>explain something that is literally explained in the picrelare you brain damaged?
>>4518701No, I don't shoot straight photography
>>4518677Seems like it was a rare example of his early experimentation with soft focus lenses from my 30 seconds of research.The soft focus effect is quite strong in this image. I wouldn't call it pictorialist, but it's definitely not f64 type straight photography. Somewhere in the middle maybe. Ansel used many different techniques to produce b&w images that looked good, but were definitely not just "what was there", and I don't think that was ever really the point. Pictorialism tried to imitate painting through photography. F64 wanted photography to be its own distinct form of art seperate from painting/drawing. I would argue a soft focus lens can produce a photograph that remains distinct from what the pictorialists were trying to do, and therefore still maintain the "photography as its own artform" goal.I suspect that his apprehension to use soft focus lenses was because the reliance or heavy handed use of the effect could easily stray too far from what he considered straight photography, but who knows. Interesting thing to ponder.
>>4518677Do you know what book this came from? I'm curious about footnote 118
