miteehigh Loc: Arizona

I realize that the practice of photography means different things to different people. This site seems to be quite heavily involved with bird photography and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that provides enjoyment to those practitioners.

There is another aspect of photography that is heavily involved in photography for "art" sake. The photography of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Brett Weston were such photographers. The F64 Group founded during that era was almost a rebellious affront to the earlier pictorialists. Everything in focus, no soft focus, stunning tonal gradation marked the photographs of that era. Michael Smith and his wife Paula Chamlee produced stunning imagery with film contact printed on silver chloride emulsion papers like Kodak's Azo.

I have noticed a return to a pictorialist output recently. Soft focus is again in vogue. Ancient processes like Platinum/Paladium printing, wet and dry plate collodian, bromoil to name a few. We can look upon the photographs of Sally Mann as an example of this resurgeance.

Having photographed for over 35 years with cameras that produced as large as 12X20 inch film negatives, I know what a fine photograph looks like. I find the recent resurgeance of pictorialism by some as quite appealing.

I sometimes think that we are too caught up in illustration at the expense of art. If one examines the early photographs of Steiglitz, Leonard Missone and Josef Sudek we do not find the ultimate in sharpness. We find instead that these photographs are often dark, soft focused and exuding a beautiful sense of light. After all are we not involved in depicting light and shadow. A photograph that tells too much, for me, does not invite the viewer to engage in the process. Questions asked, for me, are more effective than stories told.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I get it. But birds can be done artistically, too. As can any genre.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

[quote=miteehigh]I realize that the practice of photography means different things to different people. This site seems to be quite heavily involved with bird photography and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that provides enjoyment to those practitioners.

I do agree that UHH has seen more than it's share of bird and flower "snapshots" recently. Goodness knows living in FL I could shoot flowers all day long for weeks and never run out of subjects so, yes, I am a little bored with recent flower/bird UHH posts. The reason may be that lots of folks have been stuck inside for the winter due to climate, or Covid, and flowers/birds may be the only subject available at the moment. I need a challenge so I plan to do more black and white work outside in the coming months.

miteehigh Loc: Arizona

I think you have identified the reason. As I said at the outset, what others find enjoyable or meaningful should be what they do. Thanks for your comment.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Trends come and go. It's the stuff that passes the test of time that's revealing. Sharp focus, soft focus, mixed focus have all been tried in the past and the more astute will have realised that particular genres lend themselves to particular styles. The rest of us just need to never lose the willingness to experiment. For example, portraits can be almost documentary in nature but soft portraits have an undeniable something and it's an alternative that shouldn't be overlooked.

I suspect you're wondering if there will be a mainstream return to pictorialism. I think the simple fact is that pictorialism is alive and well and a popular choice among the creatives in photography and editing. I think the truth is it never went away. Whether it will be mainstream or not is pretty much irrelevant to my mind. It's there for anyone that wants to find it and that which has true worth will also have staying power.

miteehigh Loc: Arizona

Very aptly stated. Thanks for your comment.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

miteehigh "beauty is in the eyes of the checkbook holder"
To this end I'm "focused" on portraiture, fashion and league soccer...
For me at least the aforementioned is a healthy source of revenue...
As is assisting other commercial shooters in my market.

I've reviewed the 8 or 9 images you've posted...
You're obviously naive to the fact that portraiture represents that lion's share of recompense in photography.
Would suggest you get on IG and discover what is actually happening wthin the visual arts these days.

Start Here
https://www.instagram.com/stevemccurryofficial/
https://www.instagram.com/chrisknightphoto/
https://www.instagram.com/raw_bnw/

Meet your competition miteehigh...
Hope this helps or is at least food for thought.
All the best on your journey miteehigh

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You are correct that trends change. Remember that Ansel Adams started out as a pictorialist until one day he decided that it was more interesting to present his visualization of a subject rather than the more literal pictorial representation of it.

I would suggest that early photographic equipment was limited to a more pictorial scope. Lenses were limited in resolution and fidelity, correction techniques were not yet well known (or at least well understood), and photographic materials were limited in the range of tonality that they could display.

There would seem to be a parallel to the limited capability and fidelity of which an analog electron gun/phosphor television is capable compared to what even an obaolescent 720P set can display. Now that we have moved past 1080P to 4k, 8k, and beyond, it is difficult to identify who might want to go back. (And yes, I am aware of the interest in film and vinyl records, but that is mostly folks pursuing it for themselves, not others.)

So I don't know. I hope this will be an interesting discussion. For now, I'm at least a little bit skeptical.

miteehigh Loc: Arizona

Naively capitalistic. Artists are less concerned with money than personal expression I could give a crap about shooting portraits or children's soccer games. But then I am financially independent and do not need to suckle on someone's teat.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

That's what I always thought. Until I met some real artists and got to know them well enough that they would allow me to get a little bit of a glimpse "behind the curtain." One, who has become a really good friend, is an excellent painter and a beautiful watercolorist. She is working as a teacher right now as she strives to establish herself as an artist, but her goal is to become an illustrator as her primary profession while still maintaining time to develop her own art business through the website she operates and the three virtual storefronts that she has established. Her next step is to complete a MFA in Illustration. She is not financially independent, and has so far not let me adopt her as a daughter or niece, so she has to keep working while pursuing her degree. Turns out there is more structure in the world of art than most people realize, and there are non-negotiable requirements for entry. One is an advanced degree.

There have been (and are) artists, even avant garde ones, who have managed to be financially successful. Many have done so by pursuing a more traditional career, living frugally, and saving to get to a point of financial independence. Others have had patrons, or supportive wealthy spouses, or significant inheritances. But all have to eat, and all need a place of shelter, and all need a place to do their work. One reason that Adams and Georgia O'Keefe and others that we can still remember from the 20th century were successful not only because of their work, but because they were good business managers. Some were shrewd business managers. The best were also promoters, or else associated with successful promoters.

So the idea of the well-known artist whose art came before making a living? Mostly a myth. And yes...some successful artists died in poverty. But I'd suggest that was never by design. Usually the result of bad management. Or bad living. (Or excessively good living.) Or really bad planning.

miteehigh Loc: Arizona

In the interest of clarity, I think we need to understand that I did not attack you for your veneration of portraiture, or of photographing children's sports. Yet, apparently you took offense where no was tendered or intended and took it upon yourself to criticize me and my photography. Your comments were mean spirited, ill informed (you know nothing about me) and arrogant in your suggestion that I somehow do things more in line with what you recommend. Most people would characterize a person with that attitude as an (a**h**e). So let me be clear, until you have something less critical and more humane to offer perhaps you should consider a remedial course in human discourse. Have a nice day.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Clearly we've somehow gotten our channels completely crossed here, I'm guessing irreparably so. So I'll just drop out of the discussion at this point.

srt101fan

Mittihigh, it would really help if you used the "Quote Reply" button. Otherwise we have no clue who you're talking to....😕

miteehigh Loc: Arizona

Read my response to larryepage and apply it to your comment as well.

Bill_de Loc: US

I wonder how many people here have noticed that. Sometimes we see what we seek.

Just a thought, from a bird lover.

---