Late Edward Weston -- revisited

I have always thought that by the time Edward Weston started on his

Googenheim trip he was well past his prime, and that only a hand-

full of images out of the 1400 he took were of more than historical

interest. I've just come from our local Barnes & Noble where the

new Huntington Library EW book of prints (mostly from that trip) was

on the shelf. It has, without question, the finest reproduction of

B&W phtographs that I've ever seen. I think that I may owe EW an

apology; many of the very best pictures are ones which aren't

usually reproduced. It's also interesting how his vision made a

quantum improvement when he was shooting in Yosemite with St. Ansel

(nothing like a little friendly competition -- or inspiration).

This is ONE FINE BOOK!

And to-day I visited local Barnes & Noble but found a new Man Rays book instead. Although I know M. Rays work quite well I was astonished to find many new photographs I have never seen before. Outstanding avant guard pictures, definitely creative photography. I looked at one of Westons books last week and frankly could not care less about his pebbles in Point Lobos.

I must seriously disagree with you, Bill. I cannot imagine how

you can say that the reproductions in this book are the not only

the best reproductions you have ever seen of Edward Weston's

work, but the best reproductions of black and white photographs

you have ever seen.

 

I have this book. The reproductions are the not only the worst

reproductions of Edward Weston's photographs I have ever

seen, they compete for the prize of worst reproductions of black

and white photographs in all books purporting to be fine books.

 

Paula and I will be on press next week with a big new Edward

Weston book. We have spent countless hours comparing

600-line screen quadtone press proofs (the best printing

humanely possible today--much better than 10-micron

stochastic printing, etc.) to the originals. On a number of

occasions, we have gone to museums (even flown to them) and

have gone to see extensive private collections to compare the

press proofs to the originals. No one, including us, has really

looked at a photograph until you have compared it to a high

quality press proof. When doing such a comparison, we

scrutinize the print for degree of contrast, degree of lightness or

darkness, degree of visible detail in highlights and shadows,

degree of mid-tone separation, print color, and probably many

other things that I can't think of off the top of my head. It takes

about 10-15 minutes of exceedingly close and careful looking to

do this properly. What makes it interesting is that the press

proofs we have made are done by the best printer in the world of

black and white photographs--Salto in Belgium, and at first

glance, and even at second and third glance, these press proofs

are virtually indistinguishable from the originals. So please trust

me on this. I am not an expert in many things, but book

reproduction of black and white photographs, particularly

reproductions of Edward Weston's photographs is one of them.

 

What is wrong with the reproductions in the Huntington book?

Mainly they are too shrill--too contrasty. Except in a few cases,

they look nothing at all like Weston's photographs. One major,

very major, problem is that in almost every reproduction the

highlights are blown out. There are big blank areas. Weston

NEVER printed with blown out highlights. One reproduction was

so bad that it was an embarrassment to look at it--something I

have never felt before when looking at a reproduction of a

photograph.

 

I do not say any of this because I want people to buy the book we

are publishing (although I surely hope they will). I say this

because I feel strongly a responsibility to Weston's work and am

careful that it not be misinterpreted or seen improperly.

Obviously I can't do anything about the Huntington book, but I can

advise people that the reproductions are nothing like the real

thing. That, by the way, is not a reason not to buy the book. There

are photographs reproduced there that have not been

reproduced elsewhere and if anyone is interested in Weston it is

a worthy book to own.

 

Other: I also cannot understand your comments about Weston's

work making a quantum improvement when he was

photographing with Ansel. It is the other way around. Adams'

best photographs, by and large, were made between 1937 and

1944, more or less--those times when he was most close to

Weston. Weston's mature vision began to coalesce when he

was in Mexico. It grew during the still life and nude periods of the

late 1920s and early 1930s, and then became more complex

and deeper throughout the late 1930s and 1940s.

 

Dody Thompson, Weston's last assistant, who is writing for our

book (a revision and expansion of the best thing ever written

about Edward Weston-- her writing in the Malahat Review) wrote,

"Ansel [Adams] reveals the beauties of nature that the ordinary

man sees but cannot express. Edward reveals what no one has

seen."

 

Michael A. Smith

Michael, I have been looking forward to your EW book, knowing that LODIMA Press reproduction is always wonderful,and absolutely state-of-the-art, (as well as having you select the images). I can't believe that your copy is from the same press run -- this one is as good or maybe even better than my Cole prints from EW's negatives.

Its not about print quality -- emulsion is NOT emotion!!!!

 

That being said, I'll look out for the latest and greatest Weston book--sure he could print, but most importantly, he could SEE!!!!!!

Yes, of course Weston could SEE. If it couldn't it wouldn't matter

how beautiful his prints were--the pictures would be dead and

boring things.

 

But if Weston was not an excellent printer, his vision would not

have the power it does.

 

There needs to be both: seeing comes first, then the printing. But

since Bill's main point was about reproduction quality, I dealt

with that.

 

Michael A. Smith

For anyone traveling through Tucson in the next few months, tomorrow begins an exhibit of "Weston & Mather" at the Center for Creative Photography (Monday, July 21 until some time in October). It is located on the University of Arizona campus near Speedway & Park Avenue. The CCP has many of Weston's negatives, along with Adams and a good number of other well known photographers. Admission is free.

 

I'm looking forward to this display. There really is nothing like seeing the original prints by an artist's own hand. Last year's "Adams at 100" was a great show. It also included his 8x10 camera.

Smith, are you aware of how arrogant you sound? Not an encouraging trait in a book editor/publisher.

Actually, I think Weston's late work is incredibly under-rated. He is remembered for work from his earlier period e.g., his shells and vegetable still lives etc but in many ways I think it represents more the fact that it was a convenient mental cubbyhole for folks. The book, "Edward Weston: The Last Years at Carmel" is another nice book and does serve to disabuse one of the notion that his best work was behind him - Minor White compared the Point Lobos prints to Beethoven's quartets. The picture are freer than his earlier Modernist images that he is famous for and I guess that was the problem for most folks - it didn't fit their mental picture of a Weston image, strongly seen, tightly composed, formally framed etc etc. But as an artist and a person, he had travelled beyond and was exploring a lot of new ground. And all the stuff (seeing, composing, framing) is still there, just more subtly woven.

 

Reproduction quality is quite important in viewing Weston's work (or any work for that matter). I obtained a used copy of "California and the West" and the printing quality left much to be desired. The book was interesting - Charis's writing alone would make it interesting, but there is the extra thrill of reading about what really is something of a grand adventure. Weston's seeing is always appealing, but it was only later when I chanced upon a used copy of "Weston's Westons" which had much better quality reproductions that I really came to appreciate the seeing that much better. Good reproductions make you spend time with the image and go beyond a superficial appreciation of the image - a poor reproduction might give you a superficial level of appreciation for the seeing but it just does not encourage the kind of scrutiny that yields deeper understandings and appreciation.

 

Cheers, DJ

I, too have California and the West. I've often thought the reproductions looked dark and murky. Maybe Smith will get it right.

Philip: If I were to take perfect pictures like Michael & Paula, I would probably feel arrogant too, just as I feel the need to criticize, when I see the original EW prints poorly reproduced in a book. Since, he is publishing a book with perfect reproductions and as close as possible to the EW originals (he saw them). I'll be waiting for his book at the local Borders.

I have to agree with Michael on this one. The reproductions are far too contrasty and bear little resemblance to the scale of an EW print.

 

That said, the book deserves a place in a Weston collection.

Merg, I'm sorry that you and Michael apparently got bad printings; mine is superb (except for the dustjacket pictures).

I'm curious, Philip Glass, what in my response did you find

arrogant? We're you referring to my comments about book

reproduction? If working hard to learn something and then

knowing it (book reproduction in this case), and being willing to

state what I know, then I'm guilty as charged.

 

Or were you referring to my comments about Weston's late work,

about which I happen to know something, too--also because of

hard work and lots of time spent?

 

I'm truly curious about this. I wrote about some of the time Paula

and I spent working to get the Weston book reproductions right

so that my opinion on this would have some weight and

substance to it. I wrote what I did to answer in advance the

objection," Well, that is just his opinion."

 

Everyone has a right to their opinion and a right to state it. But not

all opinions carry equal weight. Many opinions stated in this

forum are uninformed ones. Well meaning, but uninformed. My

opinion here is informed. I would assume that those reading this

forum would prefer to get informed opinion when possible-- in

the same way that if one were deathly ill and went to see a

doctor, one would expect to get an informed opinion from

someone who knew medicine, not an opinion from a person

who had medicine as a hobby--although, yes, it is possible that

the person whose hobby was medicine might just know as

much about particular things as the doctor.

 

I only respond to discussions about which my opinions are

informed. I do not write about lenses and cameras and other

technical things about which I really know very little. Sorry if it

sounds arrogant to you when I write about something I know a

lot about, but I'm not sure what I can do anything about that

except disappear from the forum. In my writing and when

speaking, I call them as I see them. I do not try to win friends or

be Mr. Nice Guy. From me you will always get a straightforward

response. Of course, you may disagree with me all you like.

There may be times, there undoubtedly are, when I'm wrong

about something. In that case I am happy to be corrected since I

love learning even more than teaching.

 

Michael A. Smith

 

P.S. I think you just might be referring to my comment that the

printer we use is the best in the world, for surely that statement

sounds arrogant on the face of it. In saying that I am not only

stating my opinion, but I am quoting a printer who was the

production manager for Aperture for many years, who before and

after that owned his own photography book printing company,

and who printed many award winning books. He was so

impressed with my last book, "The Students of Deep Springs

College," the first one of ours printed by Salto, that he went to

Belgium and spent a week with them. When he returned he told

me and Paula, "You are right, they are the best printers in the

world." I just can't help it if I know people like that.

If you live in or are visiting Southern California, the Huntington Library is running the Ed Weston exhibit through October 5. I went yesterday. HL is showing 150 of the 500 prints that Weston gave to the Huntington. It was definitely a good and large exhibit, but my two chief complaints are the lighting and print sizes (nothing can be done about the print sizes, though); none of the prints exceeded 11x14.

 

The exhibit should not be missed. Here's more: http://huntington.org/LibraryDiv/Westonexhibit.html

Michael,

I look forward to the EW book also. I'm certain it will have superb reproductions. It's rather unfortunate that your well-intended efforts are misunderstood on this forum, this and the Azo incident. That said, my book project is still in progress and when I'm at that respectable point of publishing, I would like to consult with you first and foremost. Thanks, Henry

Bill, should you happen to have access to a copy of Edward Weston/Fifty Years (Aperture, 1973) please compare those reproductions with the Huntington book. I believe you will see a pronounced difference, Aperture being more faithful to the original prints. Pay particular attention to the highlights. Regards.

i have worked for many years as a book designer specialising in illustrated books i am based in spain. i have worked on projects for institutions such as the metropolitan museum of art, moma and many more and have produced hundreds of "fine art books".

 

i believe that photomechanical reproductions of photographs are not the original photographs, they are something else. so reproducing an 18 x 24 weston in say a 6 cm wide column on a specific paper stock may need a wee bit more contrast.

 

i have the huntington book, it is contrasty, not to my taste, but if you are not farmiliar with westons work and are not on a crucade to save the world from less than perfect reproductions, well it could be worse and to the normal photo book buyer (to wholm this book is of couse aimed) it looks good.

 

michael of course sounds arrogant because of the "finest 600 dpi" repro and the "best printer in the word" lines, you can of course reproduce exquisitly in 200 dpi duotone, and there is no "best printer of b/w work in the world", but if thats your particualr "tic" than well thats fine by me, i prefer things a bit more flexible, there is a spanish saying "perfection is the enemy of good".

When last I visited my friend Paul Paletti in Louisville, Kentucky, we walked through his gallery where he was at the time displaying about 30 of Paula Chamlee's prints. In my opinion, these are the finest prints he has ever displayed. We took a copy of Paula's book, Natural Connections, and held it up alongside each of the prints which were in the book. No comparison. The reproductions are marvelous, among the finest publishing I have seen, but emotionally they amount to a gentle tap on the shoulder whereas the originals are like being whacked across the forehead with a two-by-four. In Paul's words "The reproductions just don't 'pop' like the originals".

 

So I am REALLY looking forward to the EW book. I have heard Michael make many extravagant claims in the (too) few short months I have known him. Upon checking out those claims which I could, for whatever reason, verify, I've always found that he never makes a claim he cannot back up. This EW book must be technically leaps and bounds ahead of Natural Connections, which is a stunningly beautiful publication.

I took a careful look at the book again. There are many of the

photographs that are reproduced okay and some are even pretty

good, although they look more like reproductions of Ansel

Adams prints than reproductions of edward Weston prints. It was

the ones with the blown out highlights--and there are a goodly

number of those--that seriously compromised the quality of the

book, and perhaps skewed my perception of it as a whole.

 

I have been asked, "Which plate was the one where the

repoduction was too embarrassing to look it." Plate 52.

 

Michael A. Smith

When we visited the Hungtington today, we had trouble seeing the print quality of the original EW prints. The prints appeared as though they were made for display in bright light.

 

On a table in the middle of the show was Huntington Lib's new book. The book's versions were "juiced up" a great deal - contrast, blacks, and well, whites too. Some of the originals appeared to be fading somewhat.

 

The book's versions did wipe out highlight details, although some of the original prints seemed to lack some highlight detail too. For a coffee table book, the Huntington book will probably be very popular. As a reference to how a Weston print actually looks, it is useless if one is looking at the print aspect of the photograph.

 

In some of Adams' books, a reference is made to his supervision of the printing process. If only it were possible to get EW's approval for a printing - then we would know his judgement concerning reproduction. We also don't know (someone tell me if they mention it) whether Weston's prints at the Huntington were deliberately soft for reproduction.

 

I left with an odd mix of feelings. His images were terrific, and even more so at the time they were made. The book publishers may have tried to compromise or "modernize" the look so that it would sell better with the general public.

 

The message I got was to look beyond the technical and see the vision. There is something magic about the "real" thing that a book might not ever capture. Also, both the book and the originals show the composition/subject matter, so all is not lost.

 

To the credit of the Huntington Library book, since the Huntington gallery lighting was so poor, it is easier to see the more moderate values of the photographs in the book than in person. Some other people looking at the book commented on how much "better" the images in the book looked than the genuine prints above the book on the wall.

 

If just for the walk on the beautiful grounds, or to really see what a few of Weston's photographs look like 62 years after they were made, make it over to the Huntington Library in Pasadena if you can.

 

Perhaps someone can find a writing from Weston regarding reproductions, or some work notes, images and plates? Was Weston ever involved in a publication directly?