William Mortensen!

R

Roger Hicks

Mentor
Local time
5:52 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Thank you for the link.

Mortensen is the prove that some of the most famous photographers of their lifetime can fall into obscurity if curators and photographers work together to disparage the famous photographers work to push their agenda. In this case the Newhalls and the Group 64 vs pictoralists and fantasy
 
Thank you for the link. Without knowing the fine detail, Mortensen's persecution by the people behind the f64 group is revolting. Sometimes I wonder if there's a touch of hyperbole in this, but then I think this is the arts, so it sure as hell must have happened. I don't think it's a sense of fairness that drives this revival. The academic/intellectual climate is much more attuned these days to fabricated photographs than documentary ones. By the looks of it, a long overdue dish of comeuppance has been served finally.

.

.
 
Telenous it was the Newhalls and some members of f64 who tried to exclude Mortensen's Work from the annals of photographic history. The Newhalls pretty much decided who was and who wasn't important in photographic history and art. They were also responsible for the extreme rise of AA and other members of f64.
 
On the cover of the new book, it carries the magnificent Ansel Adams quote about Mortensen being the antichrist. What was that about hyperbole...?

Cheers,

R.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145099

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145099

In an age of constant usage and reliance of Photoshops,
William Mortensen could become the Patron Saint, the Moses of the followers, the New god!
Please look at his "work".
Decide for yourself!
My opinion more tolerant than Ansel Adams, not as left as "Guardian".
Truth like Justice are at odds and never friends..
My opinion is secret.:D
 
leicapixie said:
In an age of constant usage and reliance of Photoshops,
William Mortensen could become the Patron Saint, the Moses of the followers, the New god!
Please look at his "work".
Decide for yourself!
My opinion more tolerant than Ansel Adams, not as left as "Guardian".
Truth like Justice are at odds and never friends..
My opinion is secret.:D
Click to expand...
Fascinating thought. Yes, it could be that Mortensen's time as the patron saint of manipulators has come, as a counterpoint to the often sterile imitators of AA and his so-called "straight photography".

Cheers,

R.
 
I always found it funny that the straight photography members cried foul at Mortensen manipulations but didn't really have a problem doing it themseves. Quiet a few of AA best loved photographs are the results of lots and lots of darkroom manipulation. :)
 
I read in Barry Thornton's 'Edge of Darkness' his introduction to Mortensen. It was a description of one of his portrait methods. If you only look at his photos you will never understand his contribution to photography. He wrote a book (of many) in the early 40s on lighting. The book still goes for $$$ on amazon.

Here is a link to one of his lighting methods; not the one Mr. Thornton described.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/ima....crumb=43eXfOOMo0r&fr=yfp-t-901-s&fr2=piv-web
 
The new projection control by William Mortensen is available as download on archive.org
https://archive.org/details/newprojectioncon000727mbp

Mortensen's books deal with portraits and nudes done in a Studio environment whereas AA was an outdoor photographer this is often overlooked when comparing the content of AA the negative, the print and Mortensens The Command to look, The New projection control, The Model and finally the book Charjohncarter meant Pictorial lighting (great book).

To highlight the inherent differences of AA and WM one advices to expose for the highlights (Mortensen) and one to expose for the shadows (AA) both advices are valid. :)
 
I agree that it is good that Mortensen is finally being appreciated. There have been two streams of photography from the beginning - Fox/Talbot with the paper negative, and Daguerre with the metal substrate. Mortensen was a master of plasticity, but was trumped by the school of sharpness. Similar dichotomies occur in the area of art vs. science. Yin and yang balance each other.
 
kbg32 said:
I hope Ansel Adams and Beaumont Newhall are spinning in their graves.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, digital has made everything sharp, sterile, surgical. I'm in the Mortensen camp. I don't put green hair on people in photoshop, but I do think expressing your feelings is important in a photograph. Even polictical feelings which I think is dumb for photography, but I do like to see people shot from their heart.

For me, it is a crappy lenses, and film, then a little something added (or subtracted) in photoshop. Mortensen is (was) a great pioneer of phtography, and I have, although not used too many of his techniques, liked his ideas, and are what I like and try to live by.
 
charjohncarter said:
I don't think so, digital has made everything sharp, sterile, surgical. I'm in the Mortensen camp. I don't put green hair on people in photoshop, but I do think expressing your feelings is important in a photograph. Even polictical feelings which I think is dumb for photography, but I do like to see people shot from their heart.

For me, it is a crappy lenses, and film, then a little something added (or subtracted) in photoshop. Mortensen is (was) a great pioneer of phtography, and I have, although not used too many of his techniques, liked his ideas, and are what I like and try to live by.
Click to expand...

John, I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me. No is saying what YOU do. Go back, and with the utmost respect, read photo history. Especially the ongoing debate that existed between Mortensen and Adams in the photo magazines of the day. Mainly the 1920's. Adams went so far as to call Mortensen an "anti-Christ". Newhall preferred for many years to totally write Mortensen's importance out of photo history, until in his much later editions, when it could not be ignored any longer.

In short, Adams and Newhall, who were best buddies, despised everything that Mortensen stood for, his vision, his technique, his tremendous ability as a photo technician. He invented many photo processes.

In that, I think we are in agreement!
 
I've been fascinated by Mortensen for many years. I found a copy of his 1941 book Mortensen on the Negative as a teenager and it became part of my photographic education. His ideas do suggest a lot of what was to come in the Zone System. You can find a synopsis here.

He was a master of "Photoshop before Photoshop", using paper negatives and carbon pencils to completely rework photos. He wrote an article in Popular Photography where he outlined his techniques.

At the same time a lot of his photography seemed way over the top to me in its artificiality and theatricality. Still, I was genuinely excited when I came upon one of his prints in a museum exhibit. The book seems like a good read. The author wrote a series of articles online that can be found on The Scream Online, also part II and part III.

As you can tell from the links I still have quite a fascination with him even if some of his work makes me cringe.
 
kbg32 said:
In re-reading your post John, I know what you are getting at.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, and maybe I was a little clumsy in saying that AA was interested in high quality realism. And today he would probably be very happy with the digital world sans manipulation. I do think he would be trying to find an F64 lens for his digital back Hassy though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top