1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

[SignifDigits]

I am reading Ansel Adam's autobiography.  I recommend it to you.  Significant controversy regarding photography and photographic manipulation is not new.   In 1932 there was a huge and serious divide over the subject. Some in leadership and sponsorship of museums thought photography had no business being displayed displayed there, and had no use for the work of Ansel Adams and others who ascribed to the f/64's groups' vision. LIFE magazine, starting in 1936 and the f/64 group from 1932 and their supporters really were huge in raising the status of the photograph as art.

I am NOT posting this to stir up debate, but to encourage more reflection our own photography and to keep our current controversies in perspective.  They aren't new.  I don't have a crystal ball like those in the f/64 seemed to have.  They were very confident that their "Purist" and/or "Realist" photography would outlast that of the other group that Ansel Adams dubbed the "Pictorialists". 

It makes me more curious myself to know what elements of photography have withstood the test of time and what will do so in the far future.  Henri Cartier-Bresson comes to mind, for one.

In 1932 there were the "Realists" with Ansel Adams and others with their f/64 club and manifesto:

"The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself."  https://dawntomlincreativeartist.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/lens-work-ansel-adams-and-the-f64-group/.

Ansel Adams wrote that manifesto and dubbed some others as "Pictorialists":

"The production of the “Pictorialist,” on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts."

Photographers made a living in Yosemite taking photos of folks in Mirror Lake, processing and selling them.  There was nothing wrong with that, of course.  Ansel Adams was right there working alongside them taking photographs at the same time as them and had a different goal and effect on photography today.  

I am certainly no Ansel Adams, and never will be in his league nor many of those that post here.  But I find his work and life personally inspiring to be challenged to explore more new things, and try to capture photographs that evoke thoughts and feelings - even if only for me.

I think this site helps inspire all of us to improve our own skills and art and encourages us all to work to capture photographs that inspire both us and others.  I thank Canon and those the many participants of the site.  I have learned much from you and continue to do so.

[March411]

I wrote this a while back but it's germane to the overall conversation.

The birth of photography, post production and its evolution

Its strange that for some individuals the topic can be so divisive when it comes up in conversation. Having a collaborative, open minded conversation can be challenging. Some believe that SOOC is the only true way to achieve a final image, others shoot strictly RAW because they believe it will give you the ability to produce a rendering close to what they saw visually through the viewfinder in post. For each group, both are correct!

The facts and history on this topic seem to be long forgotten though, post production enhancement has long been a part of photography.

Enhancing images began over 170 years ago in the darkroom or “wet lab”. For historical value post production began in the 1840s–1850s. Retouching negatives tinting and hand coloring were common practices for daguerreotypes (Invented by Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre in 1839, the daguerreotype was the first public photographic process, producing unique, incredibly detailed positive images on silver-plated copper sheets. William Henry Fox Talbot utilized paper negatives that allowed for alterations and enhancements (patented as the calotype process in 1841).

With the introduction of the Kodak camera (1888 by George Eastman) a good portion of post-processing moved away from the photographer to commercial labs but editing continued as part of the photo finishing" process. Kodak used filters to achieve proper color rendition when going to print. Those individuals that possessed the financial resources had the ability to establish labs and learn/use many of the techniques commercial labs used in the post production process. Was that deception?

• 1889: The paper film was replaced with transparent celluloid roll film.
• 1900: The "Brownie" camera was introduced, making photography even more affordable for the general public.
• 1925: The Leica I was released, popularizing the 35mm format, others followed.
• 1986: Disposable, single-use cameras were introduced.

1950s–1980s retouching and airbrushing made its way into the post processing process. Manual techniques were used to edit photos for publication(s) such as airbrushing to remove, alter, or improve images.

As we continued to move into the 19th century photographers used techniques such as dodging and burning to adjust light exposure on specific areas of the print and the combination of multiple negatives to create a single image (in today’s world, stacking).

When the introduction of digital photography first became available to consumers in the late 1980s to early 1990s photographers in the US had the Dycam Model 1 available to them if they had the resources to purchase one. (digital cameras were commonly available by 1995).

Adobe Photoshop saw the opportunity and seized it releasing PS 1.0 releasing it in February 1990. It was developed by Thomas and John Knoll (licensed by Adobe in 1988). The only limitation was that the original version was released only for Apple computers. At that time the digital darkroom was born.

With the advancement digital photo processing it alleviated photographers of many hours in the manual wet darkroom completing labor-intensive processes and the post-production necessities. To this day I still remember how much I enjoyed the smell of the lab but for anyone that processed film to paper, while enjoyable you know how long it took to bring a quality image to paper.

Within the evolution of photography, the simple truth is the computer has replaced the wet darkroom. All or most of the elements used in a wet darkroom, burning and dodging, align/straighten, cropping, adjusting exposure, refining skin tones (filters) and contrast have moved from a stainless-steel film developing tank, easel and enlarger to a desktop.

This advancement to a digital darkroom gave photographers the ability to realize their vision, produce professional results and achieve a rendering that closely resembles what they observed through their viewfinder. It also greatly improved their workflow and the pace at which the final results could be achieved benefiting both the photographer and the consumer.

Most photographers shoot RAW for only one reason; it gives them more information/data to work with in the post-processing stage, to attain the best rendering of what they saw through the viewfinder. The majority of professional photographers now consider that the image captured in a digital camera is only half of the process in achieving a true rendering and their vision.

The rational for retouching is to achieve one goal; accurately depict the image capture. As an example, flesh tones, remove facial imperfections and improving the overall look and feel of the image, enabling photographer the ability to create professional quality visual content. If you are a professional it is not an aspiration to achieve this goal, if you desire to maintain or build a successful business, it is what the client expects. Whether professional or hobbyist digital post production gives the photographer the ability to achieve their visual impact.

There is a significant difference between post-production enhancements and photo manipulation. One is finishing an image, leaving the original content intact but using improved tools to achieve your original rendering, vision and produce professional results.

[SignifDigits]

Marc,

I intentionally did not bring up the transitory post-processing debate of today.  I will be very sad if this thread gets mired in that muck.

My point was for everyone to consider for themselves, what for them is important and, also to delve into what has withstood the test of time in photography, and what they want to invest themselves into as personal goals in photography. 

Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson disagreed.  

Cartier-Bresson said "The world is going to pieces and people like [Ansel] Adams and [Edward] Weston are photographing rocks!"

Adams is said to have replied "“There is a real, social significance in a rock” and added that he would never apologize for photographing them because they can be so beautiful.

Who was "right" there?  They were both right for themselves, of course, and we're better off that they lived and did their thing.

Adams mentions Cartier-Bresson's art very respectfully in his autobiography.

Ansel Adams as a "Purist" and "Realist" used every manipulation trick at his disposal in his dark room to create his art.  I have no idea what his opinion about digital post-processing would be, of course.  Nor does anyone else as we cannot ask him.

My journey is my journey.   I expect on this site to be treated with respect and to do the same for others and to admit when I'm wrong (which is a lot more often than I would prefer!).

We have too much "we-they" in the world around us.  Some people seem addicted to being polarized and polarizing.

Polarized thinking and stifling of other's points of view helped lead to the fall of the Roman Empire.   The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged version, I admit) has some interesting history lessons in it. 

Hopefully we can be mature enough to encourage and respect others making their art the way that they want to even if we think it's wrong.  Doing things wholly wrongly has led to innovation tons of times..

The current post-processing debate, I predict (if it hasn't already) will soon evolve soon into how much AI is "ok" and "not ok".   Again my point is there always were and will always will be disagreements.  We should expect that and we should recognize that maybe they don't really matter all that much.  Today's debate, I predict, won't matter in 20 years and by that time there be another supposedly huge topic to disagree about..

I pray we disagree and debate amicably, and keep it in perspective.  Let's work to make beautiful art that we enjoy and maybe share with some others, too, and encourage those around to learn for themselves what they enjoy and consider important, and when they do learn it, that they are welcomed and nurtured here.

[March411]

There is no disagreement @SignifDigits there are individuals perspectives and when content is posted I believe it is open to discussion. Hopefully that is equally respected.

Neither perspective is right or wrong, very little in this world is that definitive. 

[SignifDigits]

Certainly Marc.  The facts that you presented are all true and interesting and valid, but I was intending that it would be a bit wide of the target of the topic I was intending with the original post.  Of course, I may have missed the target myself and invited yet another discussion of photographic technology, but that wasn't my intent. 

Per your tag line I was aiming to create explore an idea for personal consideration and contemplation - timelessness of some photographs and photographic concepts and how and why they touch the human soul, I guess.  And how all art is still subjective and personal so that we'll never all agree.