David Vestal on Printing

A

Anthony

Guest
(This is his notion about aesthetics, not nuts and bolts technique; his philosophy of how a print should look.)

I prefer prints that show no effort to those that trumpet "difficult!" or "masterpiece!" at the viewer. Those are distractions. They are also good for sales to collectors - one reason for me to stay out of the print business. Many dealers, collectors, curators, and other dilettantes have a weakness for spectacular prints and can't see good prints that aren't noisy. If I worked to please them, I'd be falsifying and my work would be no good.

What you decide to do is up to you, of course; but anxiety to shine is a trap that catches too many talented people and leads them to accomplish less than they might. You deserve to be warned of this.*

I like this advice. Vestal told me that too many otherwise beautiful pictures are spoiled by excessive print contrast and manipulation.

For example, I don't know how Fay Godwin printed, or even if she printed her own negatives. But her pictures are true and honest and fresh because the "form" - the print quality, doesn't distract from the "content." Her content being those lovely, quiet UK landscapes.** Godwin was modest - photographically. (I never met her, I just love her work.) I'm grateful that her printing looks . . . "natural." As a general rule, US landscape photographers tend to overdo it; determined to force the "form" to shout at the viewer: "Hey - you! Hey! This is ART!" Not all of them are this way, for example, Charles Pratt did lovely landscape work much like Godwin. But it seems that perhaps good content is quite often enough.

Comments?


*David Vestal, Art of Black and White Enlarging, Harper & Row, 1984.
**Fay Godwin, Land; Little, Brown, and Co, 1985.
 
Anthony said:
(This is his notion about aesthetics, not nuts and bolts technique; his philosophy of how a print should look.)

I prefer prints that show no effort to those that trumpet "difficult!" or "masterpiece!" at the viewer. Those are distractions. They are also good for sales to collectors - one reason for me to stay out of the print business. Many dealers, collectors, curators, and other dilettantes have a weakness for spectacular prints and can't see good prints that aren't noisy. If I worked to please them, I'd be falsifying and my work would be no good.

What you decide to do is up to you, of course; but anxiety to shine is a trap that catches too many talented people and leads them to accomplish less than they might. You deserve to be warned of this.*

I like this advice. Vestal told me that too many otherwise beautiful pictures are spoiled by excessive print contrast and manipulation.

For example, I don't know how Fay Godwin printed, or even if she printed her own negatives. But her pictures are true and honest and fresh because the "form" - the print quality, doesn't distract from the "content." Her content being those lovely, quiet UK landscapes.** Godwin was modest - photographically. (I never met her, I just love her work.) I'm grateful that her printing looks . . . "natural." As a general rule, US landscape photographers tend to overdo it; determined to force the "form" to shout at the viewer: "Hey - you! Hey! This is ART!" Not all of them are this way, for example, Charles Pratt did lovely landscape work much like Godwin. But it seems that perhaps good content is quite often enough.

Comments?


*David Vestal, Art of Black and White Enlarging, Harper & Row, 1984.
**Fay Godwin, Land; Little, Brown, and Co, 1985.
Click to expand...

I may be the only one in the world, but I don't much like the Vestal body of work - at least what I've seen of it. To my mind, it's emblematic of a kind of arts elitism found particularly in New York. This is then coupled with self-congratulatory reinforcement from other NYC elites like MOMA. There are better- and worse things in his portfolio, of course, but mostly he feels like a Brassai wannabe.
 
It may be unfortunate that US landscape photography is generally defined by Adams, Weston, etc. There are, of course, many US photographers working in the landscape that don't follow the "grand landscape" tradition. Eliot Porter jumps immediately to mind, though he's no longer with us. Charles Cramer is one of my favorites working today. Ted Orland approached the "landscape" in a very different and unique way.

I know little of Vestal's work and only know his writings from one book that I own. But, I do generally agree with his statement above, though.
 
Anthony said:
For example, I don't know how Fay Godwin printed, or even if she printed her own negatives. But her pictures are true and honest and fresh because the "form" - the print quality, doesn't distract from the "content." Her content being those lovely, quiet UK landscapes.** Godwin was modest - photographically. (I never met her, I just love her work.) I'm grateful that her printing looks . . . "natural." As a general rule, US landscape photographers tend to overdo it; determined to force the "form" to shout at the viewer: "Hey - you! Hey! This is ART!" Not all of them are this way, for example, Charles Pratt did lovely landscape work much like Godwin. But it seems that perhaps good content is quite often enough.
Click to expand...

Fay Godwin did most of her own B&W printing, Peter Catrell assisted her with the printing for "Land" but to her direction. Fay learnt to print(better) from John Blakemore on a workshop at Paul Hill's Photographers Place. She printed on Agfa Record Rapid and later Agfa MCC.

If you compare the images in the original version of her collaborative book with the poet Ted Hughes "Remains of Elmet" with the later new edition you'd see a change in printing style, she went back and made fresh prints for it.

Ian
 
I like the pictures in the Godwin book. Vestal seems to be referencing people like her.

*

"It may be unfortunate that US landscape photography is generally defined by Adams, Weston, etc"

Alan's point is compelling. That's a west coast thing: "the contrastiest print that shows all the tones." Looking at a roomful of them is exhausting. Americans have a tendency to overdo everything - the west coast may exemplify that.

I always had difficulty with Vestal's work also. He was another fine fellow - generous, intelligent. And he was skilled at discussing photography, and good with language. But much of his work left me indifferent; it seemed very arbitrary, interesting sometimes only because it was . . . non-directional?

Unlike Godwin, I never looked at one of his prints and thought, "oh my . . ."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anthony said:
"It may be unfortunate that US landscape photography is generally defined by Adams, Weston, etc"
Click to expand...

Well that forgets important US landscape photographers like Robert Adams, Lewis Balz, Richard Misrach, John Gossage, Joe Deal, etc, they have informed my own work as much as Edward Weston & Minor White , as well as British photographers like John Blakemore, Paul Hill, John Davies, Thomas Joshua Cooper (American but long time UK resident) and perhaps to a lesser extent Fay Godwin.

Ian
 
Antony I was agreeing with you that many people forget those other photographers which as you say is unfortunate.

Ian
 
@Anthony Your comments seem to me to be terribly overreactive and unnecessarily unkind, I thought we were having an interesting, informative, and spirited discussion. You owe @Ian Grant a public apology.
 
Nice to see you posting again Antony after your wild brainstorm :D Chill, I can't if you knew the truth ! My wife had a severe stroke nearly 4 weeks ago, unlikely to recover so I may be rather sharp & to the point :)

But there is another point not aimed at you but any/all US members here, it's a UK based forum and most members here are quite new to LF and names like Fred Picker and David Vestal mean nothing so they need some context and introduction. I know them from 80's US magazines and later the Internet.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Ian, I’m sorry to hear that.

Anthony: your language may be acceptable to you, but it seems ill-considered and inappropriate here. Perhaps it was hasty. As far as I know, this forum is unmoderated, so we must rely on members to retain high standards of courtesy, even when they have strong feelings, or strong disagreements. My apologies for lecturing you.

To return to the original point, on printing styles. Fay changed from a condenser enlarger to a diffusion one and found she could make prints that she liked much better. You might like to know that Peter Cattrell has written a textbook on photography. It’s an introduction for students.

You have a good point on excessively impactful (if that’s a word) prints. I would express a similar point, but differently.
When we first view a print, we have an instant reaction to it. Our mind whispers: “Oh, Bright Colours!” or “Oh, Very Big”, or whatever it happens to be. This isn’t conscious or rational, but the impression remains. Sometimes, this impression is: “I bet that was difficult to print!” Sometimes, in these digital days, it’s: “I wonder what Photoshop filter was used”.
I would count these reactions as failure. For me, the desirable reaction would be wanting to carry on looking.
Having said that, we must always remember De Gustibus.

Thank you for introducing me to David Vestal. I shall have look up his work.
 
Ian,
I am very sorry to hear about your wife. You must both be going through a tough time at the moment.

Alan
 
For an English tradition of photography, try looking at Frederick Evans, Herbert Ponting, Edwin Smith. There are others of course.
 
David, this thread got me thinking about an "English" tradition. I came to the conclusion that there are quite a few, not one; with nothing dominant.
And just to make things complicated, there is more than one way of defining "tradition". Is it what the big names in photography have done, or is it what thousands of workaday hobbyist photographers produce?

Alan
 
You're right of course. On a public forum, I suppose we are obliged to quote reasonably well-known people. To tell the truth, my heart sinks a bit whenever Ansel is mentioned, although we have to do it sometimes, because of his pervading influence.

So far, we've ignored Camera Clubs (aka Photographic Societies). They have a long tradition of organising competitions, which some people can grow to dislike. I suspect those might be the ones who turn to real photography, using real cameras. And then join this forum, I hope.
However, in a CC competition, "impact" is very desirable. The judge doesn't have time for thoughtful contemplation and must assess the image quickly, because marks have to be awarded. This mark is a single figure, summing up all kinds of variables. I've done it in the past and it's very difficult.
Skating used to have a better system – points for technique, points for the traces left in the ice, points for artistic interpretation, all awarded separately and added together at the end. They no longer seem to hold up cards; that's been relegated to Strictly.
Clubs do have their failings, but they do have some excellent and original photographers too.
 
Ian Grant said:
But there is another point not aimed at you but any/all US members here, it's a UK based forum and most members here are quite new to LF and names like Fred Picker and David Vestal mean nothing so they need some context and introduction. I know them from 80's US magazines and later the Internet.
Click to expand...

And, the names you rattle off mean nothing to us! I've researched some of the names you've mentioned here because it helps me to expand my knowledge of photography. I suppose you need none of this enlightenment? The names I mention are purely to give context to some of my comments. Sure, the context means nothing to you, but these are people that influenced me and helped form my own attitudes and technical abilities. You bring up John Blakemore many times, but to insinuate that Adams, Vestal, et al, are hacks is simply wrong to my mind. I guess I'm starting to get a feel for where Anthony was coming from... I thought folks on this forum were more cordial. Guess not! Bye, bye.
 
I don't recall anyone saying on this forum, that AA was a hack. If you could point us to it... He certainly did do a great deal of straightforward commercial work. He had a living to earn. I can't comment on Mr Vestal.

We seem to be have slipped into an unproductive competitiveness here. I regret it. Everyone who uses B+W film must be indebted to Adams and Archer. They happen to be American. How much does this matter to you? On the other hand, his images are not to everybody's taste. And I should hope so too. Let a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools contend.

I don't recall any images at all by Archer. Is he the mute inglorious Milton of the Zone System?

It would be good if you could let us know what you think of the photographers we've mentioned above. Ponting is a particular hero of mine. I have one of his images (sadly not an original) on my wall as I write.

On the matter of print contrast, I've found it very difficult to "come down" from a high contrast version to a lower one, even though I know that the lower one will be more satisfying. The one shouts down the other. The still small voice goes unheard. As we know, the loudest voice isn't necessarily the truthful one.
My only strategy is to walk away and start again on another day. There is a parallel difficulty in displaying watercolours alongside oil paintings. I can envisage a similar problem with photographs. The same thing may be happening with size too.
 
David M said:
You're right of course. On a public forum, I suppose we are obliged to quote reasonably well-known people. To tell the truth, my heart sinks a bit whenever Ansel is mentioned, although we have to do it sometimes, because of his pervading influence.

So far, we've ignored Camera Clubs (aka Photographic Societies). They have a long tradition of organising competitions, which some people can grow to dislike. I suspect those might be the ones who turn to real photography, using real cameras. And then join this forum, I hope.
However, in a CC competition, "impact" is very desirable. The judge doesn't have time for thoughtful contemplation and must assess the image quickly, because marks have to be awarded. This mark is a single figure, summing up all kinds of variables. I've done it in the past and it's very difficult.
Skating used to have a better system – points for technique, points for the traces left in the ice, points for artistic interpretation, all awarded separately and added together at the end. They no longer seem to hold up cards; that's been relegated to Strictly.
Clubs do have their failings, but they do have some excellent and original photographers too.
Click to expand...

David, I was thinking about camera clubs too. (Great minds......). Many years ago I was a member of Stoke on Trent Camera Club. At the time there was a very strong interest in black and white landscape photographs, done with a 35mm camera fitted with a wide-angle lens -28mm or wider. These were gritty, grainy, full of strong contrast, dark burnt-in skies, and taken in strong raking winter light. These photographs were part of a strong tradition; not just in our club, but across the whole West Midlands area, and probably the whole country if Year Books from the time are anything to go by. This tradition was reinforced by visiting lecturers, usually from the Birmingham area, who showed us excellent landscape photos in this style, which, of course, encouraged us to go out and do more of the same ourselves. Competitions had the pressure cooker effect which you mention, but there was more to all this than competitions. Four of us used to exhibit our work regularly, and give lectures to other clubs.
And we weren't living in a vacuume, unaware of other traditions in landscape photography. One of my friends was an avid fan of Ansel, and collected his books and was clearly moved by Ansel's photographs. But they had no influence on his own work. He never showed the slightest interest in giving up his 35mm Minolta and buying a 5 x 4 camera. We had books by Fay Godwin and Barry Thornton full of more gentle and refined landscape images , captured with medium format cameras. But we weren't tempted to try to emulate them. We went to John Davies lectures, attended John Blakemore workshops. But nothing rubbed off! I think that shows how strong the tradition was that we were part of.
Times changed, of course, and things moved on. My photography is very different now, But the point I'm trying to make is that the traditions kept up by thousands of unknown workaday amateur photographers are, at grass-roots level, fundamentally important.

Alan
 
Alan, I think in say the case of John Blakemore his use of the Zone Systemmore akin to Ansel Adams early more practical approach of the Zone system rather than later advocates who relied much more heavily on sensitometry. Also you have to take into account how many of AA's well known mages were in fact made before the Zone Susten was devised.

Just as Fay Godwin's printing improved dramatically after a workshop with John Blakemore, Ansel Adam's printing also underwent a similar transformation although I'm not sure on a time line on that. I've seen a lot of Ansel Adams prints, there was a large exhibition at the Barbican in Lindonin 1987 "Classic Images" curated by Alinder & Szarkowski. The print quality was superb he'd made fresh prints for the exhibition, however one exhibition of his images which I saw in Oxford and I think also Edinburg was quite different and the print quality mostlymediocre in comparison to what I'd seen before, the difference was these were contemporary prints made closer to when the images were shot, they were part of his daughters collection. There was discussion on Foums at that time and it was a general consesus not just my opinion.

Of course there's two explanations for the differences, first papers had improved dramatically over the years and I thnk Ansel Adams used Ilford Galerie for the prints at the Barbican and that was the best Bromide paper around at that time. Secondly he was retired and making far more prints by then and his printing had improved.

This change in paper can work the other way, in the second bar gallery at the Barbican (same day) there was an exhibition of pre-WWII Kertesz prints all contemprary and made at that time, all small and jewel like, the largest was no more than about half plate and all on warm tone papers quite a contrast to the much larger Neutral toned AA prints, but again superb.

Later I saw two other Kertesz exhibitions one in London the other in Paris and was shocked at the prints, while they were good and quite a lot larger they'd completely lost the jewel like feel, there was no warmth. At that point Ilford didn;t make a warm tone paper and neither did Kodak (for enlarging).

Of course John Blakemore's use of the Zone Systen is based on the work Ansel Adams and Minor White but he's also working much later with far better films and papers, I'd say to @Alan9940 that you have to go and look at his work to see how he plays with the Zone System using it as a musical scale and how he's explored and exploited it in ways taking it very much further than Ansel Adams or Minor White and others.

Ian
 
Last edited:
I remember those contrasty prints. Tri-X at at least 800 and grade five paper with hot developer. Grain like cobblestones. One side effect of was that the paper fogged slightly all over and when put on the judging easel under a spotlight, it preserved the highlights from burn-out. I wasn't really aware of this until I went to the Photographers' Place. We used to mount on black card too.
We were, of course, very, very interested in cameras and I do recall that we believed that everything could be done with 35mm. I was, however, astonished at the quality when someone showed their 120 slides. They were of nice young ladies, fully clothed, smiling at the camera. Ho-hum. It was in a camera club that I began to wonder if Leicas were really worth it. I still do. There were some talented and original people too.

And I agree entirely about the Kertesz prints. I would have included him in my list of heroes, but he's European rather than English. I should have included John Davies. I do have a print of his, but not on the wall at the moment.

I recall seeing a small exhibition on the South Bank, of very early AA prints. They were frankly rubbish, very much worse than my own early prints, but in a different way. I was much encouraged. If the Great Man had started from here, what could I not accomplish myself? Some reality has come into my life since then.

Are Camera Clubs quite so fascinated by hardware nowadays? My impression, from very little information, is the that the balance has shifted to digital filters and suchlike beads and trinkets.
 
David M said:
I recall seeing a small exhibition on the South Bank, of very early AA prints. They were frankly rubbish, very much worse than my own early prints, but in a different way. I was much encouraged. If the Great Man had started from here, what could I not accomplish myself? Some reality has come into my life since then.

Are Camera Clubs quite so fascinated by hardware nowadays? My impression, from very little information, is the that the balance has shifted to digital filters and suchlike beads and trinkets.
Click to expand...

I suspect that was the same small touring Ansel adams xhibition that I saw in Oxford and Edinburgh, it was shown in multiple places around the UK. I went to see something else at the Edinburgh gallery it just happened to be there at the same time. Had I not seen superb Ansel Adams prints (many from the same negatives) first at the Barbican and also some in collections elsewhere like GEH Rochester I'd have come away thinking he was a grossly over-hyped hack as @Alan9940 thought I was meaning :D

Ansel Adams wouldn't be one of my heroes but he's definitely a superb photographer and later also a superb printer. I just find more inspiration from Edward Weston and Minor White

After lock down ends and we are back to normal I'm due to give a talk to the camera club I was a member of for a short time in the early 1980's. I had a look at their website and some of the images are similar to over 35 years ago although now all digital, but there is good work. It was suggested I give a Zoom talk, that's how clubs meet at the moment but it doesn't suit my style., and the fact physical prints are important.

The camera club ethos is individual print, the opposite to projects that produce bodies of work. Paul Hill said on a workshop at Duckspool tha CAmera Clubs are Photography as Sport/

Ian

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top