Julie H Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 I need to apologize to Adams and Weston for (twice!) describing them as "shaping and making." I think that they did shape and make, but ... it's complicated. And interesting. Here is Minor White describing, to a student at the California School of Fine Arts, where Adams and Weston were also on faculty, camera-as-extension-of-vision (which the school advocated): Surface of print considered as clear glass.Omission of handwork, optical and chemical alteration.Composition determined by nature of subject.Reality accepted as the whole working field and penetrated.Creative activity terminated by exposure. As opposed to camera-as-brush, aka pictorialism and the like, which the school did not advocate: Surface of print included. [by which he means, as described elsewhere: matte papers, textures built into the emulsion, texture screens, fogged prints, etc.]Handwork on negative and/or print; optical and chemical alterations of negative or print. [drawing, coloring, scratching, etc.]Rules of composition deduced from academic painting imposed on photograph.Reality altered considerably by nearly any means.Creativeness continuing through printing. Continuing on camera-as-extension-of-vision, here is how they claim one should shoot pictures: " ... when there is a feeling the photographer imposed nothing, but instead let the subject matter itself generate, dictate and determine the composition out of its own shapes and relations. Thus he strives to see new balances, new solutions to the old problem." The first sentence of that sounds to me far more like Robert Frank than Weston or Adams or White. The second sentence seems to contradict the first: "solutions" is not a hands-off approach. White repeatedly says that the picture should be a crystal clear window (no surface) through which the viewer sees objects as they were, without any interference. It seems to me a strange window that has turned everything black and white. In an effort to then explain why pictures of his favored kind are anything more than a regular window, White says: "Objects in reality are looked at so intensely they become transparent to the visionary eye. A mountain stared at becomes lucid about weight after a while, becomes lucid about power slowly applied that can move mountains. Reality is not to be avoided, it is to be penetrated to its other side. Perhaps the other side of reality is exactly the world the painter seeks in his own way of altering the visual world. The camera, however, targets on reality and stops down to get beyond." It seems to me that the two sides of his description contradict one another. I don't mind this contradiction — it's one of the wonderful things about photography, but it does confuse discussion, since I think a Robert Frank or a William Klein end up being more true to the camera-as-extension-of-vision school even as they scoff at its prissy demands and claims of purity. And, I will point out, that Adams (and Weston and White) as we know, had no problem with tone and tint within the black and white print, never mind #5 in the description of purity, above. It's the surface, not the content that has to be perfectly transparent according to them. Thanks Phil for getting me to ruminate on this further and therefore causing me to look more closely at the White/Adams/Weston approach. When thought about beside Frank, they seem to be approaching the same thing from opposite sides, all of which shows, for me, the richness of the photographic means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 Do I also need to apologize to Robert Frank? You decide. This is Sarah Greenough: "... Whereas the first prints that Frank made from his Guggenheim negatives in the late 1950s were usually small in size (often approximately 8 by 12 inches), neutral in tone, and uninflected in emotional affect, the ones he created for his exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art [in 1962] were larger (most were approximately 12 by 16 inches), with a full, lush tonal range. Rich and eloquent, they reveal the nuances of light that Frank had so succinctly captured -- the humming glow of neon in a dimly lit bar, the luminosity of white cloth under an overcast sky, the throbbing brilliance of sunlight reflected on highly polished surfaces — as well as his exploitation of the different tones and textures of deep gray and black — from the suppleness of skin to the dense weight of dark cloth to the energized emptiness of voids and shadows. More moody and poignant than sharp or harsh, more sad, even elegiac, than biting or bitter, these prints suggest that Frank was attempting to prove to his critics that The Americans was born not out of hatred, contempt, or disgust, not out of desire to destroy, but rather, as he had written, out of love." [ ... ] "To celebrate the new edition of the book, Aperture organized an exhibition of sixty-six photographs ... at the Philadelphia Museum of Art [in 1969]. ... Printed by Frank and the photographer Sid Kaplan, these photographs were larger (several were approximately 16 by 22 inches) than those he had made for his 1962 exhibition at MoMA and even more lush. Because of their size, the graphic strength of the images becomes far more apparent, as details that were lost in the approximately 4-by-7-inch or 8-by-5-inch reproductions in the book assumed much greater prominence and authority and were often transformed into bold, abstract forms." [ ... ] "[Frank's] growing infatuation with film, coupled with his disillusionment with still photography and perhaps also some inattention, surely help to explain, in part, what he referred to as the "lousy" printing and binding of the 1968 edition of The Americans. Published by Aperture and MoMA, the book's reproductions were made using Stonetone, a duotone process perfected by Sidney Rapoport that attempted to replicate photogravure. However, the reproductions are not only much paler than those in the earlier editions, they are also positioned incorrectly on the page ... " "Aperture and Grossman Publishers reprinted the book in 1969, and although the images are properly aligned, the reproductions are still far different from those in the Delpire or Grove Press editions. Printed with extremely high contrast, they contain none of the details in either the highlights or shadows that had been so lovingly rendered in the gravures by Draeger Frères for the 1958 and 1959 editions. As mystery and sensuousness were replaced by blasted bleakness, many of the people depicted in the photographs were transformed into ghoulish,grotesque figures. Subtle details [were lost] ... Fluorescent bulbs and jukeboxes that had pulsated and glowed in the Draeger Frères gravures became blinding floodlights and the "holy halo" of sunlight bouncing off a chair in Restaurant — US 1, leaving Columbia, South Carolina that had so mesmerized Kerouac became little more than a meaningless, disturbing glare." "This edition of the book, however, was the one that became a bible — "An amulet," as an artist noted — for many photographers coming to maturity in the 1970s. Unable to appreciate the graphic complexity of Frank's compositions from this new edition or the tone and mood he had created, these photographers frequently looked more to the new icons he had identified, his seemingly loose, casual style, and his apparent disdain for technique. This printing also colored much of the critical appreciation of Frank's art in the 1970s and was the basis not only for comments about the "scummy tone" of his "grainy ... harshly lit ... and badly printed" photographs but also for interpretations of "The Americans as a portrayal of "sullen people, bored, phlegmatic, nasty in their emptiness," who show "the spiritual desolation of contemporary American life." It should be noted, however, that this 1969 rendition of The Americans, with its greater contrast, not only was more consistent with the gritty, high-keyed aesthetic popular among photographers of the time but also more closely approximated the gelatin silver papers that were available in the late 1960s and 1970s, which often lacked the rich, subtle tonal range of the ones Frank had used in the 1950s and early 1960s." I'll leave out the later scenes from some of Frank's movies where he shows himself power-drilling and then taking to the trash, his prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 when you search for The Americans on google (<i>right now, right here, WICA*</i>)you get nuffin' but links to a tv series. fair enough, i always thought TA was overrated unlike London & Wales and the early edge of the world stuff. <br></br> <br></br> *where i currently am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 hoo-ever, what i am interested in is the different print versions especially what prompted RF to go from the first version (well accepted) to the "lousy" 68 version to the final, ghastly sounding, tri-toned 2008 version. in particular, isn't he suggesting that those who talk about doing everything " in the best possible taste", those that suggest separating content from presentation is naff, are talking nonny-nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanJones Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Shoot In Raw, Shoot In Color , LOW ISO , Composition , When To Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 His physicality. I think he wanted to be in the print; for the print to bring him, carry him, not be anything independent of him. i thought there was something fundamentally odd with this but didn't know to describe how i felt now i do. bear wiv me, it's worth it and it has a simple, happy, binary, non NP ending…have you ever seen Superman Deux*, the one where SM's dad** punishes those BADASSES by sticking 'em in a picture frame- a 2-D space [drones on in italics] was Julie's post a compliment or a slur? * datzzz cultured for II, innit ** British English for Father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 Adams / Weston were much more concerned with the single image whereas Frank's work depends more on the syntax ( a different way of creating 'tones' ) created through the use of multiple images, with the bookformat as the work of art in itself playing a key role. That's a really good point. Just off the top of my head, it reminds me of how much Minor White talked about the book format, the series, and the space between the pictures, yet he had many strong ties to the Adams/Weston tradition of the gorgeous single print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 Phil, today's picture in my Met Museum picture-a-day calendar is this from Atget. I don't think I've ever seen it before — it's not in any of the many Atget books that I have. As usual from him, it's an amazing picture. Just picking one thing out of many, the use of the gentle slope of the pedestal with/against the pose of the foreground statue. It does seem a little bit unusual in how almost formal the composition is. the bit of railing along the bottom/front edge is so careful (and good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 i, literally, don't know about weston but adams' pics (and his books and his fame) are all about reproduceability (la meme, la meme, toujours la meme) but frank was more experimental (try anything, honey). including the presentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I do think the processing can and should stand out if the content dictates it, and in which case it would be the same thing as what I meant with 'integrated' ( and not processing for processing's sake ). of course it's integrated, ffs. but what about processing for $$$$'s sake? there was never any need for frank, or his printer, to redo TA with a new, improved, shiny look (or your money back) assuming the images were any good and didn't date etc.… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 ... and what's the difference between this: [ATTACH=full]1180612[/ATTACH] ... and this: [ATTACH=full]1180613[/ATTACH] [i know these are crummy pictures: they're used for tone/color comparison only.] I don't think these are crummy at all. Personally, I like the tonality in the bottom one. Otherwise, it will generally depend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Gray is a cool, neutral, and balanced color. The color gray is an emotionless, moody color that is typically associated with meanings of dull, dirty, and dingy, as well as formal, conservative, and sophisticated. The color gray is a timeless and practical color that is often associated with loss or depression. until recently i've always had a knee jeck reaction to b&w photography because it is so neutral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 (edited) hahahaha. please ignore ( and delete) Edited April 8, 2017 by Norman 202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted April 9, 2017 Author Share Posted April 9, 2017 these images with their sepia yellow-brown tones Phil, I expect you know this already, but I think it's interesting, so I'm going to post it. This is Beth A. Price and Ken Sutherland describing Atget's prints: "Atget produced his photographs exclusively with the 'printing-out' process — that is, the process by which images appeared spontaneously when exposed to sunlight, without the use of developing chemicals. In this technique the photographic paper, either albumen or gelatin, was placed in direct contact with a glass-plate negative in a printing frame and exposed to sunlight until the desired degree of darkening had occurred. After exposure, the print was rinsed, fixed, and washed to eliminate any excess silver salt. ... The printing-out process, which was the predominant printing method in the nineteenth century, declined in favor of the more rapid 'developing-out' process in the early twentieth century. Developing-out papers, which were made using gelatin but not albumen, required exposure to light followed by treatment of the exposed photographic paper in a developing solution to bring out the latent image. In contrast to Atget's working method, [berenice] Abbott used the developing-out process for the prints she made from his negatives." "... Based on visual examination of the [Philadelphia] Museum's collection, approximately two hundred (or three-quarters) of the Atget prints [made by him] were classified as albumen and the remainder gelatin; all of the Abbott prints from Atget's negatives were classified as gelatin." [Atget sometimes made gelatin prints] " ... Gold-toning of printed-out prints tended to change the image hue from brick red to purple-black; it was also used as a means of improving the stability of albumen prints, which are notoriously unstable and often fade and yellow over time. Consequently, almost all albumen prints from the nineteenth century were toned in this way. On Atget's use of gold toning, Abbott recalled in 1964, 'His prints were superb. I believe gold [toned] chloride paper was the type used; it had, in my opinion, a tonal range and quality superior to those obtainable today.' Atget's use of gold toning for his albumen prints in the Museum's collection was confirmed by EDS [energy dispersive spectroscopy]" "... Julien Levy, the art dealer whose collection is the source of many of the Atget photographs and Abbott prints in the Museum's collection, makes reference to experiments that he and Abbott conducted with gold and platinum toning of various papers in an attempt to reproduce the tonal qualities of Atget's prints: 'We experimented with every paper we could find ... hand-coated platinum, double hand-coated. We ended up, finally, with a semi-gold paper made by Gevaert.' Although platinum- and gold-toned Abbott prints were not found in the current study, selenium toning was detected in a number of cases, including a group of three prints that Abbott produced from a single Atget negative, Place du Tertre. These prints exhibit a brown to cool-purple quality characteristic of selenium-toned gelatin developed-out prints." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 The color/tone is the tone I included in my conception of the image before I went out to get it. It is part of the creative process of perceiving the image long before you pick up the camera to top out and capture the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now