WEEKLY DISCUSSION # 27 – Hill and Adamson - Scottish Fishwives, Washaday Group.- c1843

[colin carron]

<p>I explained to Fred that my interest in early photography might not fire much enthusiasm. He agreed - but said the variety was good so could I go ahead anyway? So this discussion is based around a photo which in many ways doesn't bear comparison with modern photos but nonetheless is part of a major art collection. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the photo whatever they may be......</p>

<p>.....imagine a time when photography has only just been invented. What are the possibilities of photography? How will it change the world? Can a photograph be art?</p>

<p>Early photography was difficult. Apart from the messy chemistry the photographer had to guess exposure times which were much longer than we are used to. At this early stage an average exposure was about 60 seconds though in bright light a 10 second exposure might be long enough.</p>

<p><strong>David Octavius Hill</strong>, a Scottish artist, was commissioned in 1843 to paint a huge group portrait of 450 people so he asked engineer and photographer <strong>Robert Adamson</strong> to help him. They worked together until Adamson's early death in 1848. They used the 1841 calotype process which made soft, textured images, rather than the sharper 1839 daguerreotype process. As well as portraits for the group painting they also took many photos around the Edinburgh area. They had no commercial studio and seemed just to choose subjects - mostly people - which appealed to them. They photographed friends and street scenes, soldiers at Edinburgh castle (trained to stand still) and the relatively remote world of the fisherfolk of nearby Newhaven. The idea here was that any money raised from these Newhaven photos would go towards helping the fisherfolk. It is one of these that is the subject for this week's discussion :<br /> <a href="http://museum.cornell.edu/collections/view/scottish-fishwives-washaday-group.html">http://museum.cornell.edu/collections/view/scottish-fishwives-washaday-group.html</a><br /> This image is taken in a light bright enough for standing figures to be attempted. However the blurred faces and occasional bits of double inage show that this was still pushing the limits.<br /> <br /> It is over 40 years ago that I first saw Hill and Adamson's distinctive, grainy images but their work has stayed in my memory like few others. To my eye they created photos with a sense of life and humanity which shines through the limitations of their primitive photographic process. They were among the first to consciously treat photography as an art medium. Perhaps because Hill was himself an artist their work tended to retain more echoes of the established world of painting than that of their contemporaries. And rather than seek the last word in detail or realism they sought to achieve expressiveness.<br /> <br />Here is more on the detail of how their photos were produced :<br /> <a href="http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/calotypeprocess/">http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/calotypeprocess/</a></p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

[Julie H]

<p>Colin, I'm setting aside the 'art' issue that you raise, and going to why this picture, and pictures of this kind in general, impact me (and possibly you?) so profoundly and immediately.</p>

<p>Swagger.</p>

<p>If you approach a group to which you are a stranger or outsider, say a group of little kids, or a gang of teenagers, or a go into a neighborhood of different ethnicity (than you), or walk into a 'local' market in a foreign country; or even watch comparable interactions in primates (an outside individual approaches a gang/group of the same species) ... the members of the approached group will often show an 'encounter' presentation that I'm calling 'swagger.' Loose phalanx advancing, hips thrust forward, semi-friendly, but definitely with shadings of aggression. From you, the one who 'approaches' I think this gets an immediate and visceral reaction that overrides any evidence to contradict it: <em>I am IN their space</em>.</p>

<p>It's a truism that photography is an indexical medium -- that the photographer was IN the space in which the picture was made. Forcefully redouble that with the instinctive, physical response summoned by group swagger posturing at ME (it is <em>focused</em>), and you (or at least I) get the amazing sensation of being *IN* the same space/time as the mid-1800s group shown. Their posture <em>demands</em> my response, and I am *necessarily* there/then here/now.</p>

<p>It's a small leap to using that kind of visceral connection to make art, but I leave that. For now ...</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Yet another very worthwhile subject in this series, a valuable reminder for some, a new experience for others. This picture is an attractive composition in its own right, quite aside from any considerations that it is around 170 years old and that its subjects may well never have seen a camera or been photographed before. Despite this, they seem to have taken to the idea and face the lens with confidence, as Julie remarks, but naturally had difficulty in keeping absolutely motionless. As Colin says, this picture was right at the limits of the process at the time, but is aesthetically interesting and far from a mere technical curiosity. Fashions among fisherfolk seem to have changed slowly in the 19th century:<br>

http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/gallery_194446.html</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>The work Hill and Adamson produced may have been constrained by the technology of the day. However, it doesn't appear to have been hampered at all by any lack of courage or creativity on their part. </p>

[James G. Dainis]

Mr. Hill's training as a painter stood him in good stead with this photo. The composition is perfect. However, a painter can create light using lighter pigment paints. He can capture with paint the dynamic range that his eye sees. The camera has a much smaller dynamic range. Having the fishwives with the sun to the side and slightly to the back made for dark shadowed faces. Still, the shadows are not that bad. Perhaps the paper and chemicals used had a greater dynamic range than the ten zones associated with most of today's films and digital sensors. (Five or six zones for slide film.)

 

I like looking at old photographs and thinking about the people and what was taking place when the photo was taken. How did Mr. Hill approach these women? Since they most likely never heard of photography what were they thinking when this guy stuck this box in front of them and asked them not to move for a minute or so? Did they laughingly agree just to humor this nut ball? When finished did anyone ask, "So where's this pitcher thing you said you was making?"

[colin carron]

<p>Julie ; interesting observation on the 'swagger' pose. From the number of photos Hill and Adamson took in Newhaven I imagine they must have been a familiar sight for a while. But they would still have been encroaching as outsiders into the fishing village. There would have been an awareness that they were from very different parts of society. Just one indication of difference is the women's hemlines. Victorian women would almost all have had floor length dresses. The practical mid-calf skirts of the fishwives working at gutting the fish would have been seemed quite exotic to our intrepid photographers. So I imagine the swagger was in part saying, 'yes, we are different. Deal with it'. Or something similar.<br>

<br /> James, about the light. It is known that Hill and Adamson used reflectors to try to balance the light. It is noticeable that the three women on the left are grouped using arms, skirts, shawls etc so that they block the light except for the light that accentuates the waist of the woman on the right. <br /> Hill and Adamson took, I think, about 300 photos of the Newhaven people with a view to document their lives and raise money to help the villagers.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>Seconding what James said above: I am impressed by the composition/posing of these women.(Surely this was posed with the need for extended exposure time). Even today amateurs and even professional photographers tend to "line people up" in group portraits; I'm thinking of the large majority of traditional wedding photography. The choice to position the women in smaller, sub-groupings is definitely more visually pleasing and interesting to view. I'm interested in the the seventh woman, who seems to be on her on-partially turned away from camera, shielding (?) her face. I wonder what her story is...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In addition to what's been mentioned, I like the way the architecture is used as a background while also being an important part of the locating device and adding a lot of energy to the photo. This photo, including the buildings, is composed so dynamically. The parallel railings of the staircase seem crucially placed in the frame so as not to intrude yet they provide a visual element that has an uplifting and eye-catching quality. The staircase itself is a very nice compositional detail. The shingled roof on the right seems to provide protection, almost halo-like. In this way, we are not simply seeing a portrait of these women. We are seeing a portrait of their lives, made evident by the place they inhabit and the activities/chores they perform. Their comfort with each other and the camera is alluring and infectious.</p>

<p>For me, photos like this put to bed any notion that candid photography is more "real" or "natural" or captures more about people than posed photography. A photographer (with subjects who are so genuine) has the ability to pose his subject/s in such a way as to bring forth so much humanity and depth in the people he photographs. Finding effective, moving, and substantial poses, utilizing the environment of one's subjects, and considering props that complement the people and activities going on really help tell the kind of human interest story being told here. These women, even across the centuries, feel like they are connecting directly with me (through their strong connection to each other and to the photographer). If they are at all "showing off", it comes across as sincere and warm. The intentionality behind this photo, both from the photographer and the subjects, helps create this connection and is one of the reasons I feel so welcomed by it and by them.</p>

<p>[Amy, I get the impression the seventh woman you reference, who is such an effective part of the photo as you notice, is looking directly at the camera with her chin resting on her hand.]</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>This is quite an amazing image, only 20 years after the first photograph (although it wasn't called that) of an inanimate scene and one of a number of processes down the chain of early development that included the pivotal Herschel - Talbot process. And there are apparently some 300 images from this duo of Hill and Adamson. Photographing live subjects was indeed a challenge and we do not often see works of this period, excepting Hill, Charles Nègre (Example: "Walking chimneysweeps", 1851; http://www.carnavalet.paris.fr/en/collections/les-ramoneurs-en-marche), and a bit later, Julia Margaret Cameron. In the 30 or so years from this photo, photographing groups with higher precision materials was common, but Hill and Adamsom, like Nègre, had to mix their own recipes of emulsions and chemicals for negative and positive paper.</p>

<p>What is equally amazing in this photograph is the skill of posing the subjects in a meaningful and effective composition, never really bettered in subsequent photographs of the ensuing 170 years, if we except the enhanced possibilities provided by technology. The framing is beautifully employed, nothing in excess, nothing missing (although some things outside the frame may be suggested). The group on the left are well integrated within the frame at the left and the building at the right is very energetically presented on angle to the picture plane to increase the depth of the image and enhance the dynamics of an otherwise static scene. It also cradles the group to the right and the lone woman in front. We see one group of three to the left and one group of three to the right, somewhat farther back. Each group is tight and united amongst themselves, comprising a unit that is an independent subject although related also to the rest of the scene. The lone woman at the very right in front is another odd number, one, and provides another view or characteristic of the fisherwomen. The, 3, 3 and 1 avoids any static appearance that might be afforded by even numbered elements of group compositions. Within the two groups of three fisherwomen, we see or feel a unity amongst them, something possibly chosen by Hill to valorize his chosen subjects, the subjects of his intended charitable use of the pictures. Another amazing aspect and possibly the first examples of photography as a a social force.</p>

<p>Well done, Colin, and thanks!</p>

[colin carron]

<p><strong>Amy</strong>, I am sure you are right, that the groups of women are carefully posed. The main group of three are using each other as supports, no doubt to assist with keeping still, but the pose looks natural and unforced.<br /> The group on the left, three young women physically close and with a harmonious feel to the relationships reminds me of a somewhat similar pose. Is it too much to see echoes of The Three Graces here? It is a traditional grouping representing Charm, Beauty and Mirth. Canova's famous sculpture had been carved only 20 years earlier. Perhaps this is saying, 'fantasy women are fine but reality is charming too and much better fun'. Or maybe that is reading things into it which don't exist.<br /> The seventh woman, seated right, is possibly my favourite. She is, I'm fairly sure, holding a baby. The baby has clearly not behaved well for the camera (a familiar story) and has wriggled until it is just a blur in her lap. You've got to smile.<br /> <strong>Fred</strong>, I agree the use of the village buildings adds greatly to the composition and places the women in their home space.<br /> <strong>Arthur</strong>, I thought of choosing a portrait by Julia Margaret Cameron for this weekly discussion but Hill and Adamson beat her on points this time.<br /> <strong>David</strong>, I am also an admirer of Frank Sutcliffe's Whitby photos and have several books of them.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>It's kind of interesting that the comments, above, kind of parallel the pairing of Hill and Adamson -- large-scale compositional vs the expressive moment. Hill was the 'director' in that he arranged and posed the people; Adamson was the actual one who looked through the lens (or rather, at the ground glass -- upside-down) and judged the micro-flow or expression and subtle juxtapositions that one always sees, second-by-second through the camera (see contact sheets or comparable in digital). Actually, I don't know that Hill didn't look through the lens. I'm just guessing due to his inability to make good pictures without Adamson (see below).</p>

<p>If I stand next to you and say 'Take a picture of that!' I have no idea of what kind of photograph you will make. At the 'decisive' level that *is* photography, how much does the 'director' have to do with the image? I would suggest it's less than the shooter, but more than nothing.</p>

<p>Note that when Adamson died at 27 (in 1848), Hill made no photographs until "In 1858 he became a Council Member of the Photographic Society of Scotland. He later collaborated with another photographer in Glasgow, but they produced few works to compare to his collaboration with Adamson." (from the Getty Museum blurb)</p>

<p>On the other hand, "Robert Adamson's work was technically proficient but lacked flair and spontaneity before he met Hill. Equally, D.O. Hill's photographic efforts after the death of Adamson were dismal. It is clear that both men played a crucial role in the creation and the execution of the final images." (quoted from the University of Glasgow site)</p>

<p>Hill's compositional training from painting and his 'people skills' surely made him an essential part of what happened in front of the camera. Both were necessary to the kind of picture that Hill wanted to make. But what 'kind' of picture might Adamson have done were he on his own, notwithstanding the quoted mediocre quality of his beginning work prior to Hill?</p>

<p>It's an interesting illustration of the requirements of art; Hill, the trained artist, Adamson the engineer ...</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Julie, yes, they seemed to have a partnership which exceeded the sum of its parts, each providing what the other lacked. Makes one wonder what they would have achieved if Adamson had lived longer. In past times these photos were often attributed to Hill by himself. But as you point out they needed each others skills and would not have achieved their lasting legacy without each other. <br /> There was also a Miss Mann who is mentioned in a letter as 'that most skilful and zealous of assistants'. Skilful and zealous sounds just what was needed. I think she should be credited too.:-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>At the 'decisive' level that *is* photography, how much does the 'director' have to do with the image? I would suggest it's less than the shooter, but more than nothing.</em></p>

<p>Collaborators probably don't view it as a competition . . . who does more, who does less?</p>

<p>Interestingly, many solo photographers are both, and for many it would be impossible to separate which hat is being worn when and what's more important than what. </p>

<p>It's like looking at this photo. Who has more to do with the image? The photographer or the subjects? Who gets that credit? An interesting question to ponder but one that will never have, IMO, a definitive answer.</p>

<p>Also, IMO, pose *is* expression, as is composition, as is where light falls, as are gestures. Artistic and photographic expressions are not limited to what's taking place on the faces of people in the picture.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>In many early portrait photos it seems that the technical process overshadowed everything else. The 'director' role often appears to be minimal. But the subject role also often seems to be missing too, in that many early portraits are really unflattering. The subjects did not know how to be a subject. These days we are exposed to being photographed from day one so learn how to be a subject. <br>

If we say a photo requires a director, a technician and a subject then it seems to me that between the director and the technician it is the technician who is the essential one to produce a photo but a director is needed to make that photo more than mundane. And if a director is present then he / she can teach the subject what to do. <br>

</p>

[James G. Dainis]

After some 40 years doing photography I thought I was well versed in the standard rules (or suggestions, if you will) of composition. I don't think I have ever seen that "groups of three" given as a rule of photo composition. Watching HGTV (Home and Garden Television) I have often seen decorators say that flower pots on a porch should be in a group of three as well as small objects on a shelf or mantle. I never thought to apply that to photography. But then, who has? When taking photos of a small number of people, one has them together in one group, six people side by side or three in front and three in back. Maybe that is why the picture of the fishwives in two groups looks more like a painting than a photograph. Photographers don' t do things like that.

 

Hill was a painter not a photographer. As I understand it he used photography as a tool from which he intended to create paintings. As such he would set things up to approximate the painting that he would have in mind.

[aplumpton]

<p>James, there are several references to the rule of odd numbers of elements in compositiion. Here is one suggestion from a quite general site (About.com):</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>"One of the first things to decide in a composition is how many elements or items there will be in it. And one of the simplest ways to make a composition more dynamic is to have an odd number in the composition, say three, five, or seven, rather than an even number, say two, four, or six. It's called the Rule of Odds.<br>

Having an odd number of things in a composition means your eye and brain can't pair them up or group them easily..... which keeps your eyes moving across the composition."</p>

<p>I think that this operates well in some cases, but there are probably exceptions that depend upon the overall context of the image.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

[colin carron]

<p>HGTV eh? I am more of a Jewellery Channel man myself :-)<br /> But looking at their pictures I can't see them using any particular grouping more than any other. One of their other fishwives pictures has a group of 5 and one can find most other numbers represented.<br /> As well as what Arthur has mentioned their <em>were</em> late 18th century rules for painters which derived from William Gilpin's ideas on The Picturesque. <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picturesque<br /> He advocated various aesthetic rules which fitted the current sensibilities of which groupings of three animals in a landscape was apparently one. From the diversity of Hill and Adamson's groupings all I can say is that they seem to have rightly taken no notice of his theories.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>For me</strong>:</p>

<p>Of the OP questions ".....imagine a time when photography has only just been invented. What are the possibilities of photography? How will it change the world? Can a photograph be art?"; the first two are exactly right; the third is exactly wrong -- with respect to *this* particular chosen photo. The totally amazing, hair-raising event that it documents, for me, is the birth of the very idea, the possibility of this amazing thing called photojournalism that will come to change the world.</p>

<p><strong>For me</strong>:</p>

<p>This picture is of interest, of value, makes me stop in amazement exactly to the extent that it seem to me to be un-posed (I can see that it *is* somewhat posed; I strenuously filter against those qualities that I feel to be so). To the extent that it's artful, I find it pretty boring.</p>

<p><strong>For me</strong>:</p>

<p>I am astonished, amazed, mesmerized by the details -- the shoes, the thrashing baby, the intensely personal "feel" of all the women's body-language(s)) that gives me a peep-hole to some real place with real, "ambient" people -- not famous, not beautiful, not rich, not heroic -- in ~1845 or so. From the day these two guys and those other pioneers "went native" rather than artistic, a revolution in visual culture was set in motion.</p>

<p><strong>For me</strong>:</p>

<p>This Hill and Adamson vernacular picture from the 1800s has much the same effect, temporally, as this picture [ <strong><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Mars_pathfinder_panorama_large.jpg">LINK</a></strong> ] has spatially. Both give me cold chills. They are literally breathtaking.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Julie, I totally agree about the amazement. I posed the 'can a photo be art' question is there because it was what Hill particularly seemed to want to achieve.<br /> He appeared to aim at using photography as a parallel medium, or alternative, to painting. He chose the more 'painterly' process (Calotype presumably comes from the Greek for 'beautiful'), he arranged the photos as though they were for a painted composition and people at the time said their photographs reminded them of Rembrandt.<br /> So Hill wanted to achieve 'like-a-painting art' and at the time people recognised the level of 'art' he achieved. Certainly compared with almost every other photo at the time Hill and Adamson were well ahead of the field in terms of using existing painting techniques in their photos. <br /> But as you say we see them as almost accidental pioneers in other ways. What they aimed at in terms of 'art' was not the way things ended up going. We see the way photography has developed. We know that the art of photography has developed differently from other art forms rather than be a alternative means of creating a painting. <br /> The word used to describe their photos in the Johnson Museum of Art blurb is '<em>haunting</em>'. I don't know whether that qualifies their work as 'art' and maybe that question has no meaning anyway. For me their work just sticks in my mind, a visitation from another time.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I like the backlighting and the sepia tone.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The side / back lighting is very unusual in photos at this time. Most went for the front / side lighting and you can see why. The faces are disappearing into shadow. The print colour is a result of the salt print process which could end up anywhere from dark browns to light browns and reds. </p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I studied at St Andrews University many years ago where they have an extensive collection of Hill and Adamson original prints in their possession that I was able to see that aren't usually available to be viewed by the general public perhaps if anyone was keen enough and were going to be in the area they could contact the university and arrange a special viewing</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Ben, thanks for the info. I first encountered Hill and Adamson's work in a special exhibition in the National Gallery in Edinburgh in around 1967. And judging by the <em>External Links</em> in their Wikipedia article, collections of their work can be seen both in the UK and across the US and Canada. A testament to both their significance in early photography and the enduring appeal of their images.</p>