A photograph is rarely just a photograph these days, seen without filters or retouching.
There is no era where a photograph was ājustā a photograph. The development process is just that- a process. Artistic vision comes into play with how you process the photograph, beyond the decisions you make when you take the photograph.
I am perpetually annoyed by the purists who pretend that thereās a higher level of honesty in darkroom manipulations versus, say, levelling a digital photograph.
Mortenson was discussed warmly but critically, and at length, in Judy Seigelās short run (9 issue) journal, The World Journal of Post-Factory Photography. Issue #1 can be downloaded, and the rest can be ordered, from here http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/alt-proc/post-factory-photography
Reading the article, it sounds more like the stuff that annoyed Adams et al. was the fantasy aspects of Mortensenās photography, not the actual photographic techniques that he used. But I may be mis-reading. I donāt think itās unreasonable to dislike somebodyās work, but still appreciate the techniques they used to create that work.
I have stared in awe, standing in front of some of Adamās original prints, wondering āhow the f**kā he managed to get those tones of gray. I couldnāt never get tired of them. Iāve yet to see any reproduction of Adamsās prints that matched the originalsā peerless qualities.
Call me a purist if you want, but Iām completely unmoved by the works of and by people with āartistic visionā but no craft, no mastery of their medium or of their chosen field. Yawn. Iām so bored with digital manipulations.
Iām off to read the criticisms and replies, so this may be premature, but at first glance, Mortensen used photo technology and techniques to essentially make paintings reflecting a tired, old, artsy-fartsy European ethos. On the other hand, Adams, along with Weston, showed us what photography is, what it can be. They revolutionized the art form and changed the way we all look at the world.
As far as Adams using Mortensenās techniques, Iād say that Adams owes much, much more to Westonās patient, careful research into exposure, and he polished that research into a diamond.
Edited to add:
If this had been created by digital/photoshopping techniques, it wouldnāt be a remarkable photo. It wouldnāt have reflected Daliās work at all - that guy was a master of his craft and a true artist.
Itās not a matter of the One True Truth. Surrealism, realism, and idealism go in and out of artistic fashion, in photography as in everything else. The community speaks to itself in a language which is common and yet constantly changes. Photographs, like any other artistic work, are all without exception artifices, as much as the cave paintings at Lascaux. Art is indeed old, but ātiredā may well be in the mind of the beholder.
In comic-book movies such as Spider-Man and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, special effects merge seamlessly into the action and the monsters appear as real as humans. A photograph is rarely just a photograph these days, seen without filters or retouching. And, thanks to sites like Instagram, many of Mortensenās painstaking techniques can now be applied with the touch of a button.
And maybe, just maybe, some of the f.64 groups techniques/aesthetics made it to gigapixel imagery.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
