with cleaning up images, cropping out detail that disturbs a pristine geometric etc. Would you want to photoshop a van Gogh to show a different hue of yellow? Some photographers just want to let nature play it''s own aesthetic Have you ever wondered why photographers like Sudek used cracked glass to make the odd contact print?
 
cliveh said:
Would you want to photoshop a van Gogh to show a different hue of yellow?
Click to expand...

Probably, yeah. You know, since it's not what the painter saw or intended, after all.

Research results REVIGO: paintings

What did Van Gogh's paintings look like shortly after he painted them? This has been researched in REVIGO. The results? Van Gogh's bright color use was originally even brighter.
www.vangoghmuseum.nl
 

No Koraks, you are talking about painting restoration, which is different to the point I'm trying to make.
 
No, I'm not. You are missing the point (you may not have actually read the link I posted, and certainly didn't understand the implications). Which is kind of ironic because on the one hand you are a purist, but when it suits you, you randomly deviate from that position with no clear logic to guide this meandering.
 
cliveh said:
Some photographers just want to let nature play it''s own aesthetic
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand what you are arguing here. Are you suggesting that Atget was literal in his photography, or just making a general complaint about people tinkering with images? Anyway, in nature there are no black blobs in the sky. [Edit: except in England’s Lake District!]

cliveh said:
Have you ever wondered why photographers like Sudek used cracked glass to make the odd contact print?
Click to expand...
Never. It seems obvious. I think the plate clips were an unavoidable inclusion in Atget’s image, though, and it seems that he (or someone) cropped them out when printing.
 
cliveh said:
No Koraks, you are talking about painting restoration, which is different to the point I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...

The link that Koraks posted was not about restoring anything. Did you even click on it?
 
Mike Lopez said:
The link that Koraks posted was not about restoring anything. Did you even click on it?
Click to expand...

Yes I did, but you don't understand what I'm talking about. Never mind it doesn't matter.
 
cliveh said:
you don't understand what I'm talking about
Click to expand...

I think people understand what you're talking about, but they don't see the validity. There are no original prints on the internet. You said you wanted to

cliveh said:
show composition and the sense of presense
Click to expand...

and a cleaned up version does that probably better than a messed up one. There is no definitive edition of these prints available to us. There may be some somewhere, but all we have is whatever someone or some entity decided to post online - we do not know what was done to the image prior to that posting. So, say Joe is the guy who originally posted the image you re-posted here. You are just taking his version - which could have been colour-corrected, exposure-boosted, sharpened, and cropped - and claiming it's Atget's original print. No - it's Joe's upload. It won't ever be Atget's print. But Joe's upload does a splendid job of showing us what that photo could look like as a print.
 
cliveh said:
Yes I did, but you don't understand what I'm talking about. Never mind it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

@Don_ih is correct. Lots of red herrings here, and I'm not even sure that you (@cliveh) understand what you're talking about. It's all over the place.
 
Well, one can get an awfully nice "cleaned up" Van Gogh poster for 15 bucks. 15 million bucks wouldn't be enough for an original, warts n' all.
 

I just saw this today. It was a very nice presentation. I just wish some of his images had been printed larger. Now I want to find a nice book of his work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register