Challenge - Pictorialism

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

Second attempt. Printed on rough paper.

I think this one even better, Rocky.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by Kellycat

Good one, Kelly. Try less grain and maybe a bit of an out of focus vignette to complete the look. See my example where I just imitated some of the most common examples I found of this look.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by blumesan

Here's an image that has been languishing in my gallery for over 2 years with nary a single comment. Didn't have to add any grain. Photographed on Kodak Plus-X.

This is a little hard for the actual pictorial look. I think the framing would work better if cropped so the group on the right were further right and the other group weren't there. Owell. Still a good one.

If the old timers had Plus X, we may never have had this school of photography.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by Bunny N

Here is my first try at this.

Hey, Evil. Good to see you here. Try softening this a bit. A good start, though.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by loeee

My try:

First one and a direct hit. Good going.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by MSurina

Not sure about this. But, I think it fits.

Attachment 87317

It not only fits, but it's an excellent modern example not only of the process, the entire look due to the wonderful composition.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by APstudio

Hi all,
Just found this site a few days back and enjoying it. This is my first post. Don't really know if this would qualify for the challenge, but giving it a shot. Thanks!

You're in the right direction. Grain alone isn't what this is about. It needs that sentimental / soft look too. Try a soft focus on the bride and less grain / contrast to see what you get.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by Bob B

I agree with CanadianRocky so I tried to imitate it. Here are 3 versions. Critiques always appreciated.

Geeze, Bob, that's a great series and right in the middle of the genre. Weston had a slightly more interesting attic to work with & he also moved to camera right from your perspective, but still, this is work to be proud of.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by loeee

My try:

Loeee, This was the texture of paper I was trying to get. How did you do it?

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by Bob B

I agree with CanadianRocky so I tried to imitate it. Here are 3 versions. Critiques always appreciated.

Superlative work Bob. Absolutely outstanding.

[Kellycat]

Any better?

[doug_r]

The Orton Effect can be used to produce this sort of dreamy pictorial look from either analog or digital images

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by Kellycat

Any better?

Significantly so, IMO.

[doug_r]

When I look at pictorialist photos it's not the grain I'm seeing that's causing the effect. I believe the main proponents of this style were shooting for a softer, rather dreamy look rather than a soft large grain look.

My 2 cents at any rate.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by doug_r

The Orton Effect is frequently used to achieve a pictorialist look and works with both film and digital cameras.



When I look at pictorialist photos it's not the grain I'm seeing that's causing the effect. I believe the main proponents of this style were shooting for a softer, rather dreamy look rather than a soft large grain look.

My 2 cents at any rate.

You are right about the grain, Doug, but grain was part of many of the images today displayed as period Pictorial because of the tech then. I have been trying to nudge people off of grain and onto softer focus.

I thought when I did this that the challenge would be exclusively Orton Effect. I have been surprised at its absence until your image. IMO, your post is an excellent example of the school and a darned fine image in any case.

[doug_r]

Thanks!

I'm personally not a big fan of this approach because I think too many people use it to try to 'save' out of focus pictures but it can be really lovely in a sentimental sort of way.

I definitely agree that much of the pictorial look was due to the then current technology. Lenses and emulsions were fairly primitive then. Duplicating those problems with current tools and methods is not a particularly easy problem, ironically.

[Kellycat]

Originally Posted by dryadsdad

You are right about the grain, Doug, but grain was part of many of the images today displayed as period Pictorial because of the tech then. I have been trying to nudge people off of grain and onto softer focus.

I thought when I did this that the challenge would be exclusively Orton Effect. I have been surprised at its absence until your image. IMO, your post is an excellent example of the school and a darned fine image in any case.

Originally Posted by doug_r

Thanks!

I'm personally not a big fan of this approach because I think too many people use it to try to 'save' out of focus pictures but it can be really lovely in a sentimental sort of way.

I definitely agree that much of the pictorial look was due to the then current technology. Lenses and emulsions were fairly primitive then. Duplicating those problems with current tools and methods is not a particularly easy problem, ironically.

Some great points! As you say, many of today's digital techniques, such as the Orton effect, film grain, vignettes, etc. are digital attempts to reproduce issues that were considered problems for the most part by the folks that used the equipment available in by-gone eras. The dreamy look (i.e., diffusion) caused by internal reflections of light, the light fall off of a lens, the structure of film that introduced grain are issues that have been minimized to some extent by today's technology. Many photographers were able to create wonderful images with the old technologies. They were able to make these issues a virtue. I think that is what we are trying to do here, that is find the virtues in these images and try to amplify those qualities so that we make better images.

[blumesan]

Softened a bit and cropped.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by doug_r

Thanks!

I'm personally not a big fan of this approach because I think too many people use it to try to 'save' out of focus pictures but it can be really lovely in a sentimental sort of way.

I definitely agree that much of the pictorial look was due to the then current technology. Lenses and emulsions were fairly primitive then. Duplicating those problems with current tools and methods is not a particularly easy problem, ironically.

If not for this technique, we'd have no greeting cards. Think of it that way

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by blumesan

Softened a bit and cropped.

Here is my interpretation. Please fill out if you give permission to edit or not. I took a chance and did it anyway. If you don't wish me to have done so, then let me know and I'll delete.