1.16.2016
We light differently for black and white and for color. In black and white contrast and tone is the thing. In color it's the contrast or confluence of colors in the frame....
Style in photography is really just the process of becoming more and more comfortable with the way you like to do things.
Photograph done for a marketing project with a Theater in Austin. We were promoting a play for Live Oak Theater. The play was set in Texas in the 1930's or 1940's. I was trying to both do my style of lighting and portraiture but also to give a nod to the tools of the day. I used a number of small, fresnel lensed, tungsten spotlights to do the lighting. The edge effects and softness of the image on the sides and in the corners was done with a device used under the enlarger lens, in the darkroom.
When I did the project for the theater I ended up hand coloring the final image and we hung a show of the had colored work of the entire staff in the theater's lobby. They are still some of my favorite images.
There is something special about using low output, continuous light. I won't try to define it but I see a difference between the longer exposures and the kind of look I get from using electronic flash.
Portraits of two Texas based photographers. Both quite accomplished in their fields.
Michael O'Brien.
James Evans.
Both O'Brien and Evans are famous in gallery and photographic circles. Both have had several books of their work published and both are working in Texas. O'Brien, here in Austin and Evans, in the small west Texas Town of Marathon. This is what they look like to me.
I love to make portraits of people. All kinds of people...
Over the past few years I've posted hundreds and hundreds of portrait images to this blog. When we discuss my portrait work some people feel duty bound to write, critically, in the comments that I only photograph beautiful, young women. I don't think that's true and it's certainly not a reflection of the day-to-day work that I pursue. I've put up more images of women than men but I think that's only to be expected of a heterosexual male from my generation as the female form (and the female face) has always been referenced in our culture as a nexus of beauty.
But I am equally happy photographing men. This is a image we did years ago that was used in an annual report for an international financial services company. I don't know if the company still exists but the photographic style and the depth of rapport seem more or less current to me even some 18 years later.
This image was not done in studio; it was done on location at the Dallas offices of the company. My assistant and I carved out a bit of space in a giant inner lobby, set up one of my favorite weathered canvas backgrounds and, in the course of a couple hours, executed four or five portraits that we were all very pleased with.
The project was always intended to run in quadratone black and white and, in those days if an image was intended to be used in black and white that's how we shot it. We didn't hedge and shoot color hoping to make an appropriate conversion. It helps to have clear intentions at the outset because there are decisions about tonalities that are specific only to black and white. We also had much more latitude for dynamic range and exposure with medium format black and white film that we might have had shooting color transparencies.
While I have recently filled in shadow areas on my portraits a bit more than I did back when this was produced the basic lighting concepts have remained the same; as has my approach to working with people who stand in front of the camera. Male or female.
Kim. Not literal.
Not too sharp.
Nothing technically perfect.
My idea of a wonderful portrait.
A nice break from the pursuit of checking all the craftsmanship boxes...
1.15.2016
This was not shot with a FujiFilm X-Pro-2.
It was not cropped from the original.
It was not converted in software to "monotone".
The background was not "dropped in".
Her face was not retouched (or reconfigured) in Portrait Professional.
There was no "frame rate".
Nothing was profiled.
But we did have fun making the shot. "We" means me and the subject.
Happy Friday!
While I love the idea of the Fuji X-Pro2 I am not considering buying one at this time.
Timing is everything. While I loved the idea of the first model (the X-Pro-1) and saved up all my change for months and months in a glass jar on my bedroom nightstand I was brought up short when I actually handled the first model in person. On hearing it had arrived in store at Precision Camera I grabbed my change jar, some credit cards, a check book and some money I had made returning deposit bottles and rushed out there with the hope that I'd be driving home with a body, three lenses and a couple of extra batteries. Oh, I was so excited.....
But then I brought the demo camera up to my eye and tried to focus it. I had two realizations all at once. The first was that the focusing was as slow as molasses, and much less sure. The second (deal killing) realization was that there no diopter adjustment. I looked everywhere for one. I asked the clerks, I read the manual. Nope. Didn't exist. You could order a screw in diopter lens through the store but on a brand new camera who had any idea how long that inventory exercise would take? And once you got the diopter on the body what you would end up with is a sharp representation of a slow and edgy focusing operation....
As a long time rangefinder user the package was so close. But, in the end, it was the handling that killed it for me. I soldiered on with whatever systems I had in stock at the time and blew my Fuji savings on some lens or another.
I borrowed and used an X-Pro-1 several times and had a few issues with menus and what not but everything I saw from the native lenses was really, really good. More recently a friend bought the X-100-T (current generation) and had high hopes to use it as a street camera but quickly became disenchanted about everything from handling to auto-focusing; from the menus to the contextual nature of the menus. I played with it for a few days and came to hate the toy-like, snick-y sound of the shutter as it fired. I also disliked the viewfinder set up. All of these things, as well as my so-so experiences when reviewing the very first X100, led me not to raise the gear lust antennae and start salivating when rumors of the new Pro-2 started swirling.
I'll readily admit that now, nearly four years onward, the just announced X-Pro-2 looks pretty damn alluring.
Here's what I think I'll like if I ever get around to using one:
1. Solid, hefty, all metal body.
2. Classic rangefinder design with....wait for it.....an actual, working rangefinder!
3. Weather sealing, in case I spill coffee on it.
4. The new sensor technology (the S3 and S5 Fujifilm cameras made beautiful portraits - nice color and just the right kind of sharpness).
5. A more complete inventory of fast, sharp, interesting lenses for the classic shooter.
But here's where I hesitate:
Almost all of these design touches (outside of the technical improvements; like sensor) are aimed at the same market of rapidly aging, older photographers as all the other retro cameras on the market. The design harkens back to the Leica rangefinders, and the personality of the camera and system was designed to reference the M Leicas with extreme prejudice. I am almost certain that the current iteration is a well tuned street shooter's tool that probably checks every box and makes everyone who buys and use it feel as though they are sharing the Leica M experience at a small fraction of the price. That may even be the case. A camera that basically does what the M3 did back in 1954. (The Leica did boast a longer rangefinder base for greater accuracy ---- just to be clear).
But if the selling point is the rangefinder (and if you don't like rangefinders you might be smart to wait for the XT2 to come along with the new sensor) you should make sure that you are absolutely clear about the value and the limitations of using a rangefinder camera. If you've enjoyed using zooms you might find the static rangefinder limiting and the framing accuracy becoming less and less accurate as the camera focuses closer. Very wide angle lenses use up a lot of that optical space by showing up (parts of the lens barrel) in the framing window, while lenses longer than 90mm become harder to compose with because the view becomes "cropped" in the optical window, which will drive most of you back to using the EVF, at the least.
This is a camera that should be bought with a 23mm, a 35mm and a 58mm lens as part of a dedicated art shooting camera system, but not as an all around production camera. If those focal lengths worked for me, and I had no clients demands to consider, I'd probably drop everything and rush to try out the new system as soon as it hits the display counters in February --- but I am stopped in mid-track by the realities of the business side. I want to be able to use wide ranging zooms on commercial jobs. I want to see a large image when using the 80-200mm lenses. I want to see all four corners of the viewfinder unblocked by images of a lens barrel when I need to use wide angle lenses. If the argument is that I should be using the EVF for all of these applications then I have to start wondering why I ended up paying for a limited usability rangefinder with all its attendant costs.
If I followed my nostalgic dreams of walking forward in the deep ruts of photography made by Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein and Robert Frank, I would buy this camera and the whatever the absolute best 50mm equivalent lens offered in the system is, set the profile control to "monochrome" (or Neopan) and head out the door on my next great adventure. I have no doubt that this camera and I would bond within a couple of "rolls."
But being a day-in, day-out working stiff I know all too well that the same set up would last less than a day in my real (non-famous photographer) occupation. One client would want a very wide shot of their new headquarters lobby and I'd be running out to by a wide lens. Another client would want me to shoot that swimming meet and I'd be running out to get a long zoom which I would then shoot using the EVF. And then a third client would ask me to shoot some nice video of their chairperson, with a nice microphone and some great lighting. If the video of Fuji's past cameras is any indication of the current model's quality I'd be out scrounging around for at least a Nikon D750, but more probably a GH4 and then we'd be right back down into yet another system rabbit hole.
To photographers who grew up surrounded by the Leica legend and the rangefinder mystique, and who don't want to shoot very short. or very long, or very zoom-y, or much video I would honestly suggest (in a light hearted way) that you go ahead and dump what you've got and give the X-Pro-2 and three lenses a shot. What do you really have to lose? Of course, this presupposes that you don't need to earn a commercial living with the system.
It might be the most fun camera system around. And now that the body has a diopter adjustment built in the fun might never slow down.
I think the camera fits into a traditional niche. Most photojournalists and magazine photographers had big Nikons or Canons for the long and short zooms but a huge number also carried a single Leica rangefinder ,with one or two lenses, as a "personal" camera. That's where I see the value of something like the X-Pro-2. Taking the place of my old Leica M4 with a crusty old 50mm Summilux. Ready for a big dose of that classic "personal vision." But riding in the old, weathered Domke bag next to more flexible tools...
Will I try one out? Of course! Will I buy one? Not in the near future. I'm getting along so well with the Nikon stuff these days it would be too much of a shame to break up the partnership....
There's nothing objective about buying cameras. Really! Nothing objective at all. I guess the question is: Will you be buying one?
I'm not linking this to any site for affiliate sales but if you want to support a good blogger who is a great Fuji camera fan you might want to head over to Michael Johnston's site, see what he has to say about the camera and pre-order there. Mike writes smart stuff and deserves our support for doing so. His blog is called, "TheOnlinePhotographer."
That's all I have on Fuji for the moment. Love the company, just don't currently have any of their product. Be aware: everything can change direction on a dime....
1.14.2016
My idea, as derived from observation, of modern dating.
©2014 Kirk Tuck. All rights reserved.
Beth Broderick and Anton Nel. A promo image for "33 Variations."
Hm. Lighting is what makes this image sing. That, and two international celebrities in their fields. But for my money it's the lighting....
Camera: Sony SLT 77V.
And what did we look like about ten years ago? Captured by the Kodak DCS 760.
Ah. Younger. But no less serious.
Hip, Mad, Beat and Gone.
Marketing photo for play. Lit and lit.
Model with FujiFlim S5. On the Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge in Downtown Austin.
Man up and own a half stop silk diffuser. You'll need it if you want to do nice images outdoors. Oh hell, be a real hero and get a set. 1/2 stop, 1 stop and 2 stop. Then you'll look like you know what you're doing...
Lou. Large light source in the studio.
Collaboration. Not direction, collaboration.
Having too much fun with a solid camera and an "ancient" lens. Let's go wide!
I was so wrapped up in the idea of how cool it would be to buy the Sigma 24-35mm f2.0 Art lens that I almost forgot that I have a lens that pretty much covers those focal lengths. Oh, how am I kidding, my current lens covers a full frame of silicon from 20-40mm; and it's already paid for.
I never thought of myself as a wide angle lens user but lately I've been pushing the wide limits a bit more than I did in years past. In fact, one of my favorite projects from last year was an annual report from an electrical utility that was done predominantly with the wide end of my old, Nikon 25-50mm f4.0 lens, with a splash of Rokinon 14mm f2.8 tossed in for good measure.
I had just about convinced myself that I "needed" the Sigma zoom to "up my game" in the new year. I had the money put aside but everything changed when the CFO stepped into my office and requested (demanded) yet another check for the IRS, effectively draining my slush fund for new toys for at least the better part of the first quarter.
I was pacing glumly around the studio wondering, "What in heaven's name will I do if I suddenly "need" a cool, wide angle lens for a vital client project??" I fretted. Then it dawned on me that I should look in the crowded Nikon drawer in the studio tool chest and take a quick inventory of the "solutions" available to me at a moment's notice.
That's when I noticed the "sleeper" lens lurking in the back right corner of the drawer. It was the Tamron (yes, Tamron) 20-40mm f2.7 to 3.5 SP Aspherical zoom lens. A screwdriver drive, early AF lens that hit the market back in 1994. It was on the market until 2000. I had remembered it being considered pretty good in the film days so when I saw one in good shape for around $100 at my favorite used shop I bought it. I shot with it once or twice on my downtown walks and the defaulted to using the 24mm end of the 24-120mm or the 25mm end of the Nikon 25-50mm when I found myself in need of moderately wide angle focal lengths. Occasionally I needed a really wide lens and the Rokinon 14mm (in conjunction with a custom len profile in PhotoShop) handles those situations nicely. I bought into the general stigma about older, third party lenses and as result I've previously sentenced the 20-40mm to a life of lost potential...Until yesterday.
Bereft of discretionary funds needed to buy the Sigma Art zoom I took comfort in putting the almost orphaned 20-40mm on the front of a Nikon D810 and went out for a therapeutic walk through the old town.
I finally gave the Tamron 20-40mm lens it's chance to prove that it was more that tool kit drawer ballast. And I must say that I liked everything I saw. Wide open it's not perfect but at f8.0 it struts around like an "L" lens or a gold banded Nikon lens. There's a bit of complex distortion but I'll build a profile for the lens at 20mm and give up worrying about distortion anywhere else.
Most of the images here are shot at 20mm and at f8.0. The lens is sharp and the colors are really great. I've almost given up pining for the Art lens. Almost. But I am fairly confident that I can use this lens for lots of stuff. It's one I've overlooked. But not anymore.
1.13.2016
Denver Grafitti. 2013.
I'm heading to Denver for the weekend of Jan. 22-24 for a conference of Craftsy.com instructors. I expect to learn much more about marketing. My upcoming trip reminded me of this graffiti I saw (and liked very much) on previous trip to the "mile high city." I photographed it with the eccentric (and quite capable) Pentax K-01.
Sadly, I won't have any free time to spend with Denver area friends but I hope to be back soon for some personal time off. We'll see what the CFO says...
On another note, our television commercial shoot last Saturday was quite successful and I hope to be able to share the spot with you later this month. All the footage is currently in the hands of a capable editor.
The year is off to a good start. We've already completed our first four assignments and have three more booked for next week, before the conference in Denver. Commercial photography and video production are alive and well in 2016.
1.12.2016
While it is nice to have a state of the art lens and camera I'm thinking that standing in the right spot is at least as important.
I'm slow to think things through. But I think I've figured out why dedicated sports shooters get the best shots and make shooting sports look easy, but feel damn hard for the rest of us. It's the same reason the best architectural photographs seem to have a magic touch in doing their work. We may buy the same tilt/shift lenses and the same cameras but there's something a bit better, a bit more pleasing about the way their work always seems to turn out. Same thing with landscape photographers. There are legions of retired businessmen and engineers, accountings and certainly doctors and dentists, who can afford gear that's even better than the stuff a full time landscape artist might be able to afford but for some reason the committed artists always seem to get the shot everyone else wishes they'd gotten.
After 25 years of shooting theater I think I understand the missing link! It's not the gear, it's knowing where to stand with the gear, that makes all the difference in the world. Work in sports photography long enough and you learn the stuff you cover forward and backward. The intimate knowledge, coupled with years and years of trial and error, eventually lead you to anticipate where the action will end up. This means you can get ready with the right focal length and settings. You can line up the right background and the wait for all the moving pieces to pull themselves into position. You get it because you've tried it all before and you were smart enough to
There is a lot of talk on the web about the new Phase One camera. 100 megabytes sounds good...
Nearly eight years ago I used to write articles and reviews for Studio Photography Magazine (another casualty of the digital transition) and in my role as a freelance technology writer I got asked to review some pretty cool stuff. Sometimes interesting boxes would appear at my doorstep. One day I was shocked and amazed when I got a box from Leica containing the brand new M8.2 and four brand new lenses. The Fedex or UPS driver left the box, unsigned for, right at the front door. I thought that was crazy and risky until I had a similar thing happen with a box from Phase One that contained their latest 40 megapixel, medium format camera and a trio of really nice lenses. $40,000 worth of cool camera gear just hanging out in front of my studio and thunderclouds looming in the northwestern sky....
But, as usual, I digress. What I really wanted to talk about today is the announcement of the latest Phase One camera, with 100 megapixels. The underlying question: Is this camera at all relevant to working photographers or enthusiasts today? I know there is a market for it but for photographers who are not employees of large corporations or museums; does this camera make any sense at all?
When I reviewed the 40 megapixel Phase One camera (based on a Mamiya body) the one thing I really liked about it was somewhat independent from the pixel count. I like the way the larger sensor emulated the look for medium format film cameras by allowing the use of longer lenses for the same angle of view as shorter lenses would give on smaller format cameras. Even a fast 80mm lens gave a different look when coupled with the larger sensor. One could say the benefit of the system was the way it drew images.
While I understand the benefits of higher megapixel counts coupled with low noise CMOS sensors I think that the designers of medium format cameras (and sensors) have been going in the wrong direction. They should have moderated the pursuit
1.11.2016
OT: back to the push-ups for a moment.
Self portrait #12
When I visited my portrait subject, a 93 year old physician, today at his house I noticed that he had an exercise mat and several 10 and 20 pound hand weights in his day room. We talked about exercise a bit and he told me just how important maintaining muscle mass is when aging. I mentioned the push-ups and he countered with the weights. I asked "why?" and he told me he never liked doing push-ups and found weights to be a good alternative. He's a good role model. I noticed he wasn't even out of breath when we climbed up the stairs to the third floor to look at cameras (tangential connection to the blog).
Thinking about it I decided to share my push-up progress with the brain trust here at VSL; having written about it recently. I am now, after weeks of building up to it, able to execute 50 proper push-ups in one set without falling apart or breaking into a sweat. I am now pushing for my ultimate goal of doing 100 in a continuous set but I am breaking up the training by doing one continuous set of 50 in the morning and then two sets of 25 in the evenings. Once I get used to it I'll increase the number of reps in the first set in the evening until I am do continuous set of 50 in the evening.
I plan to keep the numbers the same after I hit this intermediary goal but to then start slowing down the push ups to put more pressure on the muscles involved.
Someone mentioned a concern about blood pressure in one of the comments. I took that seriously and have been monitoring my blood pressure after my set of 50 reps in the morning. I do the set and then rest for 60 seconds and then take my blood pressure with an automatic wrist cuff.
My blood pressure this morning after the 50 set and the 6o seconds rest was 130/70 with a pulse rate of 68. My average reading, done at random times during the day, seated is usually about 118/60 with a pulse rate of 58-60. I don't think I am taking too much of a risk at the moment but I guess it's always a good idea to monitor.
But how are all those push ups paying off? I am stronger in the pool and it's reflected in a new ability to shift down about 5 seconds on intervals (based on sets of 100 yards). I also seem to have more endurance in the middle of a set than I did only a month or two ago. I am also noticing a slight reduction in waist line measurements. Other than that, no radical changes. I think I'll have to stay at it for a longer period of time to see really obvious changes.
Nothing has changed in my sensitivity to getting up in the dark, driving to the pool in 32 degree temperatures and then flinging myself into the chilly water. I still hate process right up to the point when we get sufficiently warmed up. The hardest part? Getting out of the pool in a brisk wind and running the 200 feet to the locker room. Ouch!
I make house calls. I packed my little black bag and made one this morning. It was good.
This photograph has little or nothing to do with the subject of the blog post other than to show
the opposite end of the aging spectrum; the playfulness and whimsy.
I'd love to post an image of today's subject but I can't until it goes through "the process."
For the last two decades I've done a lot of photographic and video work for a large company that is owned by 120+ doctors and which provides imaging services all over central Texas. Last week I got a phone call from one of the people in the management department. The phone call turned into a request that I make an "official" portrait of the company's founder. The man is a retired doctor. He founded the company in 1954, here in Austin, Texas. He is now 93 years old.
The manager and I discussed the logistics of setting up the session. Usually, the doctors from that group come to our little studio in west Austin and I photograph them against a canvas background that their marketing team likes, and has been requesting for nearly 15 years. There's a continuity there. But when I heard that the portrait subject was 93 years old I quickly suggested that we do a "house call." I knew it would be easier to pack up a lighting kit, camera and the "timeless" background and head on over to the doctor's house. And I thought it would be much less hassle for our sitter.
The doctor, my portrait subject, called the next day to set up a time. He lives in a central neighborhood, about ten minutes away from my studio. This morning I loaded three portable flashes, a big umbrella, some light stands and a smaller umbrella as my lighting kit. I grabbed the Nikon D810 and the 24-120mm lens as my basic camera kit (Olympus EM5.2 as the perennial "car" camera for back-up) and I added the 5x7 foot collapsible background to complete the tool selection.
I had photographed this particular doctor about six years ago when several of his younger friends retired from the group. He met me at the front door of his house wearing a dark suit and a perfectly tied tie. We scouted the downstairs of the house and decided to set up in a living room area that had nice light coming in big windows. We chatted as I set up my lights and my camera and I didn't feel the barrier that a difference of ages and generations used to create in my mind. I guess I'm coming to grips with my own aging.
The lighting was my typically simple light with a large, soft main light used in close, a light on the background for separation and a passive fill via a white pop-up reflector on the opposite side from the main light. The whole set could be contained in about 15 by 15 feet.
I wanted to make a standing portrait because people's suits look better that way and have fewer wrinkles and fabric bulges to contend with. I found a high backed, dining room chair to use as a "posing" device and a place for him to anchor his hands and provide a bit of support. I love the backs of chairs and use them this way as often as I can find them.
After I had the primary portrait I asked if we could do an alternate because I loved the Robin's egg blue that his walls were painted. He agreed and I quickly did a number of frames against that alternative background.
When I finished up the doctor told me that he was quite interested in photography and always had been. I followed him upstairs to the third floor of his home where he showed me a display case filled with the cameras he had owned and used over the years. We talked with genuine nostalgia about loading our own 35mm film when we came across his old, bulk film loader. That led to a discussion about doing our own black and white darkroom work. We talked about his time in the navy in World War Two, and we talked about aging and living well. We agreed to catch up over a cup of coffee in the next week or so; but only if he likes the images we did today. I hope he loves them, I'd enjoy going back.
Photography is fascinating work because you repeatedly get permission to insert yourself into someone else's life and expand your knowledge of what different people are like. It's a never ending story. The camera is my ticket for entry.
Today the business this man started employs hundreds of people, provides well for over 100 specialized partners/doctors, and helps to diagnosis and treat lots of health issues for people. What an incredible legacy!
1.10.2016
Here is a sample from the Nikon 135mm f2.0 ai lens I bought a few weeks ago. I finally got around to using it on a job and it worked.
A still image from "Tomås and the Librarian."
sI was photographing a family play about the early life of Hispanic writer, Tomås Rivera, at Zach Scott Theatre when I decided to give the 135mm a thorough wringing out. The play is called, "Tomås and the Librarian." The artists at Zach presented it on the Wisenhunt Stage which is a very small, intimate auditorium which seats about 150 guests. The seats are on all four walls so all the plays done in this space are performed in the round. This also means that all the lighting is mounted on grids and catwalks overhead.
I was being capricious when I photographed the rehearsal; I used two cameras and two lenses. One camera was the D750 with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens on it and the other camera was a D810 with the manual focusing 135mm f2.0 lens along for the ride. I felt brave enough to use the 135mm because I had ordered and installed an eyepiece magnifier that adds 1.2X magnification to the finder image on the D810. Just to make things fun the theater has black walls and a black ceiling and the light levels on this play are lower by a couple stops than the light I've become accustomed to over on the Topfer stage.
I ended up using the 135mm for about 40% of the images I took and I'm pretty pleased to report that only about 10-15% were unusable due to focusing errors. Of those about half were almost intentional in that I knew my subjects were moving out of the band of correct focus but I didn't have time to adjust and sprayed and prayed that some would make the cut.
Most of the images were shot at ISO 1250, Shutter Speeds between 1/125th and 1/200th of a second. While the aperture stayed pretty much constant at f2.8. I set a custom white balance at 3000 K and didn't need to apply color correction in post processing.
I have proven to myself that I can still focus a long, fast lens through a digital SLR viewfinder and hit focus enough times to keep a good amount of eyelashes looking crispy.
The 50mm wasn't being tested. It was just being used. Can't complain for even a second about that lens as wide open it outperforms most of my other lenses even when they have the advantage of being stopped down. It's not a question of sharpness, it's just that the Sigma lens seems more resolute..l
Both of the images here were shot one after the other with the 135mm f2.0. It's a very nice, old lens.
I'll definitely keep it.
Deep down what I really feel photography is all about for nearly everyone...
There are plenty of reasons to document the world around us. We might need some evidence for an insurance claim, we might want a record of what our kids look like, right now. If we make photography our work we probably need to photograph a product that our client would like to advertise and sell; and we might make some portraits so other client can project a certain (benevolent) image to prospective buyers of the subject's expertise or valuable service. But when all the day to day uses of photography are cleared off the table I think most people who take photographs for themselves do it for one overwhelming reason: social connection.
If we profess to "just enjoy taking photographs" then why do we feel the need to post them and share them with other people? And, in most cases, these other people are people like us who are using their cameras and posting their images in order to belong; however tangentially, to a broad social group.
All the bickering over brands or specs or "the correct way" to do photography is just the baggage that humans bring with them as they jockey for what they perceive to be their place in the social hierarchy of this or that collection of like minded photographers. But the need to share is implied in the immersion into online forae, real world camera clubs and meet ups.
There's really no way to divorce the need for social connection and interconnection from any hobby or avocation that people enjoy doing. Must of us must go to work in order to survive, buy food and shelter and save up enough $$$ for cameras. But after we meet the basic criteria it's the hobbies and the passions we pursue that provide the glue that binds people with similar interests together.
I am going to pack a camera bag and go over to Zach Theatre this afternoon to photograph a play. I'll be paid, but really, in the grand scheme of things, the money is incidental, I'm also going because being present to do the marketing photographs means I'll spend time with a group of people I like to be with. Lauren from marketing will be there with a warm smile and stories about her three year old. The actors will be doing what is their passion --- entertaining us. We all support each other's human side and passion side. I exist in this situation as validation that they will reach a wider audience.
I have many friends who've taken pains to learn a great deal about photography in general and cameras in particular. We have found in each other a group of like minded individuals who don't seem to share a bigger demographic's appreciation for televised sports but we enjoy the one-to-one experience of sitting across a table from each other, talking about photography. Or talking about cameras. On one level it doesn't matter if we talk about cameras or we talk about some great show we've seen; we're using our common interest to build social bonds and relationships.
When you go to a workshop your conscious (advertising?) reason to go is to learn more about my craft, but I would say that while improving craft sounds like a very good thing one of your main reasons for paying and attending is to spend time with like minded people, and to build credentials for cementing or improving your social position within your chosen hierarchy. A selected group of photographers.
Your sub group within photography might be landscapes in which case you might share more conversations about good locations and dynamic range enhancements. If you enjoy photographing beautiful people (models) your conversation will, no doubt, center around how to find beautiful people to shoot, and about how to light people in the most dramatic and flattering way. Part of your reasons for talking to each other about these topics is to make sure you aren't missing something obvious that will improve your enjoyment of the art, but for the most part you display your shared knowledge in order to exist, meaningfully, within your group.
It's interesting to see the dynamics at work at a photo walk, a workshop, or even at the counter of the local camera store (sorry if you no longer have one). It's a process that I've reduced down to a coffee analogy. That's how I come to understand most social interactions.
People exist, psychologically, along a long curve of what psychologist might refer to as an "emotional intelligence quotient." How well do you read other people? Do you have an easy or hard time understanding humor? Are you very, very literal or very empathetic?
Here's how I take a quick evaluation of a new person arriving to our group, any group:
At my masters swimming team we swim from 8:30 am till 10:00 am every Saturday. Have for years. About 16 years ago a group of us decided to drop by a coffee shop after the long, sometimes cold, Saturday morning swim to have coffee ---- together. It's a way of catching up as well as prolonging the shared social experience of exercising together. We head over to the coffee shop and pull a couple of tables together and just share stories. They could be about swimming, or someone's latest vacation, or a bitch about there being too much (or too little) distance work in the recent swims. Doesn't matter. We learn more about each other, say supportive things about the benefits of swimming, and then go home. We build and maintain a supportive social structure.
Like any big program we frequently have new people join. The critical measure in parsing a person's group social fitness is the response we get when we invite the new person to the group coffee, following the Saturday workout.
One response tells us that the person isn't a particularly good social candidate (although they may be just fine in the swimming program!). When asked if they want to join us for coffee the response we are never looking for is: "Sorry, I don't drink coffee." In a big way it means that they just didn't understand the un-literal underlying invitation. That "coffee" is just common code for, "join us and we'll get to know each other and welcome you into the network."
There are tons of legitimate answers we'd accept including, "I'd love to but I left my wife at home with three kids and she'd kill me if I didn't get back with donuts!" Or, "I've got other plans today but it sounds great. Can I get a rain check?" We get that hanging out with a bunch of swimmers might not be everyone's idea of good times but we also get it that the last two answers might also mean, "Thanks for the invitation. I'll decline and pretend to leave the door open, but we all understand that I won't be attending now or in the future. I do, though, appreciate the offer." But we respect that because it shows us that the person in question understands the underlying meaning of our invitation and values our social ring enough to answer in a graceful way.
The first person, the one "who doesn't drink coffee!", doesn't understand the question but, in a broader sense, doesn't understand the social glue of groups and, by extension, the place of our hobbies within the context of our own chosen cultures.
Deep down I don't feel like most of us care all that much about the images the people around us create. We care more about being part of their hobby/art/craft connected social construct and finding our particular spot within that matrix of people. It's a way of building emotionally helpful structures in a changing world. We just happen to socialize better when mixing with cameras than with beer pong or opera singing. Seems like a valuable part of our collective photography experience to me.
There can be no stars in our group without others to acknowledge them and provide the feedback some people need in order to thrive. In a sense, we are all interconnected within our groups. Much as Taoist explain our connection to all things, living and inanimate, in the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)