Dektol in the Sandbox: I <3 Photography

The first one just needs the blacks brought up +5 (give or take a couple) in LR3 (or similar adjustments in whatever) and very little else changed, they totally overdid it.
I've been finding that RAW files often need that black adjustment (if LR3 doesn't have a camera profile) or else they appear to have a kind of grayness overlaid.

It's more an overall desaturation to the 4th one which completely alters skintones and makes it highly stylised. I do this A LOT but I'd like to think I wouldn't do it if I was a PJ. It's just odd.

xp - yes, agreed

Totally not doing the Turnley workshop. $1500 workshop, $400 airfare, and since I'd need to be close to the UWS for morning critiques I'm having a hard time finding a hotel without a million bed bug reports for under $200/night.

― milo z, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:04 PM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah the Turnley thing seems like it's aimed at well-heeled amateurs who are wondering why they aren't taking better pictures despite have a 5dII/D3/M9 etc. the fact that it takes place in NYC is a big clue

i mean, this is how i get lost in this thread, maybe because i have a completely diff background to the rest of you guys but i mean i'll take whatever i get back from asda and i mean i'm more bothered about issues of composition, gesture, mood than really thinking about contrast, tonality etc. this always seems v technical to me. i dont want to go over all that stuff abt "looking" again

asda?

yeah I mean you've mentioned before about how there's a 'visual grammar' and yeah everybody's got their own, it's not universal. I just happen to approach pics from a documentary mode. and yeah the talk about tonality and contrast can be a little technocratic at times, but it can also be used to get at what the picture is about. like you can def talk about tonality w/ an alec soth picture in both technical and artistic terms, and both avenues have merit.

and there are def critics who talk about photographs in terms of composition and gesture and mood! idk it just makes me uncomfortable because it then starts to implicate questions of intentionality (which are there, but hard to talk around)

I'm just much more happy w/ photographs being mute shrines

asda is a place in england

isnt there just as much intentionality at work in choosing ones gear. thinking about framing might be as simple a decision as looking in the viewfinder and deciding that you're gonna push the shutter. photographing still lifes, objects landscapes, people, animals, there's varying degrees to which you can be in control of the image and certain set-ups and subject matter gives you more control. i mean if you think of commercial photographers doing product photography for advertising and the way they endlessly tweak and hone an image, lighting, composition, etc. the way it is fine tuned with the input of different parties and interests. this is probably the furthest i can think of from the lionised street photographer and the decisive moment, but there are different ways of working and approaches. there is the process of trying to repeat happy accidents, returning to a subject again and again. and also how a lot of work is posed, i think of sally mann (who as well is somebody who is all about gear as well so) and how you can see videos of her setting up and posing those shots of her kids.

i saw a clip of eggleston where he said that he doesn't bother taking two photos of the same thing because he doesn't like having to pick between two almost identical photographs and i kindof immediately started doing the same thing, consciously thinking about this. and maybe this isn't what he intends but for me its about frontloading those decisions. and i think the consistency of a given photographers output is sufficient for me to want to think about those decisions. i mean also i studied painting not photography and am v much a dilettante, novice, amateur. like i said, i just get everything processed at the cheapest place i can find but even that is a decision and i think the employment of chance is not the same as leaving things to chance.

I'm happy to talk about the composition, gesture, and mood trifecta! I also think we *are* talking about them when we talk about contrast, tonality, camera choice, format size, digital vs. film, etc. If I don't talk about the subject, or more directly about, say, composition, I think it's because those are things that I think about when selecting images, and then not again.
And my obsession with scanning, contrast levels, color balance, etc. is my own method of reducing choice. I've mandated that I will always try to process pictures in a sort of kinda "natural" way, so I will never have to think about whether to keep dust & scratches, or whether to amp up the contrast, etc. etc. It's my version of just getting the film back from asda, but it just takes longer and is a total pleasure!!

Totally not doing the Turnley workshop. $1500 workshop, $400 airfare

Dude, just spend on the airfare and stay someplace cheap and stalk the city with a camera the whole time! It will probably be just as valuable!

nb I know that there is nothing "natural" about the contrast even on a "neutral" film, or film at all, or a still picture at all, but you know...

Yeah, I'm going to spend a week in SF in March, maybe. Or I was thinking of some place like Venice Beach - I've never been to LA and if I stuck to one hood, I wouldn't have to rent a car, maybe.

Pipe dream is to just sublet a place in NY for a month in the summer, but I doubt I can escape my local obligations here.

I default in editing/criticism of other peoples' work (written, photos, etc.) to 'how would I do that differently/what choices would i change' or 'how is that doable.'

I'm much better at separating myself from that in the arts where I have no personal experience.

For what it's worth, I think that LA is one of the most photogenic cities out there. All strange landscapes with poles, wires, and signs every which way. Bizarre foliage and buildings etc. And SF is my true love city. Lotsa good pictures to be had all over.

isnt there just as much intentionality at work in choosing ones gear.

yeah! I mean I largely agree with everything you said. funny as you mention gear as gear IS a shortcut for tlaking about how a photographer works - like leicas are synonymous with street photog, large format cameras with 'serious format.' I swear to god, find me one essay that talks about a large-foramt photographer that doesn't mention how 'measured' and 'slow' and 'intentional' you have to be when using one.

and yeah what I meant about the dangers of ascribing intentionality really just meant the dangers of saying 'this shot came out exactly how the photographer envisioned it.' peoples choices about what to use, where to point the camera at, when to click the shutter definitely ARE intentional acts - but to get at them you can't treat it as discrete instances, but like you said, as accretions, accumulations of choices that were made when the photographer picked up the camera in the first place.

and yeah like cv said those technocratic terms can be used to get at the pith of what a photographer does. like I dunno if you can talk about weston without mentioning...tonality.

Intentionality becomes especially relevant when talking about editing, I think.

editing meaning selecting

i doubt there is any art form where serendipity doesn't exert a strong influence but i feel like maybe overstating its role in photography specifically is about as corrosive as overstating the photographer's ability to determine exact outcomes. that is, i do agree w/ you by and large. nothing will ever be fully accounted for.

Intentionality becomes especially relevant when talking about editing, I think.

yeah see imo editing/selecting is the act from which can derive the most about a photog's "sensibility."

i doubt there is any art form where serendipity doesn't exert a strong influence but i feel like maybe overstating its role in photography specifically is about as corrosive as overstating the photographer's ability to determine exact outcomes. that is, i do agree w/ you by and large. nothing will ever be fully accounted for.

i can't really tell if this is relevant, because it's so loaded with my approach to taking photos - rather than that of someone who does plan, think better, design & compose better - but i feel like such a key part of photography is the magical-mechanical-alchemy, the emulsion-burning that goes on after you frame & click, which you initiate but don't really act in, that it wrestles some of what's happening away from like 'authorial control' or intention, the thing we associate personally with painting or writing or anything else. photography's so collateral, & benefits from the incidental existence of things so much, that there's something that doesn't entirely jive w/intentionality for me. i don't mean because at the last moment a deer could just walk into the frame & enliven your photo, & you couldn't have controlled that, but that even if you are really well prepped for something & expect its results i feel like they're not entirely yours.

this is maybe just born of using nice film & being psyched at what for me is a roll of the dice, re: the tone & character your photo ends up taking on, rather than knowing it, & maybe i am just co-signing "isnt there just as much intentionality at work in choosing ones gear", but i think the result is kinda halfway between where you were & how you prepped, and that's not the same ratio as with other media.

i had dinner at my friend's house a couple of weeks back & took a couple of pictures around the table & at some point looked up at his light fixture & took a photo of it, near the end of the roll, & it came out real nice, so much nicer a photo* than it deserved to be, i mean it's a picture of a light fixture but it's nicely rendered & there's a varied focus and all of these other things. i'm psyched for having bothered to take a photo more than i am proud of having calculated it. this would be different if i knew my film inside out & had loaded up knowing that i was off-setting the light in the picture with my faster shutter-speed, &c - there would be less and less serendipity - but i still think you're outsourcing a big chunk of credit to a machine (which i am totally okay with, i think you get credit for taking your camera with you when you leave the house).

* also i think i have taken a bunch of pictures of light fixtures & never got as far away from "oh i see you like william eggleston, huh".

that ceiling isn't very red

(lol, jk. lovely photo!)

ha ha it is inescapable though. i think he is quite beatles-y, or like canon in d or something, in having just monopolised huge areas of ground one could otherwise cover. like taking photos of anything illuminated by window light on an aeroplane. or any sort of textural detail of the side of the house/the ground/some foliage. can't do it.

i could not compete with his redness though, no.

speaking of no shadow detail

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/black-and-white-and-black-all-over/

also recommended: brassai's paris de nuit

hey CV do you know this guy, feel like you both work the same beat

i have no thoughtful response to the b/w set above other than being okay with absolute blacks in bw phots; i've come to love midtones a lot, & be less into the extremity & pop of high-contrast stuff, but there's still a huge appeal, & i think a particular schematic appreciation for the feel of seeing that kinda thing in newspapers and on screens and in those like fifties-hollywood contexts for forever

http://bremser.tumblr.com/post/14679643980/2011-photo-of-the-year

why is the SJ photo landscape when she is holding the camera portrait

want: http://www.steidlville.com/books/1172-Candlestick-Point.html

Oh yeah, Gus Powell. Part of the In Public scene that I'm inclined to make fun of, but generally I actually really like his pictures. They have that nicely "pulled back" view that I enjoy you know? And he's def on a lot of the same turf I roam around.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7002/6567899747_3e604eb8c7_b.jpg
Hey, she can smile. by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

finally opened up 'for now' - gorgeous book! it's big, too

ha the festive update we have all been waiting for, so cool. i'm a little tempted.

i am photographically celebrating the holidays by, having finished a roll of some interesting kodak 100 (xl or xd or something) film, loading up a 24-exposure roll of 400 speed film that you used to get free from the developers with printing which probably expired several years ago & has been yellowing at my folks' place. january is gonna be bleached.

first edition already OOP and selling for $200 from the website. feel like I just slashed my copy's value in half by opening it. oh well, mazel tov!

oh dang, really? i checked rece & saw i could get it for like $50, who knows what edition. but i'm glad you opened it, well-preserved & desirable valuables are truly the possessions of savages imo

there's a picture from a medium format camera in here! wtf, get out :}

wau @ the dali emoticon there. WE branching out

used two Amex gift cards to get 35 rolls of rebranded Tri-X in 35mm and 20 rolls of Portra 400 in 120, along with the steal I got on Neopan 400 ($2.79 a roll for 25 rolls), I should have plenty of film for the forseeable future.

that is a lot. i spent $40 on prob seven or eight rolls of interesting (new) film a couple of weeks ago & that was almost as much as i've ever had planned out. it's running out quick but i get to swing by the place that stockpiles expired stuff next week, so i'll end up with another nine, ten. just out of curiosity, Milo, what's the deal with the stuff you shoot & post here?; it's all scans of film or is any of it digi?

99% digital - either my old D700 or the X100 I'm using now. I've only started shooting film again recently and haven't scanned anything I found very interesting.

My Flickr views have gone way up since I started putting up more photos of my roommate (that's her in the last picture) and my friend Erin (first photo in the thread). Shocking.

yeah i think flickr is pretty gross like that

kinda grosser that they're not even 'sexy' shots

i totally co-sign this ^^^ & think flickr is the ultimate lol for getting 10 drooly photographer guys saying WONDERFUL LIGHTING, REALLY INTERESTING ANGLE at some emo nude shot, BUT, i do think there is some room to allow for it being like a general human response to another human subject, more than always being just a terrible, base urge. there are photos which are photos of people that are appealing for those people; either them existing, or gesturally, or whatever, & i think the tangling of "i am looking at a photo" & "i am looking at a human", to whom we might have a variety of responses (based on attractiveness or aesthetics or w/e), is pretty difficult to divorce. i just found an old flickr account i had for some digi-snacks a couple of years ago & it has photos i've favourited, & a bunch of them are these kinda radiant or colourful pictures that have a guy or a girl in. we are pretty drawn to that sorta thing & i wouldn't have to answer for my gravitation to them in some ways. so seeing the views go up, i can feel that there's obviously a WELL SEX SELLS response to it but i also think that wondering whether the views would be the same, say if the subject were interchanged, is a hard comparison to make.

maybe this is getting sorta pop your top off love i have an idea

i wouldn't want to have to answer for my gravitation to them, rather

it's like i was looking of that picture of giacometti's face. it is a pretty good face.

yeah i mean i like photos of hot guys

Everyone still <3 photography here? Before this thread drops off the bottom of the page I figure I'll revive it in the classic fashion, by posting another picture yet again:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6579139295_d02642ba0c_z.jpg

After a "fertile period" I'm running out of negs to scan though. It is now grey and cold and not as fun to take pictures, though I'll continue giving it a shot when the sun shows its face.

PS is anyone ever able to pick up Fuji Superia 400 in 36 exp rolls? Seems they've been discontinued. Yet another sign of impending doom. Love those film cameras while you still can.

Everyone still <3 photography here?

ha, i had the same thought yesterday & wondered if this previously out-of-control-freight-train of a thread had run out of steam.

i think i occasionally get on top of photos i have to scan, & feel like they're p much done, but i still usually have twenty rolls of undeveloped film in a bag, so they're there for when i have the money to get prints. also i just got a scanner!, an old hand-me down that will diminish the amount of time i spend using the cuff of my sleeve to buff scratches on the library scanners. i'm mainly getting b&w stuff printed, recently, with a two week wait, but i like knowing i have so much old stuff (it's usually like a 12 month backlogue, interrupted by occasionally getting stuff developed after i've shot it).

i also spent a couple of days at my folks' place over the holidays scanning some old photos i took like five years ago in rome, on ilford delta 3200, which i tend to reflexively duck away from now - like it was a hallmark of my earlier attempts at boldness - but which holds up really well, & is more generous w/midtones etc than i remember (here's a couple).

like your photo a lot, the guy's modestly lilac ensemble is nice. that's w/flash, right?

i am p sure i can still get superia 400 (am in the uk), i'm not crazy about it though. you oughtta stockpile :/

God I can't even imagine that kind of backlog anymore. It is really kind of nice though, knowing that there's just a lot of stuff you've shot that's waiting to be seen. When I was broke for awhile I just didn't develop anything, and it was a lot of fun catching up at first. Until I started to recognize that I was catching up with my "lazy period" and then I couldn't get through it fast enough.
Yeah that photo's with a flash, and I just realized it's a little odd to have put that up while complaining about the weather and lack of light outside.
Those shots from Rome look great. And you're not kidding about the decent mids. Love the second one especially!
I can get Superia 400 in 24 rolls still, but it's not as $$ efficient. Didn't used to like it, but now that I'm home scanning I can get it to look nice. And it's got finer grain than the cheap kodak stuff. And stockpiling is right. I think Fuji is quietly discontinuing stuff left and right. I bet they get out of film sooner rather than later.

Ha, I have the same tie as the old guy in that photo, pretty sure.