Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Its not like its a point of contention as its long been an historical fact that the fuzzy wuzzie Pictorialists photography it its day and what you see of it now perhaps was a way to make things less like photographs; more like "art". Photography as seen to be to literal. To sharp and clear. Mark William Rabiner > From: Bob W <leica@web-options.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:57:26 -0000 > To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Eye vs. Camera Lens > > It was a reaction against the imitation of painting. The mainstream of > photography at the time was epitomised by the work of photographers such as > H P Robinson and Oscar Reijlander who constructed photographs using cut & > paste to make up scenes that met the requirements of academic studio-based > painting. Emerson and others took their cameras outdoors and photographed > life as it was lived. > > If their work sometimes now reminds us now of Impressionist painting, > remember that at the time Impressionist painting was avant garde and was > itself a reaction to photography and its excessive realism. His work > resembles that of Millet in many ways, and similarly requires some > explanation nowadays because we don't always recognise aspects of rural > life > that were commonplace at the time. > > I thoroughly recommend the book The Older Order And The New: P H Emerson > and > Photography. > http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/emerson/ > > More about Emerson and Robinson: > http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/emerson/in_or_out_focus.asp > > Bob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org] On >> Behalf Of Mark Rabiner >> Sent: 21 January 2009 07:16 >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Eye vs. Camera Lens >> >> I thought it was because with such soft effects it imitated "art". >> As in painting. >> And or watercolor. >> >> A mere photograph with no pretensions got no respect those days. >> >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >> >>> From: Bob W <leica@web-options.com> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:52:07 -0000 >>> To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Subject: RE: [Leica] Eye vs Camera Lens >>> >>>> >>>> LUG: >>>> >>>> B&H has an interesting article: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/The-Photographic-Eye.jsp >>>> >>>> Includes bokeh information! >>>> >>>> Tina >>>> >>>> Tina Manley >>>> www.tinamanley.com >>>> >>> >>> This observation about blurriness, from Herman von >> Helmholtz's ideas about >>> human vision, is one of the ideas that P H Emerson brought >> to photography >>> when he formalised Pictorialism. While we often think of >> pictorialism as >>> unrealistic it is in some ways more realistic than its f/64 >> secessionist >>> successors. Emerson's aim was to produce photographs that >> mimicked our >>> vision, and that is why he promoted the use of soft focus >> and shallow depth >>> of field. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information