Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

So right on! But them guys never get it, so worry not, it went in one ear and out the other.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

A man after my own heart. So happy there are individuals such as yourself on this site!

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I agree, to each of us photography is different. Some of us are deep into the art of it others are concerned with the technical perfect picture and still other may go a different way. That is what the general term photography covers.
To each his (or hers) own.

Rational1

I'm "financially independent" but I don't find the need to be sarcastic, demeaning, or snarky. Many people get to do what they love due to their ability to be what you refer to as "naively capitalistic." The post is an interesting one, but not a basis for preaching to others or just being foul.

AviRoad Loc: Westchester County, NY

Do what you like to do, good people!!

richardsaccount

Over fifty years ago I for a time belonged to a group called the New Pictorialists. One of the founders was Ed Romney. I was into print making in college and the processes like gum bichromate dove tailed perfectly with
the sensitizer chemicals used in photo silkscreen. The last iteration of that group was a bunch of academics
running it. I was fortunate about four or five years ago to have met one of the last members. Her name was Lady Ostapek. She would identify her self as Lady Ostapek, Fly, N.Y. She has since passed. She was in her late nineties. She was a portraitist. She would get a reading of sorts on her subjects and dress them in different costumes. Naturally she used a vintage wooden studio camera with a broken shutter. The films then were slow enough that she woulds remove the lens cap. She had to time counts one for bright light the other for dim lighting conditions.

domcomm Loc: Denver, CO

One thing I've noticed that you didn't mention is that some photographers are more interested in their equipment than in their photographs. I used to know a man who had a whole raft of high-end equipment (Leica, etc.), but couldn't take a picture to save his soul. He could have done as well taking snapshots with an Instamatic.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

When I was 11-years old, I read about the "war" between William Mortensen and the pictorialists and Ansel Adams and his f/64 group of purists. My question then was why can't a photographer do well about both approaches and even other stylizations- abstract work, etc. Why should artists strictly adhere to one style and never change, venture out, and grow? When you perfect one method, why not experiment and venture into other areas.

Well, I ain't 11- years old anymore and at 77, I will ask any of y'all the same questions.

Of course, each of us has our own favourite subjects, stylizations, methodologies and habits. All good, but why carve everything in stone- that's for graveyards!

I love my job as a commercial photographer because I can't stagnate. I never know what kind of client is gonna walk in and demand something different from what I might usually do. Over the years, in my personal work, I have experimented in various areas and mastered some of them. Nowadays, at work, I can call on these experiences and use them to accommodate my clients and help express their vision in photographs.

I have heard folks say that my approach is not art- it's prostitution! Good thing I'm an old man with a gray beard so I don't smack them anymore! In reality, I do get paid but it amounts to creativity on demand- not a bad way to stimulate your imagination.

Waht actually gives me a headache is when the photographer kinda joins a "cult" and need to emulate ther favourite grandmaster and write off everything else as garbage. It great to learn from the masters but why not put your own spin on things.

"Return to Pictorialism" is indeed an interesting topic. Thing is, many photographers never went away from it, many photographers don't even know what it is, many photographers may not have the skills or the equipment. If you want to encourage it you need to provide examples, advise on research and reading materials, and/or write a post or a blog on a particular technique.

I like razor-sharp commercial images and detailed portals that show every pore on a subject's face but I also invested in a very expensive camera body just because it accepts my favourite soft-focus lens. Waht can I or you deal with in reality or fantasy- on differet days of the week?

Having written all of this, I must remind y'all that this is my approach- it does not have to be yours. I do not disrespect others who have other concepts, styles or approaches. I do not really understand why so many of these kinds of threads end in nasty exchanges and name-calling. A real FORUM is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and various opinions. Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

I understand that if you repeat certain hand movements too frequently and too hard, you can develop corporal tunnel syndrome. Next tie I see my doc, I'll ask him if that can happen to one's brain if you do the same things all the time!

To me, photography is like MUSIC. A great musician can do well in different generas. One of my favourite musical artists is trumpeter Wynton Marsalis. He could perform in front of a symphony orchestra in the afternoon and appear at an exclusive jazz club that same evening- both with the same virtuosity.

KoniOmegaflex Loc: Central KY

I love pictorial images but sometimes photography is just getting to photograph some very interesting people. These are the Doolittle Raiders still alive at their annual reunion in 1994. The old plane in the background is just serendipity. The pilot taxied over just before these gentlemen came out to take their seats. The pilot offered to move the plane if it was a problem. No problem at all, sir, you're fine right where you are.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

''E.L.. Shapiro]When I was 11-years old, I read about the "war" between William Mortensen and the pictorialists and Ansel Adams and his f/64 group of purists. My question then was why can't a photographer do well about both approaches and even other stylizations- abstract work, etc. Why should artists strictly adhere to one style and never change, venture out, and grow? When you perfect one method, why not experiment and venture into other areas.''

The essence of the issue for the conversation about Pictorialism is like a mine field lurking in Mr. Shapiro's opening sentence, and that is why I am quoting only the first paragraph. The huge issue was essentially that Mortensen was promoting a notion that 'one made exposed for the highlights, and the shadows would take care of themselves' and to his credit this made perfect sense for studio lighted images (tungsten light back then). Adams was stunned by the caviler statement, knowing there was a lot more to exposure than just that idea.

Hurter and Driffield (H & D Curves) were moving the idea of exposure forward, Kodak was working on the subject as well, but in practical terms there was no answer in sight. That is the technology history, but lets all stop the silly mythic silliness. If Ansel Adams was alive today and was put under oath he would admit that in his view his single greatest photographic work was Moonrise Hernandez New Mexico, 1941.

So big question, if Adams was such a professional and accomplished 'armature', how was it that he blew the exposure? Oh yes, Ansel admits he blew the exposure, just like many accomplished modern photographers blow exposures today.

The simple answer is that in 1941 (start of WW II for America), there was no standard exposure method available to even the likes of Ansel Adams. At some point after WW II a magic thing came into use for outdoor photography, it's still called by the name or origin, THE RULE OF 16. Hands up, do you know the rule of 16? If not, don't you think you need to know it?

Now this may seem off the subject, but it is not. If you don't know the history of your discipline then...well, I just can't figure out what hope there is for you, unless you like to live in ignorance.

This is a huge issue, if you don't know the history of your medium then you are lost, it is as simple as that. Sounds rough I hear you but, as the English have a way of saying (so I'm told) ''That the proof is in the pudding.''

There is a process from the early beginnings of photography called Cyanotype. All so called sun prints or blue print process. It is dirt cheap. It's counter part in the world of what is called 'alternative print processes' was mentioned as Platinum or Palladium prints. These last two are considered the Cadillac print processes for their expense, difficulty and well blah-blah, blah. While that poor man's process Cyanotype is the poor step child. Well, you just can't get a really great detailed 'full substance, full tone' range from Cyanotype. Just ask anyone, look at ALL the literature, it's right there!

Yes, it's right there, in print, going back into the past publications. The real problem is that housed in the Gernsheim collection up in Austin Texas, there are dozens and dozens of prints made by early workers that have the range of a platinum print. I found piles of these lovely prints back when one could actually poke around in the collection (you know, old West style research). It took me 25 years of research and an embracing of a radically different way of thinking about photography. The discovery came when I finally realized that there are two approaches to print making in photography, one is the silver based approach and the other was that of IRON based sensitive materials. Then are completely different approaches. This was an amazing insight, it alters the way we should view the origins of photography. But that is just me, think not outside a box, but a world where there are no enclosures.

Any way, when I get involved with views for photography I find most of that which is presented as much to pedestrian. I enjoy a much more rich and bountiful vision of possibilities.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yes, in the studio using FILM, with negative materials, I did routinely expose for the shadows and PRINT DOWN for the highlights. I did however stay within the film's latitude and range and managed not to blow out the highlights. It simply matters of understanding the charismatic curve of the film and process accordingly. It works well in black and white and with most colour negative materials. No so with transparency film. I would expos for good highlight rendition, fill the shadows and sometimes overexpose and under process to reduce contact on cert kids of work. Pretty much the same with digital systems.

The Zone System worked well for me but I tend to extract certain facets of that process to suit my purposes, again to expand or compress contrast.

My issues not with any given system, method, or methodology. Just because a successful photograher or teacher adheres to a particular theory, that does not mean that everyone shod follow these procedures, to the letter as if they were law or some kind of edict. If the photograher, teacher or inventor of this theory gets all bent out of shape just because someone else has an alternative method- that is archaic and egotistical.

I do, however, believe that there is too much technobabble and nit-picking on neuances that don't make all that difference in the final psychological and visual impact, or lack thereof in a photograph and not enough attention to the essence and the story.

Maybe I am cynical, but I believe some of those old wars among photographers were based on MONEY as per acceptance in the popular galleries of the day.

Hook1230

I spent 30 plus years having to analyze data for people and coming up with cute and creative ways around issues in computers, programming and networking the things together. I was into photography as a kid but could not afford it plus my money went into the old Apple IIC and the original IBM PC. Now I am much more a contemplative type person. I enjoy the beauty that Our Creator has given us. Landscapes, flowers, birds, animals, you name it. At the end of the day the only person I need to please is myself. If you like my photos then great, if not we can talk, but at the end of the day if I like it, then great. I don’t care if someone else likes it or not. I guess I just love the act of taking photos. It may sound arrogant I know, but I am not trying to sell anything to anyone. Life is too short to not try and enjoy it some. Took me 57 years to figure that out. 🙂