Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,907   Posts: 1,521,424   Online: 1062
      
Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1014151617181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 278
  1. #191
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,079
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    but i do miss walking by
    hand the hatters place in boston !
    Does he also make, restore and repair fine knobs?

    Ken
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  2. #192
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,204
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    are you suggesting he invented a genre that didn't exist before him?
    if you are suggesting this, i find this hard to believe
    because he was just continuing the same sort of photography
    timothy o sullivan did a few years before him, almost photographing the same things
    and who knows maybe even the same tripod holes, like all the lovers of his work do with his tripod holes ...


    i guess the OP will return in 3 years ...
    I'm not saying Adams invented a genre - rather he collaboratively (with Weston, Cunningham, et al) gave birth and name to a style and a philosophy of photography, which was a direct response to and reaction against Pictorialism (which both Weston and Adams were practitioners of in their early careers).
    Last edited by TheFlyingCamera; 03-18-2013 at 06:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #193
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,204
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    As has been said several times above, we don't live in a vacuum, surely some exposure came early for Adams and I do agree that Adams got an education in photographic history but it also seems apparent that his inspiration came before his formal education or serious study of photography.

    Galen Rowell and Joe Buissink I think are very reasonable examples of commercially successful photographers who like Adams turned a hobby into a successful vocation.

    I believe that Rowell, Buissink, and Adams each have a couple very important things besides photography in common though. They are/were commercially astute to begin with and they each had/have passions/inspirations they wanted to share with the world.

    These guys didn't start out to be visual artists. Adams was studying to be a pianist, Rowell was in the automotive business, Buissink was studying for a Phd in psychology.

    Their artistic inspiration was driven by wanting to express/share their moments/experiences/emotions with others. Yosemite for Adams, climbing for Rowell, and emotions for Buissink. Photography in a sense for these guys was simply a convenient tool.

    The important questions after the inspiration are present tense, like "what tools and skills do I need?" and "who is my competition?" not past tense, like "what would Stieglitz have done?".
    I don't think we're talking about commercially successful photographers here - we can give plenty of examples of commercially successful photographers who neither advanced the medium nor understood a whit of art (or even photo) history. And I don't think that even academically trained artists, let alone innovators and game-changers, ask, "what would Stieglitz have done" but rather - "Stieglitz did this. I'm not going to do this, but something different...".

  4. #194

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    We're wandering off topic a bit, but I guess it depends on what you consider a "genre" to be. You'd never mistake O'Sullivan's photos for f/64 work; apart from technical differences, they don't really have that central "ain't nature grand" vibe that sort of defines Adams. The influence is obvious, but personally I wouldn't say "same genre", except in the very broad sense in which "landscapes in the American West" is a genre.



    That line of discussion was getting interesting, I thought, and I hope he didn't leave in a huff.

    -NT
    i wouldn't have said "ain't nature grande' but i would have considered adam's work to be more like the grand landscape ..
    aside from massive manipulations, at the taking and printing stage, i would suggest that the survey work osullivan did
    for the federal government, if printed in the same "full scale" way ... if osullivan had film and enlarging paper / instead of
    a tent filled with ether fumes, glass plates and cyanide ... ( to me at least ) maybe they would look pretty much the same. AND if osullivan
    was shooting dry plates instead of wet plates, he probably would have been using the system a lot of people used to manipulate
    a negative at the taking stage to get a full scale negative, which adams renamed the zone system, and people mistakenly think he invented.
    whether he had a bunch of people running around with him saying " photography should have everything in focus ( + HDR bla bla bla the rest of the f64 manifesto )"
    i don't really think is important. if you have ever seen some of osullivan's giant plates you soon realize he was probably every bit of an (anal retentive) perfectionist as adams was ... his subject matter was similar ... and well, adams and him kind of sort of shot in the same vein.
    i haven't seem much of osullivan's portrait work but i am guessing since he was also a portraitist ( from what i remember ) his portraits were
    probably stiff, mainly because of the materials, while adam's portraits were stiff because it seemed to be more of a stretch for him.

    getting back to the questions though, neither adams nor osullivan were shooting in a vacuum. they were both professionals, and well connected ....
    and would have easily known what others were up to, whether those others were dead or alive ...
    it is hard to imagine someone, even someone learning photography in the 1850s and in persia, doing it in a vacuum ...
    Last edited by jnanian; 03-18-2013 at 07:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #195

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Does he also make, restore and repair fine knobs?

    Ken
    not sure ken
    he's long gone ..

    his shop was behind the haden building ... last surviving hh richardson commercial block ... in boston's "combat zone"
    ... last i noticed he was there was in the mid 90s ...
    they re-did the hayden building around 1996-7ish maybe he left from all the construction, and
    that now the cheep-rent-red-light-district was going "upscale" ...

  6. #196
    viridari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina [USA]
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    Images
    22
    I started with a DSLR in about 2007. I bought it to take family photos, and through a strange chain of happy accidents I ended up also shooting models and getting some notice in this small town.

    A friend, a co-worker really, asked me to set aside a Saturday so he could show me a few things regarding photography. We met for beers, and he saw a few of my early works who's better qualities were more a factor of luck and statistics (if you take 1,000 photos, one or two will look pretty good). He reached into his bag and pulled out this antique camera that I just wanted to look at and admire for awhile. It was a Mamiya C330.

    We spent a couple of hours going through the operation of the camera, how to use a light meter, the sunny 16 rule, and basics of coming up with a good exposure. He let me borrow that camera for a few months, gave me a bag of random ancient expired film from his freezer, and then said one thing that changed my life forever: "Some of this work you're doing now, it reminds me of Robert Mapplethorpe".

    That's it. It was over for me as soon as I looked up Mapplethorpe. I could never again go back to life as I once knew it.

    Learning about Mapplethorpe led me to Arbus, Avedon, Newton, Weegee, et al. I started studying their works, trying to understand their techniques, and applying what I'd learned to my own aesthetic. I started reading Ansel Adams to understand the confluence of art & science. Heck, I even took some drawing classes (something I still can't do) for no other reason than to try to gain a more concrete understanding of what I see in the mind's eye so that I might capture it better on film.

    Here we are now in 2013, and I spent all day Saturday with the fellow who got me started with the Mamiya (I own three of those Mamiyas now, and they remain my favorite camera). This time I was toting around a Crown Graphic, handheld, and fired off all of three photos for an all day walkabout.

    I'm not going to say the new breed of photographers is wrong, but in the strictest sense they are mostly ignorant. I shoot film, but I also shoot more modern hardware, and my experience with film and learning about the old masters has helped me with both forms.

  7. #197
    viridari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina [USA]
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    Images
    22
    I should also point out, the term "fine art photography" has been usurped as a polite way of saying "nude model photography".

  8. #198
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,204
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by viridari View Post
    I should also point out, the term "fine art photography" has been usurped as a polite way of saying "nude model photography".
    Not really. A lot of people use that term to mean so many different things it's kind of lost meaning. Yes, nude photography that isn't blatantly pornographic often gets labeled "fine art photography" for the sake of providing a genteel cover for guys who want to stare at boobs all day. But it also does legitimately refer to Ansel Adams et al. The thing that rubs me the wrong way with the term is that it implies there is a "coarse art" photography, and perhaps a "medium art" photography, as well as an artless photography. How do you draw those distinctions? Nudes can certainly fit in all of the above, as can landscape, portrait and just about any other category of photograph.

  9. #199

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,330
    I don't get why modern young aspiring photographers should care about Capa, Adams, Stieglitz or whoever ruled in the last century or even care about how a darkroom works and how to make archival FB silverprints. They learn the trade, use of digital cameras and PS techniques from modern "photographers" who themselves only barely know the traditional techniques. when talking HDR this and that, strobism and multilayering (or what ever these all sharp insect shots are called) there is not much sence in refering to historic masters and how they squezed a 7stop ranging subject into a 4stop paper without loosing the slightest tonality. They learn from Hobby and Mcnally and other masters of this current era. They look at images posted on the web where they are readily available and why should they care what us old farts think.
    Best regards
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  10. #200

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
    I don't get why modern young aspiring photographers should care about Capa, Adams, Stieglitz or whoever ruled in the last century or even care about how a darkroom works and how to make archival FB silverprints. They learn the trade, use of digital cameras and PS techniques from modern "photographers" who themselves only barely know the traditional techniques. when talking HDR this and that, strobism and multilayering (or what ever these all sharp insect shots are called) there is not much sence in refering to historic masters and how they squezed a 7stop ranging subject into a 4stop paper without loosing the slightest tonality. They learn from Hobby and Mcnally and other masters of this current era. They look at images posted on the web where they are readily available and why should they care what us old farts think.
    Best regards
    Wow....that is like saying history classes should be dropped from all school curriculum, entirely ignorant sir.

    Except Ansel, I had no idea who any of those old masters were when I was in my teens and early 20's. But as I grew up, got more work and got better, I sought out the info for my self. David Hobby and McNally are not in any way shape or form at the level of mastery of who are truly considered masters by the way, they are mostly marketing sell-outs and will never have the historical impact of the aforementioned. They also won't have a nice print sale like Nick Brandt's 60x80 African elephant at 215K. There is a big difference between a fine art photographer and two guys who now make most of their incomes off of teaching gear laden workshops my friend....



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin