LF: Nude and Tree, Alexandria Bay.

[Maris Rusis]

Nude and Tree, Alexandria Bay​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.5cm X 19.6cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Nagaoka double extension field view camera fitted with a Commercial Congo 360mm f6.3 lens. Signed, titled, and stamped verso.

There's always an agenda:

To strengthen and simplify the forms by the use of a near silhouette.

To retain hints of detail and texture in the darkest tones, rough bark versus smooth skin. This trope is supposedly a grace note in a hand-made physical photograph.

Rather than have the big camera loom over the model I set a low camera position so that the line of gaze from model to camera is downhill. Maybe confidence and personal presence projects best from high to low.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nude and Tree, Alexandria Bay​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.5cm X 19.6cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Nagaoka double extension field view camera fitted with a Commercial Congo 360mm f6.3 lens. Signed, titled, and stamped verso.

There's always an agenda:

To strengthen and simplify the forms by the use of a near silhouette.

To retain hints of detail and texture in the darkest tones, rough bark versus smooth skin. This trope is supposedly a grace note in a hand-made physical photograph.

Rather than have the big camera loom over the model I set a low camera position so that the line of gaze from model to camera is downhill. Maybe confidence and personal presence projects best from high to low.

Maris,

It's counterintuitive to use the shadow side of the tree and model, but it works. How did you decide on exposure? Do you ever carry with you refelextors or portable lights and what is you previous practice of setting up in the shadows like this?

Asher

 

[Maris Rusis]

Film exposure for this picture was very easy. The rule was to expose enough so all parts of the negative have detail. By some estimates this might amount to over-exposure by a stop or two or three. With big film it doesn't matter, the detail doesn't "burn out" until maybe a hundred times too much exposure has been given.

The final picture is a secondary photograph, a photograph of a photograph, and not original camera material. This makes things very easy. The primary photograph, the film negative, is merely re-photographed with photographic paper at a variety of exposures until the desired result is obtained. Easy-peasy.

The technical stuff is almost foolproof. The hard part is contriving an "agenda" coherent enough to justify investing lots of dollars in making the photograph. In this game success and failure cost much the same and both can be instructively expensive.

 

[Asher Kelman]

To me, Maris,

The biggest investment is in the time and effort to consider "What of everything I see is worth recording in a special way?" The second effort is to work out how to approach the chosen subject and lastly what amount of light is needed.

My greatest payoff has been with a simple pinhole camera!

Asher

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

...
There's always an agenda:

To strengthen and simplify the forms by the use of a near silhouette.

To retain hints of detail and texture in the darkest tones, rough bark versus smooth skin. This trope is supposedly a grace note in a hand-made physical photograph.

I miss these differences you are talking about in this picture. I do not find "rough bark versus smooth skin" as there is no rough bark really visible, over all the greys are not enough differencing for me to feel out the essentials between bark and skin.
Sorry.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I miss these differences you are talking about in this picture. I do not find "rough bark versus smooth skin" as there is no rough bark really visible, over all the greys are not enough differencing for me to feel out the essentials between bark and skin.
Sorry.

Hello Wolfgang,

I alluded to that apparent conundrum in my pointing out that Maris had chosen to have his subjects in their own shadowed aspect blocking the direct sunlight. That was a purposeful and unusual decision and by a skilled artisan!

@ Maris,

I wonder whether our reaction might, (at least to some extent), come from our common electronic manipulation of contrast to accentuate texture and demonstrate areas of smoothness? This we take as standard, when in fact, we often exaggerate our recorded image.

If the same picture had been taken with the sun glancing at an angle at sunset, and the subjects lit from the side, these ideas of texture versus smooth would be demonstrated generously, as the shadowing within the surface detail would accentuate the resultant "texture esthetic" we can merely observe but not "feel".

I make my comments with the utmost reserve, respect and hesitation as I allow any accomplished artist to create original work by their own esthetics and my job is to try to enter that universe and learn that language. I am against "trans substantiation" of art to some common language!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I am against "trans substantiation" of art to some common language!

Hear, hear!

Even the "language of art" (as we might hear it at a gathering of gallery owners) is not a workable destination for such transubstantiation. Never does the art survive such an attempt.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Michael_Stones]

There's something wrong with the photo where the leg intersects with the tree. It looks like a post-processing error.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There's something wrong with the photo where the leg intersects with the tree. It looks like a post-processing error.

Nude and Tree, Alexandria Bay​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.5cm X 19.6cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Nagaoka double extension field view camera fitted with a Commercial Congo 360mm f6.3 lens. Signed, titled, and stamped verso.


Michael,

When you say "post-processing", do you infer some computer modification of a digital version ofcthis picture? I really doubt that is possible as Maris only uses analog techniques to complete his photographs.

Can you explain what troubles you? Is it perhaps the bright sunlight coming through the gap between the model and the tree?

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

Nude and Tree, Alexandria Bay​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.5cm X 19.6cm, from a 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Nagaoka double extension field view camera fitted with a Commercial Congo 360mm f6.3 lens. Signed, titled, and stamped verso.


Michael,

When you say "post-processing", do you infer some computer modification of a digital version ofcthis picture? I really doubt that is possible as Maris only uses analog techniques to complete his photographs.

Can you explain what troubles you? Is it perhaps the bright sunlight coming through the gap between the model and the tree?

Asher

Enlarge that area on the screen, Asher. You'll see an irregular white parallelogram on the upper thigh (i.e., where the thigh intersects with the tree) that doesn't look at all like a sunshine effect on skin. Cheers, Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Enlarge that area on the screen, Asher. You'll see an irregular white parallelogram on the upper thigh (i.e., where the thigh intersects with the tree) that doesn't look at all like a sunshine effect on skin. Cheers, Mike

I'll check it again, but it appears to me that the oblique light separates the contours of the outer thigh muscles, but I will ask Maris!

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

I'll check it again, but it appears to me that the oblique light separates the contours of the outer thigh muscles, but I will ask Maris!

Asher

The lightness of the rear part of the foot suggests illumination from the behind. The body below the breasts is somewhat darker than the upper body, which could suggest a frontal source above the figure. Yet the white parallelogram is in an area of low illumination from either such source. I don't understand how such a pattern could occur naturally.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The ankle, thigh and edge of the left arm all have light obliquely from behind her right side.

Seems comsistant for me. But I do wonder why her right shoulder is not similarly bright, her right face or the right side of that tree. Perhaps the sun was going down and was blocked above by a cloud. Let's see what Maris has to say!

I would be flabberghasted if he admited to editing digitally. Can't happen.

But you could ask why he didnt use dodge and burn in the darkroom to decrease the extremes in this print.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

As I thought, there has been no post processing.

Greetings Asher

The parallelogram of light was really there. The noon day sun was directly behind the tree (to keep it off my single coated lens which would otherwise cast a variety of flare spots) and it is the same light skittering down the model's body at shoulder and foot that delivered the parallelogram. The bottom edge of the parallelogram shows skin texture in the glancing angle light.

In a sense there is no post processing. It's just a physical impression of an optical image in a sensitive surface made visible by a chemical reaction. Apart from using a convenient light bulb to make the negative on photographic paper contact exposure no electricity was consumed.

Scanning the physical photograph to turn its appearance into a displayable electronic file does use electricity but my $49.00 flatbed scanner performs all that stuff without me needing to think about it.

Best Regards

Maris

 

[Michael_Stones]

As I thought, there has been no post processing.

An interesting and insightful quote by Maris. An optical aberration captured by traditional procedures that gave a small part of the photo an unnatural look (at least to me). I took the time to make the comment because of admiration for this and other photos by Maris. A great function of OPFI is to allow contibutors an opportunity to expand their understanding of types of photography they otherwise infrequently encounter. Many thanks for that. Cheers, Mike

ps My previous use of the term ‘post-processing’ wasn’t restricted to digital manipulation but could include darkroom manipulation or other effects on image transmission or translation for display on a viewer’s computer.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me add that I checked in photoshop with the eye-dropper tool ans ampled the color on the edge of the "parallelogram" that is bright and the beach behind it.

It turmns out that the skin area has a K value of 28-30% while the sand is 2-3%. This means that Maris, by eye set the gret scale dsrtribution to have fiull use of the width of the greyscale avaialbe to him.

That skin, BTW, has detailed skin texture in it. Had Maris wished to show that, it could have been achieved in his darkroom.

However for the person not familiar with film, one might think that this was blown out!

I just thought it nice to see that the film did have much more data, just in case the photgrapher chose different preferences.

So now, go back to the picture and look at this area. It is very different to the background brighter sand and one can even see a range of illumination on it!

Asher