Eliot Porter: In the Realm of Nature

Reviewed by Geoff Wittig

Hardcover, 144 pages, 9.5 x 0.8 x 11 inches
Published by the J. Paul Getty Museum, November 6, 2012
$26.37 at Amazon.com (U.S.)
£23.76 at Amazon U.K.

Eliot Porter is a seminal figure in the eventual acceptance of color photography as art. The 1962 Sierra Club edition of In Wildness is the Preservation of the World is widely cited as one of the most influential photo books of all time, helping simultaneously launch the environmental movement and the advent of high quality color book reproductions.

Despite its prominence, Porter's work has not been especially well treated in book form since his initial fame in the 1960s. Part of this is technical. The purity and subtlety of color that dye transfer prints are capable of is very difficult to reproduce well with offset lithography. The reds in particular can quickly degenerate into smeared blobs of undifferentiated color. Another challenge is the shift in Porter's color interpretation of the original dye transfer prints over time. As is documented in The Color of Wildness (Aperture, 2001), Porter altered his color interpretation of specific images over the years. The subtle and beautiful photograph "Redbud Trees in Bottomland" exists in versions that vary from cool violet to warm pastel in overall color. Which version do you pick? Finally, the relatively small market for high quality photo books, and relentless cost pressures, makes it very difficult to do justice to such a challenging subject.

Eliot Porter, Redbud Trees in Bottomland

All that makes this new book from the Getty Museum especially welcome. It's a modestly-sized book with a brief foreword by Sierra Club director Michael Brune, followed by a concise biography and summary of Porter's career by Paul Martineau. The photo reproductions are, in a word, superb. They come as close as offset printing can to conveying the tonal delicacy and color purity of dye transfer prints, and compare very favorably to all previous reproductions of Porter's images in book form. All are reproduced with adequate white margins, and none are defaced by printing them across the gutter. My benchmark photograph, "Redbud Trees in Bottomland" (plate 40), is beautifully rendered. It avoids the leaden shadows and cool balance of the version seen in The Color of Wildness as well as the somewhat pallid pastel impression found in Intimate Landscapes (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979). The first sequence of photographs are Porter's very accomplished black-and-white landscapes, and the last sequence are his immaculately lit (think O. Winston Link) photos of birds at the nest. In between are the color images he is best known for.

If you own only one Eliot Porter book, this is the one to have. My only complaint is that the typography is rather charmless, using a stark modernist sanserif typeface. In Wildness... had David Brower's elegant design employing the beautiful Centaur typeface, which was also used by Eleanor Morris Caponigro with even greater skill in Intimate Landscapes.

There are other books out there displaying Eliot Porter's work, though most are out of print. The color reproductions in the Sierra Club's 1962 edition of In Wildness is the Preservation of the World are remarkably good for their day, and they have stood the test of time surprisingly well. The book was so popular that it can often be found in used bookstores. Subsequent Sierra Club editions of Porter's work do not hold up as successfully; those on the Galapagos and Antarctica have reproductions that tend to look chalky and blocked-up. Reproductions in The West (1988) are pretty good; those in Appalachian Wilderness (1970) are mediocre, but the subject matter may make it worthwhile to you. Caveat Emptor. Intimate Landscapes (1979) can be very pricey used, but the reproductions are quite good, if mostly leaning to the pastel side, and the book's design and typography are beautiful. Finally, Aperture's The Color of Wildness (2001) is worth a look. Reproduction quality is hit or miss, with some images coming off very well indeed, others going very dark in the shadows.

Geoff

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim Bullard: "I haven't seen 'Redbud Trees in Bottomland' before (at least that I can remember) so I have no basis for comparison. I have seen an exhibit of his original prints and was reminded of a comment that Porter said Ansel Adams made. After viewing a newly hung exhibit of Porter's Ansel told him 'You don't get good whites.' Based on the exhibit I saw (in the '90s?) I had to agree. That said I like Porter's landscape photographs and I'll have to check out this book."

Charles Cramer: "I remember seeing an exhibition of Porter dye transfer prints at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite perhaps 10 years ago. I was disappointed in the prints, as they seemed rather lifeless. The gallery offers several of Porter's books for sale, and directly comparing the reproductions to the prints reinforced my opinion. I subsequently came to learn that Porter did not use highlight masks when making his dye transfers. Matrix film (used to make the 'printing plates') is incredibly flat in the highlights, and needs the boost that highlight masks provide for proper reproduction from transparency films. Using three-color highlight masks made a huge improvement in my prints. Just because a print is a dye transfer doesn't automatically make it sublime...."

Comments

[Robert Roaldi]

"My only complaint is that the typography is rather charmless..."

It's so rare for reviewers or critics to mention typography. I hope you start a trend. Mind you, if this were an e-book, readers could just change the font at will.

[Mike Johnston]

"Mind you, if this were an e-book"

[Shudder]

Mike

[James Rhem]

Strange I've never seen what you call "Rebud Trees in Bottomland" called that before. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. It's my favorite Porter image for many reasons; among them is the fact that it was made in the Red River Gorge in central Kentucky (my home state/commonwealth). Ironically, Porter visited the Gorge around the same time Ralph Eugene Meatyard and Wendell Berry made their somewhat famous trek through the gorge that resulted in the book "Unforseen Wilderness" (UK Press 1971). Those quite different images are of course in black and white, but like Porter's they have suffered from inadequate reproduction as anyone who's had the chance to study the original prints can attest. (As far as I can tell Porter and Meatyard never met.)

[Winwalloe]

"none are defaced by printing them across the gutter"

It's nice that you specify this. Pictures printed over the gutter upset me quite a bit. I hardly understand why some (most?) printers can think it's a good idea.

[Stephen Best]

[Shudder]

Electronic delivery has great potential for delivery of reproductions of colour (and even B&W) artworks. I don't know how many times I've been to an exhibition, made the obligatory visit to the bookshop only to put the accompanying catalogue (or other books on the same artist) back on the shelf because the colour reproduction sucks. The differences are stark straight after viewing the artworks on the wall.

Want to see what the future holds? Check out Art Authority on an iPad 3 or 4. Or my humble efforts here (warning 25MB download):

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8350672/Coast%20-%20Stephen%20Best.pdf

[Jeff Grant]

I've just ordered it, thanks. I have Porter's Iceland and The Place No One Knew. Any idea how they rate against the ones mentioned in the post?

I would buy Porter's books regardless of the quality of the reproduction. He stands head and shoulders above most others IMHO.

[John Krumm]

Looks beautiful. I wonder, if I add it to my Amazon wish list through your link and buy it later do you still get the bonus money [No] or do I have to come back to TOP when I'm ready to buy? [Yes. --Mike]

[Pashminu Mansukhani]

Will there be an e-book released? That will make it reading easy and practical on iPad.

[Steve Barnett]

Thank you Geoff, book order duly placed with Amazon UK.

I'm looking forward to this because seeing a Porter print is a sublime experience. But I haven't seen one since the 1980's, and I was beginning to think it was my memory at fault in being less than inspired with some book reproductions (and editing). So thank you for clearing something up.

[Luke Smith]

I saw the redbuds shot and smelled the Chattahoochee river and heard a redwing blackbird.

Sold. Thanks, Geoff.

[mastaliu]

Thanks for the link Geoff.

I found Porter's book Appalachian Wilderness in a thrift store when I was 10 back in '87 and was hooked (Ed Abbey's history piece in this book is wonderful too). I went out into the the woods with my camera and spent my teenage years in the Smokys and Shenandoah Valley, carrying a small pocket sized In Wildness in my pack with my Minolta XG-M. My memories are a mix of real images and Porter's photographs - maple leaves, mountain streams, low growing rhododendron, wood ferns, flowering dogwoods...

Urban street photography seems so popular today, but taking a camera into some woods is the stuff to tap into a calmer side of walking with a camera. It's also incredibly difficult to get anything remotely decent - try to capture that wonderful mix of autumn colors that litters a foot path, or that dark pool in the creek underneath the tree roots - all those muted browns and greens...you'll realize that Porter is a giant.

[Jim Bullard]

I haven't seen "Redbud Trees in Bottomland" before (at least that I can remember) so I have no basis for comparison. I have seen an exhibit of his original prints and was reminded of a comment that Porter said Ansel Adams made. After viewing a newly hung exhibit of Porter's Ansel told him "You don't get good whites". Based on the exhibit I saw (in the '90s?) I had to agree. That said I like Porter's landscape photographs and I'll have to check out this book.

[Campbell]

I found an interesting little book written by Porter titled "Summer Island" at a library used book sale. This book is more text written by Porter than photographs and is probably of interest mostly to someone interested in his life, especially his family and his youth, more so than his photographs since they're a mixture of color and b&w and aren't particularly well produced. But for $1 I thought it was a nice find.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

(I submitted a comment to this topic on Thursday which never appeared. If at first you don't succeed...)

First, thank you for your usual excellent book summary, Geoff. Nearly anything published by the Getty or the Met will be worth at least a look owing to the quality of their collections and curatorial staffs.

During the past year or two I've had several opportunities to see quite a few of Porter's prints first-hand, as well as his portfolios. Being ever the color enthusiast I fully expected to enjoy Porter's work. Of course his bird photos are jaw-dropping landmarks in nature photography. But, frankly, his general nature images are as spotty as any rank amateur's work. In fairness, I find nearly all straight landscape and nature photography to be narcotic and dull, with its highest aspiration being "pretty". But I do appreciate any good photography and especially a good print. Many of the Porter prints I saw were simply not good images or good prints. Muddy, over-saturated/mis-saturated, not sharp, often with scenes that have no decisive or cohesive composition.

Presumably this book features little or none of that work. But such an experience certainly reinforces the recent topic, "Never let 'em see your sh*t". It left an indelibly poor impression on me.

I was delighted to see Charlie Cramer ring-in with his comments, since it's his work that I found myself silently (and sometimes not-so-silently) screaming for as I looked at Porter's leavings.

For those interested in getting a bit of an orientation on Eliot Porter's work visit the Amon Carter Museum's site. The Fort Wort, TX museum holds Porter's archive and has a nice overview of much of the best of his works and writings.

[Geoff Wittig]

Ken-
great comment! A bad print is a bad print, regardless of the source.

Eliot Porter's best work, or at least the part that sings for me, involves photographs like Redbud in Bottomland- rather chaotic compositions that nonetheless hit the spot aesthetically and put me in the middle of the woods. I like Robert Glenn Ketchum's work, especially his Hudson River book, for the same reason. But it's very much an acquired taste. Different strokes and all.

[Earl Dunbar]

What I like about this version of Redbund is that it does not have "full" range. Sometimes that is exactly what the light is like. There is a type of beauty that is subdued, muted and understated to a degree that we often do not appreciate. But it is beauty when we stop and just absorb.

[Paul Judice]

I worked in dye transfer for many years and Porter's color work was never taken too seriously for its technique among my peers. I heard rumors of assembly-line methods and Mr. Cramer's revelation that he left out a critical element in the process explains a lot.

One of my mentors, Bob Pace, told about a phone call he made to Dr. Porter back in the 1960's. He complimented him on his fine eye and then begged Porter to give him his work in order to print it properly.

I believe the call ended rather abruptly.

[Mike Johnston]

I remember Bob Pace.

Mike