blake_schwalbe

<p>Why does such a simple question generate so many snarky remarks? Why not simply ask where someone is, instead of being sarcastic?</p>

<p>Hey Shane, remember that almost every photographer I would think has other photographers they look to for inspiration. Especially when you start out, it's okay to imitate someone. Some people suggest that if you do so, as sometimes it's almost a compulsion, that you don't show the photographs to anyone, if they're really derivative. I'm not saying yours are... and it would be okay anyway. It's a great way to learn! Just be aware that Kenna, especially, is widely imitated. I mean, to the point of plagiarism, as in going to the same locations and photographing from the same place, and this by photographers who have made a career of this, and are represented in galleries. It's because those photos sell. They have wide appeal.<br /><br />Please don't take this as a discouragement to study his work, to learn from his working methods, from his books and prints. It's what we all do, and no one is ever really entirely original. Someone said, I don't remember where, that originality depends on the obscurity of your sources. Anyway, and sorry of you already know this, you'll obviously transform what you learn from him, and it will come through in your pictures in a way that is your own.</p>

<p>It's okay surely. <em>De gustibus non est disputandum</em> (sorry, I'm in a silly mood). Except of course, if you plan on putting color and b&w in the <em>same</em> photograph. As an aficionado of looking at photographs, I would be skeptical right away of a show where b&w and color prints are displayed as you describe. Conceptually. If I were a casual browser of galleries though, I wouldn't give it another thought.</p>

<p>They're very easy to create and save using the actions palette. As JDM wrote, they're like macros. I find them very useful when used with the batch command. You can easily do things like adding a curves or levels layer to a set of files so they are ready for initial editing. I use them for example to convert a whole folder of files to b&w.</p>

<p>I think a place like Walmart would be able to process, scan, and print photos quite cheaply. The scans would probably then be available online for download. I use them for 120 size C-41 development, but not for scanning. They send just send the film to a Fuji Lab for 120 size, possibly also for 35 mm.</p>

<p>Although it may not be done on purpose, be aware of the subtle psychology of asking a friend that loves photography as a hobby to photograph a wedding let's say, or something like this, especially for free or very little money. You naturally feel a certain responsibility for doing a good job and are flattered for being asked, and many times feel undue pressure because you're not really sure what you'll be able to produce. It's sort of unkind, because you're put in the position of wanting to do a good job, but not really having the experience to know that you'll succeed, and so not feeling comfortable asking for payment. All this to say, don't put an undue amount of stress and pressure on yourself, because it's not fair to do so. Use it as a learning experience. </p>

<p>Is that what part of this thread was about? That her depression was linked with the photographs, sort of a causal relationship? She suffered from severe bouts of depression, of the clinical sort that would require hospitalization. It was a disease that wasn't treated successfully. She couldn't explain it herself. It would overtake her and she would be bedridden for a week.</p>

<p>I must admit I may be out of my element. I'm not completely following John's comments. I mean, I think we agree but I'm not sure.<br /><br />I know from reading about Avedon's portraits in the American West, that he sort of transported his New York way of working in a studio out into the landscape. He had a white background and exposed many sheets of film in the manner of a fashion shoot, which were then edited very tightly after a laborious I think three year process of proofs and prints from his darkroom technicians. His subjects, when he showed them the prints on the side of a building in an impromptu exhibit, didn't recognize themselves. They didn't see themselves that way. He took from them what he wanted. The camera has a lot of power that way. That's why of course it's important to establish trust. Or you can take what are basically not very flattering portraits for your own reasons.<br /><br />Diane took photographs of her father too as he was dying. She wrote about it in her journals. </p>

<p>Many times it seems that consciously devised themes can be very limiting and result in trite photographs. If you review lots and lots of portfolios, you'll notice right away a staggering amount of the same themes and subjects. Many times a literal approach to a theme is just too limiting. It seems that what makes a series of photographs interesting is precisely what can't be controlled. Like for example Atget, who sought to simply document a disappearing old Paris and create workaday documents for artists, somehow imbued his photographs with a modernity and feeling that could not have been achieved as it were consciously.</p>

<p>This is the question of intentionality, or what later seems like apparent intentionality. See Schopenhauer, “On an Apparent Intention in the Fate of the Individual,” in which life in retrospect seems as if written with order and plot that didn't seem to be there.<br /><br />Some photographers work by conceptualizing scenes. Art photographers like say Jeff Wall or Gregory Crewdson. Or commercial photographers, often have a high degree of planning for shoots. But the wonder of photography is indeed that the act of photographing is transforming. It changes what is recorded into the medium itself, and it's many times unpredictable and wonderful. Like when Garry Winogrand said that he takes photographs to see what something looks like when it's photographed. It's a great pretext for using photography as a means of exploration, to see what patterns will be revealed, by sort of collecting images and sequencing them, to reveal links and themes.</p>

<p>Her bouts with depression were debilitating, but it was a clinical depression unrelated to her photography or the normal ups and downs of life. She suffered quite a bit when Arbus left her, but he helped her all the time with his expertise in the darkroom, setting it up and writing down all the formulas for her. She was thirteen when she fell in love with him, and he was eighteen. She came from a highly privileged background, but struggled financially as an adult, and that could get anyone down. She was consciously an ingenue. She said that she looked for the flaw in people that would be revealed by the camera. She had her agenda. She literally seduced her subjects to take what she wanted. More than a few people refused to talk to her after they saw what she did to them with the camera. But her <em>freaks</em>, as everyone calls them, she considered royalty.<br /><br />Her friend Avedon was just like her. The way he photographed his dying father. Or the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, by telling them just before taking the photo that his taxi had run over a dog and killed it. Or what he did to Dorothy Parker. My goodness!<br /><br />Every photographer knows how the camera is able to reveal precisely what people try to hide. I think a humanist maybe is a little less ruthless that way.</p>

<p>Walker Evans said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The secret of photography is, the camera takes on the character and personality of the handler. The mind works on the machine—through it rather.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, if you're covering a football game for example, you need fast shutter speeds, long lenses, etc. A good way to think about this, is to think of two photographers with the same camera. What you're left with is the photographer. Decisions of framing, composition, subjects, sequencing, and even practical considerations like access to a site or person, are then what matter.<br /><br />The statement about cameras not being important is not meant to say that one photographer uses a holga to cover the Super Bowl, while another uses a Leica S2. It's meant to say, that within the context of the proper tools for doing your work, as a photojournalist, a landscape photographer, a commercial photographer, an architectural photographer, etc., the real distinguishing and important factor is indeed the photographer.</p>

<p>Juergen Teller uses a Contax G2 camera.</p>

<p>I'm not following. What is: "Seems totally humanistic to me" refer to? I don't understand what it's referring to. Please explain.</p>

<p>Have you noticed though that in photography it's very natural and unavoidable to let all kinds of objects extend into the edges of a photograph in a way that wasn't done in painting? When you see a painting that uses that technique, that sort of lets things end midway into the edge as if there was an extension of the scene beyond the frame, it seems more modern and contemporary, or at least more photographic, enough to be startling.</p>

<p>First of all Christie, congratulations on the commission! That is really something. And if you're getting commissions like this, it may even make financial sense to invest in such a camera. Anyway, it's satisfying to work with the best equipment, on a personal and creative level. It also may feel like it gives you a sort of entry into the world of professional or art photography, or at least the means to emulate the look and feel of certain photographs, and to be reassured that from an equipment standpoint you have everything in as good an order as you can to move forward. There are also subjective and practical considerations that may really make this purchase a positive experience.<br /><br />I was playing devil's advocate a little, primarily because of the amount of money involved, since it's easy to get into a state of mind where something makes complete and utter sense one moment and almost none in a year or so.<br /><br />If I was contemplating this purchase I would worry that I don't really understand the economics of this section of the market. It would seem that a digital camera like this would depreciate quickly, yet there don't seem to be many older models for sale. Maybe they're traded-in through promotions for newer models, and this helps to keep the prices so high? Or how to be smart about taxes when making purchases like this for a business.<br /><br />What is their reliability? I could just imagine a likely scenario where I turn on the camera two months after purchasing it and the LCD shows let's say a gray ghost image and a red blinking light (a made up example), and I would need to ship it to Sweden for warranty repairs.<br /><br />And I would also consider the computer demands for handling what would be I think 350 MB images and for storing them.<br /><br />But since you've already gotten commissions, and the latest one is quite good, you may just have a wonderful experience with such a camera, and it will pay for itself and more, and you may find yourself in a position to even upgrade it to something with even more spectacular image quality in a few years. </p>

<p>Michael I agree. I'm just concerned that Christie seems to have not used a MF camera system before. It's easy to be persuaded by marketing literature, sales reps, or seeing technically magnificent images made by a certain camera, that a purchase is necessary. But I often read comments by people that have purchased the latest and best equipment that are online longing for the next bump in resolution almost right away. It seems like products are hyped to an unreasonable degree.<br /><br />I know it seems I'm trying to dissuade her from making this purchase. Image quality is of course the biggest selling point. It has huge appeal. It may make perfect sense in terms of what she's trying to do. It may give her enormous satisfaction creatively and professionally. I just didn't want her to make a huge financial commitment, and then, let's say, become disillusioned because of reliability problems for example. Or realize that she purchased a camera based on perceived need based on the purchase decisions and comments of professionals who go through cameras rather quickly, while she may for example be thinking that this purchase will make sense for 5 or more years. Maybe in just three years she'll feel that an Hasselblad H4D-40 is just a bulky unreliable outdated computer that has a tendency to lock-up in the middle of a shoot, that goes through batteries in an hour and a half, has a crappy LCD that doesn't have color histograms that is bettered by entry level SLRs, that requires using a painfully slow proprietary software to get the best files corrected for chromatic aberrations and distortion and moire, even on the most powerful and latest computers ....<br /><br />This is all moot of course of you are working commercially and you need an Hasselblad H4D-40 to do your job. I know, not from experience, but from reading <em>Photo District News</em>, that a 2 to 3 day commercial fashion shoot on location has a budget of around $250,000 including models, scouts, permits, etc., and equipment costs are just another part factored into it.<br /><br />For myself, I think the scenario where I would spend such a huge amount of money on a camera would be: I have assisted for a while and have become completely familiar with at least one MF camera system, and have a clear idea of what it can do from extended practical experience, and then, that I am now getting assignments that routinely require me to rent a MF camera and back-up and it makes more practical and financial sense to purchase it. I just wouldn't jump right in.<br /><br />I know this sounds rather pessimistic, and might really have quite nothing to do really with your situation. Maybe I should say, the camera will give you a lot of confidence professionally and personally. You won't have to worry that you're being held back by less than the best equipment, and will be able to concentrate on image making instead. It will invigorate you and your photography. You'll find that you'll be excited and energized to go out to photograph. You'll feel that at least in terms of equipment you'll be at the very cutting edge of the profession. Psychologically it can be invaluable.<br /><br />But realistically, if it's based only on perceived need, I would wait to make this purchase. I mean, for $20,000 you could buy a new Mini Cooper or a Mustang and a Mamiya 7ii film camera and go on a road trip across the US.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Sorry, I know you're asking about advice about a camera and not really about whether you <em>should</em> even buy it.<br /><br />It just sounded like you were planning to spend a good chunk if not all of your savings or disposable income (the car vs camera thing). Of course I have no idea about what your photographic background is like, but usually photographers rarely make this equation: best and most expensive camera system = amazing photographs. That's why I'm concerned about your reasoning, as if you're being seduced by the idea or possibilities of some amazing camera, or what another photographer may have done with a camera, or that it will provide entry into a professional role or a gallery, instead of thinking in practical terms about technical requirements and needs. If it's a Holga, who cares, but $20,000, if it's a major investment for you...<br>

<br />Sorry, this is all based on conjectures of course. Maybe you have a flourishing commercial practice, and this purchase makes complete sense, and you've considered depreciation, and future trade-ins, and I'm just way off base. Maybe it's just a camera that you think you will really enjoy on a personal level. Maybe you have an appreciation for really well made things. It just seems that at this level, professionals use cameras as tools, and replace them as needed, without much sentimentality. For example, what if in two years Canon makes a 40 mp slr with a medium-format sized sensor for $5,000 with all kinds of other improvements in usability and speed? Would you be okay still using a bulky camera with a small LCD screen that drains batteries in half a day for example, when you know you paid $20,000 for it?<br /><br />It's just that basing a purchase like this on seeing amazing images on the web taken with a mf camera makes me worried that you may be hugely disappointed in your purchase, and sorry that you spent so much money. These are camera systems that are quirky and expensive enough that they require real practical first-hand experience. That will seem more painfully dated sooner. That make you wonder how it's possible that camera backs at this price still don't have live view. That maybe a landscape made of stitched images from an SLR is even better maybe. Or maybe you see an 8x10 color transparency from a view camera and realize that it's what you really should have purchased. These are of course random examples, and they may be completely missing the mark. </p>

<p>I would really take a step back to see this purchasing decision from a clearer perspective. You seem to be rushing to buy this camera because of an upcoming commission, but some things that you say worry me, since you're planning to invest a huge amount of money.<br /><br />First, please don't let yourself be overtaken by all the glitter of marketing from camera makers and dealers. Each new camera and development is more astounding the next according to their literature, and it's meant to make you feel left out or at some competitive disadvantage if you don't have the most spec'd out and latest system. In other words, look at these cameras from a very practical and skeptical perspective, as a professional with specific needs, and you'll quickly see that there's often quite a bit less to be thrilled about in the specs, especially when considering prices.<br /><br />Just as a sobering read, look at this post from Joseph Holmes and his experiences with digital backs: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html<br /><br />Also, have you tried a medium format system? If not, please do not buy one before you rent a system and try it out thoroughly. I just have a sense from how you worded your question that you're maybe jumping into a purchase for which you're not really ready, or haven't really thought through, and it's so easy to get caught up in a sort of whirlwind of justifications that will quickly evaporate in a month or two if you step back a moment.<br /><br />Sorry if I'm wrong -- I just don't want you to realize too late that you made a huge financial mistake. </p>

<p>Would it make sense maybe to use 8x10 film and crop to the area equivalent to a 6 x 17 cm format. With a 4x5 camera also you could make exposures on two sheets of film by shifting the back left and right with a 90mm or 75mm with a large image circle, and keeping the front standard with the lens in a fixed position. This will give you a very expansive panoramic image once you combine the images.</p>

<p>I think digital backs require digital lenses maybe (I'm not sure) to control chromatic aberrations and to get optimal resolution. Also consider difficulties in focusing with digital backs when not tethered to a computer (I don't think most of them have live view). Also consider problems with alignment and focus as discussed by Joseph Holmes for example (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html), as digital backs show dramatic shifts in focus from very small misalignments. Even full frame SLR cameras seem to bumping against the limits of manufacturing precision required by high resolution sensors for aligning elements to extremely fine tolerances. Perhaps rent one to see if you can work with it and your current camera. Also, the focal length of your lenses may be effectively longer or cropped if the sensor is smaller than 645 film, if that matters to you.<br /><br />A scan of a 6 cm x 4.5 cm negative @ 2000 ppi would be the equivalent of 16 MB, or a 16" x 12" print at 300 ppi. </p>

<p>I think Shore is very accessible, with an easy popular appeal. His photographs are visually beautiful, and have been hugely influential. I thought you were being honestly a bit of a contrarian, or maybe disingenuous, asking for validation of the work of such a well understood and significant figure. If the work doesn't appeal to you it's okay of course, if it comes from an informed study of the work. But the work has been validated and canonized really. That's why I was suggesting going back to read about the acceptance of color art photography in the museum, and the huge significance of the work of Shore in this regard for example, and of curators like John Szarkowski at MOMA, etc. It will really help you to see contemporary art photography from an informed perspective. Your question is sort of the equivalent of not being aware of an elephant in a small room. I was suggesting starting with basic information and an open mind, reading about the significant figures and trends in the relatively short history of photography.</p>

 

<p>I like them because they are so photographic, using the most essential qualities of the photographic process, of recording and transcribing scenes. I think maybe also, his work like that of say Eggleston, has become so influential that it has been reformulated by many other photographers, many times even from secondhand influences, that it may be now harder to appreciate how original color photography of everyday scenes was back then. I think Shore's work though clearly is remarkable and has deep appeal and visual beauty. It makes you want to go out and explore with your camera really. They engage so wonderfully with an exploration of the formal qualities of the photographic medium.<br /><br />I've responded almost instantly to the work of many photographers. I've found that I could read their intentions when looking at their photographs, and found many appealing qualities. But I've always gained much by delving deeper and studying their work and those of their contemporaries. It has a lot to do with experience and training your eye and reading the history of photography, then you'll become more visually literate and will be able to make informed judgments. You'll be able to make connections with precedents and photographers that came later, and have a greater enjoyment from looking at photographs.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p>Was the guitar actually raised above the table? There's a shadow underneath it. What is the focal length of the lens you used?</p>

<p>You mean tips on applying the Scheimpflug principle with the PC-Nikkor that isn't based on trial and error?</p>