I personally prefer one subject matter on one negative presented on one print.
I am using this springboard to remember the incredible Don Hong Oai, a Chinese photographer who lived in Vietnam for many years before coming to California in the 1970s. He printed amazing landscapes reminiscent of Chinese ink scrolls, that he created from multiple negatives.
A brilliant artist RIP.
I'm not saying the below quotes are authoritative, only, it just seems a pretty simple concept to adhere to. So, AA, in his autobiography, writes:
"Group f/64 became synonymous with the renewed interest in the philosophy of straight photography: that is, photographs that look like photographs, not imitations of other art forms."
I love Ansel Adams, admire a lot of his work, but I have to say, "photographs that look like photographs" has got to be, in retrospect, the most absurd, nonsensical statement ever uttered about photography. A photograph can only look like the thing photographed, to paraphrase Winogrand, and I certainly hope that that's what Adams meant.
I love Ansel Adams, admire a lot of his work, but I have to say, "photographs that look like photographs" has got to be, in retrospect, the most absurd, nonsensical statement ever uttered about photography. A photograph can only look like the thing photographed, to paraphrase Winogrand, and I certainly hope that that's what Adams meant.
What Adams couldn't (or didn't want to) see was that the medium contained within itself possibilities which, through exploration and experimentation, would lead to the development of new art forms that had nothing to do with existing art forms. One can point at the development of abstract photography in the 60s and 70s, but that Adams would write such a statement at a time when people such as Sudek, Man Ray or Moholy-Nagy were starting to explore the possibilities of the medium shows that there was a bit narrow-mindedness at work, or, at least, an ignorance of what was going on elsewhere (understandable in a context in which information wasn't as readily available as today).
I like his work especially the Chinese lettering that he adds to the print. Don't now what it says maybe someone else here does.
Ansel was referring to (and rebelling against) Pictorialist imaging...photos, heavily allegorical, soft focus, heavily retouched (Mortensen), or using artistic printing techniques like Bromoil, Gum Prints, etc. (think Robert Demachy, early Steichen, etc.).
Taken in that context, "a photograph that looks like a photograph" just means 'a photograph that isn't trying to emulate a Salon painting'.
Ansel was referring to (and rebelling against) Pictorialist imaging...photos, heavily allegorical, soft focus, heavily retouched (Mortensen), or using artistic printing techniques like Bromoil, Gum Prints, etc. (think Robert Demachy, early Steichen, etc.).
I can't answer for Ansel or f64...but it might be determined by subject matter or treatment.What about Autochromes? They are often soft in focus simply due to subject movement required by the long exposure times and the nature of the medium.
Exactly my point. Seeing things in a somewhat manichean manner, straight photography vs pictorialism, was a bit narrow-minded. Surrealist-inspired French photography, Bauhaus-inspired German photography, formalist-inspired Russian photography were already taking the medium places that had nothing to do with either pictorialism or what f/64 were doing. In that larger context "a photograph that looks like a photograph" is meaningless.
Bingo. Steichen. Highest price ever paid for a photo so far was for an verrrrry pictorialistic-style Steichen. Yet he later became a very conspicuously "black is black, white is white", "sharp is sharp" silver gelatin printer. If anything, Steichen was versatile, and proved that one can indeed between of jack of all trades, yet at master of several of them too. And yes, he too put together some very influential shows of other photographers.
35 years ago, on a lark instigated by my sister after I broke up with my girlfriend, I placed a personal ad in New York Magazine in the dating section. There was no social media online back them. This was a way for people to meet. So I got about 200 letters at least half with pictures which made it somewhat easier to decide who you might want to call and date. The twentieth girl I dated eventually became my current wife of thirty years. Go figure.
She had enclosed a photo of herself that had been cut vertically through the picture so only she remained in it. There obviously was some person who was standing next to her in the part of the picture cut out. I assumed it was an ex-boyfriend. But I was attracted to her and didn't want to get too inquisitive. So I kept my mouth shut. Later on I found out it was her girlfriend in the picture. My wife told me she didn't want me to mistake her girlfriend for her. So now I'm thinking. Was that a straight photo? Dishonest? Altered? Improved? Clarified?
Here's my take on the Flatiron building. What style would you call it?
Here's my take on the Flatiron building. What style would you call it?
A snapshot without style.
It's not a snapshot if it's in black and white.
Here's my take on the Flatiron building. What style would you call it?
It's not a snapshot if it's in black and white.
Of course. Only hipsters shoot black and white.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?