Modern Black and White Aesthetic

[Corran]

I wonder, what is "serious photography?" 🙂.

I merely mention it as something that is out there, not necessarily equating it with having value. Myself, I find photography YouTube channels to be incredibly boring. Instagram is a mixed bag, of course considering the shear volume of content/creators.

And heck, this forum is a form of social media, even if message boards were popularized before such a term existed.

I think what's important in this side discussion, and also on the whole with regard to aesthetics, is one should strive to develop their own voice and not blindly follow any one person, style, or methodology without cogent thought about why one is doing it.

 

[LCSmith]

Regarding social media, I don't know any real fine art photographers who do it. They sell prints. Those whose names are attached to social media don't actually do the social media or control its content (for the most part). Social media has been vulgar for a long time! (I mean "vulgar" in the etymological sense, not pejorative).

Yes, Corran, I agree and thank you. We happen to be saying the same thing.

 

[Corran]

Perhaps you can expand on "real fine art photographers" and what that means. Or perhaps this is all fodder for a wholly different thread / discussion...

 

[LCSmith]

Perhaps you can expand on "real fine art photographers" and what that means. Or perhaps this is all fodder for a wholly different thread / discussion...

Or viva voce dialogue, but even then we should so often find ourselves concluding "in aporia"...

But then, at least we could shake hands! Or have a beer.

 

[Corran]

I am a big fan of those kinds of discussions in-person, over coffee and prints preferably!

A distinct lack of that lately for obvious reasons...

 

[chipgreenberg]

I agree with this Corran.

Thats why my earlier post indicated photographers can be a dogmatic bunch. Not just commercial photographers, but anyone looking for a particular aesthetic.

Not just photographers. Designers,painters, authors, musicians, chefs, etc.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not devaluing the idea of an aesthetic, but separating it from the medium itself.

An aesthetic is a personal choice, a style developed from practice, observation, and choice. I would agree that certain styles might be popularized, especially in today's world of social media "influencers" and the tendency to emulate those kinds of images. And perhaps many photographers never develop past their first ideas.

 

[LCSmith]

I am a big fan of those kinds of discussions in-person, over coffee and prints preferably!.

Yes, good I'm glad! I think it was Socrates who was reported to have disliked the monolith of the written word since no objections could be raised (say, if an objectionable line of argumentation had been taken). But this is obviously the virtue of dialogue and "elenchus" (e.g. cross-examination) for the discussion of such serious ideas! We perhaps begin to see the terrible fallacy of the straw man to which impersonal communication seems particularly susceptible.

 

[helen.HH]

Helen,
I’d personally agree that this is the bottom line with regard to “styles”.
Digital does seem to have moved the needle towards normalizing photos that are generally overly contrasty, and overly saturated, if compared to reality, and I don’t know if younger people have or have not adopted that style when they moved to film work. It’s certainly possible, and probably not just younger people. Dunno.

But...... the larger point to keep in mind is the reality behind your comment. Different subjects cry out for different processing, a different “style”, a different esthetic, in order to be fully realized. We have Yousef Karsh’s style as used to photograph Churchill and, on the other hand, we have Daido Moriyama’s dog. Both are, I would hope most would agree, undeniably good photographs. The subject is served by the style. In a perfect world the subject should dictate the style, instead of trying to shoehorn every subject into a single style, or tonal esthetic. Karsh’s style used on Moriyama’s dog would be instantly forgettable, and Moriyama’s style used on Churchill would be less than optimal at realizing the effect that Karsh was able to create.

If young film photographers are indeed doing nothing but over sharpening photos which are over saturated and overly contrasty, that would be a shame, since not every subject is best served by that esthetic, just as every subject is not best served by the Zone system and long tonal range.

In the final analysis, it’s the “does it move you” bit that matters, as Helen says, not whether it has, or doesn’t have, shadow detail. For some subjects, crushing the blacks is the best way to emotionally represent, or better, to “present” a scene. A single way of processing all one’s images is going to mean that subjects are optimally realized and depicted only part of the time. (With the caveat that if one limits one’s subject matter to a single basic type of subject, as Karsh or Salgado do, then a single style is in fact, the best way forward. Plus, it’s the easiest way to do photography, once one settles on a technique, as long as one realizes that once that hammer is acquired, not everything is a nail, and limits their subject matter accordingly.)
But, in the final analysis, wonderful photos come in all kinds of kinds.

Well Larry, You got me...
Lots to think about, lots to agree on but Yes it's got to draw You in

Wow!!! Helen, I respect you for it. Just as I respect you for many other things. I was kind of lonely on this feeling. Until now.
Adams is totally boring in terms of the content. So, it has to be compensated with sixteen shades of grey to make pictures without interesting content looks fabulous (technically).
And then he was given assignment to photograph people instead of cheese landscapes he totally blow it.

We are BOTH very WICKED Kostya, lol !!

I've always loved your avatar pic.
High contrast etc and fantastic.

Hi Huss,
Is that the one with my legs showing with an M4 or is t the M2

Hi Helen, me too !

What matters first is content. If it doesn't speak to me everything else is lost. Doesn't matter the brilliant technical aspects, a boring image is a boring image.
I'm personally more on the total range:
There needs to be some BLACK and some WHITE, the entire range from end to end. I don't care if there are a multitude of shades grey (50?) in between. If it's just all greys and no black, it's not for me. I don't obsess over the zones but I do try to expose properly using the histogram on 'ole Miss MM.😉
I do like what I get as end result

DNG -> processed image TIFF -> quad tone rip -> piezo print

As for Ansel Adams: Technical perfection following a certain ideal gives you something to obsess about when there aren't a lot of interesting images you feel the urge to catch. He caught some great images though. Getting to a vantage point in Yosemite and seeing the natural view of half dome or other scenery you only knew from his books, ... it certainly is impressive. I missed the tour bus - almost. 😀

Cool Klaus,
Agreed , I LOVE to see BLACK and WHITE in a big way with some variation of greys...

 

[helen.HH]

I`m the same Helen .
It`s content for me first and foremost.
Unless the tonal range is really off like HDR I don`t mind but …..
I do like the work of Henry Wessel and I like John`s work ,I just have no desire to reproduce that look in my own work .

I have two rolls of film to develop at the moment.
Ilford has another roll of mine but they are on lock down ,hence the home developing.
I`ve had to re purchase beakers and tanks …. and quite frankly I`ll take what ever comes out of the process .
Just hope the content is worth it that`s all .

Great to see YOU shooting Film again
makes a good mix with your digi work

perfectly put Michael; "It`s content for me first and foremost"
yes indeed !

 

[helen.HH]

Blasphemy!!! Burn her!!! (Monty Python)
I am of course joking Helen and I undestand your point of view, please I never like offending, I'm saying this in a light hearted way.

I love Ansel Adams but I do understand what you are saying! Analytical images can be - boring sometimes.

haha Teddy, yes aside from your Monty Python I had this ringing in my head... "Off with her head"
I can't remember which Helena Bonham Carter movie it was but she screamed it thru out (jealous of her sister the Good Queen)

I have to take Adams in small doses then I can 'admire' his work
but I do understand those that adore him 😉

 

[charjohncarter]

Phases of life, phases of photography, phases of what we like in photography are sometimes summed up by one of these officious art critics by writing something like this: At the most primitive level, yes, But at the same time a process of intertexualizing is at work, so that not only the verbalization is transformed, but the received definition of the media-related categorization in which the opus partakes is challenged.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I love a Photo that moves me, pulls me in
Gets me thinking, stirs my emotions

Does not matter whether it’s ‘punchy’ , a full tonal spectrum of greys, or lots of rich inky blacks
😉

For those who don't get Ansel Adams... there are lots of artistic preferences. But if you've ever slept on a ledge with your feet out over the void, or sat out a five day storm high on a big peak in Alaska or the Yukon, there's something about the printed photographs of big landscapes, Bradford Washburn, Vittorio Sella or A.A., that is moving, much more than urban street scenes.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I never seen anything interesting in photography marked as fine art. Including prints. Can't call it as serios photography either. I did some Lith prints for fun and might try gum printing.
After C happened and I started to miss streets, I watched street photography videos, including Toronto taken. Can't call it vulgar. Some street photography combines documentary, story and well taken picture. While fine art photography is vulgar version of paintings. 🙂
I prefer group of seven paintings instead of Adams boring exposures on technically fine prints.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

KF That's where we differ.... videos, website images, images in books all have less meaning for me. My connection photographically (outside of taking photos) .... I connect with seeing prints. We all prefer different music, different food, different places. Same with art.... Like Helen said .... it's what moves you

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have seen prints from negatives taken by Arbus, Winogrand, Maier, Kolar and Zimbel.
I was at one of the first Herzog's exhibitions.
I spend time and money to get where those prints are, were. I also do darkroom prints by myself.

 

[John Bragg]

Phases of life, phases of photography, phases of what we like in photography are sometimes summed up by one of these officious art critics by writing something like this: At the most primitive level, yes, But at the same time a process of intertexualizing is at work, so that not only the verbalization is transformed, but the received definition of the media-related categorization in which the opus partakes is challenged.

Fabulous quote John. Always remember the definition of an expert. Ex= has been. Spurt= drip under pressure.
I remember a British art critic, Brian Sewell being asked to critique some paintings (un beknown to him) made by Chimpanzees. He waxed lyrical for ages about what the artist was thinking and feeling. Nuff said.

 

[icebear]

Fabulous quote John. Always remember the definition of an expert. Ex= has been. Spurt= drip under pressure.
I remember a British art critic, Brian Sewell being asked to critique some paintings (un beknown to him) made by Chimpanzees. He waxed lyrical for ages about what the artist was thinking and feeling. Nuff said.

LOL 😀
The perception of a painting/photo/artwork says as much about the critic/recipient/viewer as it does about the artist.

"You don't just expose the image - you expose yourself" R.Gibson

 

[Brian Atherton]

I am a big fan of those kinds of discussions in-person, over coffee and prints preferably!...

Yes; much of what we commit to the screen often gets misconstrued.

One has to be really careful when writing; what the author thinks is abundantly clear in print can be taken in a completely different direction to that intended, and then the author has to play catch-up with further explanations. And then there are language barriers…

Face to face the same discussion can be complemented by facial expressions, voice intonation, hand gestures etc.

At the moment this is what I’m really missing; the everyday social interaction over a pint, meal or just meeting up on a park bench or sharing a walk.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

In a conversation between people, face-to-face, we stand behind our words while standing before our listener. The reverse is also true. The internet brought us together and it may also have driven us apart. What do I know? I’m only human? The internet brings us freedom of speech without responsibility for what we say?

Once again I’m probably full of... overthinking.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Michael Markey]

Fabulous quote John. Always remember the definition of an expert. Ex= has been. Spurt= drip under pressure.
I remember a British art critic, Brian Sewell being asked to critique some paintings (un beknown to him) made by Chimpanzees. He waxed lyrical for ages about what the artist was thinking and feeling. Nuff said.

Ah Brian ...he was always good entertainment and I mean that .
A very learned man …. perhaps not on that occasion though .
A sad loss to the art world .