Mortensen and pictorialism

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
9:46 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
bmattock is a fellow admirer of 'pictorialism', the photographic equivalent of "all's fair in love and war", and the antithesis of Ansel Adams and his everything-razor-sharp-on-large-format cronies.

Actually, I quite like a lot of AA's early work as well, and equally, I have to admit that many of Mortensen's pictures were awful. So were many other shots from the Pictorialists: muddy and unsharp for the sake of being muddy and unsharp, much like the vast majority of modern 'bokeh' shots which follow the fashion and have no detectable artistic or even technical merit.

But many 'pictorial' pictures weren't at all bad: a lot better than yet another super-sharp faux-wilderness Ansel-Adams-wannabee shot. What, then, are your own personal favourites among your own less-than-sharp, more-or-less-manipulated pictures?

Here's one of my favourites, a Thambar portrait: soft focus lens, contrast added, exposure darkened to compensate for the flatness and flare of a 1938 uncoated bottle.

Cheers,

R.
 

Attachments

  • thambar portrait.jpg
    thambar portrait.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 0


I stuck a copier lens on my Canon T-60 and took a photo.



Taken with a Voigtlander Avus (Skopar lens).






Meyer-Gorlitz Trioplan (M42) stuck on a Pentax *ist.




B&L 157mm f/2.7 Baltar (cine lens converted from Mitchell mount to M42) on Pentax *ist.
 
I love Mortensen. I can appreciate AA. I just never liked the conspiracy of AA and Beaumont Newhall, to expunge Mortensen and the Pictorialists from photo history. AA hated, despised Mortensen for all that he stood for.

Zeppelin - Olympus Pen and Polaroid Polapan.
 
Oh, and by the way - I love my Portragon. I'm not sure it's all that great on a digital SLR, what with the crop factor. Seems to work better as intended - on a film SLR.
 
kbg32 said:
I love Mortensen. I can appreciate AA. I just never liked the conspiracy of AA and Beaumont Newhall, to expunge Mortensen and the Pictorialists from photo history. AA hated, despised Mortensen for all that he stood for.

Zeppelin - Olympus Pen and Polaroid Polapan.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this.
 
3732051496_f2e515ccce.jpg
 
Last edited:
On the topic of AA and the anti-pictorialism conspiracy, here's what Berenice Abbott had to say about Stieglitz, Weston, Adams, and their minions:

Berenice Abbott said:
The greatest influence obscuring the entire field of photography has, in my opinion, been pictorialism. But first let me define it: pictorialism means chiefly the making of pleasant, pretty, artificial pictures in the superficial spirit of certain minor painters.

What is more, the imitators of these superficial qualities are not aware of the true values for which painting strives. Photography can never grow up if it imitates other medium.

It has to walk alone; it has to be itself.

These latter-day pictorialists did not know that they were pictorialists. They were what I can only call, for lack of a better word, the advanced or super-pictorial school. The individual picture, like a painting, was the thing. (1950)
Click to expand...
 
The Center for Creative Photography in Tucson had a show that was 1/2 F64 and 1/2 Pictorialism. Sometimes a photographer would qualify for both camps. I went with the expectation that I would hate the Pictorialist stuff and that F64 would look so much better. I actually was more fascinated with the Pictoralists and the techniques they used. They had a very different way of seeing, not necessarily better or worse. In any event, until you see the actual print you really have not seen the work and should be careful about making judgments.
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
Is the Holga camera included in this style of image quality?
Click to expand...

My first thought would be to answer 'no', but then I thought again about it. Now I want to answer 'yes and no', because the Holga (and Diana and other 'toy' cameras) are prized for different reasons.

The original pictorialists used soft lenses intentionally, so in that sense, you could say a Holga is not unlike what the pictorialists did in that sense. However, the pictorialists were not necessarily after interesting aberrations and lucky mistakes, but an overall painterly quality (it was this very notion that made the straight photography camp so angry with them, claiming they were simply trying to ape what painters did). The Holga is not a 'soft' lens per se, but a 'bad' lens (I realize that this is intentional, but it's still a crappy lens). I think there is a difference.

Some more information which may help:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pict/hd_pict.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm

Pictorialists were printers as much as photographers - they did their art in the darkroom. Group f/64 photographers were printers too, but in their darkrooms, they strove for accuracy and 'realism' above all else.

Take a look at this blog entry, I think you'll find it fascinating. Both Steichen and Adams were pictorialists before they were Group f/64:

http://cameraobscura.busdraghi.net/...ard-steichen-e-la-maledizione-di-ansel-adams/
 
I should've guess that this would attract fewer views than a gearhead thread, though the responses are illuminating and welcome. All right: let's see if this brings the gearheads in, rather than saying 'what pictures do you like...'

What cameras do you use to achieve pictorialist effects? Do you use two enlargers? What other gear secrets are there?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I should've guess that this would attract fewer views than a gearhead thread, though the responses are illuminating and welcome. All right: let's see if this brings the gearheads in, rather than saying 'what pictures do you like...'

What cameras do you use to achieve pictorialist effects? Do you use two enlargers? What other gear secrets are there?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

In my case, it's less about the cameras and more about the lenses, although I do employ a vintage Voigtlander Avus plate camera with Rada rollfilm back in order to achieve a certain look at times, since it has a larger media for shallower DoF and some limited movements for more precise focus control. In lenses, I tend to like the older German glass, often from second-tier manufacturers such as Meyer-Gorlitz and Enna. However, I will stick just about any lens on a camera if I can, just to see what it will do.

For this covered bridge in Michigan, I used several cameras to compare their output. The first was my aforementioned Avus:



Here's the low-contrast, light-leaking output:




Same scene, but taken with a Yashica 12 TLR (Tessar-style lens):



Some will prefer the sharper image, but I enjoy both, each on their own merits. I see the Avus image as more closely-related to a pictorialist viewpoint (although it isn't one of my favorites, just a good exemplar).

To finish up, here's the same scene with a Brownie Hawkeye (meniscus lens, no focus, no aperture, no shutter speed control, just point and click):


 
Roger Hicks said:
I should've guess that this would attract fewer views than a gearhead thread, though the responses are illuminating and welcome. All right: let's see if this brings the gearheads in, rather than saying 'what pictures do you like...'

What cameras do you use to achieve pictorialist effects? Do you use two enlargers? What other gear secrets are there?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I have to confess I'd never heard of Pictorialism - so thanks for raising this...have spent a little while looking up info on the net to learn more.

As an approach, is it welded to its place in history or can it be used for similar effect with photoshop and creative use of modern cameras - or does it only apply to hand worked prints etc?

Either way, interesting stuff.
 
DavidH said:
As an approach, is it welded to its place in history or can it be used for similar effect with photoshop and creative use of modern cameras - or does it only apply to hand worked prints etc?
Click to expand...

Pictorialism had it's moment in history, as you say. However, that does not mean the methods cannot be used by contemporary photographers. Since it was primarily about results (the print), it hardly matters that we don't work over a huge negative or print with a razor blade, as Mortensen did. The effect is what is important. Do it in photoshop, do it with a lens choice, etc, etc.

Perhaps it would be best called 'neo-pictorialism' if practiced today, but otherwise, I don't see why it can't be done using whatever technical methods one desires.
 
DavidH said:
I have to confess I'd never heard of Pictorialism - so thanks for raising this...have spent a little while looking up info on the net to learn more.

As an approach, is it welded to its place in history or can it be used for similar effect with photoshop and creative use of modern cameras - or does it only apply to hand worked prints etc?

Either way, interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

Dear David,

All's fair in love and war... and pictorialism! So yes, you can do ANYTHING as long as it makes a good picture (for a given value of 'good')(or indeed 'picture').

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Actually, I quite like a lot of AA's early work as well, and equally, I have to admit that many of Mortensen's pictures were awful.
Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

i actually framed a series of original Mortensen's pieces a few months ago. this little old lady came into my store with a dusty portfolio of pictures of herself that he had taken. they were her payment for modeling. she was probably 80 and still quite beautiful.

while she was here she started talking about the old days and how AA tortured William. she said he would call often enough that she actually heard a few of the calls and he would just lay into him. AA supposedly would call art directors that were planning shows including Mortensen and threaten to never do business with them if they proceeded.

this is the rambling of a friend of Mortensen's, so take it at face value, but she was pretty convincing.

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