William Wegman and his Weinmaramers
True enough that art comes from many places in the human spirit.I think this is true of some, but by no means all constantly-shooting photographers. Art is made for all sorts of reasons.
I’m guessing that’s Tony Alva based on hair and hat but the deck looks just like my Hobie Mike Weed model and mine has the same mid tracks but different wheels. Nobody took no pics of me getting air (in the ‘70s) though!Glen Friedman for his music and skate stuff
![]()
![]()
You may be right about that image being cropped. But I have several books of his photos that all show images to the edge of the negative. And while position and lens angle can tell a lie, I appreciate the effort. I won't lie that I didn't dodge and burn in the darkroom.That's what he claimed in public, most of the time, but I seem to remember that it wasn't quite true. In fact, his most-famous image, the one of the puddle-jumper, is cropped in post.
As far as trusting what you see in past photos, well, you really can't. Photographer's position and a lense's angle of view can tell a lie, and darkroom and scene manipulation started as soon as photography did.
Fineman has a decent overview of the subject:
Faking It | Yale University Press
yalebooks.yale.edu
You may be right about that image being cropped. But I have several books of his photos that all show images to the edge of the negative. And while position and lens angle can tell a lie, I appreciate the effort. I won't lie that I didn't dodge and burn in the darkroom.
Good guess on age.....he'll be 90 on this coming Feb. 18.I got to know Duane a bit, one of my assistants went on to work with him for many years. He is a character, boundless energy, and very funny. Reminded me of Robin Williams in many ways - he certainly told you what he thought. He spoke very simply about writing on his images - he wanted you (the viewer) to know exactly what he was thinking. He has to be close to 90 now.
The whole no cropping ideal is a strange one for the medium and I recall many in the ‘70s seemed to value that. My reaction was opposite and I kind of think using a tripod for 35mm is nutty, I almost had the codfish eggs/ digital ethic when shooting film as if the results didn’t even matter as long as I was always in place and my speed and aperture was set and reset going in and out of light whether subject was present or not.You're quite right. He rarely cropped, as far as I can tell.
The image in question, before and after his manipulations, is here:
Henri Cartier-Bresson - the most famous photo - uncropped: Sony Cyber-shot Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.www.dpreview.com
I think I understand what you're saying about the "purity" of no-crop, feet-only, little to no manipulation in the darkroom. I disagree that it's any more pure, and I don't think it makes any sort of value difference. For me, the end product is the end product; the process doesn't matter to me as a viewer. It does matter to me as the photographer, though. I'm actually more interested in the process most of the time in my own work.
Cartier-Bresson has said in interviews that he sometimes sat and waited for a scene to come together—his photo "The Cyclist" comes to mind—and I see that as a sort of passive manipulation of the scene. It's sort of like setting up the shot in a studio.
Though many of his iconic shots look like "street photography", Elliot Irwin does even more, arranging people and objects on the street to suit his idea. Alex Webb does this, too, though he doesn't seem to talk about it very much.
I don't think there is any way to avoid manipulation of one sort or another, so it's a matter of degree what you like or don't. Ansel Adams was a huge manipulator; cameras, films, darkroom all got the business so that he could achieve the prints he saw in his mind's eye.
One of the reasons I knew his age was that he nearly chewed my head off for assuming he didn't enjoy being 80 - he read me the riot act about that (in a fun way -)) The other thing that impressed me was that he owned his commercial work, that is he made no apologies for doing annual reports and other commercial photography it was as important to him as his personal adventures.Good guess on age.....he'll be 90 on this coming Feb. 18.
I find your connection to him interesting. I was introduced to him (not in person) by my best friend in the late 1970's, who was an artist. Dennis worked mainly in pottery, but was deeply into photography. and showed me a lot of tricks, including processing and printing my own film. I think Duane made an impression on me because he wasn't JUST visual.....it was his cerebral techniques that (at least to me) set him apart from most other photographers.His lack of concern about "gear", and more on the end result, appeals to me. (as it does in musical stuff, too) I suppose I assumed he had died.....I'm glad to hear otherwise.
Added....BTW, you (bdkphoto) should have mentioned yourself in this thread. I just glanced briefly at your website.....most impressive.
Took a course on "the art of photography" years ago and did my final talk on him. Singular doesn't get close. He stands astride basically the next 70 years of fine art photography and was also unflinching as a documentarian (duh, Lewis Hine). I saw a great monograph the Met did 25 years ago or so... all the above are in it. Thick, frame-able prints on every page. This is one I keep in the living room
Took a course on "the art of photography" years ago and did my final talk on him. Singular doesn't get close. He stands astride basically the next 70 years of fine art photography and was also unflinching as a documentarian (duh, Lewis Hine). I saw a great monograph the Met did 25 years ago or so... all the above are in it. Thick, frame-able prints on every page. This is one I keep in the living room
View attachment 944077