aricmayer

Ansel Adams' zone book on the negative is a great resource. It

gives you all the info you need to know to make great digital

prints. His zone system translates really well to digital scans.

You don't have to learn how to use the chemistry, just how to

determine the tonal range of your print.

Then check out Robert Adams' book "Why People Photograph."

It's not technical. It is good photo critique. With those two books

you have both sides of the equation from two masters.

Take a look at Paul Strand's photograph, Church, Vermont, 1944.

He sets the frame slightly off center. The church at first looks

annoyingly clipped on the right side. Then, if you relax and except

that Strand knows what he is doing, the picture plane comes

alive in a geometry of triangles, rectangles, squares, a circle, a

patch of dramatic sky, a bit of tree. No one dominates the picture

space. The arrangement creates a geometric composition as

complex as any abstract painting.

Here Strand activates the entire picture plane with energetic

composition, thinking exactly as a modern painter would. ie. how

do we fill the space and formally activate it at the same time?

The photograph is perfect. And it builds on the arrangements of

space that painting was developing in his day. He could not

compose this photograph in any way different than he has and

get the same effect. Every component is essential. That is as

much painting as photography.

This reminds me of a lot of British art criticism. It's just another

way of saying "i'm too cool to care." If you don't want to see the

real prints made by the photographer who made them, not some

printer in Singapore, or if you are lucky, Italy, then stay at home.

If you do want to see the real deal, then buy some orthotics for

your aching feet so you can actually stand long enough to look at

30-80 photographs, and drink some tea for your poor dry throat

and put some vicks vapor rub on your upper lip for the burning

sinuses and get out to the gallery or museum and at best form

an opinion about how a show is curated rather than whine about

how you don't feel comfortable actually walking about looking at

real photographs.

If the show sucks blame the curator, not the fact that you are

looking at real prints, standing alone without the support of

anything else except the white walls they hang on.

Absolutely. Painting over the past 100 years has really

deconstructed the picture plane to it's most formal elements.

The language that surrounds painting is really useful in

describing and filling the two dimensional picture plane that is

photography.

Abstract painting in particular forces one to analyse the picture

plane purely based on it's visual content. There are no symbolic

or narrative clues with which to read the two dimensional plane

or "picture." Understanding this sense of space helps in

organizing photographic space strictly based on what falls into

the picture plane. Then, the photographic narrative and symbolic

elements can be dealt with in the forefront.

Dan,

I'm not aware of any particular movement called minimalism in

photography. What is generally thought of as minimalism has

already been touched on formally, but I'll add a bit to it as well.

It starts in sculpture as an investigation into scale and raw

material. Robert Morris' black box made of steel confronts the

viewer at roughly the same size as a person. Carl Andre's zinc

tiles lay flat on the floor. Donald Judd's plywood boxes frame and

explore basic space. The artist's interaction with the materials is

removed. They are industrially produced steel, plywood, metal,

felt etc. It is scupture as basic form.

It is a very conceptually driven movement that grows in painting

as well with an investigation into the picutre plane as flat, paint

as 2D, breaking the bounds of the canvas edge, etc.

The primary investigation in Minimalism as to do with the formal

elements of the medium; scale, material and space.

Photography really hasn't had the same issues explored.

Perhaps digital photography will allow chemistry based

photography to formally demonstrate it's differences and unique

qualities, although I'm not sure how.

Minimalism comes out of a crisis in painting and sculpture as

those media seek their own essential qualities after

photography has taken over much of the philosophical discourse

surrounding image making. Photography hasn't really endured

such a crisis yet.

I find him to be an extraordinary photographer. Of course, all

those war photographers are adrenaline junkies. Who else

could stand it?

James Nachtway's work is a cut above the rest because he

deals with images on two levels.

First, his work is photojournalism because it deals with specific

events. Sudan, 9/11, Iraq, etc. It is our belief in photography's

ability to relate real events that makes this work.

Then it is art because in those specific events, he makes work

that has universal application. His pictures are not just about

THAT war, but also about war in general. We see ourselves in

the images that he makes and that brings his pictures to the

level of art.

This also points out the subjective nature of photojournalism.

His shots from ground zero on 9/11 are different and

recognizable from the many other photographers who were

there.

Remarkable.

Wow, there is a lot of ill will going on in this thread. I will just

speed through my contribution in order not to add too much to

the many thousand words here already. It's complicated, but

here's a synopsis of how it happened.

The beginnings of the rift between the art world and the rest of

the world starts in the industrial revolution and is completed by

the Nazi take over of Germay. The industrial revolution takes

farmers who have their own culture, moves them to the city,

teaches them to read so they can work in factories and then

houses them in boring tenements that are ugly and cheap.

Stripped of their own culture and in need of something to

brighten their weary lives, these workers turn to easy pop culture

and Kitch is born. That is, cheap, easy entertainment that

requires no effort to consume (one doesn't have much energy for

culture after a 12 hour day in a factory.)

Flash forward to the beginnings of the Nazi takeover of Germany.

A powerful medium is needed to help win the minds of the

desperately impoverished Geman public. Socialist Art is born. It

is beautiful, using the human form to illustrate the triumphs of

the Wotan Archetype, or, the Aryan Race. The Nazi's rally around

this vision of Germany and conscript artists to make more

Socialist Art.

Those artists who are creating a different vision of Germany, the

German Expressionists, see an ugly, corrupt, decadent,

exploitive culture in the Wiemar elite and they paint them that

way. These are difficult, ugly paintings of a currupt and perverted

culture. They are also honest about the dark side of Nazi

Germany. Those artists of course are told either to change their

art or die. Many are killed, the others flee Germany. A similar

thing happens in Russia as well.

Before the exodus of artists from Germany in the early years of

Nazi rule, Germany was developing a lot of exciting movements

in art and design. Those teachers and artists went into exile,

many of them coming to the United States, and many of them

coming to New York City.

Having seen the power of representative art to capture and move

people who don't understand or question it's message to do

horrific things like killing other people and participating in

genocide, those artists in exile sought another form of

expression. Increasingly that expression developed into

abstraction and abstract expressionism.

The artists themselves are deeply distrustful of "easy" art, since

it was used to motivate people to kill their friends and family and

to drive them from their countries of origin. It is hoped that

abstraction can not be co-opted for propaganda use. Much

interesting and meaningful art comes out of this, but the general

public, now very used to Kitsch as it's art, does not buy it.

Hurt by their public reception, artists say a big f__ you to the

public in general and continue to make art that avoids the pitfalls

of the art they hate, propaganda. Now the rift is solidified.

There is great danger in the unquestioning acceptance of

images. Anyone who tells you differently should look at the

effects of art used to further the regimes of Nazi Germany,

Communist Russia, Communist China, Fascist Italy and Spain,

Cambodia, North Vietnam etc. etc. ad nausem.

Admittedly, the art world would do well to work to bridge the gap

a bit themselves, too. But the truth is, culture takes work. If one

doesn't want to do the work, then one isn't going to get it.

Whoops, company is coming... got to go.

Are you assigning profiles to your images? When you said you

were getting flat grey images, I was wondering what color space

you are converting your images to. In my experience with Epson

printers, if you don't convert your image to a color space, you get

the flat dead look you describe. If you merely assign the color

space, it looks good on screen but doesn't translate to the print.

If you haven't already, try converting you image to Adobe RGB and

printing from there.

Luis,

I'm writing late in this post, so you may not even get this far. But I would say this; just go out and look. What works for me is to go somewhere unfamiliar with a camera that easy to use and easy to carry. Go out and look. You don't need to burn through a lot of film. Wait until something catches your eye. When it does, start looking at it. Walk around. Focus on the light. Compose. Play with it. Keep looking until you respond to something. When you do, start taking pictures. Figure on a shooting ratio of 1:36. That means that you will likely get at least 1 good picture on each roll.

Take pictures of things that interest or captivate you. Then look at them. Then look at them in context with accomplished photographers that you admire. First find what moves you. Then work to make it happen photographically. Then you will make the lasting images.

This thread reminds me of the writings of Sebastiao Saldago. No one has photographed the poor of the world more frequently or successfully than he. And he always shoots them with a sense of dignity. He talks of it being a free exchange. The photographs are given, never taken.

With your homeless man sleeping with his dog, the political issues become paramount. You are the priveledged student with a camera (we are all priveledged to be discussing photography while most of the world is concerned with food) and he is the owner of little. You are in power, he is not. He is vulnerable and unaware. If you take that picture, you just add to the volume of stereotyped pitying work regarding the poor that already saturates the world. If you want something special, see if he will let you get to know him. Then you can take a picture of the man.

For similar work with Canon lenses, here's what has worked for me. Carry both Velvia 50 and Provia 100F.

For landscape: Shoot Velvia 50 (rated at 32 ASA for images of normal contrast) from sunup until the sun starts to get contrasty.

Then switch to Provia, with a warm up filter if you like. As evening approaches switch back to the Velvia until exposure times take you over a few seconds. Then pick up the Provia again for late evening/night photography because it has much better resistance to color shifts due to reciprocity failure.

Provia is ok for people. The new Astia is better. If you don't mind adding a third film to your arsenal, it's worth switching around. Provia often needs a lot of color work for outdoors flesh tones, especially if shot in shade. Velvia doesn't even come close.

If you have been shooting with Leica's, I think you will love the SWC. It is compact, quick and easy to use. The depth of field is terrific. I shoot all the time with it without looking through the finder. The depth of field in good light will keep almost eveything in focus. From there I compose from the center of my chest. The lens seems to capture space as I feel it around me. You almost don't need the viewfinder because it's field of view is pretty darn close to your own eye. I know these aren't very scientific terms, but you'll never get the experience of shooting with one without trying it out. I have carried one two weeks in the mountains, two weeks through the desert and two weeks in the swamp and I wouldn't have taken any other camera. I have used it in airplanes and on boats. It goes anywhere and you always know that you are getting a great image. It distills wide angle medium format photography to its essence.

As a portrait lens, it does a great job for full body shots centered in the frame, but be careful of extreme foreshortening if your subject for instance reaches towards you.

Some don't like the viewfinder. I do. It distorts space enough that you have to make the composition with your own eye and use the viewfinder to line it all up. The lens barrel blocks the bottom bit of the viewfinder frame. I get surprises, too, with unexpected compostional elements happening along the edges of my frame. At first this threw me and then I learned to enjoy it.

IMHO this is the best medium format wide angle camera made, but it's not for everyone. Try it out and see.

Thanks for the good advice. In the end I think I will probably stick

to primes. The rebate just looked so tempting...

Skip the zoom lens. Buy the best prime lens you can afford. If you

want to make photographs that are worth anything, they first have

to be sharp. No $200 zoom lens will give you that sharpness, no

mater who makes it. Don't pour your energy into making a body

of work if the tools aren't up to the task. All the original masters of

photography shot with fixed lenses. You should learn how to

compose with them, how to see with them and how to anticipate

the way they draw space before you even put the camera to your

eye.

As far as the first book goes, I think there was book called Naked

London that fits that description. Greg Friedler may be the

photographer. He shot Naked New York and he told me he was

working on a book on London...

I don't have any idea on the second book.

I am buying the Hasselblad 203fe and am considering the 60-120 zoom

lens. Is there anyone out there with practical experience working with

one? how does it hold up in terms of sharpness, vignetting etc.? is

there any obvious difference between it and fixed lenses?