"Exhibition" Pictures for Discussion and Questions Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, Guest Artist Photographers

[Michael A. Smith]

Antonio,

I most certainly would not have made that photograph had not the cloud been exactly (more or less) in the center of the sky in the picture.

If you have been reading all of our posts you will see that we are responsible for every square millimeter of the picture space. The cloud plays a most important function as I described when the picture was posted.

What happened was this. I was standing there deciding whether to bother taking out my camera or not. And then this cloud appeared, far off to the right at first, and started moving to the left. I realized that when it reached the center, and only then, I just might have something. So, very quickly, for I only had about one minute, I got out the camera, which was in the case, but quite near me, set it up, waited a very few seconds, and made the exposure. Only one. I never make more than one exposure of anything. If it did not turn out well--so what. I have enough good pictures for a lifetime. It is the visual experience that counts. The print is just a bonus.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge. Many elements are similar. I did not realize this when making the photograph, but only later.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Jerome Marot]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge.

There aren't any bicycles or bridges in "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There aren't any bicycles or bridges in "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.

Well, the sense of the place is similar. Must be another Seurot or one just fuses similar feelings and then creates a blend in one's mind. That's why testimony from childhood in trials can be so suspect.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge. Many elements are similar. I did not realize this when making the photograph, but only later.

Michael A. Smith

Its similar to many works as I pointed out - the Arcadian fantasy is a very common theme as you are well aware.

how does the last image (Thomas Hoepker work) change the reading of Potomac?

Does it change it?

In relation to the Iceland work is there any conceptual basis for selecting where you will make work - or why you make work?

is it a reaction to where you find yourselves in space/time?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Mark Hampton]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

here is a mouse mat for you ! <

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

Not "losing" but using!​

The mind works by pattern recognition. It does not need the entire situation to be exact. The benefit for us is that the conditions of the moment match. This, (in primitive ways, of course), informs us of risk, resources and chances to mate! All those elements fit your picture. The bicycles ? Does that matter?

So in art, we don't just read what's there but also what's reminiscent of all the other similar pictures we've seen. Such factors can be part of the composition, even though absent. Just a thought!

I'm glad this happened. To me it's magic!

Asher

 

[Michael A. Smith]

In relation to the Iceland work is there any conceptual basis for selecting where you will make work - or why you make work?

is it a reaction to where you find yourselves in space/time?

No conceptual basis regarding where we photograph. Where we work is just a reaction to space/time.

Why we work is something else entirely. But to put it in a sentence: We make photographs because of the pleasure in the process.

Why we make the photographs we make (our "vision" for lack of a better term), is a function of our world view. That is no doubt true for every artist.

The function of art is to connect us to each other and to the world. We believe that happens when the structure of the picture relates to universal rhythms. There are an infinite number of ways to do this and in this context subject matter is irrelevant. Others respond to works of art because the rhythms of the pictures relate to their own rhythms. Since we all partake of these universal rhythms, to a greater or lesser degree, (the degree depends on one's emotional health), we relate to the work of art. Of course, other things enter into one's response, too—one's interest in the subject matter counts for a lot, but basically it is all about the rhythms.

Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

The function of art is to connect us to each other and to the world. We believe that happens when the structure of the picture relates to universal rhythms. There are an infinite number of ways to do this and in this context subject matter is irrelevant. Others respond to works of art because the rhythms of the pictures relate to their own rhythms. Since we all partake of these universal rhythms, to a greater or lesser degree, (the degree depends on one's emotional health), we relate to the work of art. Of course, other things enter into one's response, too—one's interest in the subject matter counts for a lot, but basically it is all about the rhythms.

Michael

Michael,

On the face of it, your explanation fits well with a lot of teaching. However, I worry about this if it's true that we respond to universal rhythms for then it might follow that folk who understand them can control us. Maybe that's what religion does? Sort of wonderful as a concept but frightening as the flip side of enjoyment is also susceptibility to these same rhythms. Folk listen to hymns, are inspired by the architecture and could this just be connecting to the "Universal Rhythms" you postulate we can connect to when we make and appreciate art.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

New pictures to be posted tomorrow!

Asher

 

[Antonio Correia]

New pictures to be posted tomorrow! Asher

Excellent

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Cropping: Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a negative. When all is said and done and the photograph is printed, no one cares if it was cropped or not—and “no one” includes ourselves. So why not crop a negative if it will yield a better photograph? There is no reason not to do so, except as follows.

What is the point of making photographs? For us, it is the pleasure in the process. And the most important part of that process is the thrill of seeing the image on the ground glass or the viewing screen— perfect in every detail. That is the high moment.

Whether a defect later appears in the negative—because the camera shook during the exposure, or the holder leaked and the negative was fogged, or, more rarely, because we were incorrect in our evaluation of the image on the ground glass, is unimportant. The point of the activity of making photographs is to have a deep and meaningful visual experience. We consider the photograph, the finished print, to be a bonus.

The painter Alfred Leslie once wrote, “There is a direct relationship between what we see and the quality of life.” And in the context of his article, “what we see” referred to how much we see. The implication is clearly that the more we see the richer and fuller our lives will be.

And we cannot think of a better tool for helping us to see more than using a camera. And using it in such a way that the experience of looking on the ground glass or viewing screen is an intense, deep, and meaningful experience. And that only happens when one pays close attention to everything in the frame and is not satisfied until every square millimeter becomes necessary to the picture.

In this context, whether the negative will yield a satisfactory print or not is irrelevant. With enough work over time the good photographs will come. Whether they do or not for any particular picture is unimportant, as long as in the act of exposing the negative one had that deep and full visual experience—one that encouraged one to see more.

Of course, if what you are photographing at that moment will possibly result in one of the greatest photographs ever made, or win a Pulitzer Prize for capturing an historic moment, the above does not apply. But the likelihood that any of us will be in that kind of situation, or make “one of the greatest photographs,” is extremely unlikely.

We once had a student who owned an 8x10 camera. We ran into him a year after the workshop and we asked him:

“How is it going Allan?”
He answered, “Great! I go out every single day with my camera.”
We were awestruck and replied, “Good for you Allan, that is incredible.”
He then responded, “And one of these days I am going to bring film.”

For Allan, the pleasure was truly in the process of looking on the ground glass—the deep visual experience. He did not need the bonus of a finished photograph.

So, why not crop your negatives? Because not doing so will encourage you to pay more attention when exposing your film. And as a consequence you will have a deeper and fuller visual experience, and if Alfred Leslie is correct, the quality of your life will improve.

Michael

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Cropping?

Here is a photograph from each of us, both made in Tuscany.

Paula Chamlee: Untitled

Cortona

Michael A. Smith: Untitled


Near San Quirico d' OrciaCortona​

 

[Antonio Correia]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

 

[Mark Hampton]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.

i am more intreasted in the second image posted at this time - but like most of the work on this thread it will take me time to soak it in.

thanks for posting more work and the words

 

[Antonio Correia]

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.

i am more intreasted in the second image posted at this time - but like most of the work on this thread it will take me time to soak it in.

thanks for posting more work and the words

See ? How ignorant I am ?

Thank you Mark for the information

 

[Jerome Marot]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

Just what I was thinking. Posting these two images after a message stating that cropping is not done... is that a trick question?

Which brings me to the second image, BTW: I don't like the crop (whether made on camera or in post). Too me, it looks too tight, especially on the bottom.

 

[Antonio Correia]

Just what I was thinking. Posting these two images after a message stating that cropping is not done... is that a trick question?

Which brings me to the second image, BTW: I don't like the crop (whether made on camera or in post). Too me, it looks too tight, especially on the bottom.

It was not a tricky question Jerome.

How the hell could you think so ? It's just my ignorance of these formats !

 

[Jerome Marot]

It was not a tricky question Jerome.

How the hell could you think so ? It's just my ignorance of these formats !

Sorry. I did not intend to say that you asked a trick question, but that, considering the context, the original post looked like one (although there is no actual "question" in it).

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael and Paula,

Thanks for the new set of pictures. I know you are away on your photo expedition, so your contributions are even more appreciated! Be safe and happy hunting!

The little essay on cropping is a thing in itself! That needs to be address first as it is so important to both your work and something that I personally have tried to incorporate into my own work. It has two advantages. First, the thrill in taking the picture is increased, knowing that this is what will be printed. Next, the work needed to prepare the image is now much less.

I have tried to work like that, even with people changing expression and gestures to my design, but with my DSLR. This last weekend I had your work in mind in an ambitious shoot with a model and not have to have detailed photoshop processing. However, being on top of a 12 foot ladder, I'd have to hand my camera to my assistant and ask for another lens when I couldn't frame exactly as I'd print. Still, there where times when I said to myself, "Everything is so perfect, I'll take the shot tighter than I want, (because I'm using my 70-200 2.8L IS and I'm maxed out at 70mm) and add more background later in post."

I try my best! I'm not willing to walk away or lose the "peak moment" when I have the means to stitch and get the entire picture. Composition and content working together. The frame for printing, however, is always in my mind.

With landscape and buildings, nothing is moving, except perhaps the clouds or the sun and one can work within those constraints if one knows one's camera. With moving objects, it's harder to get the image on the ground glass and then insert a film holder, remove the dark slide, set the shutter, wait 5-10 seconds for vibrations to disappear and then take the shot. So, when I repeat the work with 8x10, I plan to set up so that it will staged exactly. Even those "peak moments" will be staged. Maybe, I too can achieve "framing nirvana". I can't get too excited, though, as I might fall off the bloody ladder!


Kind wishes,

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.

I'd say exclusion but yes there's a sense of that. However, with Michael and Paula's way of working, they seek to build within the area of ground glass their image. If they can get what they need in the ground glass, they release the shutter. Otherwise not. So there's never a case where the image seen on the ground glass, (upside down of course), is going to be different from the final print, except for use of B&W film and not color.




Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

There are two things I would add on cropping. I certainly agree that carefully building an image in the frame is a very satisfying process, but there are some cases where this is not possible:


-

• many SLR viewfinders only show part of the picture, cropping will be necessary in order to find back what was actually seen in the viewfinder
  
• when taking pictures of moving subjects, action, I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time. Framing a bit wider and crop afterwards is a way to avoid cut fingers or feet for me. Of course this is not necessary for static subjects like landscape.
  
• when taking panoramas (by assembling pictures), I may have an idea of how the final frame will be put, but the actual framing is actually done after the processing, so cropping is a necessity.
  
• sometimes, I don't have the focal length at hand to frame the shot from the position where I want to take it. I may then take a wider picture and crop it afterwards.
  
• a special case: I have been busy reproducing old documents lately. The distance is fixed, so that all documents are scanned with the same linear resolution, and each picture is cropped to the size of the document. It is a special case, but I cite it because technical photography like this makes 100% of the work of many pro photographers and that is often forgotten.
  

 

[Michael A. Smith]

There are two things I would add on cropping. I certainly agree that carefully building an image in the frame is a very satisfying process, but there are some cases where this is not possible:


-

• many SLR viewfinders only show part of the picture, cropping will be necessary in order to find back what was actually seen in the viewfinder
  
• when taking pictures of moving subjects, action, I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time. Framing a bit wider and crop afterwards is a way to avoid cut fingers or feet for me. Of course this is not necessary for static subjects like landscape.
  
• when taking panoramas (by assembling pictures), I may have an idea of how the final frame will be put, but the actual framing is actually done after the processing, so cropping is a necessity.
  
• sometimes, I don't have the focal length at hand to frame the shot from the position where I want to take it. I may then take a wider picture and crop it afterwards.
  
• a special case: I have been busy reproducing old documents lately. The distance is fixed, so that all documents are scanned with the same linear resolution, and each picture is cropped to the size of the document. It is a special case, but I cite it because technical photography like this makes 100% of the work of many pro photographers and that is often forgotten.
  

A few clarifications:

First: If the format of what you see does not fit the format of your negative, and when you are making the exposure you plan to crop part of the film area, as you might need to do if you do not have a lens of the focal length you need, we do not consider that to be cropping. What we consider to be cropping occurs when in the darkroom or in PhotoShop when you look at your exposure and say, "If I took this out, it would be better." That's cropping. As I have put it, "Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively."

Second: If you have a camera where the viewfinder does not show 100% of the picture, either get a new camera or only use that part of the picture that you have seen in the viewfinder. For us, we would never use a camera where what we were seeing through the viewfinder or on ground glass was not what we were getting on the negative.

Third: If you are stitching a panoroma and some on the top or bottom needs to come off to even everything up, then we would not consider that cropping.

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

When using a smaller camera, without a tripod, doing this is simple; you just do the same thing, only directly with the camera. Do not click wildly, or use motor drive, but pay careful attention and only release the shutter when everything feels right. Of course, if you are a journalist on assignment and if you are photographing moving things, use that motor drive. But in this discussion, I assume one is making photographs as art, for oneself, and not as part of an assignment, so that would not apply.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Jerome Marot]

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

When using a smaller camera, without a tripod, doing this is simple; you just do the same thing, only directly with the camera. Do not click wildly, or use motor drive, but pay careful attention and only release the shutter when everything feels right. Of course, if you are a journalist on assignment and if you are photographing moving things, use that motor drive. But in this discussion, I assume one is making photographs as art, for oneself, and not as part of an assignment, so that would not apply.

As I wrote: "I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time". I admitted from the onset that this is a failure of myself, for not being able to see and react fast enough when things go fast and I need to pay attention to two things at the same time: the position of the actors in the frame and whether nothing was cut by the frame. I almost never use the motor drive on my camera, by the way.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I wasn't being critical of you, Jerome. I welcomed your response. It gave me the opportunity to expand on my original posting regarding cropping.

To others: We welcome comments and questions of all sorts. We are just trying to be helpful and your comments and questions give us the opportunity to say things we might not have thought of otherwise.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Asher Kelman]

Little black stiff card cutout!

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

Such a helpful suggestion! This is like using the wire frame of my Crown Graphic and a wonderful idea. Holding it next to the lens is unique. Maybe one should indeed have a wire frame or even a viewfinder positioned in advance to frame the same outer limits? This has now opened up more possibilities for me.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Cropping: Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a negative. When all is said and done and the photograph is printed, no one cares if it was cropped or not—and “no one” includes ourselves. So why not crop a negative if it will yield a better photograph? There is no reason not to do so, except as follows.

What is the point of making photographs? For us, it is the pleasure in the process. And the most important part of that process is the thrill of seeing the image on the ground glass or the viewing screen— perfect in every detail. That is the high moment.

Whether a defect later appears in the negative—because the camera shook during the exposure, or the holder leaked and the negative was fogged, or, more rarely, because we were incorrect in our evaluation of the image on the ground glass, is unimportant. The point of the activity of making photographs is to have a deep and meaningful visual experience. We consider the photograph, the finished print, to be a bonus.

The painter Alfred Leslie once wrote, “There is a direct relationship between what we see and the quality of life.” And in the context of his article, “what we see” referred to how much we see. The implication is clearly that the more we see the richer and fuller our lives will be.

And we cannot think of a better tool for helping us to see more than using a camera. And using it in such a way that the experience of looking on the ground glass or viewing screen is an intense, deep, and meaningful experience. And that only happens when one pays close attention to everything in the frame and is not satisfied until every square millimeter becomes necessary to the picture.

In this context, whether the negative will yield a satisfactory print or not is irrelevant. With enough work over time the good photographs will come. Whether they do or not for any particular picture is unimportant, as long as in the act of exposing the negative one had that deep and full visual experience—one that encouraged one to see more.

Of course, if what you are photographing at that moment will possibly result in one of the greatest photographs ever made, or win a Pulitzer Prize for capturing an historic moment, the above does not apply. But the likelihood that any of us will be in that kind of situation, or make “one of the greatest photographs,” is extremely unlikely.

We once had a student who owned an 8x10 camera. We ran into him a year after the workshop and we asked him:

“How is it going Allan?”
He answered, “Great! I go out every single day with my camera.”
We were awestruck and replied, “Good for you Allan, that is incredible.”
He then responded, “And one of these days I am going to bring film.”

For Allan, the pleasure was truly in the process of looking on the ground glass—the deep visual experience. He did not need the bonus of a finished photograph.

So, why not crop your negatives? Because not doing so will encourage you to pay more attention when exposing your film. And as a consequence you will have a deeper and fuller visual experience, and if Alfred Leslie is correct, the quality of your life will improve.

Michael

do you need a camera to have deep visual experiences?

and what is a deep visual experience ?

 

[Asher Kelman]

What is the Photographer's Deep Visual Experience"?

do you need a camera to have deep visual experiences?

and what is a deep visual experience ?

Mark,

Seems obvious that a camera would not be necessary. Having admitted that, it's obvious that the camera, especially one with an inverted image on a glass screen snapping to pristine focus, is able to exclude the rest of the real world in a special way. So, for people experienced in using cameras, they can choose a part of what is visible and make it more important and immediate than it would be from just our casual view. It's this concentration of effort and intimacy which, I believe Michael is referring to. Here a deep visual experience is indeed possible.

So what is that experience? I'd guess that it's one in which the scene is magnetic, drawing one in as if one has a special relationship with all the parts and the whole and much more represented by what's there, what was there, what could be there or will be there at some time in the future. If we gave that much deeply self-absorbed interest to what we observed outside of the camera screen, we'd be to distracted in rich visual experience to function! So this level of attention must be suppressed in our regular lives.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

Seems obvious that a camera would not be necessary. Having admitted that, it's obvious that the camera, especially one with an inverted image on a glass screen snapping to pristine focus, is able to exclude the rest of the real world in a special way. So, for people experienced in using cameras, they can choose a part of what is visible and make it more important and immediate than it would be from just our casual view. It's this concentration of effort and intimacy which, I believe Michael is referring to. Here a deep visual experience is indeed possible.

So what is that experience? I'd guess that it's one in which the scene is magnetic, drawing one in as if one has a special relationship with all the parts and the whole and much more represented by what's there, what was there, what could be there or will be there at some time in the future. If we gave that much deeply self-absorbed interest to what we observed outside of the camera screen, we'd be to distracted in rich visual experience to function! So this level of attention must be suppressed in our regular lives.

Asher

i can sit for hours without a camera just watching things unfold and i dont get distracted - thinking about camera things would be a distraction - different zens for different folks i guess ...

would you consider using white noise / or noise cancellation headphones to sharpen your visaul experiences up - it should work.


photo zen - capturing with one hand.