Things

The idea that I've been working through recently is the relevance of the thing that's being photographed to the photograph itself.

Of course the photograph of a thing is not the thing itself – you can't drink from a photo of a glass of water. This is both obvious and easy to forget as we live surrounded by photos that represent products and places we can relate to or imagine existing. Even in the realm of art – Art – there's an inclination to look at the thing and assume that it's the subject of the photograph.

My current series, which remains nameless, has almost no connection between the thing that's creating the image and the image that results from it. There are times when the thing can almost be distinguished, but it's not ever important to the subject of the photos themselves. In fact, it may even be detrimental to the image, because it's tempting to reduce understanding and interpreting down to a technical problem-solving exercise.

And that's my dilemma now. Art shouldn't need to be clever to work, but sometimes the process can add to the message, if they're complimentary.


Comments, questions, thoughts? You can find me on Twitter or via e-mail.

Suitability II

Even though the D800 does a very good job with creating exactly the monochrome tones that I want, there's just something more satisfying about doing it properly. I know that only the results matter for the people who see the image, but the process itself is something that I enjoy and find value in. Black and white film – even the chromogenic stuff – has a certain integrity and dedication that the "oh, I wonder how this will look in monochrome with a Tri-X effects processing" fiddling about lacks.

But at the same time I have no patience for the "colour records how something looks, black and white photographs the soul" crowd. I have no desire to be a pretentious aesthete. Using film isn't a virtue, it's just a different way to do something.

One of the things that I've learned over the years is that something can be objectively better – a modern lens design, a newer-generation camera – without it being an improvement. Sometimes things just match up and create a synergy that leads to better creativity and, hopefully, art, even if the process isn't inherently visible in the results. This is why I own both the modern 50/1.4G and older 50/1.4D; matching the appropriate lens generation to my D800 and F5 creates cameras that I want to use, while crossing them leaves me feeling awkward and incorrect. The difference in the end result is negligible – or it would be, if I was ever willing to create something with such a mismatch, which I'm really not.

Process matters.


Comments, questions, thoughts? You can find me on Twitter or via e-mail.

Technical Paths

In a recent Lenswork blog entry, Brooks Jensen writes: "I find more and more that artmaking has become an attempt to answer the simple question: In order to achieve my desired result, which technical path is best?"

I have to say that my efforts can certainly be described that way.

My typical approach is to decide what sort of results I want and then work backwards – forwards? – to determine the best tools to create them. Focal length, digital or film, shift lens or standard, large sensor or small, tripod or not: it's a problem-solving exercise designed to achieve the results that I've already thought of. I'm quite happy with my success rate with this approach, but it limits my scope for experimentation and play.

My newest portfolio project breaks that pattern while conforming to it. I'm back to using time and motion to capture images of things that don't really exist, guiding a process that depends on a certain unpredictability. The creative process is playful and unpredictable, but the results are processed, curated, and collected to form a distinct body of work. I choose and guide the results to look the way I want them to, even though the idea started with spontaneous play.

I'm incredibly lucky to have a lot of creatively exciting things going on right now, to the point where I'm gathering media and material far more quickly than I absorb it. That's not a bad problem to have, even though it plays havoc on my blogging time.


Comments, questions, thoughts? You can find me on Twitter or via e-mail.