Quality of photographs

sar-photo

sar-photo

Simon Robinson
Local time
12:43 AM
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
284
Came across this quote from a famous photographer the other day.

"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that - but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention." (Elliott Erwitt)

Makes a lot of sense to me, but then I suppose it depends on where you are coming from photographically. I can appreciate an Ansel Adams but in the end it's just a pretty picture - there's no narrative. Give me a good street or documentary picture any day :D

Cheers
Simon
 
I suppose I lean a little more in the direction of technical quality. This is what I like to see. I've seen this in Ansel Adams' prints, like Mr. Erwitt, the composition does very little to draw me to them. When I saw the Frank exhibit is San Francisco, I was very much drawn to them, and I again agree with Mr. Erwitt or his 'someone' they look sloppy. I guess my ideal photograph would have technical quality and also be thoughtful. Venchka, our fellow member, has done some that I've seen posted here that meet my requirements.
 
It's a fair point but what's the point? Some photographers are into making "fine prints" a la AA and others are into communicating something about culture a la Robert Frank. The latter IMO is art and the former is craft. But achieving mastery in craftmaship is not to be sneezed at. Was Faberge an artist or a craftsman. To my mind he was a craftsman but the numpties selling the stuff try and pass it off as art because they think art is intellectually superior. Fact is it can be but often isn't because its so supercial. But skilled craftsmanship is what most of us like to adorn our houses with and not art. So again, what's the point of the observation? Is that he doesn't recognise AAs work for what it is because he seems to be demeaning it by calling it a post card or is it because he's a pseud? I rekon its the latter.
 
When Robert Frank shot his famous book, the world was a different place. People hadn't become media conscious, and more importantly there was life on the streets... So, all he had to do was point and shoot and the subject authenticity did the rest.

These days people have become extremely media savvy and image conscious. When you see people walking on the street, everyone is fitting a type and they're all like a bunch of actors playing their favorite character... Secondly, life is in the shopping malls and no longer on the streets. You can visit a few ethnic neighborhoods but they're also fake in that they maintain that rustic look to appeal to the public as a tourist area.

I think its about time we stopped obsessing with Robert Frank and his legacy, he was a product of his time and that was 50 years ago. The same applies to Ansel Adams who's even more outdated.
 
I don't think that this is specifically about Adams and Frank. Isn't it more about content vs technical perfection?

Simon
 
From the limited amount of knowledge I have of AA, I believe that his photographs did have a message and a purpose: documenting in the highest technical degree possible, the beauty of the American landscape/wilderness and argue for their preservation. It's just a different message and purpose than a social documentarian like Frank had. AA images do have content, IMO.
 
GSNfan said:
When Robert Frank shot his famous book, the world was a different place. People hadn't become media conscious, and more importantly there was life on the streets... So, all he had to do was point and shoot and the subject authenticity did the rest.

These days people have become extremely media savvy and image conscious. When you see people walking on the street, everyone is fitting a type and they're all like a bunch of actors playing their favorite character... Secondly, life is in the shopping malls and no longer on the streets. You can visit a few ethnic neighborhoods but they're also fake in that they maintain that rustic look to appeal to the public as a tourist area.

I think its about time we stopped obsessing with Robert Frank and his legacy, he was a product of his time and that was 50 years ago. The same applies to Ansel Adams who's even more outdated.
Click to expand...

I think there is a lot to that, our exposure to media and therefore our culturat expectations of it. Times do indeed change, and what we think of as great, or even good. When is the last time you saw a copy of Steerage, or a glowing critique of its excellentness?
 
Here is a wonderful photo:

Frank-Sinatra-and-Marilyn-006.jpg


I think it is an example of an image being great because it implies a story (or suggests multiple possible stories), because it captures an interesting moment, AND because because it exhibits great attention to technique.

In short, it is much more than just a pretty picture, or just a "moment".

Randy
 
What's wrong with postcards? Seriously?

'Art' is a moving target, and heavily subject to fashions. When I was in my 'teens, the reputation of Alma-Tadema was at an all-time low. Now, he's been rehabilitated. If I'd been able to buy a few Alma-Tadema paintings in the late 60s, and hang on to them until the late 80s, I'd probably not need to work again if I sold one every decade or so.

For that matter, why is Roger Fenton's name so seldom heard today? One of the greatest photographers of all time. And what makes HCB so much better than Willy Ronis?

It's an infantile 'winner takes all' mentality. Children always want to know what's 'best'. If they grow up, they learn that it's not that simple. Often, the media (and ignorant fellow punters) concentrate only on that infantile 'best' and stop people growing up.

Cheers,

R.
 
sar-photo said:
"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that - but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention." (Elliott Erwitt)
Click to expand...

Simon, you will be get a lot of applause about this quote here in a RF forum. But quote this in a large format forum and you will be crucified...
 
sar-photo said:
I don't think that this is specifically about Adams and Frank. Isn't it more about content vs technical perfection?

Simon
Click to expand...

That is by assuming that Frank's work has content and Adams is technically perfect.

The content in Frank's work is purely subjective, either one sees content in it or not. The problem is peer pressure, in that amateurs literally enforce upon other less experienced amateurs the notion that they must see content in Frank's work because "its there" and because all famous photographers think so. This is almost like a religious way of thinking.

I do see content in Frank's work but I also see that it has no relevance to my current preoccupations and the society that I live in. To me The Americans is a time capsule and not a definitive standard for photography/street photography.

In fact there are no standards of quality, both content-wise and technical for still photography. That is another reason why still photography is so easy to get into and very difficult/impossible to make something out of it.
 
GSNfan said:
When Robert Frank shot his famous book, the world was a different place. People hadn't become media conscious, and more importantly there was life on the streets... So, all he had to do was point and shoot and the subject authenticity did the rest.

These days people have become extremely media savvy and image conscious. When you see people walking on the street, everyone is fitting a type and they're all like a bunch of actors playing their favorite character... Secondly, life is in the shopping malls and no longer on the streets. You can visit a few ethnic neighborhoods but they're also fake in that they maintain that rustic look to appeal to the public as a tourist area.

I think its about time we stopped obsessing with Robert Frank and his legacy, he was a product of his time and that was 50 years ago. The same applies to Ansel Adams who's even more outdated.
Click to expand...

You cannot just lump the whole world into this cynical view of "the world." Man, cheer up... the "world" is not so bad... and there are still authentic people out there.
 
As FrankS says main purpose of AA was to document the beauty of the American wilderness and he choiced the more idoneus media and related technique to do it. His photos reflect this beauty.
RF 's American purpose was to document real life and he used the more versatile available media, obtaining stunning photographs. The freedom allowed by the small format camera, the grainy B&W (similar to the television images of those times) reflect the life of the post war America.
Different gear, different tecniques, different results but both real valid according to the ideas of the photographers.
robert
 
Last edited:
Apologies all, I should have immediately posted the ID of the photographer (Bernie Abrahamson) along with that picture. I have seen other photos that are obviously from the same session, but this one truly stands out.
 
Going back to the original post about the work of RF and AA.

I'm a hardcore street photography fan but when it comes to repeat viewing and taking pleasure by looking at a photo, I find myself enjoying AA's works more and don't I get tired of repeatedly viewing his work.

I can hang a AA picture and never get tired of it, but I get tired of Frank's work very quickly, in fact I have not gone through The Americans in years. I know most of the pictures in it by memory and looking at them again does not make much sense to me.

So, which is has content and quality for me as one of the 'audience'? I'll be honest, Ansel Adam's work has more longevity and it gives me pleasure looking at it. I like to be where those photos were taken. Frank's work on the other hand feels a little preachy (for all the right reasons) and about a distant time, a time that I cannot identify with.

I stand corrected, imo, its Robert Frank that feels outdated while Ansel Adams work still gives enjoyment looking at them.
 
GSNfan said:
When Robert Frank shot his famous book, the world was a different place. People hadn't become media conscious, and more importantly there was life on the streets... So, all he had to do was point and shoot and the subject authenticity did the rest.

These days people have become extremely media savvy and image conscious. When you see people walking on the street, everyone is fitting a type and they're all like a bunch of actors playing their favorite character... Secondly, life is in the shopping malls and no longer on the streets. You can visit a few ethnic neighborhoods but they're also fake in that they maintain that rustic look to appeal to the public as a tourist area.

I think its about time we stopped obsessing with Robert Frank and his legacy, he was a product of his time and that was 50 years ago. The same applies to Ansel Adams who's even more outdated.
Click to expand...

These statements can only apply to the suburbs, where there are no proper streets. And wherever you come from, I don't know where you can find "artificial" ethnic neighborhoods outside of Disneyland.

People in the burbs may put on airs and try to maintain an image, but believe me, life gets "real" when your house is foreclosed. If you live in the burbs I am sure there is no shortage of human drama to document outside your door, even if it is not conventional "street" photography. (Maybe "cul de sac" photography?)

Also, speaking as someone who has started taking candid photos of people for the first time in his life, I already see it is damn difficult. The "moment" that Bresson spoke of does not give itself up easily. I have respect for anyone who has the capacity to document an "authentic" moment, even if it takes 100 rolls to get it.

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