Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,212   Posts: 1,532,075   Online: 1243
      
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 157
  1. #11
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,630
    Images
    40
    Can gay photographers be straight shooters?

    Sorry, rather silly...as is the use of most lables. As an f64'er in practise, I am slowly allowing myself to use a wide-angle lens on my 8x10 that is not necessarily sharp in the corners...baby steps, but I'm getting somewhere.

    Vaughn

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    For a while, many folks tried to make their painting look like photos, regardless of whether a painting looks like a photo or the reverse, photography and painting share much of the same technique.

    I disagree w/the premise of straight versus the 'fuzzy wuzzies', a lot of what Steichen and Alvin Langdon Coburn shot had nothing to do with the 'fw'/couldn't be 'pidgeonholed' as 'pictorialism', an example would be Alvin Langdon Coburn's shot of Ezra Pound.

    Ansel Adams and Weston shot pictorials and there was nothing 'straight'/more real/closer to the truth, you get closer to the truth by shooting color than you do b&w cuz most of see in color unless you're color blind, ................................of course there's a handful of folks on these forums who are snakes so they probably ought to be shooting infrared.

    The way we see things is more akin to selective focus than the other way, and I just don't see a valid argument for any style/school being any more right or closer to the truth than any other.

    Ansel Adams waiting until the light was right wasn't any more closer to the truth than what he didn't shoot while he was waiting, what he chose not to shoot was there too. Artists/Photographers PICK AND CHOOSE, the truth isn't like that. A mountain range doesn't stop at the frameline of a photograph, not really, so what's straight about it? You get more realism by putting down a picture of a place(even if it's shot by Ansel Adams), going there yourself, looking around seeing for yourself, seeing the whole place, and then picking out what's important to you.

    We keep going over this, and the bottom line is that what's good is whatever your prefer, which doesn't validate your style/way of doing it over something else.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    'I view it as a conceit that there is any photograph that's not "pictorial."

    Promoting the illusion that a photograph can be an unfiltered document of reality is not for me. The image one creates is the result of so many choices and decisions, compromises and limitations that to point out that they are all illustrations and not strictly documentations seems like it should be unneccesary.

    Yet, it's not.'..........................

    ...............................J-Straw, SHO U RITE Couldn't have, and didn't say it better myself.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  4. #14
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I view it as a conceit that there is any photograph that's not "pictorial."

    Promoting the illusion that a photograph can be an unfiltered document of reality is not for me. The image one creates is the result of so many choices and decisions, compromises and limitations that to point out that they are all illustrations and not strictly documentations seems like it should be unneccesary.

    Yet, it's not.
    The history of Photo-Secession and Pictorialism, ala Stieglitz, and the West Coast School of photography of Weston-Adams brought forward with the "bessing" of pater Stieglitz are fundamental parts of the development and unfolding of photographic history, and the recognition of photographs as more than just a recordings of an instance in time.

    The type of photography denoted by the term "pictorialism" is well established, and has no more bearing on the abstract concept of photography than the media used.

    Belaboring the definition of pictorialism is semantic.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    "Belaboring the definition of pictorialism is semantic."

    Agreed. I prefer "romantic". "Pictorial" is an out-moded description anyway.

  6. #16
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I understand the historic definition of "pictorialsim" and how that differs from what I'm talking about. And I also realize that from my perspective, that the difference is just a matter of degree, is cultural (if not entirely semantic).

    That to me the work of Adams and Mortensen are more similar to each other than either are to objective reality might have seemed absurd to them. But that's where I'm at.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    109
    'The type of photography denoted by the term "pictorialism" is well established, and has no more bearing on the abstract concept of photography than the media used.

    Belaboring the definition of pictorialism is semantic.'..............................

    .................I don't don't agree w/that, 'well established by who?', I don't agree with what some folks call pictorialism versus what they insist to be a straight style, which is why were having this kind of discussion.

    There's been an undercurrent in all of this, a 'dismissive' quality to the tone in which a lot of folks discuss the so-called Pictorialists versus the straight folks. Most of what Ansel Adams and Weston shot, versus what Steichen and Coburn shot, and many paintings, were more similar than they were different, because they shared common technique. The difference in style of the folks mentioned above wasn't a whole helluva lot particularly when discussing landscape photography, and shooting a landscape, closing way down to increase dof, in b&w doesn't make it any less of a pictorial or straighter or closer to the truth.

    I don't care who else has some well established belief, I don't agree w/the original premise.
    Jonathan Brewer

    www.imageandartifact.bz

  8. #18
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Ok, I have heard several references to Adams, Weston, and others of the Group f/64 that were also pictorialists in how they shot some photographs. Someone provide me with an example of one of their "pictorialist" photos.

    According to the "Group F/64 Manifesto" of which Adams was elected to author, the group defined pure photography as:

    "Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist", on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts."

    Despite how one may think that pictorialism has evolved to this point in time, I still think the main connection of the 1930's pictorialism versus todays pictorialism, is the use of the photographed image, in the end result, to resemble another form of art. Even though we all know that it is a photographed image, its purity as such has been compromised. It's a photographed image, but now it also looks like something else. So, though I can't see that politics has anything to do with it (as previously mentioned) but I certainly do see that there is a definite philosophy being adhered to.

    A philosophy that also did not wish to hold any "deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows". I think it was a definite attempt to say this is how we view photography and that it is an art form in its purist application.

    Chuck

  9. #19
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,747
    Images
    52
    The first print in a recent exhibit of Ansel Adams' that I saw was an image done in 1919 in the tradition of the "pictorialists". Quite beautiful, it had that common, out of focus look of the time and genre. Many of his early, non-pictorialist prints had a softer, warmer feel to them as well. It made me wonder what would have happened if he had stuck with that approach. It is just an opinion, but I think it was in a way even more striking than the cold, contrasty, sharp as a tack look most of the world knows him for.

    Bill

  10. #20
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,465
    Images
    238
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails maroon_vase_dreamy.jpg  
    Kerik Kouklis
    Platinum/Gum/Collodion
    www.kerik.com
    2014 Workshop Schedule Online

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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