Last week I was in Boston for the Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference. The Boston Leica store and Gallery were located right there in the conference hotel, so I got to drop in on the Gallery a few times and take in Jim Marshall’s Jazz Festival exhibit. Marshall is justly famous for his photographs of musicians, having captured many iconic images of jazz and rock figures. The images taken at the festivals are like glimpses into the hearts of these artists, taken by a photographer who is looking in, unnoticed.
I actually was more interested in Marshall’s environmental photographs of peace signs found as graffiti, buttons, and stickers during the 1960’s. It reminds me that all of the images that we take today, seeming so banal because it’s just our everyday environment, will read as historical records in 50 years.
All of the images were scanned Tri-X negatives printed digitally on 20″ x 24″ paper. The grain in these large images was often very apparent, with velvety blacks and nice tonality. I couldn’t help but wonder whether their impact would be different had they been printed as traditional silver prints, but it appears that this hybrid process is now accepted as a way to show negatives captured 50 years ago. Perhaps we’ll need to accept more fully that the negative is the score and the print is the performance, to be interpreted on period instruments or modern instruments, changing tone but creating the music nevertheless.
We call it “self-expression”. These images are in some way a pure expression of self because I cannot explain them. I see light falling on a scene. Some particular combination of texture and contrast appeals to me. So I frame and capture an image. Through the viewfinder, it looks like one of my photographs.
Rachel, at I Still Shoot Film, says it well: My digital black and white photographs don’t look like “me.”
One of the first rolls of film I ever shot, back in about 1981, yielded and image I called, “Broken Sidewalk”. I printed it in the Emory School of Medicine Department of Anatomy’s darkroom and entered it in a show. My images are still echoes of “Broken Sidewalk”. Is it surprising that my images still look like “me”?
Joel Meyerowitz, now 75, is becoming the voice of photography, the voice of the artist for me. Here’s a remarkable sit down video of him describing the lifelong journey of an artist. At about 7 minutes in he talks about moving from phase to phase as an artist. I’m taken by the idea that at some point one reaches a competency and understanding of an artistic problem followed by a choice of whether to pursue the next artistic question at hand. Meyerowitz likens it very aptly to the process of a scientist, experimenting and exploring questions- sometimes with great results and sometimes for long periods down blind alleys.
I thought about the companints I’ve heard from fine artists about how the internet has changed expectations of the speed of output. Traditionally, an artist might spend years on a project, exploring out of the public eye, generating a new body of work. The work would then be revealed as complete just like a script or musical composition would be performed when done. Now we post a photo a day to Flickr, write about process and technique in our artists blogs and otherwise experiment in public.
The truth is that artists have rarely been successful working in isolation. We have circles of friends, families, gallery owners, mentors and trusted critics who get to see the work being done and provide some outside, independent opinion on the work as it forms. While being able to edit one’s own work is a necessary skill for success, being coachable is an equally valuable skill.
oel Meyerowitz spent months on the streets shooting with Garry Winogrand and Tod Papageorge. He’d show proofs to John Szarkowski at the Museum of Modern Art for feedback
When I’m actively working, I have Flickr and this weblog to serve a similar purpose with a virtual circle of artists who appreciate what I’ve been trying to do over the years. When things work well, we don’t just give each other animated GIF awards, but we point out what works in some photos and ignore the ones that don’t connect. I seek inspiration from mentors who directly teach on the web or like Meyerowitz and David Allen Harvey act as mentors to broader audiences. I’ve developed as a photographer in these online communities lacking a local photo salon and access to museum curators.
Funny how things fall apart.
I took a few minutes on Thanksgiving day to try the 105mm Nikon Micro lens on the D800. The camera was still in Monochrome display mode, shooting raw, so I saw Black and White images on the LCD as I reviewed the shots. Immediately, I reacted against the loss of color from the fall palate around the yard, so switched it back to Standard color mode.
Reviewing images in Aperture this morning for the first time, I liked the image that I took just before this one- a pretty similar framing of the ivy on the tree bark. But it was horribly out of focus and blurred. This one was better, but if you look at the EXIF of the image, it was shot handheld at 1/10 of a second. Even with the stabilization build into the 105mm, it’s technically a poor capture.
As I started processing the color image, I was fighting the lack of subject in the photo, what Vincent Versace calls in his books a primary isolate from CJ Elfont’s Isolate Theory. I find myself in this situation way too often and it comes from the lack of mindfulness that I have all too often behind the camera. It starts with an emotional connection to something seen but requires technical expertise to capture the most usable image file to express what was seen. Creating it afterward is nice practice, but in my experience never as successful.
At some point, I bail out. Back in black and white, the image works as a texture study. Having deliberately to work in color, I’ve taken it back to monochrome. There’s a little bit of light and a little bit of structure in it, but not worth much more than a glance for me in this final state. In my darkroom days, this would have gone into the reject box. Now I write about it and show it to dozens on Flickr and here on the blog.
Thom Hogan is out with his D7000 review. I think that he’s right that most pro D300 users probably would not be buying a D7000.
Nikon D7000 Review by Thom Hogan:
“So, no, unless they need a DX backup body I don’t think the average D300 user is going to be interested in the D7000. Really. I mean that.”
However much I liked the D300 ergonomics and image quality, I always found it too big and heavy. The D7000 is smaller and lighter, especially with a small prime on it. I just had my old 20mm f/2.8 repaired by KEH, so I’ve got a really nice light and small kit. Even with the bigger Tamron 17-105mm f/2.8, it’s much more my style than the D300.
The D300 will actually go up for sale on eBay since it still has some value.
I decided to go to Italy pretty light this time. I put the Nikon D300 with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom in my small, unpadded LowePro Terraclime along with the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 and a flash, my SB800. These are the two lenses that I use most frequently by far. This kit is lacking on the long end, but my only lenses longer than the Tamron are the 105mm micro and an older 70-300mm Nikon zoom which never gets used.
As was typical, the Tamron stayed on the camera most of the time. I switched to the wider 12-24 a few times, but if I went out for a walk, it was just the Tamron that went along. I would have been fine on the trip with the one lens alone. It’s fast (f/2.8), sharp (far superior to the Nikon 24-70mm VR), and compact compared to the Nikon equivalent. The build quality is not the same. The lens ring that holds the shade is a bit loose and rattles now, but it doesn’t affect any optics.
When I looked at this image, I thought that it was with the 12-24mm since I put it on to get the wide view of this famous church in Assisi. It’s actually the Tamron at 17mm. I’m now interested in filtering the Aperture library to see whether the 12-24mm actually contributed at all. If not, the 12-24mm stays home next time.
There were times when the 50mm reach of the Tamron wasn’t enough. I would have liked to have a VR long lens to get me to 150mm or so. Certainly something to consider for the next trip and future lens buys. The ability to push ISO up to 1600 without severe comprise in image quality with the D300 is great. In combination with an f/2.8 lens it allows light light shooting and preservation of a handholding shutter speed. I wouldn’t consider bringing a tripod an a trip like this.
The flash never was used. It’s mostly because I was walking and shooting, walking and shooting. If I had a few days just to photograph and not sightsee, I might have used it. I’ll continue to bring it along on these kinds of trips.
My wife had the Nikon P5000 compact. It was her sketch camera and I used it a few times when I didn’t have the SLR and she had the compact in her purse. So it would be inaccurate to say I didn’t bring a compact backup. It captured a few nice images as did the iPhone camera, my ultimate backup for really casual shooting (restaurant dishes, etc). Some compact backup is always necessary. Nice to have someone to carry it and share the trip.
I felt like rerendering an older photo to compare my newer way of seeing to that of a year or so ago. I happened to get 4 views today of a year old image I took with the DP1 in Geneva last year. I found the RAW and took it through the current workflow. The result is above. Below is the original finished image, back when I was working mostly through Photoshop rather than Capture NX.
I remain absolutely floored by the Nik Tonal Contrast filter. It actually takes much of the flatness of digital away, creating what looks to me like more film like local contrast.
I’ve been shooting pretty exclusively with the Nikon D300 and Tamron f2.8 midrange zoom combination. The DP1 sits on the shelf, waiting. As long as carrying the Nikon is no problem, I have no real reason to go to the less flexible DP1. I guess its waiting for a travel opportunity.
I’ve thought a bit about whether or not I would jump to the DP2 once it arrives. The DP1’s two great limitations are shot to shot speed and the f/4 lens. The DP2 promises to improve both with new electronics and a faster, slightly less wide lens.
Carl Rytterfalk has the first hands on field review of a preproduction model.
Initial DP2 review with full size shots.. | Carl Rytterfalk Fotografi: ” Faster operation! Now very useful in studio as shot to shot is much improved! “
His take is very encouraging. Great lens as expected. And that beautiful foveon tonality and color rendering.
He’s been told the technique is cheating. I’m with Moose on this. I’m lazy to the core. I’m looking for the fastest way to convey what I see in these mundane suburban views.
One of the other features in this image is fill flash. I liked the accentuation of the shadow depth and plan to explore the effect a bit more.