DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Edward Weston...
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 150, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/24/2011 10:42:28 PM · #51
I dont think the style is all that great. I look at the pictures and don't think, "Oh wow thats something I want to try to do" meh, it might just be me.
 03/24/2011 10:48:50 PM · #52
I don't think I can match Edward Weston's style to the satisfaction of voters. I'll shoot for the other challenge... disassembled parts. It will be good to stretch in that direction.
 03/24/2011 10:49:30 PM · #53
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
I dont think the style is all that great. I look at the pictures and don't think, "Oh wow thats something I want to try to do" meh, it might just be me.


Please describe his style.
 03/24/2011 10:51:01 PM · #54
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The style is not hard to pull off. Everyone is going to make it hard by choosing to duplicate Weston's subject material.


Not true, I am just trying to get a certain style not an exact copy. There are many things to think about with his photography than just subject. Lighting, aperture settings, background choices, camera angle, just to name a few. And that is just in camera, after that comes post processing choices.


That's where I depart from this particular challenge idea. Weston's style is not really defined by any of those things you mentioned. Those are all technical aspects of a photograph. Technicals don't usually define anyone's style. The technical aspects of Weston's photography were fairly commonly used by a LOT of photographers during that period as well as today. Weston's subject choices are what defined his style.
I thought it was more about shapes and lines for any subject - human body or pepper or artichoke.
 03/24/2011 11:00:53 PM · #55
The iconic Weston image is more about form than it is about light. It's more 2-dimensional than sculptural; a bas-relief, if you will. There's rarely any real depth in his pictures, no receding into the distance or anything like that. He's about seeking the unadorned essence of the thing. He's not overtly metaphorical, he's not making the grand gesture, he's just immersed in the simple purity of what *is*.

R.
 03/24/2011 11:02:00 PM · #56
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The style is not hard to pull off. Everyone is going to make it hard by choosing to duplicate Weston's subject material.


Not true, I am just trying to get a certain style not an exact copy. There are many things to think about with his photography than just subject. Lighting, aperture settings, background choices, camera angle, just to name a few. And that is just in camera, after that comes post processing choices.


That's where I depart from this particular challenge idea. Weston's style is not really defined by any of those things you mentioned. Those are all technical aspects of a photograph. Technicals don't usually define anyone's style. The technical aspects of Weston's photography were fairly commonly used by a LOT of photographers during that period as well as today. Weston's subject choices are what defined his style.


Don't get me wrong, subject is the most important part of his style, but once you get past that there are many other aspects to think about. He was pretty consistent in his background choices, his lighting style, his poses, the aperture. Maybe many other photographers did this as well but the point is Weston did it that way and Weston is the one we are studying right now.
 03/24/2011 11:48:31 PM · #57
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The iconic Weston image is more about form than it is about light. It's more 2-dimensional than sculptural; a bas-relief, if you will. There's rarely any real depth in his pictures, no receding into the distance or anything like that. He's about seeking the unadorned essence of the thing. He's not overtly metaphorical, he's not making the grand gesture, he's just immersed in the simple purity of what *is*.

R.
That's nice. You said you saw a lot of his originals. Is there any particular tone to his photographs? Anything that we cannot see on our monitors?

Message edited by author 2011-03-24 23:50:05.
 03/25/2011 12:14:36 AM · #58
Originally posted by marnet:
You said you saw a lot of his originals. Is there any particular tone to his photographs? Anything that we cannot see on our monitors?


Selenium toning for richer, deeper blacks, basically. A lot of those old-school guys did this, notably Weston and Adams. Posthumous's "photography now" link a bit earlier takes you to some very decent reproductions. If you can get looking like those you'll be fine. A lot of the reproductions floating around the web are way too flat and light.

R.
 03/25/2011 12:20:53 AM · #59
Those prints can't be reproduced digitally :( I have had the good fortune of seeing a lot of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston original prints first hand and they are truly amazing.
03/25/2011 12:23:49 AM · #60
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Those prints can't be reproduced digitally :( I have had the good fortune of seeing a lot of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston original prints first hand and they are truly amazing.


Of course they can't... But we can capture something of the emotional impact of them with skilfull digital processing. Certainly, I'm working hard at that lately, though I have a ways to go.

R.
 03/25/2011 12:32:37 AM · #61
Yeah I just had the chance to see the Adams: Masterworks while it was here in town and they really do look a lot different in person. As Bear noted, the blacks are just so much richer and full.
 03/25/2011 01:45:07 PM · #62
Maybe something to remember is, from what I can tell, is that Weston always used natural light too. I don't know, but I don't think any sort of flash was acceptable for technical reasons. Something to keep in mind when attempting to shoot in the "style" of Weston. Natural light is probably the way to go.
 03/25/2011 02:24:05 PM · #63
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by marnet:
You said you saw a lot of his originals. Is there any particular tone to his photographs? Anything that we cannot see on our monitors?


Selenium toning for richer, deeper blacks, basically. A lot of those old-school guys did this, notably Weston and Adams. Posthumous's "photography now" link a bit earlier takes you to some very decent reproductions. If you can get looking like those you'll be fine. A lot of the reproductions floating around the web are way too flat and light.

R.


Yeah, I just took a look at that link... Ya gotta like his rendition of "cave with bush"... It doesn't take much interpretation to get what he was trying to say there!! :|

03/25/2011 02:40:11 PM · #64
Originally posted by Dennisheckman:
Maybe something to remember is, from what I can tell, is that Weston always used natural light too. I don't know, but I don't think any sort of flash was acceptable for technical reasons. Something to keep in mind when attempting to shoot in the "style" of Weston. Natural light is probably the way to go.


It wasn't so much "technical" as "philosophical" reasons. The f/64 group, collectively, eschewed the use of artificial lighting in favor of natural light because they were reacting against the dominant aesthetic of their era, which was heavily into a very dreamy, artificial pictorialism. Diffused daylight was the still life/portrait lighting-of-choice, often from a north skylight with hill from west or east windows. This is on the setup shots, of course; the outdoor shots were different. Even then, Weston tended to photograph in overcast conditions; relatively little of his work uses harsh, directional sunlight outdoors.
 03/25/2011 03:05:25 PM · #65
So, they did have access to reletively sofisticated flashes but chose not to use them to create a new, more creative way to create thier work. I agree with the soft light appearance of his work. Soft light,and very deep shadows created much of the look. I would have loved to be around the f/64 group to hear thier conversations.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Dennisheckman:
Maybe something to remember is, from what I can tell, is that Weston always used natural light too. I don't know, but I don't think any sort of flash was acceptable for technical reasons. Something to keep in mind when attempting to shoot in the "style" of Weston. Natural light is probably the way to go.


It wasn't so much "technical" as "philosophical" reasons. The f/64 group, collectively, eschewed the use of artificial lighting in favor of natural light because they were reacting against the dominant aesthetic of their era, which was heavily into a very dreamy, artificial pictorialism. Diffused daylight was the still life/portrait lighting-of-choice, often from a north skylight with hill from west or east windows. This is on the setup shots, of course; the outdoor shots were different. Even then, Weston tended to photograph in overcast conditions; relatively little of his work uses harsh, directional sunlight outdoors.
03/25/2011 03:14:00 PM · #66
Originally posted by Dennisheckman:
So, they did have access to reletively sofisticated flashes but chose not to use them to create a new, more creative way to create thier work.


Ermmm... I'm not sure of the timeline here. Strobes, certainly not. Flash powder, definitely. Flashbulbs, certainly during the existence of the group, but maybe not at the beginning. Floodlights, definitely available.

R.
 03/27/2011 10:55:04 AM · #67
Summary of snips from this thread:

much richer, tonally, than web versions show
more about form than it is about light
more 2-dimensional than sculptural
a bas-relief
rarely any real depth
seeks the unadorned essences of the thing
not overtly metaphorical
immersed in the simple purity of what *is*
always used natural light
little of his work uses harsh, directional sunlight outdoors
sharper resolution of detail

black and white with some toning warmth
no extra space - "cramped" or "full to the point of almost being cramped"
Bio

Any thing else?

Message edited by author 2011-03-27 13:41:19.
 03/27/2011 11:00:26 AM · #68
Originally posted by Marjo:


Any thing else?


I would likely go with black and white with some toning warmth added simply because that's the medium he worked with mostly.
 03/27/2011 11:04:06 AM · #69
oops, forgot one of the important ones. Thanks, added to snip list.
 03/27/2011 11:12:53 AM · #70
Originally posted by Marjo:
Any thing else?

The only thing that matters is the photographer's interpretation of Weston. No style can be bullet-pointed.
 03/27/2011 11:26:38 AM · #71
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Marjo:
Any thing else?

The only thing that matters is the photographer's interpretation of Weston. No style can be bullet-pointed.


Absolutely agree. Just trying to formulate my interpretation.
 03/27/2011 01:37:22 PM · #72
I would add "cramped" or "full to the point of almost being cramped" ... there is no extra space in a Weston photo. He crops in close (regardless of whether he literally crops or not).
 03/27/2011 04:31:06 PM · #73
Originally posted by Marjo:
Any thing else?

My list would vary quite a bit from this one.

Weston frequently used high contrast to create the form in his photos and this was achieved with lighting - often quite strongly directional. To me, Weston is ALL about the light (or lack of it).

Also, he used the complete dynamic range available to him, especially generous with the extreme ends of the histogram (especially blacks). Often, it seems he added the midtones as an afterthought or as a novelty. Even his outdoor portraits created form from the shadows and highlights.

03/27/2011 04:40:41 PM · #74
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by Marjo:
Any thing else?

Also, he used the complete dynamic range available to him, especially generous with the extreme ends of the histogram (especially blacks). Often, it seems he added the midtones as an afterthought or as a novelty. Even his outdoor portraits created form from the shadows and highlights.


Huh, that's an interesting observation, somewhat different from my own. I definitely see those deep blacks, but in much of his works I noticed a total lack of bright whites. Seemed to me his histrograms would consistently fall to the left.
 03/27/2011 04:47:35 PM · #75
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
...achieved with lighting - often quite strongly directional. To me, Weston is ALL about the light (or lack of it).


When I say Weston was more about form than light, that's by way of placing him on a continuum with his contemporaries, and those who followed immediately after him. Comparing with, say, Adams, Bullock, Baer, Minor White, you notice immediately that the light itself plays a relatively subordinate role in Weston's photography. You often get the sense that these others, especially Adams, are photographing the light itself, that the "subjects" exist to give form to the light. With Weston, you rarely get that sense; with him, the light is subordinate to form, it exists to serve the form.

It goes without saying that the light, for all these photographers, is absolutely critical; it's just that the way Edward Weston used the light was little different in emphasis.

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 03:11:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 03:11:05 AM EDT.