Chasing Light - Following Ansel Adams' Footsteps

Hello Ian,
The posts are arriving out of order. From what I've seen of you on this Forum, I can't believe that curiosity wouldn't have driven you to experiment with digital technology.
 
Sal Santamaura said:
I disagree completely. The 1980s was the golden decade of gelatin silver paper. Elimination of cadmium and limited base from Schoeller (whether due to darkroom paper manufacturers being unwilling/unable to afford different types or Schoeller not offering them, the result is the same) caused a marked decline. If the papers one could purchase during the 1980s were still made and sold today, I'd not have even considered becoming involved with digital imaging.
Click to expand...

I did miss the old Record Rapid when it had Cadmium in it but learned to like the new version and then MCC when it was discontinued.

Luckily today there are papers I really like, and they do exactly what I require. If I wanted that old Record Rapid look Fomatone 131 MG would be my choice, I've made a few prints with it but it's not my choice for my exhibition work.

Ian
 
David M said:
Hello Sal,
Yes of course, aesthetic opinion. Following the example of a puzzled Pontius Pilate, I must now ask: "What is good?"
Click to expand...
I confess to agreeing with Adams on this matter. Sharp everywhere good. Pictorialist fuzzy-wuzzies (via pinhole or other means) bad.

It's entirely a matter of aesthetic preference. Neither is wrong or right. :)
 
Sal,
Well now,
An alternative view is that a work of art should true to its process. We readily accept modelled sculpture that doesn't have the fine finish of carving. We embrace wholeheartedly the evidence of rough brushwork in a painting and as for drawings! The world really doesn't have black lines around it and yet, somehow we cope.
In the particular case of pinhole photography, fuzzy-fuzzy isn't really the word, but perhaps that's another semantic debate, for another long winter evening. There are certainly fuzzy things that I dislike. It would be naughty to quote Adams again, on fuzzy concepts, so I'll hold my tongue.
Sharpness is the result of one particular kind of process. It has no especially privileged status.
Having said all that, I like sharpness, too. No disagreement on that.
 
David M said:
Hello Ian,
The posts are arriving out of order. From what I've seen of you on this Forum, I can't believe that curiosity wouldn't have driven you to experiment with digital technology.
Click to expand...

I've been using Digital technology from quite early on, I bought a Escom badged Tamarack scanner as soon as they were available, I think it was around £2,000 in about 1995, later I bought a Canon scanner with 5x4 film capability, and Canon printer which was A3 capable but its inks were extremely expensive. I was given an A3 Epson printer about 20 years ago, I forget the model but it was their first high quality affordable photo printer.

My personal work has always been film/darkroom based and will remain so, but I also handled advertising/marketing for work, doing a lot of graphics, brochures, small catalogues, posters to A1/A)etc. On top of that I spent 30+ years working with rock bands through a record label producing single and album covers, later CDs. So that's where I've experimented and honed my digital skills. I've used digital cameras for over 20 years as well.

I've made digital negatives and then Platinum prints, also Inkjet prints on Baryta based FB papers that are almost indistinguishable with darkroom prints, I use pigment inks - having said that I flushed the heads out completely and haven't use the R2440 for about 5 years.

These days I do scan my negatives for digital use, Internet, sales/publications, portfolio (digital) use with a V750.

Ironically I find having a good knowledge of digital as well as darkroom gives me a balance when I talk about my work, I don't believe in being rabidly anti digital or vice versa and have no issues with hybrid work I just prefer making darkroom prints.

There was a Moderator of another Forum who was rabidly anti-digital and hybrid, yet was two faced enough to shoot and print his wife's digital work , and make images himself with her camera. I've always thought of digital as just another form of capture alongside Film, Polaroid, Wet plate etc, likewise with output.

Ian
 
Ian,
Yes, we use the tools we need to do the job we want.
Well, let me revise that thought. Sometimes a particular method seems more pleasurable. A day in the darkroom is a day of peace, but a day at the screen is a day of constant distraction.
In the past, we had only only few tools, but there's a wider choice today. I suppose we can go from images that never have a physical existence, made and viewed on a phone, to hand-coated plates, exposed in a hand-built camera, printed by a hands-on process like platinum or bromoil. There is even a movement that celebrates imperfections, using Holgas and suchlike.

I can't see that there's anything inherently wrong with having a purist website as long it's clear that that's what it is. On other sites, we sometimes encounter very strongly expressed preferences for the author's version of The Only Way, but happily, they seem to be a minority.
 
David M said:
...An alternative view is that a work of art should true to its process...
Click to expand...
OK, I'll annoy some (probably more) people now. :) "Art," in my view, is a meaningless word. One either likes a work or doesn't. There's no way to objectively approach the definition. One person's "art" is another's dreck.

That said, no matter who looks at my prints, they'll likely never be called art. I'm merely an amateur photographer shooting for my own pleasure. :)

David M said:
...It would be naughty to quote Adams again, on fuzzy concepts, so I'll hold my tongue...
Click to expand...
When keying in #43 I half expected you'd reply using that quote. Note that I make no claims my pictures' concepts are "sharp." They're just my pictures. :D
 
I have taken your bait, of course. Someone was going to say it.
Although we often encounter the word "Art", it dissolves into meaninglessness as soon as we try be precise about what it means. "Something in an art gallery." seems as close as we can get today. We can readily identify art galleries because they are labelled as such. The cliché in this case is the André stack of bricks; its presence in a gallery is intended to induce a different kind of observation and thought. Hmmm...
The word has very strong economic value. A snap of the moon in a black sky is merely snap of the moon, (and far too small in the frame anyway) but call it Art and suddenly the photographer is rich. (And so is his dealer.) So, there's a strong motive to have the Art-label attached to a piece of work.
How do you like: "Art is what artists make and artists are people who make art."? It seems to illustrate the paradox.
Sometimes the word seems to mean no more than "Something to hang on your wall" – another big sharp orange slot canyon picture? Ho-hum... There's probably an app.
And then there's the parallel problem of defining the Art/Craft boundary. We can easily recognise fine workmanship, but Art is another matter. This seems to be a tediously recurring feature of discussion among photographers. Potters must have the same problem, but they can re-name themselves Ceramicists to improve their status.
So, I conclude that Art is a handy word to have in the vocabulary. Not quite meaningless, but not in any way as precise as the words denoting length or weight. I suggest that there's a little more to it than the solipsist "Like/don't like" formula.
I haven't accused you of making sharp pictures. I wish I could accuse myself of it. I do try; I guess you do too.
 
David M said:
...the word "Art"...dissolves into meaninglessness as soon as we try be precise about what it means...
Click to expand...
Any word incapable of a definition agreed upon by those speaking the language of which it is part is, de facto, meaningless. :)
David M said:
...How do you like: "Art is what artists make and artists are people who make art."?...
Click to expand...
I don't. That's circular meaningless babble. Sometimes referred to as "artspeak." :)
David M said:
...the...problem of defining the Art/Craft boundary...
Click to expand...
Not at all challenging. Art is a meaningless word. "Craft" describes excellent workmanship. :)
David M said:
I conclude that Art is a handy word to have in the vocabulary...
Click to expand...
Only from the perspective of those who trade on its meaninglessness for financial gain at the expense of others gullible enough to accept that whatever they're told is fashionable is "art."
David M said:
...Not quite meaningless...
Click to expand...
Utterly and completely meaningless, since anyone can at any time interpret it to mean anything they'd like it to mean.
David M said:
...there's a little more to it than the solipsist "Like/don't like" formula.
...
Click to expand...
There's absolutely nothing more to it. Any person's pronouncement that a given work is "art" functionally equals "I like it."
David M said:
...I haven't accused you of making sharp pictures. I wish I could accuse myself of it. I do try; I guess you do too.
Click to expand...
I always try to make sharp pictures. My efforts that have succeeded, even at the roughly whole-plate print size I prefer, tend to be those originated on 8x10 film or using my D810. Unfortunately, Ian has provided no mechanism for attaching actual prints, and the file sizes of two such example images are so large, even reduced to "0% quality" JPEGs, that this site's software refuses attempts to upload them. However, that doesn't matter, since I'm just an amateur hack who has no need to show his work in pursuit of sales. :D
 
Hello Sal,
Thank you for the very prompt and detailed reply to my ramblings.
I see that I have failed to moderate your enthusiasm for absolute, falsifiable clarity. No matter, we all see the world in our own ways. I'm grateful that you've put in so much effort to clarify your views.
(By the way, "Art is what artists.. " was meant to be ironic to illustrate the circularity of a good deal of art-speak.)
You don't sound like "...just an amateur hack..." It would be good to see some images, if at all possible.
 
David M said:
...absolute, falsifiable clarity...
Click to expand...
That phrase has as much meaning to me as does the word "art." :)

David M said:
...It would be good to see some images, if at all possible.
Click to expand...
OK, after exercising a couple of different imaging programs, I *think* I was finally able to reduce my everywhere-sharp files to everywhere-blurry JPEGs small enough for this site. The Mather Point image, 391 MB in its 16-bit full-resolution version, was shot on 8x10 320TXP in a Phillips Compact II, using a 450mm f/8 CM Fujinon W lens. Half Dome Mirror Lake originated in the D810 through a 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art lens, and is "only" 121 MB in the version from which I make prints. It's not clear (ahem) to me what one can glean from these, but I hope you enjoy them. :)

Follow up. No matter what I try, after uploading the files, "Preview" included links to my images as attachments, and clicking on those links resulted in an "Error" message. I'll try again to post the images in separate replies after this one.
 
Sal Santamaura said:
That phrase has as much meaning to me as does the word "art." :)
Click to expand...

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and we all diifer in our views.

Over the past 30+ years I've had exhibitions in art galleries, photography galleries, a large cmarquee at a canal boat festival (highest no of viewers).

I have fine arts Masters Degree, is it important whether I idenfiy as a artist, a photographer, I really don't care the work is more important than the ego.

I'd add that having lived abroad perceptions differ quite markedly so in some countries I'm without question an artist. But then Ansel adams is supposedly the US's greatestr artist, he's not classed an artist in the UK.

So why bother even thinking about it, we just get on image making :)

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
...perceptions differ quite markedly...Ansel adams is supposedly the US's greatestr artist, he's not classed an artist in the UK...
Click to expand...
Not everyone in the U.S. thinks of Adams that way. I've always viewed him as a workmanlike photographer with a good eye who happened to be in beautiful places at good times. I don't see him as an "artist." :)

Ian Grant said:
...So why bother even thinking about it, we just get on image making...
Click to expand...

Indeed. However, David introduced discussion of "art" into the thread as part of #44, so I replied. :)
 
Sal,
Thank you. Fine images in the US heroic landscape tradition. Huge amount of detail, I'm sure. A pity to miss it, but everyone is in the same boat when it comes to displaying images on screen.

I had thought that I'd agreed with you that the word art, when examined, is remarkably slippery. I was trying to suggest that despite this, it has some value in general use. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
"Falsifiable" is Karl Popper's word, describing how a theory or proposition (eg: Art is meaningless.) cannot be valid unless it is constructed in such a way that it can be shown to be false. Perhaps we are not aiming for scientific rigour when we make broad assertions.
I think of myself as practicing a craft and allowing others to attach an art label if they choose. I believe that they mean it kindly and it seems ungrateful and ungracious to reject kindness.
I'm happy to continue this debate, if you wish, but I'm equally happy to stop. I doubt if either of is will convince the other.

Ian,
Very interesting that you can superpose Art/notArt as you move from location to location. As for bothering with thinking about it, I fear it's a compulsion. It's hard to believe that the people on this forum are mere picture-making, camera-operating machines.

How did we get onto the price of kit? We began with a voyage around AA's tripod holes in luxury vehicles.
 
David, there is a fundamental problem in trying to discuss "art". You see it in TV programmes all the time. In one an expert is telling us why Rembrandt was a great artist. Annoyingly, he stands right in front of the painting he is discussing so you can't actually see it. We hear at length how Rembrandt mixed his paint, what he added to it to create an impasto, and how he applied it to the canvas. Then we get the bit about how Rembrandt's ideas about light came from Caravaggio. By now he is running out of things to say so he tells us who the Dutch were at war with when the painting was made, the price of bulbs on the international market at the time, and other random and irrelevant facts that have absolutely nothing to do with the painting under discussion.
Finally he stops talking and walks out of shot and at last you see the painting itself. And then you realise something. There is an essence at the heart of the painting that is simply beyond words. The expert could have talked all day but would never have been able to explain why this painting is so fundamentally fantastic and so rewarding to look at. The Cubist painter George Braque explained this very well when he said that you can explain everything about Art except the bit that matters.

So Braque actually provides us with a definition of Art; sort of. If what you are looking at doesn't have at its core an inexplicable bit that matters, then it isn't Art.

Alan
 
Alan,
Yes, I agree about the experts. We might be kindly and regard all that detail as the equivalent of our own curiosity about apertures, film, paper, bellows extension and suchlike.
Very interesting for people who are interested.
I have stood in front of a Rembrandt self-portrait in inexplicable tears. The same with Durham Cathedral. I think this is what you are talking about.
As you've expressed this, the nature of the object depends on the state of the observer, which seems an inadequate formulation. Let's imagine a work of some sort (which, to avoid fruitless dispute, we will not define). Along comes Observer A and despite careful attention, remains unmoved; the object is not Art. Along comes Observer B, who is moved; it is Art!
After an interval, perhaps occupied by viewing other exhibits, perhaps by coffee, Observer A returns and this time has a positive reaction; instantly the object is transformed into Art. We've all re-visited things and discovered that out reaction has changed (remember your first olive?). We are accustomed to seeing this sort of thing in quantum mechanics, but for our purposes, all these items, Observer A, Observer B and the Object exist in a Newtonian universe. I'm suggesting that the reaction of one individual observer is an unreliable test. What if Observers C and D, one of whom loves and the other hates the object, stand together?
If one observer is the sole arbiter, we have a difficulty with the generally-agreed masterpiece. It might be the Elgin Marbles, the Mona Lisa, The Magic Flute or whatever, but we don't need to nominate a specific work. What if we stand before this work and remain unmoved? Has the work been transformed into the mundane by our presence? I don't think this can be credible.
I think we've all had this experience. We wonder what others see in a work. I find Leonardo's drawings much more moving than his paintings. This remained a problem for me until I decided that I had no obligation to like everything. I realised that it might be possible to understand something, without liking it. I do like understanding things: for me, ignorance is not bliss.
All that remains is the idea of a rather loose collection of objects, which by common consent we call Art. I am assuming that we include writing, building, music and so on and are not limiting ourselves to flat representation. Not very satisfactory, and certainly open to dispute, as we've seen above, but it might be the best we can manage.
 
David M said:
...I'm happy to continue this debate, if you wish, but I'm equally happy to stop. I doubt if either of is will convince the other...
Click to expand...
I don't think of it as a debate, but rather a discussion. You brought up the subject of art and I replied. No need for either of us to convince the other or anyone else. :)

David M said:
...How did we get onto the price of kit?...
Click to expand...
It's a long and winding thread. The tangent started in reply #9. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top