Digital BW, The Print

Djon said:

>Weston used the most technically >advanced camera that was available to
>him at the time...that Graflex SLR.

Actually Weston used the Graflex only for studio portraits and then mostly
in his early career as a commercial portrait photographer. Most of his
photographs from the mid-1920s forward were made with an 8x10 camera.  He
used several different brands of 8x10 cameras, the only one I remember
offhand was the Century Universal.

>If you've seen the enlargers of the era >you understand why his poverty
>wasn't the only reason he didn't own
>one.

"The era" in which Weston photographed was an approximate 40 year period
extending from about 1915 to about 1955. The enlargers from that time frame 
were fine.  His refusal to use an enlarger
wasn't based on any deficiency in the equipment, he just didn't think that
enlargements produced the degree of detail and tonality he was seeking and
could obtain from contact prints.

>I think the reason he made contact >prints was the simplicity. He used
>the easiest process.

No. See above.

I don't know what you mean about using the "most technically advanced paper" 
and being thrilled with its introduction. Weston used many papers. According 
to his son Cole he used Haloid paper durng the last part of his life and 
also used Convira, Velox, and Azo at various other times.

He even worked in Color, Kodachrome 8x10 for Kodak
see his book Color Photography
ISBN 0938262149

  ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.3 - Release Date: 6-6-2005


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> Djon said:
> 
> >Weston used the most technically >advanced camera that was available to
> >him at the time...that Graflex SLR.
> 
> Actually Weston used the Graflex only for studio portraits and then
mostly
> in his early career as a commercial portrait photographer. 

Wrong, he used his SLR extensively for dancers, nudes.

 
> 
> >If you've seen the enlargers of the era >you understand why his poverty
> >wasn't the only reason he didn't own
> >one.
> 
> "The era" in which Weston photographed was an approximate 40 year period
> extending from about 1915 to about 1955. The enlargers from that
time frame 
> were fine. 

No, they were brutally awkward to use by comparison to Dursts etc.
Physically huge, klunky. No fun. Didn't contribute anything to his
process anyway. He kept things simple.
 
> >I think the reason he made contact >prints was the simplicity. He used
> >the easiest process.
 
> 
> I don't know what you mean about using the "most technically
advanced paper" 
 
Kodabromide. He loved it.  

He'd have a 4800 today. 

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Eddy Willems
<willems.eddy@p...> wrote:
> He even worked in Color, Kodachrome 8x10 for Kodak
> see his book Color Photography
> ISBN 0938262149

Interesting. I have some ancient Kodachrome sheets (and Kodachrome
PRINTS), they look good today. 

What did he shoot with the Kodachrome, what years?

Djon

Hi Djon,

Weston shot Kodachromes during the mid and late forties of varied
subjects: harbor scenes, Point Lobos, Nautilus shells, and Death Valley
amongst others.

Roger

-- 
_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________

Wasn't this primarily the result of Adams helping out by getting  
Polaroid to make Weston a consultant--like Adams...to help Weston out  
because he needed the money...Not because Weston had some great urge  
to work in color?

--Darin

www.darinboville.com


On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Roger L Sopher wrote:

> Hi Djon,
>
> Weston shot Kodachromes during the mid and late forties of varied
> subjects: harbor scenes, Point Lobos, Nautilus shells, and Death  
> Valley
> amongst others.
>
> Roger
>
> -- 
> _______________________
>
> Roger L Sopher
> rlsopher@...
> http://deCorrales.com
> _______________________
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Djon said:

>Wrong, he used his SLR extensively for dancers, nudes.

For a short period around 1933 he used a 4x5 camera (which I guess is the 
"SLR" you're talking about) to make nudes of Sonya Noskowiak. I'm not sure 
what camera he used for his "dancer" photographs of Bertha Wardell. But the 
fact remains that the bulk of his mature work, and almost all of his best 
known work, was done with an 8x10 camera.

>No, they were brutally awkward to use >by comparison to Dursts etc.

Ansel Adams and Walker Evans, among innumerable others, seemed to manage 
o.k. with them.

>Kodabromide. He loved it.

I have no personal knowledge of what papers Weston used. However, I have 
some handwritten notes of Cole Weston's that include a list of his father's 
favorite papers. Kodabromide isn't one of them.

>He'd have a 4800 today.

I have no idea what Edward Weston would have today nor do I care. It does 
strike me as a little odd to think that a photographer who wouldn't even use 
a light meter long after they became popular and who made his prints by the 
light of a bare bulb at a time when enlargers were the norm would be using 
an ink jet printer that's been on the market for a week or two. But who 
knows, times change and people change, maybe he would have changed too.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Weston


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> Djon said:
>
> >Weston used the most technically >advanced camera that was available to
> >him at the time...that Graflex SLR.
>
> Actually Weston used the Graflex only for studio portraits and then
mostly
> in his early career as a commercial portrait photographer.

Wrong, he used his SLR extensively for dancers, nudes.


>
> >If you've seen the enlargers of the era >you understand why his poverty
> >wasn't the only reason he didn't own
> >one.
>
> "The era" in which Weston photographed was an approximate 40 year period
> extending from about 1915 to about 1955. The enlargers from that
time frame
> were fine.

No, they were brutally awkward to use by comparison to Dursts etc.
Physically huge, klunky. No fun. Didn't contribute anything to his
process anyway. He kept things simple.

> >I think the reason he made contact >prints was the simplicity. He used
> >the easiest process.

>
> I don't know what you mean about using the "most technically
advanced paper"

Kodabromide. He loved it.

He'd have a 4800 today.

Djon

Darin Boville wrote:

>Wasn't this primarily the result of Adams helping out by getting  
>Polaroid to make Weston a consultant--like Adams...to help Weston out  
>because he needed the money...Not because Weston had some great urge  
>to work in color?
>
>--Darin
>
>www.darinboville.com
>
>  
>
Beats me why he shot color. The few examples I have seen were right up
there with his B&W given the technology of color transparencies in the
40's. Could just have been curiosity, I suppose. Money was, apparently,
never the driving force in Weston's life. He dumped a very lucrative
portraiture business early in his career to pursue his own daimon.
Again, according to Cole Weston, Edward never made more than 5k in a year.

"But E.W. was never a businessman. Although the opportunity to exploit
his work was offered to him many times, he never accepted it. His
largest yearly gross income was $5000. His philosophy as far as business
was concerned, and I quote: "Be your own boss and never become a slave
to your overhead," and he practiced it."

Nancy Newhall in her essay "Color as Form"  suggested that he just "came
to color" and "following the Kodak instructions and himself made only
one mistake in timing in his first two dozen 8 x 10's. When Kodak
published a portfolio of his color, the data on stops and speeds caused
a flood of bewildered letters." I would surmise that being Edward Weston
he only had to express an interest in Kodak's latest and greatest and it
would be his for the asking.


Roger

-- 
_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________

> 
> For a short period around 1933 he used a 4x5 camera (which I guess is the
> "SLR" you're talking about) ...

I still have a working Graflex 4x5 SLR.  Current SLR owners don't know what
mirror bounce and shutter lag are.  When I was a kid (in Glendale) I stuck
an enlarging lens on it and used it as a close-up camera.  It's a neat
relic. 

> Ansel Adams in his essay titled "Edward Weston" said:
> 
> "He reduced his mechanics to a minimum...
>  no enlarger, ...

About 2 years ago the L.A. Central Library had an exhibit of the Getty's
Edward Weston collection.  I'm almost sure there were enlargements -- prints
over 8 x 10 -- in that exhibition that were claimed to be originals by
Edward.  I recall being surprised at the time because I had always thought
of him as a contact printer.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger L Sopher 
<rlsopher@c...> wrote:
> Darin Boville wrote:
> 
> >Wasn't this primarily the result of Adams helping out by getting  
> >Polaroid to make Weston a consultant--like Adams...to help Weston 
out  
> >because he needed the money...Not because Weston had some great 
urge  
> >to work in color?
> >
> >--Darin
> >
> >www.darinboville.com
> >
> >  
> >
> Beats me why he shot color. The few examples I have seen were right 
up
> there with his B&W given the technology of color transparencies in 
the
> 40's. Could just have been curiosity, I suppose. Money was, 
apparently,
> never the driving force in Weston's life. He dumped a very lucrative
> portraiture business early in his career to pursue his own daimon.
> Again, according to Cole Weston, Edward never made more than 5k in 
a year.
> 
> "But E.W. was never a businessman. Although the opportunity to 
exploit
> his work was offered to him many times, he never accepted it. His
> largest yearly gross income was $5000. His philosophy as far as 
business
> was concerned, and I quote: "Be your own boss and never become a 
slave
> to your overhead," and he practiced it."
> 
> Nancy Newhall in her essay "Color as Form"  suggested that he 
just "came
> to color" and "following the Kodak instructions and himself made 
only
> one mistake in timing in his first two dozen 8 x 10's. When Kodak
> published a portfolio of his color, the data on stops and speeds 
caused
> a flood of bewildered letters." I would surmise that being Edward 
Weston
> he only had to express an interest in Kodak's latest and greatest 
and it
> would be his for the asking.
> Roger
> 
>
> 
> I'm not an authority on EDWARD WESTON, but from with i have seen
 and read of his work, i'd say he was just an artist.
 From what I know about him , he was a purist that did not beleive
 in enlarging prints and useing color or grafhlic slr's.
 He was a purist that thought only contact printing was good
photography ,but due to the hardship of making a living at what he 
loved, he was forced to do studio work.

 I don't think he would embrace digital printing - capture, readily.
 
Also schelping around with an 8x10 camera and film with a tripod,
in the desserts of mexico, dos'nt seem like an easy way out to me.
 
he was concerned with high end art, the hard way.
 ofcoarse that was then, and this is...anything goes.

 j ten

Perhaps this is blasphemy but who really cares?

He made great images that people liked/like a lot using his chosen technical
process.  Choose yours and get on with it.

> From: jonnytenz <jonnytenz@...>

> 
>  I don't think he would embrace digital printing - capture, readily.
>

Of course, he made enlargements of his 4x5 negs--made new 8x10 negs  
for contact printing. This was done with those famous nudes and other  
work, which might explain some of the tonality.

--Darin


On Jun 6, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

>
>
>
> About 2 years ago the L.A. Central Library had an exhibit of the  
> Getty's
> Edward Weston collection.  I'm almost sure there were enlargements  
> -- prints
> over 8 x 10 -- in that exhibition that were claimed to be originals by
> Edward.  I recall being surprised at the time because I had always  
> thought
> of him as a contact printer.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, it seems like a legitimate issue. People are still struggling  
about whether using inkjet technology weakens their art. You can have  
your own view but you can still see that the issue exists. If you  
admire Weston the issue might be relevant.

--Darin

www.darinboville.com


On Jun 6, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Perhaps this is blasphemy but who really cares?
>
> He made great images that people liked/like a lot using his chosen  
> technical
> process.  Choose yours and get on with it.
>
>
> > From: jonnytenz <jonnytenz@...>
>
> >
> >  I don't think he would embrace digital printing - capture, readily.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's presumptuous in the extreme to pronounce Weston's work in 1933
less than "mature."  I recall some peppers...

> 
> For a short period around 1933 he used a 4x5 camera (which I guess
is the 
> "SLR" you're talking about)

Yes, his Graflex was and remains an advanced large format SLR. It
seems unlikely that he used it only on the two occasions mentioned
below (I just flipped the Daybook II open randomly):

The portrait of Orozco was magnificent...at f6/3. SLR, of course. He
mentions that they were "augmented," meaning enlarged to 8X10 via
intermediate film using a camera. 

Here's the SLR, hand held at Point Lobos: "I printed several cow
negatives. They were certainly well-seen, but enlargements from
Graflex negatives, camera in hand, 1/10 sec., f/18, can hardly compare
with contacts from 8X10 on a tripod, stopped down beyond f/256! One
day I'll try the cows with 8X10." 

Cows at Point Lobos may have been slow in those days, but it's hard to
imagine them sitting still for EW's 8X10 at f/256 :-)

It makes no difference what Cole says, when he contradicts his father.
Root around in Daybook II and I think you'll find EW's mention of
Kodabromide. 

There's so much false info and romance connected with Weston that we
tend to forget that he was a visual pioneer.



 
> 
> >No, they were brutally awkward to use >by comparison to Dursts etc.
> 
> Ansel Adams and Walker Evans, among innumerable others, seemed to
manage 
> o.k. with them.

Yes, but they weren't Weston's equal and they weren't Weston. 

> 
> >Kodabromide. He loved it.
> 
> I have no personal knowledge of what papers Weston used. However, I
have 
> some handwritten notes of Cole Weston's that include a list of his
father's 
> favorite papers. Kodabromide isn't one of them.

I think Cole erred. Daybook II. I think Kodabromide's mentioned
enthusiastically, but I've not taken more than a few minutes to
surface these quotations. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm right. 

In any case, the same point: Here he raves about Dupont's fabulous and
long vanished Velour Black (on introduction in 1934). Velour Black was
the ultimate, a wonderful Dupont green-boxed enlarging paper...rivaled
only by Brovira and tray processed Kodak Ektamatic IMO:  "..it is so
much superior to the paper I had been using, that I changed without
hesitation. The blacks are richer, the whites clearer, and despite the
fact that it has more contrast, the shadows actually have more detail.
In othe words the paper has a longer scale or range from black to
white. Also the surface quality is more beautiful The prints I have
been making are a joy-almost as though I were printing from new
negatives-over 75 of them."

> 
> >He'd have a 4800 today.
> 
> I have no idea what Edward Weston would have today nor do I care.

I think it's good to fantasize about such things...one of the joys of
having heros. 

Edward Weston, with Minor White and Robert Capa are my Trilogy! I like
their photos and their legends, but I especially like the Daybooks,
read #2 dozens of times as a young man.  Those guys were originals,
not wannabes. EW was a cranky right wing type in today's frame of
reference, much like Jeffers. Capa was an athiestic Jewish wild man
and (actually) anti war, and White was a Zen practitioner. Interesting
to compare their relative self-aggrandizing. 

 It does 
> strike me as a little odd to think that a photographer who wouldn't
even use 
> a light meter long after they became popular 

Nobody has suggested he did what was "popular." But he used very
common practices. 

and who made his prints by the 
> light of a bare bulb at a time when enlargers were the norm 

Common practice. I'll bet at least half of us have enjoyed 
that...right? I hope so.

would be using 
> an ink jet printer that's been on the market for a week or two.

OK, I yeild that point: He'd be using a 4000, not a 4800.

Djon

I just think people spend too much time obsessing over what a guy did many
years ago, without the choices available today.  Who knows what he might
have done if he were doing it today.  There are so many factors that go into
the equation other than a good eye: results, money, time, knowledge,
exposure to alternatives, technical sense etc etc.  What these guys did do
was learn a particular methodology for expressing their artistic ability and
learn it well.  To debate whether Weston would have used digital photography
today is akin to debating whether Caravaggio would have preferred
photography over painting.

I understand that people within an art form like certain qualities of one
methodology and therefore desire retention of these qualities as they move
to a different methodology because of other qualities.  In this context the
air dried fibre vs digital print discussion is relevant.  If one can retain
a desired aesthetic from one methodology AND obtain other advantages by
moving to a different process then that's an admirable goal.  But to debate
whether an individual might have done something differently at a different
time is a pointless exercise - unless that individual is a participant in
the debate...

> From: Darin Boville <darin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:07:01 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Weston
> 
> Well, it seems like a legitimate issue. People are still struggling
> about whether using inkjet technology weakens their art. You can have
> your own view but you can still see that the issue exists. If you
> admire Weston the issue might be relevant.
> 
> --Darin
> 
> www.darinboville.com
> 
> 
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps this is blasphemy but who really cares?
>> 
>> He made great images that people liked/like a lot using his chosen
>> technical
>> process.  Choose yours and get on with it.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: jonnytenz <jonnytenz@...>
>> 
>>> 
>>>  I don't think he would embrace digital printing - capture, readily.
>>>

My take on Weston is that he didn't make much money from his art and 
when he did spend a few bucks to advance his art, the first choice was 
to travel for his personal work, the second was to invest in lenses 
and cameras rather than darkroom stuff.  He got terrific results and 
probably got a kick out of the fact that he could do so with such a 
primitive darkroom.

Cole Weston told me what a problem it was to dodge and burn exactly when
printing some of those prints, while contact printing.  Maybe I am mistaken,
but I get the impression from the thread that some feel it was a ³simple²
contact print.  I am not sure, but I think he may also have used the
neg(dodge-burn) - pos (manipulate) -Neg (manipulate) which allows a
³perfect² copy negative for contact printing (something I commonly still do)
J Vee  


On 6/6/05 9:36 AM, "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> "The era" in which Weston photographed was an approximate 40 year period
> extending from about 1915 to about 1955. The enlargers from that time frame
> were fine.  His refusal to use an enlarger
> wasn't based on any deficiency in the equipment, he just didn't think that
> enlargements produced the degree of detail and tonality he was seeking and
> could obtain from contact prints.
> 
>> >I think the reason he made contact >prints was the simplicity. He used
>> >the easiest process.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To understand Weston, and understanding may be more worthwhile and
feasible than with most other "artistic" photographers, it's crucial
to own/read/re-read his Daybooks...particularly Daybook II. 

Weston did contain his technique and vision narrowly, but with
sensuality and with a great deal of justified personal artistic
egotism. He was perhaps Ayn Randian, openly opposed to "democracy" in
some of his writing. He admired and sounds similar to Robinson
Jeffers, the poet who was his peer in the Monterey Bay region. He
might also have been something like Henry Miller, another peer in the
region...but more personally conservative. Unlike Ansel Adams, Weston
was openly and directly disdainful of most other photographers,
especially of Steiglitz, who he correctly deemed a historic rival.
Steiglitz knew Picasso, New York, Europe...Weston knew Orozco, Mexico,
California.  

He was technically masterful within his narrow frame of reference, but
he was not technically capable of generic commercial photography due
to his personality, equipment, and hostility to artificial lighting.
His equipment was often literally falling apart. He could have made
serious money as a studio portrait photographer in San Francisco or
Los Angeles, was well-connected and famed for portraits, but he
couldn't have made it as an industrial photographer (a'la Ansel Adams)
due to his various choices. He stayed away from cities and disdained
serious efforts to develop his business (though was desperate often
for "sittings" and print sales).

I do think he'd be digital today, for the simplicity of it, for good
or ill. 

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Unger"
<ungram@v...> wrote:

> My take on Weston is that he didn't make much money from his art and 
> when he did spend a few bucks to advance his art, the first choice was 
> to travel for his personal work, the second was to invest in lenses 
> and cameras rather than darkroom stuff.  He got terrific results and 
> probably got a kick out of the fact that he could do so with such a 
> primitive darkroom.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Cole Weston told me what a problem it was to dodge and burn exactly when
> printing some of those prints, while contact printing.  Maybe I am
mistaken,
> but I get the impression from the thread that some feel it was a
³simple²
> contact print.  I am not sure, but I think he may also have used the
> neg(dodge-burn) - pos (manipulate) -Neg (manipulate) which allows a
> ³perfect² copy negative for contact printing (something I commonly
still do)
> J Vee  


The "simplicity" to which I refered has to do with simplicity of
equipment. His use of copy negatives was powerful, but relatively
simple intellectually, especially by comparison to all the BS involved
in digitial or dye transfer or Ektacolor printing. 

The results of his 8X10 copy negatives from 4X5 originals demonstrate
his mastery of a relatively complex traditional process, one that was
physically difficult for him because of his rattletrap equipment. 




> 
> 
> On 6/6/05 9:36 AM, "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@v...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > "The era" in which Weston photographed was an approximate 40 year
period
> > extending from about 1915 to about 1955. The enlargers from that
time frame
> > were fine.  His refusal to use an enlarger
> > wasn't based on any deficiency in the equipment, he just didn't
think that
> > enlargements produced the degree of detail and tonality he was
seeking and
> > could obtain from contact prints.
> > 
> >> >I think the reason he made contact >prints was the simplicity.
He used

> >> >the easiest process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve, for me the interest in Weston's technique has to do with his
his vision. He was not driven technically: he resolved technical
challenges early on and subsequently pursued simpler techniques than
most professionals. 

He was obsessive about vision, that's what's compelling. 

Vision and technology occupy different halves of the brain, and this
has implications for digital workflow Vs optical. 

It's worth reading Daybook II to see what Weston was really
about...he's extremely clear about his work.

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I just think people spend too much time obsessing over what a guy
did many
> years ago, without the choices available today.

From what I recall in my reading about Weston, that he did enlarge 
his smaller negatives.  Keep in mind that 4x5 was considered 
somewhat of a smaller format early in Westons career.  I believe he 
used 4x5 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 for portraits, clouds and perhaps some 
nudes.  Seems like I may even remember seeing an enlarger in a 
picture I saw of his darkroom.  I'm sure he never enlarged his 
8x10's.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > For a short period around 1933 he used a 4x5 camera (which I 
guess is the
> > "SLR" you're talking about) ...
> 
> I still have a working Graflex 4x5 SLR.  Current SLR owners don't 
know what
> mirror bounce and shutter lag are.  When I was a kid (in Glendale) 
I stuck
> an enlarging lens on it and used it as a close-up camera.  It's a 
neat
> relic. 
> 
> > Ansel Adams in his essay titled "Edward Weston" said:
> > 
> > "He reduced his mechanics to a minimum...
> >  no enlarger, ...
> 
> About 2 years ago the L.A. Central Library had an exhibit of the 
Getty's
> Edward Weston collection.  I'm almost sure there were 
enlargements -- prints
> over 8 x 10 -- in that exhibition that were claimed to be 
originals by
> Edward.  I recall being surprised at the time because I had always 
thought

> of him as a contact printer.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

> 
> 
> Vision and technology occupy different halves of the brain, and this
> has implications for digital workflow Vs optical.
> 
> It's worth reading Daybook II to see what Weston was really
> about...he's extremely clear about his work.
> 
> Djon
> 

I disagree with what seems to be going on here about a simplistic approach
attributed to Weston.
Weston was the product of a commercial photographic school.
He knew how to retouch negatives.
He was trained and was technically proficient in that standard stuff that a
commercial photographer would be technically proficient in in his time.
He didn¹t take the easy way out. He did things in the standard way.

Your typical darkroom of his time did not have an enlarger in it.
It had a lightbulbs hanging from the ceiling.

This was not a clever diversion on the part of Weston to circumvent stuff he
didn't understand or would rather avoid.
He was in Rome and doing what the Romans did.

Only it was Mexico. Close.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also, as I'm sure you know, Edward Weston specified that the prints 
should be made according to the
light source that he himself had used, a light bulb with tissue wrapped 
around it. (It must have been difficult
to arrive at just the right amount of tissue paper in order to bring 
the light down to a point that would
avoid fogging yet allot just the right amount of time for printing.)  
Some might simply view this approach as
a form of eccentricity, but I see this approach as piece of a very 
personal ritual. Whether Edward would have been
able to personalize the digital process to this degree might be food 
for thought, but it is moot. One credits Cole Weston's
integrity in never resorting to a dimmer switch, adhering to his 
father's wishes. As I have been told, according to Edward's
last wishes, Cole was to be the last person on earth to make prints 
from those negatives; Edward Weston made no other
specifications for passing on the right to print his work. (Although I 
understand that Kim Weston has printed images from
His Grandfather's negatives.  He's an excellent printer.)  I think this 
also sheds light on Bret Weston burning of his negatives
when he knew he was going to die. I think it might be viewed as an 
action of personal ritual, but also an action of a family ritual
if one wishes to place it in this sort of context. (Forgive me if I 
have reiterated anything already mentioned on this thread, for
I joined it late.)    Peter G.

On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:50 AM, J Vee wrote:

> Cole Weston told me what a problem it was to dodge and burn exactly 
> when
> printing some of those prints, while contact printing.  Maybe I am 
> mistaken,
> but I get the impression from the thread that some feel it was a 
> “simple”
> contact print.  I am not sure, but I think he may also have used the
> neg(dodge-burn) - pos (manipulate) -Neg (manipulate) which allows a
> “perfect” copy negative for contact printing (something I commonly 
> still do)
> J Vee

Yes but this conversation is obsessing over not his vision but his
technique.  At any rate it is amusing.

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:18:58 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Weston
> 
> 
> Steve, for me the interest in Weston's technique has to do with his
> his vision. He was not driven technically: he resolved technical
> challenges early on and subsequently pursued simpler techniques than
> most professionals.
> 
> He was obsessive about vision, that's what's compelling.
> 
> Vision and technology occupy different halves of the brain, and this
> has implications for digital workflow Vs optical.
> 
> It's worth reading Daybook II to see what Weston was really
> about...he's extremely clear about his work.
> 
> Djon
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> I just think people spend too much time obsessing over what a guy
> did many
>> years ago, without the choices available today.

Manipulating contact prints was nothing unusual.
I owned an old contact printer I used for multi 8x10 output for
commercial use back in the late sixtys. It had a special shelf between
the light source and negative platen that was used to do crude dodging
using pieces of crinkled cellophane or tissue, red cell material etc.
It worked very well indeed and had the major advantage of being
perfectly repeatable. I used to file notes of placement and materials
with the negs for future reference and need.

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Cole Weston told me what a problem it was to dodge and burn exactly when
> printing some of those prints, while contact printing.  Maybe I am
mistaken,
> but I get the impression from the thread that some feel it was a
³simple²
> contact print.  I am not sure, but I think he may also have used the
> neg(dodge-burn) - pos (manipulate) -Neg (manipulate) which allows a
> ³perfect² copy negative for contact printing (something I commonly
still do)

> J Vee  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Vision and technology occupy different halves of the brain, and this
> > has implications for digital workflow Vs optical.
> > 
> > It's worth reading Daybook II to see what Weston was really
> > about...he's extremely clear about his work.
> > 
> > Djon
> > 
> 
> I disagree with what seems to be going on here about a simplistic
approach
> attributed to Weston.
> Weston was the product of a commercial photographic school.
> He knew how to retouch negatives.
> He was trained and was technically proficient in that standard stuff
that a
> commercial photographer would be technically proficient in in his time.
> He didn¹t take the easy way out. He did things in the standard way.
> 
> Your typical darkroom of his time did not have an enlarger in it.
> It had a lightbulbs hanging from the ceiling.
> 
> This was not a clever diversion on the part of Weston to circumvent
stuff he

> didn't understand or would rather avoid.
> He was in Rome and doing what the Romans did.
> 
> Only it was Mexico. Close.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Vision and technology occupy different halves of the brain, and this
> > has implications for digital workflow Vs optical.
> > 
> > It's worth reading Daybook II to see what Weston was really
> > about...he's extremely clear about his work.
> > 
> > Djon
> > 
> 
> I disagree with what seems to be going on here about a simplistic
approach attributed to Weston.

Mark,

Weston's "workflow" and imagery were both sophisticated and simple, in
contrast to todays distracting technical complexity and the primative
aesthetics of current digital printing (calendar "art" seems sometimes
to dominate). 

Digital workflow is still in DOS mode...a crude analytic-thinking mode
that evidently appeals to certain brains. This is becoming history,
like DOS. 

The burden of technical thinking will diminish, as it did for Weston,
as is evident in the wonderful reports here, on Epson's 4800. 

Today's digital expertise will shortly seem like DOS expertise. 

Read Weston: He didn't talk much about technical expertise, he
employed it almost automatically, in the background, just as has
mastery of Ektachrome for others. It became "simple" for Weston:
"workflow" was habitual, it vanished into the background. Amazing
performance: seeming simplicity.

We'll know when digital photography is mature when there's less talk
of workflow and technical matters, more talk like Weston's about the
juicy human stuff, about which traditional photography has long been
more concerned (Avedon, Salgado, Capa, HCB etc etc etc).

Djon

Don't judge the "maturity of digital photography" by the discussion on this
forum.  By its very nature, this forum is a technically oriented group.  It
is not at all possible to discuss "the juicy human stuff" you allude to
because we can't view people's printed images.  This is a technical forum
largely concerned with the technical aspects of producing a digital print.
It's where people go for advice on equipment and workflow not for an opinion
on the quality of their images.  If such a forum had existed in the days of
Weston et al I doubt that its content would have been much different.
Newcomers would be asking for advice on equipment and darkroom technique,
exposure, processing etc etc.  Participants might even digress into
long-winded discussions of what people did in days gone by, or speculate on
what the future might bring.  People would likely report on the results of
experiments with new equipment, chemicals and substrates.  As they acquired
instruments that quantified important observable elements such as dynamic
range they would likely discuss results in quantitative terms.

Since I've been alive (and I am not THAT old!) we've come a long way.  The
prevalent calculator used by flight engineers for the Apollo missions was
the slide rule.  We now have more computing power in a portable calculator
than was able to be packed into an Apollo spaceship.  Things are never
static.  Photography and print production has never been static.  "Mature"
is an adjective that can only be applied to a particular product.  Mediums
always evolve.  Some just faster than others.

Steve

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>

> 
> We'll know when digital photography is mature when there's less talk
> of workflow and technical matters, more talk like Weston's about the
> juicy human stuff, about which traditional photography has long been
> more concerned (Avedon, Salgado, Capa, HCB etc etc etc).
> 
> Djon

On 6/6/05 4:45 PM, "Darin Boville" <darin@...> typed:

> Of course, he made enlargements of his 4x5 negs--made new 8x10 negs
> for contact printing. This was done with those famous nudes and other
> work, which might explain some of the tonality.
> 
> --Darin
> 
> 
These 4x5 negs people keep referring to of Weston's were 5x7's.
He was known to make enlarged internegs from those and contact those.
Remember he was a trained commercial photographer.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

On 6/6/05 5:07 PM, "Darin Boville" <darin@...> typed:

> Well, it seems like a legitimate issue. People are still struggling
> about whether using inkjet technology weakens their art. You can have
> your own view but you can still see that the issue exists. If you
> admire Weston the issue might be relevant.
> 
> --Darin
> 

Weston Platinum printed printed early on. I saw those here in Portland last
year.
One could ask why he stepped down from platinum to gelatin silver.
If one considered that a step down.
And one could wonder if he'd further step down again being alive today to
inkjet.
If one considered THAT a step down.

More than one way to print a neg.
More than one way to get pigment on paper.
If one is un informed enough to considered one art technique "superior" to
another:
Oil painting over watercolor or sculpture or intaglio press printing then
one can further  make judgments as to the people who have chosen those forms
to express themselves. And try to make it so the techniques themselves
define the artist.

It just brings to mind for me that fact that photography is an art form.
And if we are doing photography and we are doing art.
And if we are going to do "art" than perhaps we should look into it.
Take some art courses and so on.
To gain a broader perspective.

Any first year art student will laugh at the idea that an artist is defined
by their media and that one media is a step up or down from another.

You get yourself an artist with a vision and it doesnt matter much what
media he/she works in.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Don't judge the "maturity of digital photography" by the discussion
on this
> forum.  By its very nature, this forum is a technically oriented
group.   

Yes, of course...this forum is VERY valuable at this stage of
evolution...the cutting-edge technical focus is critically important.

>Photography and print production has never been static. 

Au contraire :-) silver printing as a craft was nearly static by
Weston's time...just as were large format cameras. I don't think
there's been important advance.

  Mediums
> always evolve.  Some just faster than others.

Right. I think the inkjet medium is nearly mature, like PS7 or earlier
was several years ago, or like Epson inkjets were several years ago.
In other words, they can do almost everything that most photographers
want already. Extremely demanding photographers want more, so advances
will happen at the edges once we get past the current "DOS-equivalent"
stage.

> 
> Steve

When speaking of digital photography soon becoming "mature" I'm not
referring to evidence here, I'm referring to general chatter on
photo.net and other less advanced forums.

> 
> > From: Djon <westsidemaurice@y...>
> 
> > We'll know when digital photography is mature when there's less talk
> > of workflow and technical matters, more talk like Weston's about the
> > juicy human stuff, about which traditional photography has long been
> > more concerned (Avedon, Salgado, Capa, HCB etc etc etc).
> > 
> > Djon

> 
> 
> Since I've been alive (and I am not THAT old!) we've come a long way.  The
> prevalent calculator used by flight engineers for the Apollo missions was
> the slide rule.  We now have more computing power in a portable calculator
> than was able to be packed into an Apollo spaceship.  Things are never
> static.  Photography and print production has never been static.  "Mature"
> is an adjective that can only be applied to a particular product.  Mediums
> always evolve.  Some just faster than others.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
In the first press conference for the first astronauts, the Mercury program
I think, Glen, Sheppard and so on, the dominant camera was the 4x5 Speed
Graphic.



Roll film later tuned out to be a big boom for getting to the moon.

Couldn¹t have done it with sheet film!
:)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The issue IMO is preoccupaton, not medium, and neither the technology
nor the art are superior.

However, there are realities: It's easy (easier for some than others)
to be hindered visually by technical distractions rather than pursuing
visual exploration. 

Happily OUR technology will shortly advance to the point that it's
easy and barely conscious. It's the old Macintosh-as-home-appliance
concept. These printers and scanners and cameras are approaching
foolproof (speaking as an expert on that topic :-) ).

Djon 

> 
> Any first year art student will laugh at the idea that an artist is
defined

> by their media and that one media is a step up or down from another.
> 
> You get yourself an artist with a vision and it doesnt matter much what
> media he/she works in.
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/