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: 1,532,054   Online: 1228
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan King View Post
    I'm embarrassed to say that until recently I had never seen a real silver gelatin print, mainly because I haven't been into photography very long. Several months ago I went to the art museum and saw an Ansel Adams print they had (Still Life with Egg Slicer, San Francisco). I had seen it online a million times, but it was breathtaking to see in person. It looked like the print had a third dimension to it (almost holographic). It was almost as if each element in the still life appeared to be "inside" the paper at a slightly different depth. There is obviously no dramatic depth of field in the still life, so how did he get the effect of relative depth in print? Was is a contact print from a large format camera? Is it the extremely sharp detail causing this? Is it something the average darkroom enthusiast can achieve with practice?
    I think your talking mainly about fine art GSPs here. There are plenty of "historical" () and documentary silver prints around in newspaper offices (do they still exist?), museums, and people's family snapshots. My grandfather was a newspaper and armed services photographer in the early 20th Century in Omaha. His work is available in Lincoln at the Nebraska State Archives (also the Smithsonian).

    But, and this may surprise many (OK, none) who perhaps know my work, I absolutely agree with you that AA's still life is among, if not the best of his (or anyone's) fine art silver work. It is my favorite AA print, not because of its subject matter, but because of the luscious rendering of monochrome tone and light. I couldn't say whether you saw a contact print or not – that info should have been with the print, but if it was larger than 8x10, it was almost certainly an enlargement. I recall seeing a glorious 30"x40" print of it hanging above the foyer of the Mono Inn (owned by his daughter) near Lee Vining, CA, many years ago.
    Last edited by ROL; 12-20-2013 at 12:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,562
    I've collected a number of old prints by ordinary people or run-of-the-mill portrait photographers which are quite lovely, even (and especially)
    when they've bronzed or differentially faded in some special manner due to being improperly fixed or whatever in the first place. Once my dad
    and I stumbled onto some old tintypes of a bunch of naked Indians beside their bark huts and acorn stashed, and by carefully rethinking all the background distortions and landmarks relative to the primitive lens, actually was able to locate the exact spot it was taken, which turned out to be fairly close to our family ranch up on the San Joaquin. Up here in the Bay Area, a major local collector had been specializing in prints by total unknowns for decades, and recently donated the entire collection to the SFMMA, which they were eager to accept. I wonder how many inkjet prints will have that kind of appeal a century hence.

  3. #43
    smithdoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Clovis CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    125
    Ansel Adams had a good eye darkroom. Today we use filters for film Variable Contrast and changing developing time for paper. Digital uses Photo Shop all work great

    Dave



    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan King View Post
    I'm embarrassed to say that until recently I had never seen a real silver gelatin print, mainly because I haven't been into photography very long. Several months ago I went to the art museum and saw an Ansel Adams print they had (Still Life with Egg Slicer, San Francisco). I had seen it online a million times, but it was breathtaking to see in person. It looked like the print had a third dimension to it (almost holographic). It was almost as if each element in the still life appeared to be "inside" the paper at a slightly different depth. There is obviously no dramatic depth of field in the still life, so how did he get the effect of relative depth in print? Was is a contact print from a large format camera? Is it the extremely sharp detail causing this? Is it something the average darkroom enthusiast can achieve with practice?

  4. #44
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,946
    Images
    6

    He went beyond that

    Quote Originally Posted by smithdoor View Post
    Ansel Adams had a good eye darkroom. Today we use filters for film Variable Contrast and changing developing time for paper. Digital uses Photo Shop all work great

    Dave
    I think most of his prints are on graded paper. I think he used his skills to expose and develop film to create a negative that will print on a particular grade for the most part. As BW printers, we have it easy with multigrade papers. It gives us the luxury to be a little sloppy with our exposure and development with our film. All we have to do is to change grades with filters. Printers today also can also do split grade printing which he wasn't able to do with graded papers. Now digital photographers can do it in the computer. It's a different craft on the computer.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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