Philosophy of night photography

[gustav1]

This is a mail I recently mailed to a famous night photographer, I

would like to discuss it with some of you members of photo.net!

 

 

 

My name is Gustav Lindh and I'm on my fourth year at "Kultur

Samhälle Mediegestaltning" (Culture, Society and Media) at

Linköpings Univeristy (www.liu.se) in Norrköping/Sweden and I'm

writing my masters (1 year) about night photography. I would be

enormously grateful if You would like to answer a few of my

questions about the philosophy about night photography and

photography in general.

 

Here's a couple of lines from the draft of my essay (it will be

written in Swedish and there may be some spellingissues in this

translation, sorry for that):

 

The purpose of the essay is to give a comprehensive report about

night photography as an artform, historical, technical, artistic and

philosofical. This will be done by literary studies, studying of

photographers, photographs and photophilosophers (like Sontag,

Barthes, Flusser etc..) and studies in the field of Visual Culture

(Sturken/Cartwright). Night photography will also be studied as a

representation of the invisible like IR and Röntgen (X-ray).

 

And here is some questions I would like to discuss with you:

 

* Why do you think photographers go out and try to capture the night

in a way that the eye cannot se?

 

* If photography is "painting with light" (from latin), why do a

photographer try to represent something with as little light as

possible?

 

* What do you think about the fourth dimension in night photography?

 

* What questions would you like to be answered in an essay about

night photography?

 

* How do you think that night photography will evolve the next 20

years?

 

* Do you have any tips of litteratur that discusses the philosophy

about night photography?

 

 

 

I would be very grateful if you would have the time to give me your

opinion about these issues.

 

Best regards; Gustav Lindh<div></div>

[jon w.]

I started working at night because I wanted to slow the process down, and make it more laborious and self-conscious. Pretty much the first photographic term I learned was 'reciprocity failure'. I was also working on a place that is crowded with photographers - Venice - and I wanted to clear out some space of my own. Quite simply, the numbers thinned out a lot at night. It was also a way of defamiliarising the subject matter, and getting around certain cliches about the way water is usually represented in shots of Venice. I shoot hand-held at night on 35mm as well as large-format on a tripod. With the former technique, the challenge is quite different to the latter. The trick is to assemble a coherent statement when the subject is constantly threatening to disappear in a blizzard of noise (massive grain, blur, minimal depth of field, etc.).

 

I would have thought that digital will radically transform night photography, for simple practical reasons. It's my understanding that digital is much, much more efficient at coping with higher ISO settings than traditional film. Even the simple P+S digital cameras used by my friends can function without flash in bars and yield a much better technical result than I can get on Delta 3200 pushed three stops. In other words, night photography will more or less cease to exist as a distinct genre as a result of digital, because working at night will cease to be 'difficult'.

 

Someone has already done something similar to my project, as I discovered recently: a very good Venetian photographer called Luca Campigotto, who put out a book called Venezia Oscura (or Venice Night in the English edition). A critical study worth a look is M. Warehime, Brassa�: Images of Culture and the Surrealist Observer, Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1996. It's not specifically about Brassai as a night photographer, but does say some interesting things about how that aspect of his work relates to Surrealism.

[jon w.]

I am sure you already know this - a quotation from Julian Green used in the preface to Brassai's Paris After Dark.

 

"In all great cities there are zones which reveal their true character only after dusk. By day they wear a mask, assume a look of amiable good-fellowship that hoodwinks even the astute. ?. But when the nightmists rise, such places wake to life that is a parody of death; the smiling banks turn livid, dark surfaces grow pale and flicker with funereal gleams, coming with evil glee into their own again. It is the street-lamp that works the transformation. Under the first ray of this nocturnal sun, the nightscape dons its panoply of shadows and a malefic alchemy transforms the textures of the visible world. The smooth, sleek trunks of the plane-trees seem suddenly transformed to leprous stone, the cobbled pavement grows darkly mottled like the skin of a drowned man, even the river-water burns with a metallic sheen. ?. it is as if the stage were set in preparation for some furtive drama. Under the broken gleams of the lamplight buffeted by the wind, amid the odour of death that hovers on the water, this dark domain of silence and the rats is hospitable only to the thief counting his plunder".

[h._p.]

I'm trying to think of a sensible reply to this question and failing miserably. Just point your camera at what interests you and press the shutter.<div></div>

[ben conover]

''This is a mail I recently mailed to a famous night photographer''

 

What was the reply?

[ben conover]

I just spoke to a woman selling her digital prints for exorbitant prices, she is an amatuer. I doubt if she takes her camera out at dusk, a very typical example of the foto folks of Ireland. Anyhow, I think that good night photography is about seeing in a diferent light for sure, I want to learn more about it. I find photography a great learning tool since I am visually driven anyhow, the night is so often left unexplored and especially with new technology there are vast reams to learn about it all. Very nice quote above and I like the photo too.

[ben conover]

Perhaps night photographers are insomniacs.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DvXG

[root]

For the most part, you are limited to the sun as your sole source of light during the day. At night, you can use the moon, but more often you have multiple sources and colors of artificial light. You can also bring your own.

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234899

[jonathan_reynolds]

That is a terribly ham quote above, and it can hardly be thought to apply to the countryside around Linköping!

 

Gustav, nice questions. I think the answer to your first question lies in the word 'capture'. The second question makes the activity seem delightfully perverse, but after all night is different from day, and if you can see it at all with the eye, then surely it's fair to try to capture it with the camera? I'm not familiar with much literature about photography, so I'm not sure whether there is already an accepted meaning to 'fourth dimension'. I think that all photographs have at least one extra dimension (=level of interpretation) compared with the 3 that define space (accepting that photographs have one of those missing anyway).

 

Good luck with the essay. Please make it available to us.

[stephen_scardamalia]

<i>In other words, night photography will more or less cease to exist as a distinct genre as a result of digital, because working at night will cease to be 'difficult'.</i>

 

<p>I don't think digital makes night photography any less difficult than it does daylight photography. How the image is recorded doesn't change the technical and artistic aspects of making a 'good' photograph. You still have to find the right exposure, the right composition. Certainly digital makes it easier to go out and experiment, and perhaps more people will try it, but that's really no different than other types of photography.</p>

[neild]

I think digital does make night photography easier - much easier, in fact. There is apparently no equivalent to reciprocity failure in digital, and this, combined with the ability to get instant feedback, makes night photography as easy as a walk in the park. Even I can produce nice images; see photo:<div></div>

[beeman458]

Working with H.P's comment.

 

"Just point your camera at what interests you and press the shutter."

 

I didn't know you had to think about it. The night is there, what's to think. Night/Day/Evening/Sunny/Rainy/Foggy/Indoors/Outdoors/Uptown/Downtown/Suburbs/Rural what ever; where's the camera? Either you capture the night (light) in print, or you don't. In truth, I never saw Night and Day photography as a different genre, just as photography with differing challenges.

 

Maybe I don't understand because I don't have to write a paper and it's a good thing as it's not necessary for me to have to jump through the hoops of acedemia. Maybe this is also a good thing as I no longer have to subject myself to twisted nature of a "Nonsensical Philosophy" classes.

 

-------------------------------

 

Just for giggles, as a nobody, I'll try to touch on the simplicity of your questions.

 

* Why do you think photographers go out and try to capture the night in a way that the eye cannot se?

 

Because it's there in the same way daylight photography is.

 

* If photography is "painting with light" (from latin), why do a photographer try to represent something with as little light as possible?

 

Because the definition in of itself isn't self-restricting and has nothing to minimalism because it's just trying to encapsulate an action, nothing more.

 

* What do you think about the fourth dimension in night photography?

 

The same as I think of the fourth dimension in the day. It's there and it's all part of the continuum.

 

* What questions would you like to be answered in an essay about night photography?

 

None, cause I don't have any questions.

 

* How do you think that night photography will evolve the next 20 years?

 

Don't know as twenty years is a might short time frame. Maybe if you include fifty or a hundred years and the technilogical developments and how these unknown/unseen techno developments are incorporated into photography, then the question "might" be answerable and what happens will be the ability of photographers to exploit new technology which is yet to be invented.

 

* Do you have any tips of litteratur that discusses the philosophy about night photography?

 

For artistic or commercial purposes. If artistic, the tip would be to learn about the history of photography so you have a better grasp of where it came from so you'll have a more clear picture of what lies ahead. If commercial, let the AD's decide.

 

I would be very grateful if you would have the time to give me your opinion about these issues.

 

My apologies if my comments are found out of place. Good luck with your paper.

 

Included are a couple of links to my latest nighttime efforts.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3339401

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3805361&size=lg

[Guest]

<i>* If photography is "painting with light" (from latin), why do a photographer try to represent something with as little light as possible?</I><P>It's Greek, you fool! Don't they teach you anything at college? ;-)<P>If it were Latin, we'd all be luciscribes or something, talking endlessly about whether digital luciscription is better than film luciscription and whether Leica or Contax is the pinnacle of luciscribal excellence...<P>Anyway, I do night photography because it's easier to get dark backgrounds, which I prefer. And I just prefer the way most things look at night.

[Guest]

Especially shadows.

[Guest]

Actually, it's 'writing with light,' though from what I recollect of Ancient Greek there are some uses of <I>graphein</I>, the verb, in the sense of depicting something without words.<P>In English, we mainly derive words from the Greek like <I>biography</I> (writing about life), but we also get <I>graphic</I> (design) and <I>graffiti</i>. But there's no need to get hung up on the distinction. We mix things up all the time when we talk about a novel depicting or portraying a society - or a painting expressing or articulating an idea.<P>But back to your questions. I think for most of us the issue of there being as little light as possible doesn't occur to us. In fact, it's a drawback as far as the technical stuff goes. No, I guess we do it because the light is the kind of light we're after, and it's in the right places.<P>That said, night photography goes from blown highlights covering pretty much the whole frame to virtually impenetrable shadows, so we can't generalise any more than we can about portraits or landscape.<P>Is a landscape taken at night a landscape or a night photograph? Surely they're just convenient pointers to narrow the field a bit? And they don't tell us anything about an artistic point of view. Again, when <I>I</i> think of night photography, I'm not thinking of flash exposures, I'm thinking of ambient light, but I recognise that other people <I>are</i> thinking of flash. So <I>my</i> night photography is a sub-genre or a different genre altogether. And the whole point of genres is that they're just these loose, convenient groupings that fall apart at the seams if you inspect them too much. And labels/genres are also conventional and depend on context. When you go to a museum to visit their gallery of nineteenth-century paintings, you already have an idea of what you will get there: hopefully some Delacroix, maybe even a bit of G�ricault. If you got nineteenth-century schoolkid's poster-paint stuff that came off a fridge, or so-called primitive art, or a painted chamberpot from a canal boat, your preconceptions would be challenged, but it would still be painting, and it would still be nineteenth-century.<P>So you have to define 'night photography,' or what you're going to consider 'night photography, before you can start.

[stephen hazelton]

* Why do you think photographers go out and try to capture the night in a way that the eye cannot see?

In search of something different or in search of something beautiful.

Note for example, that is possible to take photos by a full moon that look almost exactly like daylight photos, and when this is done, the photos have no real interest- because they are not different.

 

* If photography is "painting with light" (from latin), why do a photographer try to represent something with as little light as possible? Little light or a lot of light, there's still light and you still see. Why don't symphony orchestras include more dynamite in their shows? It's loud! But they're not after "loud", they're after "good".

 

* What do you think about the fourth dimension in night photography?

Not at all.

 

* What questions would you like to be answered in an essay about night photography? Primarily interested in technical details, which are in other works already.

 

* How do you think that night photography will evolve the next 20 years? Probably increase somewhat as good digital cameras that can adequately handle very low light levels become available. Will reduce the trial-and-error aspects of making long exposures with film.

 

* Do you have any tips of litteratur that discusses the philosophy about night photography? Nope.

 

I would be very grateful if you would have the time to give me your opinion about these issues. You got it.

[nigel d]

OK, I'll bite. Why do I do night photgraphy?

 

The philosphical answer is that part of the art of photography is waiting for the right light, and sometimes that light happens at night. The practical answer is that I work during the day, so photography is a night time persuit. The aesthetic answer is that I like the way my night photographs look.

[byronlawrence]

* because I have always enjoyed the 'look' of night photography. I try to do it sometimes. I still have a few to try before I am happy with what I have done

 

* it seems more challenging to paint with less paint?

 

* I assume you mean time? I think one to two picture in any given night is the most you could get within the time alotted,, for long exposures, but for the shorter ones, on brighter nights it is a different story.

 

* how you determine how long the LOOONG exposures should be since in some cases light meters will not tell you... or at least what kind of light meter would tell me.

 

* I don't think night photography will change much more than what it has in the last 20 years, except with the advent of digital technology it will be a matter of batteries. I will likely stick with the old manual MF.

 

* no tips here. I read some on the Luminous landscape, but it is less about the philosophy of it.

 

Overall opinion. there isn't a lot of philosophy about night photography. it is a profoundly vague idea to think there is to me. it is simply photography.

[Nowhereman]

Read "In Praise of Shadows" by Tanizaki.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[pomerus]

Hi Gustav,

 

I find this issue very interesting, following several night sessions and other limited-light sessions I did.

 

Let me try and answer your questions based on my own private opinion:

 

* Why do you think photographers go out and try to capture the night in a way that the eye cannot se?

 

>>> photography for me is all about offering new point of view, new perspectives, new ways to look at familiar things differently. The combination of limited light and the camera technology makes almost every night-shot different in this sense.

 

* If photography is "painting with light" (from latin), why do a photographer try to represent something with as little light as possible?

 

>>> given high film/digital ASA number and very long exposure, the light is not limited at all, and you can get shiny whites even in the darkest night. So for me, night photography is also painting with light, to achieve the above goal ("different view")

 

* What do you think about the fourth dimension in night photography?

 

>>> The much longer exposures create a blur effect on almost all movement. In that sense, night photos of non-static objects will always provide some sort of motion blur.

 

* What questions would you like to be answered in an essay about night photography?

 

>>> that's an interesting question. For me, night photography is not that different from ordinary photography.

 

* How do you think that night photography will evolve the next 20 years?

 

>>> judging from the change in the last 20 years I would say "no change" :-)

If you think about it, we still have the same apartures, same shutter speeds, same ASA numbering.

 

* Do you have any tips of litteratur that discusses the philosophy about night photography?

 

>>> no, but would be happy to hear if you find any

 

>>> Omer.<div></div>

[andrea_ingram]

Nice question for which there will be many interesting answers.

mine is; less is more!

[andy_frazer]

I shoot almost exclusively at night, and I can tell you that if you ask a dozen night photographers these questions, you'll get a dozen different answers. Many, but not all, of us will tell you that there's something that feels different about the night, and a good night photograph will capture a small part of that difference. Night photographs are moody and dramatic, something that's often difficult to capture during the daytime.

 

If you really want more information about night photography, including some essays about night photography, and interviews will well-known night photographers, such as Michael Kenna, check out either the great Nocturnes website (http://www.thenocturnes.com), or watch my mini-documentary on night photography, THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING PHOTOGRAPHERS, which should be available for download from http://www.studentfilms.com by the middle of November, 2005.

 

Regards,

 

Andy Frazer

[helen]

Hi Gustav!

I know thats corny but since you are going to write an essay, you'd better be sure about it:

Photography derives NOT from latin but from greek: Photos (light) and graphein (paint).

 

I have another thought of that caliber: I personally came to see that the night is the same

than the day except for the lack of light. Now that may sound kind of stupid to you, but

then try to remember it, while you walk in a place at night and are afraid, while the same

place in daylight is nothing but just a street with some shops.

 

The perception of the night is not just a rational one, but still has strong echoes in our

(animals) soul. We feel it and being "so rational" we think "how come?" And that's where we

start taking pictures... or maybe I started.

 

I always foolishly hoped pictures shot with extreme exposure times in absolute darkness

would show things like auras or ghosts but then I got confirmed what I said in the

beginning. Night = Day - Light.

 

Kind regs., Hel.

[xavier_debeerst]

Dear Gustav,

With a lot of interest I've read your message. I'm a Belgian Photogallery owner specialized in historical photography from 1880 until 1950.

Actually we are preparing an exhibition "who's afraid of the dark?".

You can find a preview on http://www.anamorfose.be/dark

Is it possible to receive a translation of your work?

Kind regards,

Xavier

[dizzy deasy]

<p>Lots of interesting thinking going on here about night photography, painting with light (which always seemed to be an overstatement), etc. For me the time exposure, possible at night, is the key to getting an entirely different view of events. Time exposures convey change over time, in some sense representing an expanded present moment.</p>

<p>As an example;</p>

<p align="center"><img width="400" height="308" src="http://www.deasy.com/HowardJohnsons_.jpg"></p>

<p>You can see the “shape” of my arm. Most people recognize it as an arm. There’s a bit of magical fluidity in the shape changing over the changing background of streetlights. It’s just a picture, a real, solid, representation of someone driving a car at night. There are no tricks, it’s just a time exposure (about 2 minutes). I had to stop at a light, so part of a “Howard Johnson’s” sign got burned into the top of the arm. It was a “present moment,” all of it. I was there through it all. Pretty simple, but it still mystifies me. (Old speed graphic | Tri-X 4X5 | D-76).</p>

<p>Jonathan W’s quoting of J. Green certainly expresses something about cities at night for me. Long before I took night photos, I wandered, walked, the streets, at night. Just thinking. There was a sense of aloneness, perhaps suggested by the hard lines and shadows. Perhaps this echoes Helen’s observations. This is still how I “scope out” possible shots, during long night walks. The only downside is that I’ve had my wallet stolen much more often than the average person. </p>

<p> I’m guessing that Gustav has already written the paper. As you can see, I’m interested in the philosophical side of photography, especially time exposures/ night, too. </p>

<p>Ed Deasy</p>

<p><a href="http://deasy.com/">http://deasy.com</a></p>

<p><a href="mailto:ed@deasy.com">ed@deasy.com</a></p>