|
|
|
-
Yes, using resolution to help DEFINE the creative process is neither illegal nor anti-creative, Michael. It is common sense. - David Lyga
-
This is one of the best threads I've followed for some time. Thanks, David.
-
I agree with Shawn. And nobody got pissed! I never imagined I'd have anything to post in the Lighting section. I assumed it was all about flashes, strobes and softboxes etc.
-
 Originally Posted by markbarendt
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.
Last edited by batwister; 11-30-2012 at 11:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.
-
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.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Frozen Lake and Cliffs is my personal favourite image of his also - and it's one crap negative too.
One of the fun things about the latest book "Looking at Ansel Adams" is you get to see some of the other shots he took at the same time, which he rejected in favour of the one we all know. Actually for a few of the images you get to see that kind of thing (contact sheet for Moon and Half Dome etc). It's a nice book.
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 11-30-2012 at 12:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.
-
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
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
-
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
Last edited by David Lyga; 11-30-2012 at 03:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
-
Which prompts me to thank you, David, and Bill, for your kind comments regarding my links.
|
|
Adv Reply
