I'll think about mine and post tomorrow.
Geoff
Favourite LF Photographers
Favourite LF Photographers
We all seem adept at discussing equipment and technique issues, but I often believe that forums rarely discuss 'photography' ie favourite images and the masters who create them. Just for some fun who are our favourite LF photographers and favourite prints of all time.
I'll think about mine and post tomorrow.
Geoff
I'll think about mine and post tomorrow.
Geoff
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
Good one! I'll give it a crack.
I am no gear-head, and I know very little about photographers. But I do admire a certain type of photography. All landscape photographs are abstractions of Nature but some are more abstracted than others. I admire the ability of some to take the mundane and make a bold statement from it. For instance, Dave Ward's picture from his books "Landscape within" (page 56, reproduced without permission):
It's interesting to see how photographers feel obliged to structure their compositions as strongly as possible in order to affirm the artificiality of the picture, in order to say: "there is a bit of me in there". It's also sad in a way, that human foibles have to tinge our appreciation of Nature, that a loosely composed photographic picture has to be consider less noble. A painter on the other hand will seek looseness, in order to affirm the introduction of Nature! Who says it's not a crazy world?
Charles
I am no gear-head, and I know very little about photographers. But I do admire a certain type of photography. All landscape photographs are abstractions of Nature but some are more abstracted than others. I admire the ability of some to take the mundane and make a bold statement from it. For instance, Dave Ward's picture from his books "Landscape within" (page 56, reproduced without permission):
It's interesting to see how photographers feel obliged to structure their compositions as strongly as possible in order to affirm the artificiality of the picture, in order to say: "there is a bit of me in there". It's also sad in a way, that human foibles have to tinge our appreciation of Nature, that a loosely composed photographic picture has to be consider less noble. A painter on the other hand will seek looseness, in order to affirm the introduction of Nature! Who says it's not a crazy world?
Charles
Last edited by Charles Twist on Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:09 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Charles
Yes I sometimes too feel that photographers try to structure an image in order to imitate art/nature, whereas painters seem to live it more. For me it is in the wider life experience and life goals of the artist/photographer that both forgives the excessiveness of order in a photograph or, au contrair, the lack of it.
My first introduction to LF photography was through a documentary photography course I was taking at my local college. We were studying some of the origins of documentary and looked at the dust bowl images in the depression in USA in 20s and thirties. The work of Walker Evans (large format images of people living in a poor environment of pot bellied stoves, ranges, wooden chairs and tables and bleached wooden houses) has left an indelible mark. There is both order and symmetry in those images as well as a simple and iconic portrayal of suffering, poverty and bleak determination.
It is amazing to think that this overlapped with the work of Edward Weston and Tina Modotti who were chasing a different muse in Mexico. There they captured form, sexuality and local politics in the best traditions of artists. I love their work as much as Walker Evan's; both the common factor between these (and all great photographers and artists) is that they devoted their lives to their art.
Somewhere in this process art and photography become the same.
As for the reliance on equipment to reach a state of communication, I am currently rejecting much of the taking of photographs on digital equipment for LF gear. It is the meditative quality of taking an image in a landscape that appeals to me. Regarding gear that 'artists' need for their 'art' it seems much simpler and connected to them. I believe LF becomes so much more like that.
I will try to consider more of the photographers who I have enjoyed over the next few days.
Yes I sometimes too feel that photographers try to structure an image in order to imitate art/nature, whereas painters seem to live it more. For me it is in the wider life experience and life goals of the artist/photographer that both forgives the excessiveness of order in a photograph or, au contrair, the lack of it.
My first introduction to LF photography was through a documentary photography course I was taking at my local college. We were studying some of the origins of documentary and looked at the dust bowl images in the depression in USA in 20s and thirties. The work of Walker Evans (large format images of people living in a poor environment of pot bellied stoves, ranges, wooden chairs and tables and bleached wooden houses) has left an indelible mark. There is both order and symmetry in those images as well as a simple and iconic portrayal of suffering, poverty and bleak determination.
It is amazing to think that this overlapped with the work of Edward Weston and Tina Modotti who were chasing a different muse in Mexico. There they captured form, sexuality and local politics in the best traditions of artists. I love their work as much as Walker Evan's; both the common factor between these (and all great photographers and artists) is that they devoted their lives to their art.
Somewhere in this process art and photography become the same.
As for the reliance on equipment to reach a state of communication, I am currently rejecting much of the taking of photographs on digital equipment for LF gear. It is the meditative quality of taking an image in a landscape that appeals to me. Regarding gear that 'artists' need for their 'art' it seems much simpler and connected to them. I believe LF becomes so much more like that.
I will try to consider more of the photographers who I have enjoyed over the next few days.
-
Richie Hall
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:09 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Great Ayton N YORKS
Hi Charles,
just joined the site 5 minutes ago so am losing my virginity i suppose with you. I have only been into photography for a year using only digital however i went into a gallery in my village and saw some of the Joe Cornish landscapes and was absolutely blown away. I very quickly booked on a beginners workshop and went to one of his presentation nights and again was extremely impressed and in awe of his passion for his surroundings and love of light, and geology, these are things i am also very fond of and one of the reasons i moved down here from Newcastle.
I have since seen some of Charlie Waites Prints also and again would love to be able to produce something half as good.
I am now looking to get a LF kit and have already walked out trying to plan my first captures on LF.
Do you have any advice on cameras etc please?
regards,
Richie Hall.
just joined the site 5 minutes ago so am losing my virginity i suppose with you. I have only been into photography for a year using only digital however i went into a gallery in my village and saw some of the Joe Cornish landscapes and was absolutely blown away. I very quickly booked on a beginners workshop and went to one of his presentation nights and again was extremely impressed and in awe of his passion for his surroundings and love of light, and geology, these are things i am also very fond of and one of the reasons i moved down here from Newcastle.
I have since seen some of Charlie Waites Prints also and again would love to be able to produce something half as good.
I am now looking to get a LF kit and have already walked out trying to plan my first captures on LF.
Do you have any advice on cameras etc please?
regards,
Richie Hall.
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
(1) Geoff,
Maybe we should be allowed to quote a painter as inspiration to our photography. I know a lot more about painting than I do about photography! DW's photograph above reminds me very much of Ben Nicholson. I have spent quite some time reading about and looking at paintings of the early 20th century - a time when it had become technically easy to make an image, and artists were left with the question "whither now?". Suddenly they had to go right back to basics, either through primitive art or proto-minimalism (suprematism, De Stijl, etc). IMHO, that work is only now slowly permeating the main-stream and influencing the approach of the common mortal/would-be artist, such as myself. There lies the future: photography has become so common, that we need to go back to the same basic questions in order to be original. As I quipped recently: in 50 years time, we will be able to take a blank piece of paper and write on it: "this is a landscape photograph". Which work would cost you 50,000 euros (allowing for inflation and occupation of GB by the Brussels confederacy).
(2) Richie,
I am sure there are loads of folk who can help you with the gear side better than me. Ebony is recognised as the best and is great for showing off. At a third the price, the Toyo field cameras offer 98% of the facilities, and you can knock nails into the wall with them. I use a Toyo and am about to be ostracised by the Ebony community rampant in these parts.
I live in Saltburn 20 minutes away. I am busy this week, but if you want to head down to the beach one evening next week, drop me a PM.
Charles
Maybe we should be allowed to quote a painter as inspiration to our photography. I know a lot more about painting than I do about photography! DW's photograph above reminds me very much of Ben Nicholson. I have spent quite some time reading about and looking at paintings of the early 20th century - a time when it had become technically easy to make an image, and artists were left with the question "whither now?". Suddenly they had to go right back to basics, either through primitive art or proto-minimalism (suprematism, De Stijl, etc). IMHO, that work is only now slowly permeating the main-stream and influencing the approach of the common mortal/would-be artist, such as myself. There lies the future: photography has become so common, that we need to go back to the same basic questions in order to be original. As I quipped recently: in 50 years time, we will be able to take a blank piece of paper and write on it: "this is a landscape photograph". Which work would cost you 50,000 euros (allowing for inflation and occupation of GB by the Brussels confederacy).
(2) Richie,
Heck! Steady on now.just joined the site 5 minutes ago so am losing my virginity i suppose with you.
I am sure there are loads of folk who can help you with the gear side better than me. Ebony is recognised as the best and is great for showing off. At a third the price, the Toyo field cameras offer 98% of the facilities, and you can knock nails into the wall with them. I use a Toyo and am about to be ostracised by the Ebony community rampant in these parts.
I live in Saltburn 20 minutes away. I am busy this week, but if you want to head down to the beach one evening next week, drop me a PM.
Charles
-
gari
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:00 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Aviemore, Scotland
- Contact:
My vision and approach is shifting from a saturated velvia look to something more subtle/subdued, less contrasty. The photographers that exemplify what I aspire to are
Paul Wakefield
Andrew Nadolski
Jim Collum
Gari(thats me signing not adding myself to the list!)
Paul Wakefield
Andrew Nadolski
Jim Collum
Gari(thats me signing not adding myself to the list!)
you don't need eyes to see, you need vision!
-
Paul Sanders
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:11 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Kent
- Contact:
For me its all about my own emotions when I look at a scene and try and capture how I feel (unsuccessfully sometimes). I admire the works of many photographers but have recently witnessed too many photographers trying to re-create what Joe Cornish or Charlie Waite for example have shot. None of us are ever likely to be able to capture what they see in a landscape - not because we can't but because we see it differently, in my view no matter what ever our experience may be we should celebrate the fact the each of us views the same scene in a different way and aspire only to better our own last image.
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
I can't remember the quote exactly, but something like: "copying one person is plagiarism, copying many is influence".
I think that in the process of becoming a better photographer, trying to emulate photographers whose style/results/approach we admire, can only be a good thing. It helps to broaden our abilities; it helps to put our own abilities in perspective. But emulation is a means to an end, and producing clones for commercial or self-agrandizement reasons is always controversial (if enjoyable). The advantages of doing so are (i) to keep those we emulate on their toes and (ii) to offer the world subtle variations on a theme, which then permit evolution of the field (survival of the fittest, etc). I would also note that although JCornish sometimes offers images in a very personal style, for the most part he chooses the plainest approach and the best light for shooting a subject. In which case, finding an alernative is not trivial. Still, onwards, my friends.
Charles
I think that in the process of becoming a better photographer, trying to emulate photographers whose style/results/approach we admire, can only be a good thing. It helps to broaden our abilities; it helps to put our own abilities in perspective. But emulation is a means to an end, and producing clones for commercial or self-agrandizement reasons is always controversial (if enjoyable). The advantages of doing so are (i) to keep those we emulate on their toes and (ii) to offer the world subtle variations on a theme, which then permit evolution of the field (survival of the fittest, etc). I would also note that although JCornish sometimes offers images in a very personal style, for the most part he chooses the plainest approach and the best light for shooting a subject. In which case, finding an alernative is not trivial. Still, onwards, my friends.
Charles
Last edited by Charles Twist on Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:58 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00, edited 1 time in total.
-
Paul Sanders
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:11 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Kent
- Contact:
Good point Charles, must admit that you could never discribe doing anything with LF as trivial - just getting to a location can be trial and you need the patience of a saint!.
What I was trying to suggest was that some feel it neccessary to copy, almost to point of trying to find the tripod marks, whereas what they should be doing is taking inspiration from others and using that to help them develop their own style - after all who are we shooting for? I must admit that at present I am looking through some of the great landscapes by british painters - (inspired by a picture of Britain on the BBC). I think it would be quite a fun project for those interested to find a painting and try to come up with their own version of the work. We could put our attempts in the gallery. Any takers???
What I was trying to suggest was that some feel it neccessary to copy, almost to point of trying to find the tripod marks, whereas what they should be doing is taking inspiration from others and using that to help them develop their own style - after all who are we shooting for? I must admit that at present I am looking through some of the great landscapes by british painters - (inspired by a picture of Britain on the BBC). I think it would be quite a fun project for those interested to find a painting and try to come up with their own version of the work. We could put our attempts in the gallery. Any takers???
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
A thought that had crossed my mind too, but which I soon shelved. I am not saying it can't be done, and I did note a few ideas from the programmes. But I have less lofty aims I wish to achieve first.
If we are talking reasonably depictive paintings, let us say pre-1900, then I would put them in two categories: in the sticks and not. If the former, the painters usually exaggerated the mountains making them look more menacing (shearer, darker, taller and/or craggier). If the latter, the scene has usually changed beyond recognition since then. In both cases, painters have a bad habit of distorting the representation in order to improve the composition (thank goodness for Photoshop, I hear you say - tut, tut). Also painters choose viewpoints where they can show off their painterly skills, which seldom equate those of a photographer. In fact, interestingly, a view-camera user will often choose a different viewpoint to a photographer practicing his art with a fixed-parallel-plane camera, so as to show off his/her special tool and his/her skill at using it.
To come back to the point before that, I agree with the benefit of general influence. I also think it would be an interesting exercise to compile all the pictures (painting and photographs) of a particular site, to see how various artists have tackled it and influenced each other. Dunstanburgh castle would be an apt choice. And talking of JCornish, a list of photos of that rock at Elgol would show that he only nicked the idea from previous photographers (including PWakefield); was JC right or wrong to seek out the tripod holes of the chap he admired?
The link to the pic in my previous email didn't work. Now rectified.
Charles
If we are talking reasonably depictive paintings, let us say pre-1900, then I would put them in two categories: in the sticks and not. If the former, the painters usually exaggerated the mountains making them look more menacing (shearer, darker, taller and/or craggier). If the latter, the scene has usually changed beyond recognition since then. In both cases, painters have a bad habit of distorting the representation in order to improve the composition (thank goodness for Photoshop, I hear you say - tut, tut). Also painters choose viewpoints where they can show off their painterly skills, which seldom equate those of a photographer. In fact, interestingly, a view-camera user will often choose a different viewpoint to a photographer practicing his art with a fixed-parallel-plane camera, so as to show off his/her special tool and his/her skill at using it.
To come back to the point before that, I agree with the benefit of general influence. I also think it would be an interesting exercise to compile all the pictures (painting and photographs) of a particular site, to see how various artists have tackled it and influenced each other. Dunstanburgh castle would be an apt choice. And talking of JCornish, a list of photos of that rock at Elgol would show that he only nicked the idea from previous photographers (including PWakefield); was JC right or wrong to seek out the tripod holes of the chap he admired?
The link to the pic in my previous email didn't work. Now rectified.
Charles
-
Paul Sanders
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:11 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Kent
- Contact:
well, lets be really honest, is there anywhere that hasn't been photographed before - I know when we were up in Northumberland I had a good look over JC's work and that of many others to, the beech was full of "tripod holes" I think the fun comes in from trying to throw your own interpretation on a well covered subject. Not easy sometimes.
As for the paintings, you are right when you say the artists exaggeratted the perspectives mountains etc. I was recently in Yorkshire and went to Gordale Scar. Having looked at James Ward's version I struggled to find a way of capturing the emotion conjured up by him - he has certainly "moved" many elements. My result is with the lab at the minute I may if I am brave enough put it up for your critique.
Happy shooting.
Paul
As for the paintings, you are right when you say the artists exaggeratted the perspectives mountains etc. I was recently in Yorkshire and went to Gordale Scar. Having looked at James Ward's version I struggled to find a way of capturing the emotion conjured up by him - he has certainly "moved" many elements. My result is with the lab at the minute I may if I am brave enough put it up for your critique.
Happy shooting.
Paul
-
Steve Bell
I admire many photographers work, some well known, some not. I'll often look through photographers web sites to get a feel for a part of the country I've never seen before, to determine if it's worth a visit, but never deliberately plan to copy an image. A month ago I was in Cornwall for a few days, visiting Porth Nanven twice. On the first occaision there was around 15 photographers on the beach, the second time only 2, a popular spot. Only minutes ago I was looking through Steve Gledhill's Virtuallygrey web site, he is one photographer who's work I enjoy viewing, and found an image titled 'boulder alley' that looked exactly the same as one I remember taking, although still awaiting processing. It's impossible to avoid this at popular locations.