Straight Photography or Pictorialism

[Christopher Nisperos]

OK, I'll bite. I think hard-core f64-ists would consider the image below as pictorialist. What other medium am I trying to imitate here?? It is pure photography - albeit with a soft-focus lens. The optical (ie photographic) qualities of this image are not something I associate with painting or anything else.

Whether you call it pictorialist or straight photography, your image is very beautiful.

I think the underlying message of the ƒ64 group was simply that "pure" photography —which, to my mind, includes traditional photography created without the express intent of imitating another visual art-form— can stand on it's own. Period.

Your fine image follows that thought.

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[Dave Wooten]

wide open and be there

 

[Chuck_P]

Man, what a host of responses in such a short period of time. I have enjoyed reading all the thoughts, some I agree and some I don't. But that's neither here nor there.

Thanks
Chuck

 

[copake_ham]

Man, what a host of responses in such a short period of time. I have enjoyed reading all the thoughts, some I agree and some I don't. But that's neither here nor there.

Thanks
Chuck

Chuck et. al.,

This is very much where I am at reading this thread (which is a good one, BTW).

There are a lot of thoughtful comments here - some of which I endorse fully and others which raise a skeptical eyebrow - but all well presented and "mannerly".

I'm learning a lot - keep it coming!

 

[PatTrent]

Oh brother Roger, I am so with you on that! No more...

Condenser vs cold light vs dichroic
Ultimate resolution tests
Canon vs Nikon
Sharp vs fuzzy as the True Essence of Photo
Art vs Not Art
Zone System vs BTZS
Cropping or not
Best gear
Best artist
Best photo
Paterson vs Stainless
Hassy vs Mamiya

And I'm forgetting some.

Yes, you forgot some:

Kodak vs. Fuji
Ilford vs. Kodak
Selenium vs. Brown Toner vs. Sepia Toner
Acid stop bath vs. alkaline stop bath vs. water stop bath
UV-filter-protected lenses vs. bare lenses
RC vs. fiber paper
Hypoclear mixed with Se Toner vs. Hypoclear separately
presoak for film vs. no presoak
30-second agitation vs. 1-minute (or longer) agitation

. . . I must be forgetting some.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is no difference so trivial that it cannot form the basis of controversy. This includes differences that do not exist.

R.
(founder, f/63 group)

 

[jstraw]

There was an interesting piece I was reading recently about how the conventions of art are employed in the compositions of photojournalists. It was quite interesting and I thought it was on Alec Soth's blog but I can't find it now. It resonates with elements of this discussion.

Has anyone else seen it?

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

'Dear Don,

Let's announce the formation here and now of the f/63 group. Our motto shall be, "Ignore meaningless differences."

Interesting post, too. Thanks. Some I knew, some I didn't.

Cheers,

R..................


..........................Can I get in by shooting wide open and doing multiple pops???

 

[Alex Hawley]

There is no difference so trivial that it cannot form the basis of controversy. This includes differences that do not exist.

R.
(founder, f/63 group)

Quite profound Roger. I expect as much from the f/63 group founder!

 

[Chuck_P]

There is no difference so trivial that it cannot form the basis of controversy. This includes differences that do not exist.

R.
(founder, f/63 group)

Hi Roger,

I think these differences do exist but they do so at the benefit to the passionate feelings for photography and not as a petty and minor difference in point of view. I mean, we all have to get our hands wet to present a straight photograph or a fuzzy wuzzy, or whatever, which, I think, is most the most important thing to remember.

Would you agree that the real controversy would be the assertion at the beginning of this century that photography is not art, as that was the assertion of the beginning of the last century. And, that the differences that are being discussed here point more accurately to personal preference in one's practice of photography and how one would prefer it to be presented? I can't control how others view my photographs, but I can control how I present it to the viewer.

Just a thought.

Chuck

 

[Dave Wooten]

Recently in Denver I visited Hal Gould at his Camera Obscura gallery (a must). In the gallery are original Weston nudes available for viewing....they are "fuzzy wuzzy" absolutely lovely and unaffordable.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think it says something that we're still having that conversation about "is photography art" a hundred and eighty years after the first heliograph. I've already made up my mind that it IS art, and moved beyond that debate. At the point you're still arguing that, one side or the other, you're not a photographer, or an artist. There's nothing to defend or to argue - photography is what you make it. That's like saying Thomas Kinkade is not art... it's certainly art, but is it good is another question altogether.

Anne Geddes is another example- she's certainly a photographer, and an artist, but she doesn't even rise to the level of middlebrow dreck.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I think these differences do exist but they do so at the benefit to the passionate feelings for photography and not as a petty and minor difference in point of view.

Would you agree that the real controversy would be the assertion at the beginning of this century that photography is not art....

Chuck

Dear Chuck,

No, I was including the ones that REALLY DON'T exist, by any criterion whatsoever, such as exposing green before blue when split-grade printing, or using only Tri-X instead of HP5 to create Works Of Art instead of mere records.

Apart from that, yes, I agree completely, especially with the latter assertion, wherein I include "tying pig bristles together and dipping them in a mixture of ground-up earth then smearing it on wood or stretched canvas IS art, but taking a good photograph isn't".

I think I'll start a separate f/63 thread in the Lounge.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chuck_P]

There's nothing to defend or to argue - photography is what you make it.

I agree; that points to my statement about it being a personal preference as to how you practice it.

Chuck

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

'There's nothing to defend or to argue - photography is what you make it. That's like saying Thomas Kinkade is not art... it's certainly art, but is it good is another question altogether.'...............

.....................Well spoken by 'Flying Camera', and I say that to me, what interests me about any work is does it have a 'feelgood' quality/something spiritual/does it give me an uplifting feeling(and I've gotten this sometimes from work I'd personally never do in this or my next lifetime), which I quess is part of what makes any work 'good' or not.

Count me in to F63 Roger, where do I sign up?

 

[Roger Hicks]

'
Count me in to F63 Roger, where do I sign up?

In the lounge; Ed, Grand Hon. Sec., beat me to it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bjorke]

It's absurd to think that the f/64 school wasn't as manner-bound as the pictorialists they so publically despised. I can't help but think of the architecture of the same period, of Mies vander Rohe & al thinking that they were free of convention when they were just tossing-in a new set of conventions based on I-beams and glass-curtain walls.

 

[Petzi]

It's absurd to think that the f/64 school wasn't as manner-bound as the pictorialists they so publically despised.

But I like Ansel Adams' photos better than Steichen's.

 

[removed account4]

But I like Ansel Adams' photos better than Steichen's.

its funny that you say that - i was thinking just the opposite.
maybe the reason is because i haven't been "oversaturated" by
stiechen's work over the years, and no matter where i look
i see either an adams photograph, or one that looks like
it could have been taken by one of his disciples ...

 

[smieglitz]

its funny that you say that - i was thinking just the opposite.
maybe the reason is because i haven't been "oversaturated" by
stiechen's work over the years, and no matter where i look
i see either an adams photograph, or one that looks like
it could have been taken by one of his disciples ...

Ditto.

I think Steichen is either the first or second best photographer ever-lived. (Some days W.E. Smith gets the nod.) Not to deny Adams' contributions and importance to photography in general, but Steichen was da man.

I've never been moved emotionally by an Adams photograph though I have been struck by the technical aspects of several. Personally, I like Ansels' portraits much more than his landscapes.

And IIRC, one of Steichen's pics will bring a bit more coin at market. :rolleyes:

 

[Dave Wooten]

E. Atget, as early as 1901 was using sharp focus and increased depth of field...he was however certainly not the f/64 group, nor do I think he would have "bought in" etc.....I do think however he would have given Roger's F/63 group some consideration....

We must remember the politics of the art world at the time of the formation of the F 64 group also, and the influence of Stieglietz and of course Ansel's friends at MOMA...! There were numerous art salons dedicated to the photographic arts before 1900...the snobbery was among the photographic artists forming groups and declaring themselves "holier than thou" ... as mentioned by Smieglitz, the art world currently endorses Steichen's "fuzzy wuzzy" of greater historical and investor value than any photo by any f 64 group photographer....

On a personal note, I like Weston s Pepper #30 more than Ansel's Moonrise (which I also like) and I like Weston's fuzzy nudes more than the razor sharp ones he did of Charis...and I like the Pepper more than the Charis nudes.....I really like that pepper shot!....and I really like my old F 150, that s my group....I am not aquainted with Ansel's "fuzzy" photos...

 

[Chuck_P]

Ditto.

I've never been moved emotionally by an Adams photograph though I have been struck by the technical aspects of several. Personally, I like Ansels' portraits much more than his landscapes.

smieglitz,

Just making a comparison here. IMO, out of all the photographers that I have viewed, none have captured the light as well as Adams (this will really bring out the AA bashers). I really like the stuff that I've seen of others besides Adams (there are other awsome photographers, no doubt), but it's the capture of the light that has so captivated me with AA's stuff. I'll have to admit that I am a big AA fan as I'm just not put off by him as others seem to be and I have failed to ever understand the bashing that the man receives sometimes. Anyway, that aside, I am probably more moved by his more close intimate photographs than I am of the huge landscapes. An example would be on page 89 of the "Basic Techniques of Photography, Book 2" by Paul Schaefer.

Just another 2 cents worth in this thread.

Chuck

 

[Chazzy]

But I like Ansel Adams' photos better than Steichen's.

I've never figured out what I'm supposed to look at in AA's photos. I could probably count several thousand individual pine trees in some of them, but so what? Where does this obsession with resolution and redundant detail come from? I would much rather see one interesting shape in the mist than a heroic landscape (and why do they always have to be heroic?) with a million things to see and a melodramatic red-filtered sky.

 

[lee]

it has been said that Ansel really photographed weather and the landscape was where the weather was.

lee\c

 

[smieglitz]

Ansel is Ansel and does quite a good job at being so.

But, FWIW, whenever I've seen an Adams landscape print I've always come away thinking I'm looking at some sort of technically perfect NASA photograph depicting a sterile extraterrestrial landscape devoid of atmosphere and incapable of sustaining any form of animate life. There's no air there. (Except for maybe that Silverton, Colorado image.) In some you can see the recessional effects of atmospheric perspective on contrast and definition, but such things seem very incidental to his apparent intentions. The clouds and storms look pasted in place and it never really seems to snow or rain in his pictures. There may be storm clouds and snow on the ground, but that snow never seems wet or crunchy and who knows how it got there. The snow isn't cold and the light isn't warm. Adams' light is cold and clinically revealing, descriptive, but not emotional. His world is not my world and it just doesn't interest me.

Contrast that to Steichen's "Pond-Moonrise" where the air and light and colors caress. I feel the air. And there's more atmosphere and warmth in the interior few feet of "The Little Round Mirror" or "La Cigale" than there is in all of Adams' work combined.

IMO.

I wish I could remember the name of my favorite Adams print. It is of a painter seated before his easel with the light striking the brushes he holds in his hand. It is a quite masterful use of light that resonates with me much more than the cold illumination in his landscapes (though I also kinda like his Aspen images). Anyone recall the title of the painter photo? It's become quite lost amongst all the moonrises and trees.