less shadow detail mght be 'more'...

[Chuck_P]

It makes me wonder, however, if in the later prints he may have deviated from that preference.

He did print somewhat heavier in later years, no doubt, but there seems to most always be those Zone I an IX areas of his prints that are quite obvious.

 

[David Lyga]

Shawn Dogherty: First, when I said that Ansel was an academic I was in no way demeaning his work, simply that his theory was stronger than his creativity. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed, to be that way allows one to be considered (justifiably) an 'anchor' in this field: a safe harbor that allows us to compare and contrast others with because he is a 'standard' just like the New York Times is a newspaper of record.

Rafal Lukawiecki, rather than 'hijacking' this thread with your photo 'Canon X, Entrance', you have contributed. I like the black in the shadows and this is a good example of how the enhanced highlights and 'no information' blacks contribute, indeed synergize, into a feeling of, what I will call 'aesthetic anticipation'. We are DRAWN into the photo in order to 'discover'. I am a bit confused with people who you said are disturbed with that black, though.

And Michael R 1974: I do agree that Ansel's work is, as you say, 'free'. He is probably the best pictorialist ever, although many might match him. He is a 'safe' photographer, without the fluff. For example, to me at least, someone like Diane Arbus comes across as his polar opposite. To me, Ansel Adams and Yosuf Karsh are really the 'same' other than for their very different subject matter. I say this because both sought a sublimated, enhanced truth. - David Lyga

 

[Chuck_P]

He is probably the best pictorialist ever, although many might match him.

This might be another thread, but since your're the OP.................I think he may have just turned over in his grave, do you mean that when he was engaging in pictorialism so long ago, or do you mean overall in his career?

An example of an Adam's pictorialist photoraph, negative and print 1929:

http://shop.anseladams.com/At_Simpson_Meadow_p/1701010103.htm


An example of not a pictorialist photograph, negative 1948, print 1963:

http://shop.anseladams.com/Leaf_Glacier_Bay_National_Monument_p/1701092104.htm


I have a feeling he would not like to be known as the best pictorialist ever, but that is just my take on it.

 

[batwister]

This might be another thread, but since your're the OP.................I think he may have just turned over in his grave, do you mean that when he was engaging in pictorialism so long ago, or do you mean overall in his career?

An example of an Adam's pictorialist photoraph, negative and print 1929:

http://shop.anseladams.com/At_Simpson_Meadow_p/1701010103.htm


An example of not a pictorialist photograph, negative 1948, print 1963:

http://shop.anseladams.com/Leaf_Glacier_Bay_National_Monument_p/1701092104.htm


I have a feeling he would not like to be known as the best pictorialist ever, but that is just my take on it.

I understand what he's saying. I think he means in subjective and compositional terms. There might be a distinction to be made between 'pictorial' and 'pictorialist' however.

 

[markbarendt]

.............I think he may have just turned over in his grave...

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Bill Burk]

David Lyga, I think everyone's objecting to the word pictorialism, the idea that photography should emulate painting... Because it goes against everything that Group f/64 stood for. Their manifesto is clear. They wanted to make the best photographs possible as photographs and not as any other kind of art.

To give high praise is not going to draw criticism... just an unfortunate word choice...

Rafal, your work is worth linking to, it illustrates the point very well. I would be pleased to have any one of my shots look so good.

I don't know if I'll get a chance to try different films, I'm about to place an order for TMY-2... But I will be experimenting.

 

[markbarendt]

David Lyga, I think everyone's objecting to the word pictorialism, the idea that photography should emulate painting... Because it goes against everything that Group f/64 stood for. Their manifesto is clear. They wanted to make the best photographs possible as photographs and not as any other kind of art.

Yep, there was a very clear agenda, and that agenda allowed the f64 crowd, AA included, to set themselves apart artistically and commercially. They created a very powerful "artistic norm" for photography.

The other important things f64 did was provide a great way to teach photographic principles and "measure" the results of exercises. f64 principles gave hobbyists a way to compare work, compete in a friendly manner (who is best at his craft?), and it made a market for magic bullets that could get "us" closer to that f64 standard.

Pictorial work in contrast uses more abstract concepts. One of the big problems that the soft focus world faced, for example, was that amateurs had a tough time getting good results because focussing was an artistic endeavor rather than a technical one. It's pretty easy to judge sharp, it's much tougher to judge what version of the warm fuzzies will look good. (Some info on the soft focus crowd http://hdl.handle.net/10023/505 )

IMO that "f64 artistic norm" and "measurement of results to that norm" has in many ways become a creative straight jacket though, it instills the guilt talked of earlier in the thread.

Don't get me wrong here, I truly believe that the principles taught by AA are invaluable in understanding photography as a craft. I can and do shoot f64ish on occasion but I don't want to pigeon hole myself there.

 

[Chuck_P]

I can and do shoot f64ish on occasion but I don't want to pigeon hole myself there.

F64 was as much symbolic as it was anything else, IMO. So to be pigeon holed by abundant use of a small aperture, IMO, is looking at it the wrong way. The primary interest was in separating pictorialism from what the group held as its primary goal, that is to practice "straight" photography-----meaning, photography that was defined by.........."possessing no qualities of technique, composition, or idea, derivative of any other art form."----from the manifesto itself. You can find plenty of references of Adams relating that concept to "the optical qualities of the lens", letting the lens define the art of photography. To have a fuzzy or otherwise final different representation from what the quality of the lens can provide in a pure photographic image, was what the group was most about, IMO.

 

[David Lyga]

GULP! You got me there, and fairly, too. I do apologize for my hasty use of the word 'pictorialist' in a sense that is really wholly incorrect. I have no one to blame but David Lyga.

According to that mighty font of 'knowledge', Wikipedia, I abstract the following (my italics):

"...in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it."

As dubious as Wikipedia can be, in this case its definition does have merit. Thank you for leading me off the wrong road. I do hate to be wrong but, more so, I do like to be corrected from such infamy.

Ansel Adams was primarily a realist. - David Lyga

 

[markbarendt]

F64 was as much symbolic as it was anything else, IMO. So to be pigeon holed by abundant use of a small aperture, IMO, is looking at it the wrong way. The primary interest was in separating pictorialism from what the group held as its primary goal, that is to practice "straight" photography-----meaning, photography that was defined by.........."possessing no qualities of technique, composition, or idea, derivative of any other art form."----from the manifesto itself. You can find plenty of references of Adams relating that concept to "the optical qualities of the lens", letting the lens define the art of photography. To have a fuzzy or otherwise final different representation from what the quality of the lens can provide in a pure photographic image, was what the group was most about, IMO.

And that goal, IMO, is f64's artistic failing.

It encourages a technical discipline, a pure definable craft, rather than the artistic expression of ideas. That manifesto is fine for reportage/news/travel... But it rejects well developed artistic ideas that, for example, HCB employed so successfully and that cinematographers have applied so well for so long. Rules that were well developed before there was photography.

 

[David Lyga]

Look, who am I, but I do think, markbarendt, that the 'artistic expression of ideas', was, indeed, a valid component of the f64 group. They were not insensitive machines. I think that most will agree with this. Yes, Michael R 1974, even 'realist' is too limiting. Ansel was more complex and he blended the two.

I think (maybe naively) that the f64 group was primarily against 'softness' used solely for the sake of it and that they wanted to come to the rescue with their strong defence of resolution. And within that platform, they did not remove 'artistic results' and 'creativity' from their mantra. That is what made me (hastily, yes) think of Ansel in (also) creative terms.

So although, technically, I was dead wrong to call Ansel a pictorialist, there really ARE elements (subjectively, perhaps) of pictorialism in his work. Perhaps, most make the bifurcation too extreme, Maybe there should be, more correctly, a continuum needed to properly define these differences. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, using resolution to help DEFINE the creative process is neither illegal nor anti-creative, Michael. It is common sense. - David Lyga

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

This is one of the best threads I've followed for some time. Thanks, David.

 

[batwister]

Pictorial work in contrast uses more abstract concepts.

The use of the word 'pictorial' in critical writing on photography generally refers to more illustrative compositions - i.e. one point perspective, near-far, little emphasis on formal elements (no abstraction of space). Most amateur landscape photography you see prescribes to pictorial methods. 'Pictorial' means *compositional* devices derived from painting, basically.

'The Pictorialists' or pictorialism on the other hand was a movement in photography that not only used pictorial compositions, but attempted to emulate painterly, impressionistic effects through photographic techniques.

So I assume you mean 'pictorialism uses abstract concepts', but... pictorialism is only abstract *in technique* if we consider straight photography the norm. In actual fact, f/64 and Edward Weston's work in particular would have been considered abstract in its nature and thinking at the time. F/64 paved the way for formal abstraction in photography through proposing that an 'intensity of seeing' is more important than effects in technique.

Pictorialism at its core is illustrative, with the 'fuzziness' adding the mood and emotional elements.

Coming back to contrast and what Thomas said about negative space (pure black or pure white) being used as formal compositional elements - something Bill Brandt did a great deal. Although this is a product of photographic technique it has all its roots in f/64 because it is informed by seeing and in turn, the abstractions of seeing. Pictorialism had no part to play in the use of contrast as aesthetic.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Batwister, in the light of the definition of pictorial vs pictorialism, which you mentioned, and which I have seen a few times before, would you say that some of Adams's prints, say Winter Sunrise, were pictorial? At the same time acknowledging that he was not a Pictorialist.

 

[batwister]

Batwister, in the light of the definition of pictorial vs pictorialism, which you mentioned, and which I have seen a few times before, would you say that some of Adams's prints, say Winter Sunrise, were pictorial? At the same time acknowledging that he was not a Pictorialist.

I'd say nearly all of his wider views (or vistas) were pictorial. 'Frozen Lake and Cliffs', my favourite of his, is a rare exception and is often called an abstract - one of his purist results of 'seeing photographically'. There is little to take away from that picture subjectively. Winter Sunrise for me is pictorial, despite the way it's printed (with a formal impression), because I believe it is subjectively led - mountains, trees, horse, beautiful light - the composition illustrates these things fairly conventionally. The subjects in Frozen Lake on the other hand are incidental to what he's saying with that picture. The most subjective thing about it is the title.

 

[batwister]

Frozen Lake and Cliffs is my personal favourite image of his also - and it's one crap negative too.

I hope it's at the London show because the contrast of that image is beguiling. In repro, the blacks look... 'misty'. I just wonder if the that's the case with the actual print. Strange picture in every way.

Just found this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CbgZTfJz4

 

[David Lyga]

batwister: you also came to my rescue.

In slight defense of myself I say this: for 'pictorial' I was thinking of what Kodak says when it states two different development times for a high contrast film (i.e., a process film). They give one development time for 'copy' speed (much faster film speed) and one development time for 'pictorial' use (much slower film speed). Kodak means 'continuous tone' with 'pictorial' with this meaning and this Kodak meaning has NOTHING to do with the fuzzy pictures that the predcessor to the f64 group espoused. I misapplied the meaning of the word 'pictorial' in thinking of this Kodak definition. Thanks batwister for clarification. I knew that I was not really all THAT stupid but I could not think of the specific reason for my evoking that word towards Ansel Adams' work. In a slight way, I was right, but, again, I do thank all for the correction because, in this particular venue, your correction was MORE correct.

Michael R 1974: The real reason that 'nobody got pissed' is because this forum does not take place in Philadelphia. (I ought to know: 21 years here and I was a 2010 US Census enumerator!). We all are here in order to seek knowledge and we all know that admitting error is vastly more productive than the ego aggrandizement that so many seek in this sorry 'culture'. Also, the crowd on this thread is actually sane and intelligent and very mature. - David Lyga

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Which prompts me to thank you, David, and Bill, for your kind comments regarding my links.

 

[David Lyga]

The truth's the truth, Rafal. - David Lyga

 

[batwister]

And just wanted to clarify that I don't think pictorial photography is a thing of the past. Many of the large format colour neg guys unashamedly use these classic devices today, just in a different context. Traditionally of course, it's very closely conected to landscape work. It's interesting how much amateur photography is criticised for being pictorial, when the real problem is the way it is applied and what it reveals. One from Nadav Kander - http://www.prixpictet.com/assets/prix-pictet-earth-winner-nadav-kander-earth-06-690x543.jpg

 

[NedL]

This is one of the best threads I've followed for some time. Thanks, David.

Agree. I'm pretty new here but I've noticed David Lyga often starts interesting threads! This one has been fun to read.

 

[Bill Burk]

GULP! You got me there, and fairly, too....Ansel Adams was primarily a realist. - David Lyga

No problem, I knew what you meant in the first place... I just didn't want you to be completely puzzled by the oddly out of proportion responses...

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

And just wanted to clarify that I don't think pictorial photography is a thing of the past. Many of the large format colour neg guys unashamedly use these classic devices today, just in a different context. Traditionally of course, it's very closely conected to landscape work. It's interesting how much amateur photography is criticised for being pictorial, when the real problem is the way it is applied and what it reveals. One from Nadav Kander - http://www.prixpictet.com/assets/prix-pictet-earth-winner-nadav-kander-earth-06-690x543.jpg

I wonder, how would Gregory Crewdson's work be classed, imitating, or perhaps following the feel of movie still? Seems like a full circle.

 

[Chuck_P]

It encourages a technical discipline, a pure definable craft, rather than the artistic expression of ideas. That manifesto is fine for reportage/news/travel... But it rejects well developed artistic ideas that, for example, HCB employed so successfully and that cinematographers have applied so well for so long. Rules that were well developed before there was photography.

Well, I just couldn't disagree more, we obviously have different views on it.