are photographing the light itself, that the "subjects" exist to give form to the light.
I don't understand what that means... maybe an example?
Check out these Ansel Adams images, as they convey the "photographing the light itself" idea quite well, especially the Mt. McKinley and Half Dome photos.
are photographing the light itself, that the "subjects" exist to give form to the light.
I don't understand what that means... maybe an example?
Check out these Ansel Adams images, as they convey the "photographing the light itself" idea quite well, especially the Mt. McKinley and Half Dome photos.
Thanks Dave. I must be slow, I don't see it, or where it differs from Weston's use of light. But that won't stop me from entering :)
Not a DPC ribbon winner, but a pretty good photographer nonetheless.
Based on conversations in here I wonder if anyone noticed photos like those on pages 54/55 and 56/57 in the above link?
Yup. There are, of course, exceptions. But his most iconic images, the ones we think of when we think of Edward Weston, aren't landscapes, they are still life shots and portrait shots, they are tightly-cropped, frame-filling, virtually 2-dimensional images that are bursting with barely contained vibrance and tension.
You CAN find other stuff, industrial-landscape shots, wide-open-landscape shots, color-documentary-shots, full-frontal, 3/4-height unsentimental portraiture, all kinds of stuff. I'm guessing forays in those directions won't score as well in this challenge. I could be wrong.
Certainly, we should all take the essence-of-Weston and apply it to our own work in whatever manner seems right to us. I'm an old-school guy; I used to use the kind of tools he used, I used to live where he lived, I used to photograph the same places he photographed, I was kind of steeped in that Carmel-school aesthetic for years and years, so for me this is like going home, and my entry reflects that. Nothing ground-breaking about it at all :-)
Thanks Dave. I must be slow, I don't see it, or where it differs from Weston's use of light. But that won't stop me from entering :)
Can you see how this Ansel Adams shot, of the Snake River and the Tetons, is completely *informed* by the light, how it is *about* the light, how there's an almost palpable sense that the landscape exists to *glorify* the light? You don't see this kind of drama (melodrama?) in Edward Weston's work, as a rule.
Thanks Dave. I must be slow, I don't see it, or where it differs from Weston's use of light. But that won't stop me from entering :)
I'm not among the experts here. but Adams uses light (imo) to sculpt the landscape, to bring a depth to the image (3D if you will - near-far, valley-peak.) I see highlights and shadows in Weston's work, but it lacks the depth of Adams, appearing more 2D to me. Almost as if to help make the object (a pepper for instance) more abstract and less a still life.
Can you see how this Ansel Adams shot, of the Snake River and the Tetons, is completely *informed* by the light, how it is *about* the light, how there's an almost palpable sense that the landscape exists to *glorify* the light? You don't see this kind of drama (melodrama?) in Edward Weston's work, as a rule.
Thanks Robert, for me your quote could also apply to this photo which I find equally dramatic:
Thanks Dave. I must be slow, I don't see it, or where it differs from Weston's use of light. But that won't stop me from entering :)
I'm not among the experts here. but Adams uses light (imo) to sculpt the landscape, to bring a depth to the image (3D if you will - near-far, valley-peak.) I see highlights and shadows in Weston's work, but it lacks the depth of Adams, appearing more 2D to me. Almost as if to help make the object (a pepper for instance) more abstract and less a still life.
Good point about the 2D vs.3D ... and the 2D creating the abstract. Thanks, I'm beginning to get some ideas.
Not a DPC ribbon winner, but a pretty good photographer nonetheless.
Based on conversations in here I wonder if anyone noticed photos like those on pages 54/55 and 56/57 in the above link?
Yup. There are, of course, exceptions. ...
Hmmm....I go to "the" Edward Weston website and there are SIX categories of photography listed, of which two are "Portraits" and "Natural Studies". That leaves four categories which aren't really being addressed in this thread (IMO).
Can you see how this Ansel Adams shot, of the Snake River and the Tetons, is completely *informed* by the light, how it is *about* the light, how there's an almost palpable sense that the landscape exists to *glorify* the light? You don't see this kind of drama (melodrama?) in Edward Weston's work, as a rule.
Thanks Robert, for me your quote could also apply to this photo which I find equally dramatic:
Yes, but there's nothing eccentric about that light. Light and form are one.
Yes, but there's nothing eccentric about that light. Light and form are one.
The light is coming from within the cabbage... that makes it eccentric.
ok then instead of judging the light we'll say there's Ansel light and there's Weston light, and so on. I've been having a hell of a time getting Weston light onto my cabbages.
oh don, pointy gave you a big hint about the light and the cabbages.
but marnet is right: you're way off the rails because that is not a cabbage leaf, but a leaf of really scary iceberg lettuce.
No, it's a partially-decomposed, H.G.Wells alien...
R.
There you go -- giving away secrets again! Didn't I just tell you that I was going to do a partially decomposed H.G.Wells alien?! And now you go and spread it around so everyone knows. Now they're all going to go out an do aliens, too. :(
