Nicholas Nixon - Technique

[wilhelm]

I've recently been exposed to the work of LF photographer, Nicholas Nixon, in SCHOOL, remaindered at $3.99 at Waldon Books. There's a lot of material about him on the Web, but virtually nothing about his technique other than he uses view cameras from 8x10 up to 16x20. Many of the people in his pictures appear to be performing normal daily activities, but it's hard to believe that if they aren't posed then it's at least staged. He's about the only LF photographer I've seen that uses DOF to his advantage (no F:64 and be there for him). Has anyone observed his technique? Does he use bounced flash? Does he focus and compose carefully (then close the lens and insert the holder and pull the dark slide) after setting up the shots that appear so sponteneous? Anyhow, IMHO he's uno mucho macho photographer!

[toeknee]

Bill,

 

<p>

 

He's on the faculty at MassArt (Massachusetts College of Art), why

don't you give him a call? 617.232.1555 (main #) Website:

www.massart.edu

 

<p>

 

Tony

[dave_willison]

View Camera published an atricle about Nixon in the Jan/Feb 98 issue.

The article briefly mentions the AT SCHOOL book but does not give a

great deal of information on technique. There are a few notes at the

end of the article, including information about his current (1998)

camera (8x10 Canham), his film (Tri-X), and his paper (AZO). The

article also suggests that he shoots a great deal of film, perhaps as

many as 100 sheets per week. Hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

........................

[ellis_vener_photography]

Yes, he uses a single bounce flash. You can see that in his

images. Everything I've read indicates that he shoots solely on

8x10 and has for at least the past twenty five years. He is also

about the last photographer I'd describe as "macho" (based

solely on his images. There was a retrospective book that came

out about ten years ago, before he started the "School" project.

[chris_ellinger]

Ellis,

 

<p>

 

I'm curious about your characterization of Nixon as "macho". From his

images of children and AIDS victims, I thought of him as anything but

macho. Maybe we have different definitions for "macho".

[wilhelm]

Any photographer who makes pictures with an 8x10 that I would take

with 35mm is Mucho Macho in my book.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Chris,<P> read my reply again. I was rectint oBill's

characterization of Nixon as <I>"uno mucho macho

photographer". But it really does take real courage to confront the

effects of such a ravaging disease on a subject at such close

rangeover a long period of time, as Nicholas Nixon did with his

AIDS project.

[chris_patti1]

After looking at a number of his school photographs on the web, I'm

quite impressed that he has accomplished what appear to be Leica-style

"candid" images with an 8x10. But this leads me to wonder why anyone

would bother, except maybe to prove that it can be done. It seems

that the advantages of the 8x10 format are largely lost on this type

of photography--would these images really be any less effective if

taken on a small or medium format camera? Can't say for sure without

seeing them "in person," I guess, but I have my doubts.

 

<p>

 

Also, I cannot help but be conscious of the fact that all of these

rather intimate, and apparently unposed images were taken in the

presence of a huge 8x10 camera, with tripod, filmholders, etc. This

increase my skepticism about the spontaniety and genuineness of the

images in a way knowledge of the presence of a smaller camera would

not. So in that respect, Nixon's use of 8x10 actually detracts from

the images for me.

[ellis_vener_photography]

</I> I really encourage every photographer to buy one of Nicholas

Nxon's books</I> or if you afford it, one of his prints.</I>

[wilhelm]

Clarification: My use of "Mucho Macho Photographer" is intended in

the purest sense of awe and respect for the quality and character of

his work, as well as the size of his camera. (Like Edward Weston,

not Rambo.)

[sean_yates]

Mr. Patti,

 

<p>

 

Which do you think is larger? An Arri BL or a Phillips 8 X 10? A

Sony Betacam or a Wisner Pocket Expedition? Which takes a bigger

crew to run? And yet how many documentaries have been made with the

former two?

 

<p>

 

What it takes is time and patience. Nixon spent two years

photographing at the school for the blind (name escapes me at the

moment). Although they couldn't see him, they were certainly aware

of him. If you spend days and days and days with your subject, "dry

shooting", as Nixon may have, a rapport develops, trust can be built

up. Eventually the subject relaxs and "acts natural" or at least as

natural as it is possible for anyone to act in this wacky post modern

world in which we live.

 

<p>

 

FWIW, Bebe Nixon, Nick's wife, is a documentary producer and worked

on NOVA for quite some time.

 

<p>

 

If anything, Nixon's use of the 8 X 10 helps create a sense of trust

with the subject - he cannot hide what he is doing as he could with a

Leica or whatnot.

[chris_patti3]

Well, Sean, I agree: the equipment of documentary film makers is, in

most cases, even more intrusive than Nixon's 8x10 equipment. Perhaps

that is why I often find myself thinking when I see a film documentary

that I am not watching these people doing what they are doing on film

but these people in the presence of a crew, camera, lights, etc. Thus

it is hard not to feel that the subjects are "playing" to the camera,

that the camera becomes a central player in whatever drama we are

watching, and that the "reality" we see is heavily influenced by its

presence. To me, one of the advantages of the still camera for

documentary work is that minimizes this effect, not through "stealth"

exactly, but through its relative lack of obtrusiveness which allows

it more easily to be forgotten. All I'm saying is that by using an

8x10, Nixon has to some significant degree undermined that advantage

for no corresponding advantage that I can see. As a viewer of his

images, I cannot forget the fact of his fairly intrusive presence in

the room with his subjects, and that diminishes their impact for me.

Perhaps not for everyone though.

[n_dhananjay3]

I haven't done much portraiture but on the occasions I have, I found

that the slow pace of work in LF actually makes the camera fade into

the background. I confront a lot more awareness of the camera when

I'm working in smaller formats. I suspect it is the same reason

setting up a camera and remote triggering it (or setting up a blind

and waiting a few hours or days) works so well with wildlife. Once

the creature has got used to the structure, it ignores it. I suspect

that psychologically that happens here as well. The slow pace of work

(and the associated greater amount of time spent talking to the

person) literally lets the camera fade into the background or rather

it literally becomes a familiar part of one's psychological

background - one stops being aware of it. Not to mention the fact

that there is an art to the whole process beyond the mechanics of

whatever camera you choose to work with - some folks just seem to put

others at ease very naturally and effortlessly. Cheers, DJ.

[wilhelm]

We must also keep in mind that he was the Dad of one of the fifth

graders, so it wasn't like having a total stranger coming into the

schoolroom.

[david_goldfarb]

One of the things I like about making portraits with the 8x10" camera

is the sense of collaboration it creates with the subject. The camera

might be fairly close in at full extension to get a tight headshot, so

the subject needs to be still and needs to know something about the

procedures. I explain how everything works and I might let them look

at the groundglass. Sometimes I use unshuttered lenses with strobes,

adding to the unusual character of the ritual (focus, insert film,

remove darkslide, wait for expression, remove lenscap, fire strobe,

replace lenscap) and requiring even more attention on the part of the

subject. Rather than being intimidated by the big camera, I find they

feel more part of the process.

[urs_bernhard]

I completely agree with David Goldfarb and N. Dhananjay; I experienced similar reactions from people photographed with 8x10. They feel more

at ease with the big not hideable instrument, which is after a while part of the "background". With the small 35mm a lot of people are

suspisious about the intention of the photographer; especially when the photographer is not speeking to them, revealing his intention verbally

(a lot of photogs are "steeling" their images as hidden as possible). With 8x10 this is not possible; one has to establish a communication with

the subject in front of the camera. It is a part of the photographers art and ability to make the people feel comfortable so they can act naturally

without fear after a while.

And to put into consideration: why do you think are all the selfportraits of Rembrandt such revealing images? Rembrandt was constantly

playing in front of the mirror when drawing; he reveals his personality in hundreds of played roles, coming from his imagination. Posing must

not be false by definition.

A snapshot taken from the undiscovered might be an image more telling about the anecdotic moment than about the person acting in this

moment;or an image of a person aware of the process of portraiing might reveal more the persons character.

 

<p>

 

Urs Bernhard

[sean_yates]

While we're on the topic....

 

<p>

 

Any thoghts on Andrea Modica's technique?

[n_dhananjay3]

The latest 'Contact Sheet' (hope that is the name of the magazine -

it is Contact something) has a bunch of Andrea Modica's work (from

the Treadwell series and some more recent work). I find her work

interesting, though not with as much immediacy or as much gusto as I

enjoy some other folks work. Don't know much about her technique,

other than the fact that she works in 8x10 and prints in platinum.

She seems to access/create some strange worlds - her questions and

explorations would seem to ask for more guts than I've got. Certainly

seems to dig deeper into personality and psyche than journalistic

images - must call for immense trust.

 

<p>

 

I guess that is the difference I see between portraits made with

larger formats and smaller formats. The smaller formats are obviously

great for reportage kinds of situations, where the emotion of the

moment overwhelms consideration of your sorroundings. The portraits

in larger formats strikes me as a more considered invitation into

some kind of inner sanctum - a sort of essence of the person. Even

the spontaniety seems a different kind of spontaniety - something

that seems to come from deeper within rather than without. And now

I'm clutching at straws to describe what cannot be described, I

guess. Cheers, DJ.

[n_dhananjay3]

The latest issue of Photovision also has an interesting piece about

Shelby Adams and his work in Appalachia and his techniques. Cheers,

DJ.

[michael_a._smith1]

One reason Nick Nixon uses an 8x10 is so that he can make contact

prints on Azo.

 

<p>

 

He works quickly and spontaneously. And sometimes he makes absolutely

amazing photographs. If you know what you are doing, the camera does

not get in the way of the interaction between yourself, as

photographer, and the subject, whether the camera is an 8x10 a 35mm. It

is always the photographer who gets in the way, never the camera.

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dear Michael Smith,

Amen!

[wilhelm]

Agreed. Still, I would be interested in EXACTLY how he managed to

work and got those great pictures without disrupting the class. Or

maybe he did disrupt it?

[benjamin_donaldson]

I studied with Nick in my undergrad years at MassArt. He is a

wonderful person, and a bit "macho" (affinity for cowboy belt

bucles+shirts), as well as having a very sensitive side. He is

very quick with the 8x10, and focuses with a surprising rapidity.

He (for the school pictures) set up a Comet flash (prob

1600ws+), which allows him to photograph anywhere in the

room. He shoots at least 25 sheets a day. If you work that

much, it becomes 2nd nature. This is no long belabored

process, it is much more reactive. I had bought a grover 8x10

before knowing his work, and used it for a month-then was

amazed at what he was doing. It made perfect sense. Why was

this wonderful instrument only being used by knob twiddlers and

landscapists only? Look at his city scape pictures from the

70's-8x10 from tops of buildings(many of them

skyscrapers)-insane. He was the largest formative influence on

me(still is), and his work is awe inspiring. Too often lumped

together in purely Modernist camp, because of the whole black

and white thing. That will come around as soon as people start

enjoying images that arent as influenced by fashion mags

again...