gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #3 · Landscape and Wide-Angle ... Why do they two often go hand in hand? | |
Charlie Shugart wrote:
Here is perhaps a slightly different look at your basic question (not that I think it's the only valid view- I don't):
Over the last two generations the US has become an "attention-seeking" society. It manifests itself almost everywhere in our daily lives, our entertainment industries, etc.
When I was young, almost all quality scenic photographers worked hard at depicting the world as it was... creatively, but virtually without noticeable distortions of the truth. Their thinking seemed to be: if you can't get excited by the world as it is, well.... ?
Nowadays- especially in the world of digital cameras and computer magic- it's easy to exaggerate photography. Using extra-wide angle lenses is just one of the many ways of doing it.
Please note: Although I abhor our becoming a show-off society, I'm not condemning super-wide lenses, digital cameras, OR computer skills.
My main point is that sometimes temptation is not a good thing, and we are surrounded by temptations.
Also, please note that these are my opinions  .
Charlie...Show more →
Important issues, Charlie. I partially agree and partially disagree with your basic premise here.
I do agree that there has been, at least among some photographers, a trend toward rather extreme adjustments to certain types of landscape images. This is probably because the kinds of adjustments that we do to color images with digital post-processing techniques are so much easier than the equivalent adjustments were with film. This is also affected, I think, by the desire to get attention quickly in an online work in which most images are only glanced at quickly, seen in relatively small sizes, and often presented within a rush of competing images. And some of the loudest voices on the web (who I have seen referred to, somewhat oddly, as "internet photography celebrities!") have been pretty successful at catering to this strange new world - which sometimes seems to be less about photograph than about popularity and the person presenting the photographs and the stories behind them.
But...
To suggest that film photographers presented the world as it is without distortions is just not true. I think that we sometime confuse what is familiar to us with "real," but the two are certainly not the same. People will often say that the older black and white film photographers (let's use Ansel Adams, though others would also suffice) showed the world as it is and focused on reproducing reality and avoided altering it in fundamental ways. I'm afraid that it isn't that simple. Not even close.
First, to state the obvious, the world is not black and white. What could be more unreal than presenting images of the world that have been completely drained of color! I am by no means denigrating black and white photography or those who produced and continue to produce astonishing work in that medium, but anyone who holds it up as an older and more realistic form of image making is certainly guilty of overlooking the obvious.
But beyond that, black and white photographers, especially those shooting large format cameras, engaged in many effective and creative and beautiful manipulations of the original scene in order to bring us the photographic prints that we treasure. A range of focal lengths were chosen. Filters were often used to alter the tonal characteristics of the image, sometimes radically. The cameras used tilts, swings, and shifts to alter "perspective" and manipulate focus.
And the work done in camera was by no means the end of the story. The darkroom was and is a veritable laboratory for manipulation. Choices regarding developing methods (of film and print) had a big impact on the quality of the image, as did film and paper choices. Dodging and burning were (and are) often extensive. To go back to Adams, some of his most famous images were extensively modified in post. There are many examples, but I have two favorites. "Moonrise, Hernandez..." is arguably his most famous photograph. Did you know that with a bit of searching that you can find the contact print online? (Look here: http://www.laurenhenkinblog.com/2010/09/the-interpretive-print/moonrisebefore/) If you have seen the print, you should be stunned by the difference. In many of the beautiful later prints the sky has been burned down to near black, clouds have gone missing, and much additional detail appears in the foreground. The beauty of that print was most certainly not created by simply capturing the reality of the scene - whatever that even means.
Another favorite example is the famous photograph Adams shot from Lone Pine, with Mt. Whitney far above and a horse in the foreground caught in a momentary bit of light. I can't find the reference right now, but Michael Frye wrote an article explaining how Adams had altered the image to remove the large letters "LP" (for "Lone Pine") that appear on the hillside to the left side of the image, letters that had apparently been placed there by the local high school students. (The letters are still there today.)
When it comes to color... one word: "Velvia." :-)
One last thing. To make a bad pun, the issue is not exactly "black and white." (Hey, I warned you that was coming!) I also am generally not pleased by photography that tries to amp up the world well beyond what it actually looks like rather than taking the time to search out things that are innately appealing and beautiful to photograph. Among the work out there that is popular, there is a subset that relies on peddling impossibilities as if they were real. This level of dishonesty sometimes disgusts me, and I often don't know quite what to say to people who regard it as great work. (By the way, I don't have anything at all against photographic images that are highly modified if the modification is the point of the image - I actually like some extremely modern and experimental stuff, but that is a very different sort of thing.) On the other hand... in order to get from the real subject that you see in front of you when you click the shutter to the printed image that you might have in mind when you do so, you must often actually plan the methods you will use to get the print to have that appearance, and to evoke the feelings and responses you had in mind at the time.
Hope all of those words make some sense.
Dan
|
