Photographer/Place Connection

[oriecat]

Just as Atget and Paris go hand in hand, are there any other photogs who are so closely connected with a specific place?

[terri]

You mean like Ansel Adams and Montana? :mrgreen:

[oriecat]

No, I mean like Ansel and Yosemite. :greenpbl:

[terri]

No, I mean like Ansel and Yosemite. :greenpbl:
Of course you do! :lmao: And I'm not even drunk!

[Hertz van Rental]

Here are a few pre-1900 British photographers.

Peter H. Emerson - East Anglia
William Henry Fox Talbot - Lacock Abbey
Hill & Adamson - Scotland
Frank Meadow Sutcliffe - Whitby, Yorkshire

Photographers became a lot more mobile after the 1890's and so few have worked in one particular place. But some have been linked with one place or area because of certain pictures - Brassai and Paris is an example.

If you want more give me a bit of time.

[Hertz van Rental]

Tim Page - Vietnam
Weegee - New York
Bruce Davidson - East 100th Street, New York
Robert Capa - Spain (during the civil war)

That's all I can remember at the moment without going through some books. How many do you want - or was it an academic question?

[ksmattfish]

Eggleston and the US south
Berenice Abbot and New York city
Matt Needham and Kansas ;)

[oriecat]

How many do you want - or was it an academic question?

Oh no, I'm long out of school. :wink: :mrgreen: Yeah, just a curiosity really. I was reading my little Atget book last night, and just wondered who else out there...

Thanks :)

[KevinR]

I think that I look at styles associated to photographers more than location and photographers. Of course there are the group such as Adams, but I realize connection to style more often, such as Arbus, Newton, Lebowitz, etc. At least, thats how I would like to be known for, rather than a location. It seems kind of limiting to me.

[ksmattfish]

It's sort of like niche marketing. I didn't set out to be a Kansas only landscape photographer, I just don't get to go on a lot of vacations to cool places (I'm going to make the next TPF trip though! ). On the other hand, I just sold a bunch of high res files to a big dental insurance plan for publishing in their annual stockholders' report. They were looking for "Kansas landscape photography", and they found me. :)

[Hertz van Rental]

I think that I look at styles associated to photographers more than location and photographers. Of course there are the group such as Adams, but I realize connection to style more often, such as Arbus, Newton, Lebowitz, etc. At least, thats how I would like to be known for, rather than a location. It seems kind of limiting to me.

You would be amazed at how much you can find in a small area. It's just a matter of thinking and looking.
Style is far more limiting - if a photographer maintains the same style all his pictures start to look the same. Helmut Newton is a good example. Style tends to limit your subject matter considerably more than location.
And look how much Monet found to paint in his garden.

[terri]

On the other hand, I just sold a bunch of high res files to a big dental insurance plan for publishing in their annual stockholders' report. They were looking for "Kansas landscape photography", and they found me.
Now, that is worthy of congrats, my friend. :thumbup: :D

Style is far more limiting - if a photographer maintains the same style all his pictures start to look the same. Helmut Newton is a good example. Style tends to limit your subject matter considerably more than location.
And look how much Monet found to paint in his garden. I couldn't agree more. I like to try different things, different processes - and that's more time consuming for me than being able to get out and hunt for new places to shoot. So I find myself using the same negatives or slides several times over to achieve different looks. The image is fundamentally the same, but hopefully I am conveying a different mood or feel each time. :)

[craig]

I would like to throw in the studios of Vogue and Conde´Nast during the 40's (and more than likely to this day). The golden era of open page design and the reaffirmation that PHOTOGRAPHY IS ART!!!!

Photographers/Art directors like Irving Penn and Alexi Brodovitch changed what we believed to be still life, fashion and portraiture. "each photographer was given his own studio, a salary, plus all technical means and assistance. In exchange he was always on call and would execute any assignment he was given"- Alexander Liberman "An American Modern" for Irving Penn's book Passage. Tell me that would not be an exciting position!

[ksmattfish]

And look how much Monet found to paint in his garden.

One of my favorite photographers is Charles Jones. He lived in England in the later half of the 19th century, but wasn't "discovered" until the 1980s. He considered himself first and foremost a gardener, and even wrote a book on it and may have tended gardens of royalty. But he was also a photographer, although as far as I know he only photographed the fruits, vegetables, and plants from his gardens. He was doing amazing things with cabbage and cauliflower 30 or 40 years before Weston's famous green pepper. Unfortunately there isn't much about him on the web. There is a great book though

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556709242/102-8100066-3810518

[Hertz van Rental]

I would like to throw in the studios of Vogue and Conde´Nast during the 40's (and more than likely to this day). The golden era of open page design and the reaffirmation that PHOTOGRAPHY IS ART!!!!

Photographers/Art directors like Irving Penn and Alexi Brodovitch changed what we believed to be still life, fashion and portraiture. "each photographer was given his own studio, a salary, plus all technical means and assistance. In exchange he was always on call and would execute any assignment he was given"- Alexander Liberman "An American Modern" for Irving Penn's book Passage. Tell me that would not be an exciting position!
Vogue/Conde Nast stopped doing that sort of thing quite soon after they started. It was far too expensive and they didn't always like what they got.
In the 60's they used Guy Bordin (check him out - he did a catalogue shoot in the 70's and within 2 days it had become a collectors item!) and they would look at what he had produced, tell him it was wonderful and then get another photographer to reshoot it. This is how David Bailley got his big break.
There is also a difference between French, English and American Vogue.
English Vogue in the 70's and 80's used to pay £25 per photo regardless of who you were (Dahling! You're being published in Vogue. You want paying as well? You should pay us!).
They still got good photographers, though.
Check out Nick Knight and Karena Peronnet-Miller, two of the best in recent times.

[Hertz van Rental]

One of my favorite photographers is Charles Jones. He lived in England in the later half of the 19th century, but wasn't "discovered" until the 1980s. He considered himself first and foremost a gardener, and even wrote a book on it and may have tended gardens of royalty. But he was also a photographer, although as far as I know he only photographed the fruits, vegetables, and plants from his gardens. He was doing amazing things with cabbage and cauliflower 30 or 40 years before Weston's famous green pepper. Unfortunately there isn't much about him on the web. There is a great book though

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556709242/102-8100066-3810518

Wow! Good call Matt. Thanks. I may have to buy that book.

[KevinR]

You would be amazed at how much you can find in a small area. It's just a matter of thinking and looking.
Style is far more limiting - if a photographer maintains the same style all his pictures start to look the same. Helmut Newton is a good example. Style tends to limit your subject matter considerably more than location.
And look how much Monet found to paint in his garden.

I seem to need to defend myself here a little bit. I guess I am looking at style a little broader than say Newton. To have that little something for someone to say that kinda looks like ....
I see some photographers that have that. In color for example, someone that I admired early on was Galen Rowell. He shot all over the world, but had a certain style to his work. Ansel Adams had a style. The question is was he more known for a place or a style. I know, I know, Yosemite. But, one of his most recognized shots was from New Mexico. I see Selgado's work and recognize it, but I don't see it as limiting. I guess I am saying that maybe I am a little ADD, and would get bored with an area. But thats just me. I know slot canyons are beautiful, but I would need to get out of the ground once in a while. :)

[ksmattfish]

Wow! Good call Matt. Thanks. I may have to buy that book.

Keep your eyes open. Since no one has ever heard of him I often see it on clearance shelves at bookstores. I got mine for $3.


I've never really associated Ansel Adams exclusively with Yosemite. I would say the American west, because he went all over taking photos.

[ksmattfish]

I know slot canyons are beautiful, but I would need to get out of the ground once in a while. :)

They are beautiful, but after seeing as many photos of them as I have, I think that if I ever visit I'll leave my cameras in the car.

My buddy gave me a tip about shooting there though. There will be photogs all over the place, making it impossible to shoot (actually, I'll bring my Widelux and shoot the photogs running all over the place ;) ). So he said wait until an event happens, like a beam of light that everyone knows is going to happen at a certain time, and when they all run off to shoot the beam of light, you can get a few pics.

[KevinR]

Yeah, I've heard its pretty crazy. And actually, with Adams, that is my point. The west is a mighty big area. A little to big to say it is a pigeon hole.

[craig]

Thanks for the tip Hertz! I will surely check out the photographers mentioned. Basically I have always been enamored with art produced in the 40's

[Hertz van Rental]

Thanks for the tip Hertz! I will surely check out the photographers mentioned. Basically I have always been enamored with art produced in the 40's

Then you should definately check out the Hollywood portraits of Whitey Shafer, Eugene Richee, Scotty Welbourne and the great Clarence Sinclair Bull - if you haven't already.

And KevinR - defend yourself against what?
I was just pointing out that most people can't see the wood for the trees. If you look at the truly great photographers they are often more interested in the minutiae than the big view.
When you take a picture you only see what you are looking for.

As for style - all creative people develop their own 'style'. Where the problems occur is when the style becomes more important than the image.
Bob Carlos Clarke is a better example of this than Newton.
*NOT WORK SAFE* http://www.eyestorm.com/artists/
Quite an interesting site in it's own right.


And just for the complete ego trip - guess the photographers in this thread whom I have known or met :lol:

[KevinR]

Just to clazify, the defend part was a little tongue in cheek statement. I didn't take it personnally, I just wanted to throw a little curve into the discussion.

And I think minutiae is good, I just like to look for it everywhere. :D