Big Cypress National Preserve 1: WEEKLY DISCUSSION #5

<p>Having lived in southern Florida since 1958, it seems 
appropriate for me to have selected one of Clyde Butcher's images for 
this discussion. Please use the following link to view it. 
</p>

<p>http://www.clydebutcher.com/uploaded/BigCypressPreserve1-L.jpg</p>

<p>Butcher is known primarily for his landscape work, using a large 
format bellows camera, and for good reason. The selected image
 displays all of the drama and passion found in the Everglades, in this
 case, the Big Cypress Preserve. Its contrasts are bold and its 
perspective takes in a huge swath of a swampland area. I really like how the dark edges frame and highlight the center.</p>

<p>
Hopefully this image will inspire and promote some good discussion.</p>

Shades of Ansell Adams, but a bit too central a focal point.

I like the tones and the reflections. If it were my image, I would crop each side slightly - crop about half of the tree on the

left and the same amount on the right. When I do this with my hands in front of the computer screen, it looks like a more

complete image.

<p>Looks a right mess to me, a jumble of tones without clarity of form.</p>

<p>Further to JC, this little jpg almost certainly does not do this print justice. The tones appear considerably posterized, at least on my screen. I bet this would be very impressive as a 16 x 20 silver print.</p>

<p>Butcher broke the 'rules' with this image, and a lot of its energy comes from that. It actually gets a lot from the centrality of the composition and the symmetry of the reflections.</p>

<p>The contrast adds a lot, too, and it looks like a 25 red filter was in the light path. (I expect to be attacked for talking about gear!) It reminds me of Adams's story of previsualizing Half Dome, when he shot 'Monolith' in the 1920s. He had one sheet of film left, and he visualized that he needed big contrast to get what he 'saw', so he dug out a red filter, and got a near-black sky.</p>

<p>This image doesn't look very Adams-y to me, other than it's a black-and-white landscape with the full range of tones. Adams would have made a different photograph from this scene. I think, anyway. We can't exactly ask him.</p>

 

<p>Don't get it at all, I'm afraid. To me its simply not a good photograph, and it seems devoid of intent or point, and my eye is drawn too much to the clouds; the rest of it seems just a jumble. I've a sneaking regard for the ghost in the clouds looming over the trees, thats all.</p>

<p>I agree with Dan about the need for cropping out the tree on the left, but would crop a portion of the dark area at the bottom, and leave the right side as is. I would also brighten the shadow areas just slightly. (Actually, I just did all that, but I won't post the result lest the moderator gnomes come after me... :-) )</p>

<p>Do I like the shot? Not especially. If the clouds are the subject, I think they should have been isolated more. If the trees are the subject, they should be more prominent in the frame. And, the red filter effect works well with the sky but not the foliage...</p>

<p>JC, granted the darkness around the edges doesn't do much good when it comes to form. What about the trees in the center, though? </p>

<p>If you put a white frame around it and step back a bit, also visualizing it as a 16x20 silver print, it looks pretty good. To me the reflections stand out being reflected in the water. However, the same clouds in a large flat lake or ocean with no trees would have been more dramatic! He had no choice though, he was there and there were the clouds. How many of us make a photograph because of some element of the landscape is fascinating, even though we can't control the entire scene. You never know, sometimes it turns out better than expected, and if you don't take the shot you don't have anything.</p>

<p>I think that the image as presented <a href="http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wgcu/files/201310/ftmdc5-69oq7ngnog6xsi0zge3_original.jpg">here </a>is a lot more like what you might see in a print. I rather like the centered composition, and the dynamic way the clouds seem to approach the viewer. More later.</p>

<p>The explosion of cloud forms mirrored in the water would make for a powerful enough photograph. But, at least in this online JPEG (which I'm assuming demonstrates Butcher's intent, since it's on his website), the heavy handed edge burning and vignetting effect seem excessively manipulative: "Look here and nowhere else. See only what I want you to see." That impression is modified only slightly by the much better scan (or, perhaps, different print interpretation) in the version to which Les linked.</p>

<p>I can accept that type of manipulation and direction of the viewer's attention in prints by Michael Kenna and Rolfe Horn, who have mastered the spare art of visual haiku. But in this particular Butcher photo the heavy handed edge treatment makes the photo appear more cluttered rather than less. The edge burning/vignetting itself becomes an element, rather than clarifying the photo by minimizing edge distractions - particularly the tree at left. It's a clumsy effort at legerdemain. Had I not known it was a Butcher print, I'd have guessed it was the work of an enthusiastic intermediate photographer who had mastered the technical art of darkroom printing but not the aesthetic sensitivity to use such magic carefully and sparingly.</p>

<p>I find myself wondering what this print would look like as a square, with the edges cropped to eliminate the distractions that, it seems, Butcher tried to minimize through vignetting.</p>

<p>It is certainly better seen with the link Les posted and i agree with Les analysis. I find the image memorable to an extent, because the composition tends not to resolve easily and so stays in the mind. Each side is fairly symmetrical but in conflict with that there is a central point of interest. So the central tree group create a static element while the clouds create an unresolved duality which adds a dynamic feel. <br /> Having said that I am not that keen on it as to me it feels rather cool and contrived.</p>

<p>Personally, I wish that he had another version without the sawgrass in the reflection of the Cypress trees. For me the sawgrass is distracting. It stands out more at the larger version on his website. He has other Florida images at his site that I like more then this photo. http://www.clydebutcher.com/</p>

<p>Perhaps a five or ten minute look at his portfolio is not really fair to the man, but I find that most of his images, this one included, contain too many elements to interest me. As an example, his contrasty yellow or orange (or sometimes red-) filtered skies with bright clouds add too much detail (and distraction) in respect to their co-existence with multiple other elements in the scene. In other scenes we may admire the general composition but end up focussing on too many elements rather than being carried by an interpretation of some principal subject. I know there is a demand for this type of high resolution, realistic, multiple element and detailed, but often that I find soul-less, B&W photography, and I wonder what he has found that is so intriguing, other than nature's complexity in these wide vistas, that is being shown to us.</p>

<p>He appears to be a very fine photographer, as far as the mastery of negative and print exposure goes, something I struggle with in order to realize that in the consistent manner he does (I do presume he does his own darkroom printing). His prints probably have a lustrous and beautiful look and are no doubt printed archivally on quality papers, but is that enough in itself? I am left a bit cold in attempting to seek emotional, enigmatic or deeper messages in regard to his subjects in his landscape art.</p>

<p>One other reflection, though, is that he probably shows some landscapes (e.g., Florida shots) as more beautiful or impressive than they would otherwise appear in color.</p>

<p>He certainly doesn't worry about capturing the details in the shadows. His photos are dramatic - big blacks and big whites. Since he charges thousands for his larger sizes, he must be doing something right. </p>

<p>What's intertesting is that he apparently does crop. If you look at his price list for this photo, the sizes are different formats.<br>

<a href="http://www.clydebutcher.com/image/27">http://www.clydebutcher.com/image/27</a></p>

<p>For me, the overall style of the photo fights the content. The content is pretty wild, the everglades, a little messy, unkempt. That can make for a good photo, for sure. But why the classical, high contrast, elegant approach in terms of the the black and white and general style? I see this photo as somewhat of a disconnect. The style seems to be unconscious of the subject matter. </p>

<p>Arthur. You're right about FLorida. Although I don't live there, I've visited family there for years. There are more interesting things to photograph underwater than above. It's flat and faily boring above the surface. The big thunder heads are the main thing that provides for drama like a big mountain would elsewhere. That's why they're in so many of his shots. The big blacks and big whites combined with big views he favors with his wide, wide angle lens add to that vista. I haven't seen his photos live, but the big prints probably draw you into the scene to get lost.</p>

<p>Darn, I drove right past his gallery last March while on a road trip from my home in NW Florida, to the glades. Would of liked to of stopped by to check it out, but had not really heard of him until a couple of months ago. Great location: "The gallery is situated on thirteen idyllic acres in the heart of the Everglades surrounded by more than a million acres of wild park lands." From looking at the satellite view, he can just walk out his door and be surrounded by photographer's heaven in every direction.<br /> Big Cypress Gallery, 52388 Tamiami Trail E, Ochopee, FL <br /><br />If the map link does not work below, then just google the name & address above and click to maps/satellite view. https://www.google.com/search?q=52388+Tamiami+Trail+E%2C+Ochopee%2C+FL&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"(I do presume he does his own darkroom printing)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Butcher's darkroom work in and of itself is an impressive accomplishment. Working in large format film *and* making huge optical enlargements make him among a handful of photographers still pursuing that method.</p>

<p>Recently social media have been circulating a snapshot of Clyde early in his large format printing process, having to wash the big prints in his swimming pool because he didn't have anything else large enough!</p>

<p>If I could afford it, I'd collect his photos. Just not this particular photo. I do like others of his. I spent a few childhood years around the deeeeep Georgia/northern Florida swamp, the Okefenokee of Pogo lore, so the imagery appeals to me.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that he used a red filter to darken the blue sky and increase its contrast against the clouds. I love the look of TMax, and I love the high contrast that's available with B&W film. Digitally captured B&W images always look gray on gray to me - never enough contrast.</p>

<p>The centered cluster of trees looks fine in my opinion. The composition would look forced and awkward if the trees were offset. I still like cropping the sides to make the proportions closer to an 8x10 aspect ratio.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I spent a few childhood years around the deeeeep Georgia/northern Florida swamp, the Okefenokee of Pogo lore, so the imagery appeals to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>"We have met the enemy and he is us</em>."</p>

 

<p>Doesn't work for me. It's overprocessed, too dramatic and is merely a cliche of a certain Ansel-Adams-Style. A good landscape photography should tell me something about the landscape. But this doesn't. I've never been to the Everglades, but in this shot it looks much like any other lake.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd have guessed it was the work of an enthusiastic intermediate photographer...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. It looks like something I'd have shot. And I'd be unhappy with it because</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me the sawgrass is distracting. It stands out more at the larger version on his website.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm unable to determine the actual subject of the photo.</p>

 

<p>Well, one thing we know for sure: Criticism is much easier than creation... ;-)</p>

<p>I've never heard of the photographer, so just on first glance at the posted image (and Les' larger version) I'm not getting an intent as to what Butcher wants us to appreciate or take away from the image. It looks like an underexposed regular tourist snap shot tastefully tonemapped "Ansel Adams" style.</p>

<p>Is it meant as a texture study and/or abstract approach to depicting the wildness of the Florida everglades?</p>

<p>It's about as busy and ambiguous as a Pollock painting. I don't even think capturing that scene in color would say something new that hasn't already been said. I've got some shots of Kerrville, Texas undeveloped back country that are just as compelling and in color.</p>

<p>I've got a background as an art director for ad and print industry and I don't get what's being communicated.</p>