Per Volquartz Eastern Sierra Workshop Report

[jimgalli]

I banged together Dead Link Removed and some text about Per's October Eastern Sierra Workshop that happened Oct. 23 - 27. About a 5 minute read with photos. You know the drill. Tell me what you liked or didn't. I may go back in and edit some of the similar shots of Lee Vining creek. A study of different styles from different lenses / formats but perhaps too similar to each other.

To me, the "Chest Through Window, Bodie" and "Shadow on Granite" seem perhaps to be the 2 strongest.

Dead Link Removed

 

[roteague]

Thanks for the followup Jim. I really enjoyed the images (even if they weren't in color ).

 

[Gustavo_Castilla]

That is one spooky ghost!

 

[photomc]

Nice work Jim, and Thanks for the update...really like the "white" trees.

 

[MattCarey]

Jim,

I like the 135 EWA Wolly. I like seeing the trees in the background and the Cooke seemed to give a bit of flare or glare in the image there.

Definitely one of the nicest places in the world.

Matt

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Great shot of Wilber!

 

[JBrunner]

Outstanding Jim.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

Hey Jim!!

What is very interesting for me is the shot of the desk, which is outlined by the reflection of the buildings and their 'roofline', what is the most interesting part for me about the shot is the old, dusty bottle, sitting on the desk, with its neck broken off, I wonder who last drank from it, and how long it's been sitting there.

Of all your shoots, and the cameras/lenses you've used, and the effects you've gotten, in the direction your photography has taken you, what about it has made the biggest impression on you, has it been one thing, or a number of things?

What is the most satisfying thing about shooting the subject matter you've shot, and the way you shot it?

Ciao
Jonathan

 

[jimgalli]

Hey Jim!!

What is very interesting for me is the shot of the desk, which is outlined by the reflection of the buildings and their 'roofline', what is the most interesting part for me about the shot is the old, dusty bottle, sitting on the desk, with its neck broken off, I wonder who last drank from it, and how long it's been sitting there.

Of all your shoots, and the cameras/lenses you've used, and the effects you've gotten, in the direction your photography has taken you, what about it has made the biggest impression on you, has it been one thing, or a number of things?

What is the most satisfying thing about shooting the subject matter you've shot, and the way you shot it?

Ciao
Jonathan

Yipes! Good questions and no short answers. Of everything I shot on that trip, I wanted to see a good shot of Wilbur. I did 2 and then questioned my sanity. Did I just double expose the first sheet?? Am I that stupid? Well, yes. I then did a 3rd just in case. That's the one I presented. It could be better, but it gets the job done. The rest of the stuff, well, it's tired, isn't it. There's just so much excellent, superb really, scenic stuff that I get half hearted about making more. Mine wouldn't be better and likely not even as good as the rest that's getting made by the bajillions every day. That's why I walked around Bodie with a Pinkham lens. Maybe, just maybe. The shot you picked is the best of the others. It has real potential. I'm drawn to the 3 things done on Wednesday with the antique Conley lens also. That day I was by myself and I didn't do anything until finally in the afternoon I began to see a bit.

Someone could write a thesis on your first question. The short answer is that some photographs have the power to mesmerize us. And it doesn't have very much or perhaps anything to do with line pairs per mm. I'm just messing around with a whole lot of stuff trying to find out where that power is at. Sometimes I get close, mostly I waste film. Lucky for me the payment is in the journey.

 

[lee]

not to be a picker of nits but the image sand tufa #2 is listed as being shot with a 225 G Claron. What is a 225mm G Claron?

lee\c

 

[jimgalli]

not to be a picker of nits but the image sand tufa #2 is listed as being shot with a 225 G Claron. What is a 225mm G Claron?

lee\c

Good catch. Years back I bought a mis-matched Dagor type G-Claron from a bloke in the UK. Front is from a 240 and back is from a 210. Turns out it's sharper and contrastier than any of my other G-Claron's and it covers 810 with gobs of movements. It's worthless, so I keep it.

 

[Campbell]

"The rest of the stuff, well, it's tired, isn't it. "

Some of the subjects have been done a lot but you brought something of yourself to them. And I thought "Chest Through Window" was a very strong photograph, not the least bit "tired," in fact just the opposite. If I came back from a four or five day trip and had one image as good as that I'd consider it a successful trip. John Sexton said that Ansel Adams estimated that he had made 40,000 photographs in his lifetime, of which about 1,000 had been shown in one form or another (exhibits, books, magazines), so 39,000 presumably were basically trashed. Admittedly, his standards for "keepers" was no doubt higher than ours but still, if Ansel Adams only had a 1-40 ratio why should we complain when we do that well (by our own standards) or better?

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

Jim.............I don't think you give yourself enough credit, for what you've accomplished in the time frame you've accomplished it in. There's always quite a bit of discussion of the technical on these forums, that must be, because photography is very technical, but what I like about what you're doing with your photography is your risk taking, and not being afraid to fall on your ass, 'cuz U get right back up and continue trying.

Relating to what the other poster said, 1 out of every 10, or 20, as a potential keeper is dynamite, particularly since for some folks, their average is 'never'.

What I like about your Tonopah sagas is the panache/legerdemain aspect of it, throwing some lens cells in a sack, shaking vigorously, and then closing your eyes to pick out any 2 cells to use together and coming up with something interesting, the other standout facet of your work is your intuition in the use of selective focus/giving your stuff a tremendous sense of depth, which in the wrong hands can look garish, your stuff doesn't.

I asked you what I asked you because after seeing quite a bit of your stuff, I wanted to know what you were thinking, and what you said to me is par for the course, proud of the good ones, and want to bury the other ones w/a shovel, but I must say I don't think the other ones are all that tired.

I gotta tell you that the imagery of the desk surrounded by the reflection of the houses and the roofline is dynamite, it doesn't make any difference how you came about it, the image is here.

I'm glad I asked you the questions, because this is quite profound actually,.............'The short answer is that some photographs have the power to mesmerize us. And it doesn't have very much or perhaps anything to do with line pairs per mm. I'm just messing around with a whole lot of stuff trying to find out where that power is at.'

You said it all.

 

[BradS]

Jim,

I am perplex by the sky in "Glorious Tree, Conway Ranch". How'd you get it so dark with so much light on the tree?

For me though, "Sand Tufa #2" has the greatest artistic appeal. Sure, it's been done before...maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. The scene is beautiful - or at least your execution is. Given a choice of all of the photos presented, I'd pick "Sand Tufa #2" to display (but, then, I've never met Wilbur).

Oh, and..."White Mahogany Trunk #2 "...was it your intention to be so....sexually explicit?

As always, nice work. Thanks for sharing.

 

[jimgalli]

Jim,

I am perplex by the sky in "Glorious Tree, Conway Ranch". How'd you get it so dark with so much light on the tree?

For me though, "Sand Tufa #2" has the greatest artistic appeal. Sure, it's been done before...maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. The scene is beautiful - or at least your execution is. Given a choice of all of the photos presented, I'd pick "Sand Tufa #2" to display (but, then, I've never met Wilbur).

Oh, and..."White Mahogany Trunk #2 "...was it your intention to be so....sexually explicit?

As always, nice work. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks all for the embarrasingly nice comments. I used a 25 red on the Glorious tree. Every movement on the poor old 2D was maxed on that photo and finally I did have to tilt up ever so slightly to get the top of the tree in.

As to WMT #2, now what would Edward Weston have said, "It's just a damn tree trunk" or something to that effect......

 

[Robert Hall]

Jim,

Love the shadow of the branch on the rock. Fantastic work!

R

 

[John Kasaian]

Beautiful photos, Jim. The ones from Bodie and Lee Vining Canyon are my favorites. I've seen lots of shots from Bodie but never any as etherial as yours.