Just looked at a book of excellent Robert Frank photographs... (Page 2): Probably not supposed to be "art," just renditions of American Life as he saw it!

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

zonedoc wrote:

I never really got Frank’s photos as art.
To me just snapshots.

Probably not supposed to be "art," just renditions of American Life as he saw it!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

User ID wrote:

Uh huh, like never submit your pix to an online forum’s gallery cuz thaz really just pearls before swine.

Even a blind swine can tell if the occasional found acorn is sweet or not. Frank is a snapshot photographer with an occasional sweet acorn thrown in just for the surprise factor. No problem for me if someone stays with what they know. It's a big world with room for all endeavors.

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

Retired CPO wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

Wouldn't you say that most photos are "snapshots" until dodged and burned in the darkroom, or post processed in software, where they become, as Adams put it, "non-literal simulations of reality." I like Frank because he stays with the literal simulation of reality.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

“A photograph that mirrors reality cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit.”

Russ Butner
Spirit Vision Photography

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

“A photograph that mirrors reality cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit.”

Russ Butner
Spirit Vision Photography

That's a personal opinion, and unfortunately, "what reflects the spirit" is very subjective and different for just about everyone; reality is just that, reality. I like keeping my feet on the ground with reality; my choice - your choice. I think Frank's photos are every bit as good as Adams', just in a different way with different subjects and conveying different messages. JMO.

srt101fan

GerryER wrote:

That's a personal opinion, and unfortunately, "what reflects the spirit" is very subjective and different for just about everyone; reality is just that, reality. I like keeping my feet on the ground with reality; my choice - your choice. I think Frank's photos are every bit as good as Adams', just in a different way with different subjects and conveying different messages. JMO.

I think you make an important point in your last sentence....

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

GerryER wrote:

Wouldn't you say that most photos are "snapshots" until dodged and burned in the darkroom, or post processed in software, where they become, as Adams put it, "non-literal simulations of reality." I like Frank because he stays with the literal simulation of reality.

You obviously don't know me. To answer your question...absolutely NOT! I invite you to look at some of my posted photos. All with very minimum to no post processing. Not bragging but I know what I like.
I like a lot/some of Frank's work. But "sharp" is a basic necessity for photographs other than purely artistic NON literal simulations.

User ID

srt101fan wrote:

Just musings from an old guy looking at old photo books while taking a break from packing.

And pointing to a genre of photography that unfortunately doesn't get much play on UHH....

Frank wasn’t really much into bugs, blooms, and bifs.

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

Retired CPO wrote:

You obviously don't know me. To answer your question...absolutely NOT! I invite you to look at some of my posted photos. All with very minimum to no post processing. Not bragging but I know what I like.
I like a lot/some of Frank's work. But "sharp" is a basic necessity for photographs other than purely artistic NON literal simulations.

I think Frank's photos are how the eye sees, focused on the subject and fading to the background (and sometimes foreground). Sharp is good, but not always necessary to the "nth" degree. Anyway, he made a major contribution to the world of photography in his time, and his subject matter still influences photographers today. By the way, I never post process (even though I have the software to do so). Just goes against my grain.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

srt101fan wrote:

none of them are "sharp".....🤔

I just watched a very short interview with him in it this afternoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMwnmrL5FM

srt101fan

Racmanaz wrote:

I just watched a very short interview with him in it this afternoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMwnmrL5FM

I really didn't know much about Frank and had not seen any interviews. Thanks for the link!

srt101fan

amfoto1 wrote:

I agree that not every picture needs to be sharp..... (show quote)

Thanks, Alan, always good to see your valued contributions to a topic.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

GerryER wrote:

That's a personal opinion, and unfortunately, "what reflects the spirit" is very subjective and different for just about everyone; reality is just that, reality. I like keeping my feet on the ground with reality; my choice - your choice. I think Frank's photos are every bit as good as Adams', just in a different way with different subjects and conveying different messages. JMO.

I agree 👍

srt101fan

I miss the old photographers and the magazine's and books filled with their photos. Life magazine and the monthly photography magazines offered a great variety of images. Great photojournalists like Gene Smith and Eisenstaedt. Masters of portraiture like Karsh. The elegance of Avedon's work. The humorous images of Elliot Erwitt. The surrealism of Uelsmann and Michaels. The soft colors of Ernst Haas. Bert Stern' s fashion and people shots. And so many others.

Something is missing today....

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

srt101fan wrote:

I miss the old photographers and the magazine's an... (show quote)

SilverGrain Classics, Black &White, and LensWork are still pretty good magazines, although somewhat pricey. I really like all three, and you can buy online-only versions, but I like paper.