Periods: Art

[Incolt]

What are the different artistic themes, artistic trends, photographic styles and popular photographic subjects in photography in the following periods: 1839-1899, 1900-1949, 1950-1999 and 2000-2022?

 

[Rickbb]

I give up, what are they?

 

[weepete]

that sounds like you have some research to do for your assignment!

 

[snowbear]

I like to call them Curtis, John, William, and Fred.

Maybe look in an Art History book?

 

[Jeff15]

I give up...What are they....

 

[webestang64]

I know but I ain't say'n.

Seriously though, no offence but I do not think anyone here is going to type all that out even if they knew. I would suggest reading some books on the history of photography such as Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography" and "Looking at Photographs" by Gordon Baldwin to start.

Although quick and dirty here is my list.....

1839-1899- Daguerreotypes and studio portraits.
1900-1949- The age of the "snapshot" was born, (Kodak Brownie)
1950-1999- The 35mm revolution and "instant" photography (Polaroid).
2000-2022- No brainer here......The Digital Age.

 

[RacePhoto]

I know but I ain't say'n.

Seriously though, no offence but I do not think anyone here is going to type all that out even if they knew. I would suggest reading some books on the history of photography such as Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography" and "Looking at Photographs" by Gordon Baldwin to start.

Although quick and dirty here is my list.....

1839-1899- Daguerreotypes and studio portraits.
1900-1949- The age of the "snapshot" was born, (Kodak Brownie)
1950-1999- The 35mm revolution and "instant" photography (Polaroid).
2000-2022- No brainer here......The Digital Age.

That's a wonderful answer and a good one, but if you don't mind me looking at another version?
1839-1899- No film (glass plates and metal base) positives
1900-1949- Large format sheet film, consumer B&W roll film, negatives
1950-1999- 35mm compact films, technology for varieties of colors, and sensitivity specifics. Also slide positives.
2000-2022- No film

 

[mrca]

I not only know them, 15 years ago I purchased 2 of the classic history of photography books then for a year long project attempted to recreate the history one era at a time using a digital camera. Not only does that teach you how we got here, but all those techniques and concepts are stored in the memory bank and can be used when called for.

 

[cgw]

Another drive-by "gimmee" post. Tiresome. Nuke it?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

One can easily point out the technical changes. As for artistic changes, they are far to broad and objective to quantify.

If you think you can capture film with digital, you may get the image but you will never understand the art of film photography with without using a completely manual camera.

There is little as humbling as a simple 4x5 view camera shot.

 

[mrca]

Ron : you may get the image but you will never understand the art of film photography with without using a completely manual camera. I think 20 years of photographers have been able to learn about and understand film photography without doing it. How does the saying to, referees may never have been boxers but they know the sport. But yes, there is something to be said for shooting a film camera. After 40 years of shooting them, after 12 years away I came back and enjoy them more than ever. Am learning things I never learned during those 40 years. I am working my way through the 2 volumes of the Ansel Adams guides and am learning things daily. One of my film camera is an rb67, no batteries included...or used. Have to cock the mirror and shutter, advance the film and remove the dark slide before shooting. Manual focus...now with a split prism finder really nails the shallow dof possible, metering knowing the development procedure for the desired result, kinda like shooting knowing how post will achieve the vision. The familiar smell of chemicals. But my exercise wasn't to enable me to know film photography, it was to know the history of photography having tried to produce it.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I do not want to confuse anybody, but when I speak of "art" I am not speaking of ideas or imagination or the ones ability to express their feeling through photography. Those are very objective in nature.

What I am talking about are the nuts and bolts of photography. For instance, I would say that Ansel Adams had honed his skills with the cut film camera technology to a fine art. He mastered the use of camera, filters, light angle and photographic print chemistry.

Judging from digital works I have seen, it is safe to say that there are many folks out there that have mastered the art of post processing. They can indeed document the advances in a century plus of photographic technology.

Still there is a difference between developing the skills require to use modern technology, to duplicate photos from a previous era; and the skills needed to create photos with the technology from that era. I like to canoe, but prefer the feel on my 1921 wood and canvas Old Town to my modern Kevlar canoe. However, I sure prefer the Kevlar on a long portage.

 

[mrca]

I think this quote from the Ansell Adams guide sums it up. "Photography is a linked series of creative decisions. The moment you visualize a photograph, you must begin to think about the most effective way of transforming what you see into the photograph you imagined. The camera, lens, film, and exposure you choose represent basic mechanical controls and play an integral part in the making of the photograph. The development of exposed film, to convert the latent image into a negative, and the subsequent printing of the negative itself or simple chemical processes." I think it is obvious that it takes different skills to take a vision to the ultimate print for chemical or digital photography. I'm not sure why you think I said otherwise. My point is that it is an excellent exercise to study the limitations and equipment that were used since 1840 understand how that affected their photographs and attempting to replicate them, including digitally, gives a photographer, a deeper understanding of the changes in photography produced throughout the years. To expect people to attempt this with chemicals that we now know are toxic or dangerous would be ludicrous. Not to mention extremely expensive and take years of study and practice. But attempting to re-create the look of those images throughout history helps to ingrain techniques and looks that can be later called upon in your work. It enables the photographer to move to the next level where instead of punching out the next cookie-cutter clichéd photograph, he can let what is in front of him inspire him and then draw upon a toolbox full of techniques to express that inspiration. I have heard that your website should have a coherent look. I think that is bull. There are few identical or similar photos on my website because each one was inspired by a person or group specifically. You will also hear that every photo has been taken and that is garbage as well. Most of my work has never been photo before. When I was in charge of the mentor program for my local professional photographers of America, I advocated they master techniques and concepts, not just emulate or copy someone else's work.. My degree is in written communication and we call that plagiarism. In photography, those with few skills or little creativity call that inspiration. I disagree with the Marshall McLuhan, the median is not the message, the message is the message. Unfortunately, these days, in most photographs, there is no message, just another photograph of the same thing that thousands have done before. How many shots from tunnel view in Yosemite of the millions taken are the same boring image. My shot. There I was with a light on a stick through an umbrella to light a woman and I used it to make her look 50 lbs lighter. The comment I received from her ex-husband is one of my all-time favorites, he was pissed I I made her look so good. But when I was taking that photograph, working with an assistant I just grabbed to hold the light, there were 20 cameras on tripods, taking the same "here's tunnel view" Snapshot taken with thousands of dollars of camera equipment. Was photoing a group of tombstone reenactors and they said they wanted a photo that emphasized their guns for which they were named. They suggested standing in a line pointing their guns at me. I wanted it to powerfully say guns. Have you ever seen a camera hung at the end of a boom attached to a light stand pointed down with an 8 mm circular fisheye lens, the camera cabled across the boom and a black scrim hung so the photographer could be behind it. Firing the camera cabled to his laptop. Toss in a light beside him bounced off the ceiling to illuminate the actors standing in a circle who have their guns about an inch from the lens. That is an example of letting the subjects "speak" to you and inspire a shot that I guarantee you have never seen before, that has a tremendous amount of impact. Once a concept or message was inspired, all sorts of techniques had to be employed, including a ceiling bounce, firing a camera from a remote laptop, getting the boom out of the image by attaching a heavy duty umbrella holder with a stud that could be screwed into the base of the camera, and even booming a still camera. And to get the expression of hostility, a technique learned from Karsh to get a belligerent look from Churchill, I had them hold the authentic heavy guns up next to the lens while I fired 16 consecutive photos watching them become more and more annoyed. Currently, I have seven rolls of film in progress across multiple cameras and backs at all times, so I well recognize the advantages and disadvantages of film. More important than the equipment, is having a range of techniques and being able to draw upon them to express your message. New professionals worry about a piece of gear breaking on location and not being able to finish the shoot. Having multiple techniques to accomplish the same result eliminates that worry.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

mrca,

Your point is very similar to Ansel's in that that camera only captures light, it is the manipulation of that light by the photographer that creates the photograph.

Digital or film, the photographer is thinking of the end product when they shoot the picture. A simple snapshot of grandkids in the pool, may only require all the kids to face the camera and smile. A complex landscape or event photo may require not only the proper location, sun angle etc. but in many cases visualizing the post processing needs. Digital opened post processing to the almost everyone. That is a good thing.

Those who do serious work with film do so because they like to. They enjoy the medium. Others like myself, approach it as a intriguing albeit somewhat difficult format.

The ironic truth to any of the arts, be it photography, painting, music etc. is the artist does not determine what is good or bad. Regardless of what trials and tribulation one has to do to accomplish the task, the good/bad decision is left to the portion of the public that is interested.

 

[mrca]

Ron, I determine if my work is good or bad, not folks who haven't a clue. If someone doesn't like my work, they aren't my client. I do try to educate them, but if they don't like it, who cares? I KNOW my work is good, PPA said so, my ribbons say so, them asking me to head a mentor program says so, not someone who knows nothing of a good image. But there are many reasons to shoot and many things to shoot. So much to photo, so little time.