Autochrome Photography

[karam]

The trick is an ability to understand, in abstract, the principles and purposes behind the specifics and to be able to differentiate the principles and purposes from the specifics, and to be able to carry this understanding across technologies. Understand the principles and purposes and you will better understand how to supply the specifics. Concrete thinkers, which are the majority, will not understand this. For them, the specifics are the principles.

Very nicely put.
On your point about concrete thinkers, I feel it's more to do with one's sophistication and interest in understanding concepts more in-depth. I believe curious critical thinkers can separate the specifics from principles and then apply what's best suited for the issue at hand accordingly.
Certainly the need for additional steps means it can take us longer than a more abstract thinker to get there though, that I'd agree with.

 

[milk]

There's something I love about this, I saw it in university and queried my dad about it: a lot of the old professors, crusty antiques some of them, had this uncanny ability to keep up with SOME new technologies better than us new ones, and not just keep up but also improve on it rather than just use it. His response was that "they learnt comparatively fewer stuff, but they learnt how to learn, while your generation just learns".

You can also see it in Primo Levi's Periodic Table, as someone who's a biochemist and worked among chemists I marveled by how comparatively "stronger" their science was - then again we did the cool stuff they couldn't. Primo Levi's book goes in some detail in some of the chapter describing how he learnt basic chemistry, something which is not done nowadays, the field is just too big, so they learn piecemeal, a bit of everything. Discussing with chemist friends, we were in awe in how they managed to draw chemical structures correctly, 300 years ago. Knowing what techniques they worked with, they managed to do the equivalent of drawing a human based on small fragments of shadows, seen through a mirror.

Not saying you're a crusty antique @sablebrush52!

I’m not able to follow this discussion too closely but I love Primo Levi!

 

[huntertrw]

The photographer in charge took the same negative and used it to explain dodging and burning by over exposing the sky for 30 seconds. When we processed the print, the extra exposure actually brought out the mountains in the background.

As the late Ansel Adams used to say, "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." He was a master in darkroom technique, and could coax incredible prints from his negatives. Witness Monolith, the Face of Half Dome and Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.

 

[sablebrush52]

On your point about concrete thinkers, I feel it's more to do with one's sophistication and interest in understanding concepts more in-depth. I believe curious critical thinkers can separate the specifics from principles and then apply what's best suited for the issue at hand accordingly.

Perhaps, but it's a matter of wiring. Not all brains are wired the same. Being "concrete" doesn't imply anything about intelligence, or critical thinking, though non linear jumps may be less prevalent for concrete thinkers.

 

[woodsroad]

As an old, retired, military trained photojournalist, I agree with the above sentiment. I retired in 1993, just before digital photography became mainstream. While there is no doubt some exquisite digital photography being done, I still have the belief that most of what goes into good digital photography is good computer work.

Sure, we had to work harder using film and developers but it was the extra knowledge and work that made the photo great. Computers and digital cameras have made it easier. I have come across a lot of "professional" photographers who are really no more than hobbyists posing as photographers. If they had to use a non-digital camera, I doubt that they would understand the nuances of getting a perfect exposure.

Sorry, I'm ranting and rambling.

I began my newspaper photojournalism career in 1985 (under the tutelage of aformer Army DASPO shooter), so I’ve worked both sides of the digital divide. To me, the entire argument of film vs digital is BS. The camera is a tool. What matters is the finished product. Nobody ever asked da Vinci what his favorite chisel was.

 

[ParkitoATL]

As a 25+ year professional photographer, I have worked with all kinds of film and cameras but also successfully crossed the bridge to digital around 2005. I knew many old timers who just said "forget it!"

Much of what people perceive as the "sameness" in digital photography is that most digital photos are made either with iPhones and these tiny sensors that work the magic of rendering everything in sharp focus, but also tend to compress and flatten the image so it looks like it's two dimensional. It's an odd thing, a slightly wide angle lens that smooshes everything together.

The other main camera is obviously the 35mm DSLR, which offers a little more in terms of spatial quality but can't touch medium or large format. When we look at these old Autochromes, almost all of them would have been made with a 4x5 or larger. The closest you can get to that spatial quality in medium format is the Mamiya RZ67, which I used for all of these rodeo portraits.

Do we have any pipe-smoking photographers who live near Atlanta? That would make for some great conversation!

 

[sablebrush52]

As a 25+ year professional photographer, I have worked with all kinds of film and cameras but also successfully crossed the bridge to digital around 2005. I knew many old timers who just said "forget it!"

Much of what people perceive as the "sameness" in digital photography is that most digital photos are made either with iPhones and these tiny sensors that work the magic of rendering everything in sharp focus, but also tend to compress and flatten the image so it looks like it's two dimensional. It's an odd thing, a slightly wide angle lens that smooshes everything together.

The other main camera is obviously the 35mm DSLR, which offers a little more in terms of spatial quality but can't touch medium or large format. When we look at these old Autochromes, almost all of them would have been made with a 4x5 or larger. The closest you can get to that spatial quality in medium format is the Mamiya RZ67, which I used for all of these rodeo portraits.

Do we have any pipe-smoking photographers who live near Atlanta? That would make for some great conversation!

That's some nice shootin' there, pardner!

 

[ParkitoATL]

That's some nice shootin' there, pardner!

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

It's sad that so few people still care about quality in photography. I look at portraits made back in the 1900s and there was a level of craft and respect for human dignity that these largely-nameless photographers brought to work every day. Now, it's just silliness, glam and artifice.

 

[woodsroad]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

It's sad that so few people still care about quality in photography. I look at portraits made back in the 1900s and there was a level of craft and respect for human dignity that these largely-nameless photographers brought to work every day. Now, it's just silliness, glam and artifice.

I'm going to disagree with you. A lot.
Some of the best photography in history is being made right now. Some of the worst photography in history is being made right now. It's all a matter of signal to noise ratio. Hanging on to the unfounded myth that somehow film made people better photographers is just a sad bit of nostalgia.

 

[ParkitoATL]

I'm going to disagree with you. A lot.
Some of the best photography in history is being made right now. Some of the worst photography in history is being made right now. It's all a matter of signal to noise ratio. Hanging on to the unfounded myth that somehow film made people better photographers is just a sad bit of nostalgia.

It's not nostalgia for film at all. Although I have a state of the art darkroom, I shoot digital almost exclusively now.

It's simply that photography has gone from being an art that had a history, a craft, and a tradition to a "year zero" art form where the overwhelming majority of "photographers" don't have a clue about what has gone before them. Photography students are now immersed in post-modernist theories of photography where the photograph doesn't actually need to be beautiful or visually compelling. It's all about the "feels."

Talk to young photographers and ask them about Avedon, Strand, Penn, Evans, Callahan, Siskind, Adams, Weston, Gowin, they literally don't know anything about the history. That's why I call it Year Zero. The students coming out of the Yale MFA program these days are a sad joke. It's more influenced by Instagram and gender theory than Walker Evans.

Kind of like Nat Geo, every major museum, every sports team, etc. It's all just a giant pile of nothingness. I guess I should smoke a codger blend now!

 

[sablebrush52]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

It's sad that so few people still care about quality in photography. I look at portraits made back in the 1900s and there was a level of craft and respect for human dignity that these largely-nameless photographers brought to work every day. Now, it's just silliness, glam and artifice.

Photography styles goes through cycles. When Group F64 appeared on the scene many of the pictorial traditionalists decried it. Ultimately, inspired artists will produce great images regardless of "fashion".

 

[AppalachianPipe92]

They really are beautiful.

 

[woodsroad]

It's not nostalgia for film at all. Although I have a state of the art darkroom, I shoot digital almost exclusively now.

It's simply that photography has gone from being an art that had a history, a craft, and a tradition to a "year zero" art form where the overwhelming majority of "photographers" don't have a clue about what has gone before them. Photography students are now immersed in post-modernist theories of photography where the photograph doesn't actually need to be beautiful or visually compelling. It's all about the "feels."

Talk to young photographers and ask them about Avedon, Strand, Penn, Evans, Callahan, Siskind, Adams, Weston, Gowin, they literally don't know anything about the history. That's why I call it Year Zero. The students coming out of the Yale MFA program these days are a sad joke. It's more influenced by Instagram and gender theory than Walker Evans.

Kind of like Nat Geo, every major museum, every sports team, etc. It's all just a giant pile of nothingness. I guess I should smoke a codger blend now!

Get off my lawn!

 

[milk]

As a 25+ year professional photographer, I have worked with all kinds of film and cameras but also successfully crossed the bridge to digital around 2005. I knew many old timers who just said "forget it!"

Much of what people perceive as the "sameness" in digital photography is that most digital photos are made either with iPhones and these tiny sensors that work the magic of rendering everything in sharp focus, but also tend to compress and flatten the image so it looks like it's two dimensional. It's an odd thing, a slightly wide angle lens that smooshes everything together.

The other main camera is obviously the 35mm DSLR, which offers a little more in terms of spatial quality but can't touch medium or large format. When we look at these old Autochromes, almost all of them would have been made with a 4x5 or larger. The closest you can get to that spatial quality in medium format is the Mamiya RZ67, which I used for all of these rodeo portraits.

Do we have any pipe-smoking photographers who live near Atlanta? That would make for some great conversation!

Thank you for sharing these. They're full of magic and humanity.

 

[ParkitoATL]

Thank you for sharing these. They're full of magic and humanity.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.