Philosophies

Wow such venom.

Most good photographers don't want to do the volume needed to pay mall rent. Therefore the mall photographers are usually high volume flog em in and flog em out types without the time or often the desire to do much more than the work that you described.

Let me know if there is anything else that you take issue with.

Michael McBlane

now now boys and girls. it's time for a time out in your corners.

Michael McBlane said:

Most good photographers don't want to do the volume needed to pay mall rent. Therefore the mall photographers are usually high volume flog em in and flog em out types without the time or often the desire to do much more than the work that you described.

Click to expand...

Not to worry, guys -- virtually all of those shooters (or shoot factories) replaced their Mamiya press cameras with EOS D30s years ago, and are thankfully off the APUG radar. Feel free to move on.



(Gratuitous kid picture)

jdef said:

To be honest, the differences between most of the so-called upscale pros' work and that of the mall franchises is mostly superficial, having more to do with the locations and backdrops than the emotional connection with the sitters. Even the lighting is fairly standardized. Volume and quality aren't strictly related.

Click to expand...

I think in your case at least you are in a small market area and the better pros are probably residing in the bigger markets. I think it would be dangerous to try and make such broad generalities so I can see where some may take offence. At least for your last statement, the one I quoted all you needed to do was put in "in my area" after "strictly related" as you don't seem to be relating your experiences to markets other than your own.

There are several pros on this site who take their work very seriously and I would suspect do better work than the pros you are referring to. I can see where being lumped into the same category as these practitioners of lesser ability would upset them a tad.

JDEF.

Since this is heading off in a different direction than the original poster intended this will be my last comment on your subject.

I am not qualified to comment on the state of traditional portrait studios since I quit being one in 1986. I agree, one of the reasons I sold it was, as I've said before, everyone's work in every city in the western world was looking the same. The budget people copied the work of the top people and the top people copied each other.

A lot of people now are doing a "lifestyle" type of "portrait" and it is quite popular but I'd bet nowhere near the dollar volume of the "traditionalists".

If, in your area, you see what you feel is crap, perhaps this is the perfect time for you to go into business and corner the market. And I'm not being snide about it.


Michael McBlane

jdef said:

...are you suggesting that the "better" pros choose to leave their homes and families for the big cities?

Click to expand...

Why would you think a photographer is different in this regard from an architect or a cardiologist? Yes, they will go to where they can do the most meaningful work to them, and where opportunities are best. That is a perfectly acceptable generalization. Weston liked Carmel, but Irving Penn & Avedon didn't.

jdef also said:

I don't believe that being a pro or an amateur, living in a big city or a small town, Running a studio out of a mall or a swank downtown studio, doing high volume or low volume, have anything to do with the emotional connection between a photographer and his/her subject.

Click to expand...

This is a rather tall claim, and one that I doubt very much. Any evidence?

I just returned from my darkroom. Apparently Tetenal Mono PK RA-4 chemicals that were mixed on 16 December, 2003; and stored with air in the partially filled bottles displaced with butane (BernzOmatic) are still OK. Hah!!!


One problem in discussing "Philosophies" is that many of us are PASSIONATE about our work, and many of us have learned our lessons WELL - at times integrating them into our philosophies a little TOO intensely.

It can demand a great deal of discipline and talent to be able to express that passion - to try to convey a sense of the level of it that we understand in ourselves.
We hold clear, reasonable beliefs, which are all but too obvious to ourselves. We must recognize that "The Other Photographer" holds what to them is equally "clear and reasonable", but has a different point of view.

It comes as no surprise that our opinions are not uniformly the same ... simply put, each one of us is different and unique .. that in itself is cause enough for riotously joyful celebration.

Okay, I lied, I'm back.

JDEF.

Your comments as I've said are kind of the way I felt when I sold my downtown studio. The work was all looking the same, but I was still busy and in demand. So even though you wouldn't be interested, others were.

Another comment is we are talking lots of apples and oranges here. People who have "traditional portrait studios" are selling to the people who come in for the work. There is a limiting factor built in. They can't spend a week with the person and become buddies. The better ones will try to "get into the clients heads' so to speak and try for unique work. But the bottom line is the subject has to like his image, and it has to be flattering. Also the subjects are often "ordinary people" who don't want some super creative or avante garde image of themselves.

As for Karsh, and Life Magazine type "portrait photographers" they were not selling to the person photographed. They didn't really necessarily care if the person like their portrait or not. They were selling to whoever paid them to get the picture. A lot more latitude.

We often on this site and others, see pictures that people rave about. A "traditional portrait photographer" has to be concerned that the subject likes the picture. A person doing "lifestyle work" or "commerial work" or work for galleries etc that is not necessarily so.

A person who photographs children is not selling to the children so if the children like it or not it does not matter. It's the parents, you must please and kids can look cute doing damn near anything. A person doing art studies, same thing. Generally not selling to that person.

A person photographing a woman say, if she is beautiful, pretty easy shoot. Get creative, do lots of cool stuff. What if she is not pretty, then certain rules of technique and lighting have to come in to flatter her. If she is over 40 and doesn't want to see many lines in her face, you can't photograph her like a 20 year old. There are many limiting factors.

People whose work you admire probably aren't shooting every day. When you photograph a lot of people day in and day out, you kind of burn out and start to nail your lights to the floor. Human nature.

Commercial people who do a shoot for say a certain product, start out with models (usually good looking ones), they plan the shoot with art directors and have all sorts of time to pre plan. Often you will see these pictures in magazines and say what a great portrait. But it is essentially a faked situation and the subject of the picture isn't buying it.

Anybody who goes from an "amateur" to being a "professional" will encounter this huge dilemma. Firstly, you have to attract business, secondly people often want what they see on your walls, and thirdly you have to eat. Therefore your work will attract by the quality of it, a certain clientele. People see a portrait on you walls and want one the same but with their family in it. You have to be good and consistantly good and do a certain voulme or you will starve. So your really cool portrait that you spent a week doing, may look pretty neat but if it isn't "commercial" you are in trouble.

Anyways, in my case I downsized and work on doing a sort of cross between traditional and more illustrative approach, and spend time with the subjects. It ain't easy.

I can't think of any other way to answer your question.

Michael McBlane

JDef, my point about Weston vs Penn/Avedon was a difficult one because of the scales involved. I started by typing Penn/ Avedon/ HCB/ Smith/ Leibovitz/ Pierre&Gilles/ Winogrand/ Levitt/ Meyerowitz/ Doisneau/ Chappelle/ Erwitt/ Strand/ Sturges/ Newman/.... but cut it back.

Significantly, Weston's portraiture was only a fragment of his work, though it was the part that usually paid the bills during the early days. And most of those commercial portraits are forgotten.

While it's possible to imagine and believe in the existence of small town high volume mall portraitists whose rapport and work is amazing, without any need for evidence or example, it's also easy to imagine and believe in, say, healing energy from crystals or atlantean flying saucers. They can't be dismissed a priori but, like the miracles in David Hume's book, they are so removed from everyday experience as to be effectively non-existent.


(More gratuitous kid shots)

bjorke,

Nice pic.


(More gratuitous kid shots)[/quote]

Steve

jdef said:

I would still like to know how you believe things like professional status, studio location, or volume of work affect a photographer's emotional connection to his subjects, and the ultimate quality of his work.

Click to expand...

Shifting sands... now you are comparing different things, and seem quite self-contradictory at this point by pointing small-town storefront operators at one another.

Photography is no different from other arts in the respect that as a cultural enterprise it requires the presence of clients, subjects, and other artists (and occasionally, teachers and critics) to prosper (financially and artistically). I could just as easily replace the list of photographers from an earlier post with Ballanchine, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Pollock, Glass, Rodin, Satchmo, Delacroix, Durer...


(Expected at this point kid pic)

One thing puzzling to me here is the idea that Edward Weston was a sort of "product" of a small-town "$3.95 and your pictures will be ready next Tuesday" studio. That had led me back to my copy of "Edward Weston - Forms of Passion" - if not a definitive, certainly a thorough study of Weston and the influences that affected his works. Weston opened his first studio - for "portraiture" in Tropico, California in 1911. Continuing:

"While trying to support himself and his family through his commercial efforts, he also began to navigate the international world of art photography and the growing local community of artists.
In his pictorialist work, Weston made the most of a few, simple ingredients, letting light, shadow, texture and the poses of figures create an ambiance of mystery. (Note 1 - ES) He often employed a few simple, but highly expressive props - a flower, an oriental fan, a mirror - as exotic references to help evoke the sense of narrative. Whether indoors or out, the figures in Weston's photographs are bathed in a bright, natural light that highlights hands, face and breasts. Light gleams across the surfaces of his studio's burlap-covered walls, the multi-paneled silver screen that he often uses as a backdrop, the polished wooden floors, the spartan furniture, and the mirrors; shadows create a double world, casting distorted echoes of the figures across the wall and revealing the existence of objects not seen within the frame of the pictures themselves."

Certainly, that does not follow the stereotype of the "Sit there. look into the camera, and smile" small-town studio.

Hmmm ...

"With Hagermeyeer and other artistic friends he attended concerts of contemporary music and performances of ballet and modern dance. He also photographed members of the dance troupe founded by Ruth St. Denis an Ted Shawn, as well as the composer Leo Ornstein. For Weston, these arts, along with European literature, spoke of new artistic possibilities, new social and sexual freedoms. THey were bold and modern, and spoke to the daring side of Weston, who felt trapped in staid, puritanic Southern California" (Note 2 - ES)

"Weston took one of the principle tenets of pictorialism - the search for the universal and the eternal - and turned it on its head, exploiting photography's quickness to seek out the momentary, the rare. Underlying this was Weston's insistence, even through his pictorialist period, that photography be an extension of vision, not of thought. "The greatest photographers must be `intuitives'. How fatal it is in photography to be uncertain ...".

I am fascinated by this book, and the insights into the life and "spirit" of One of the Most Significant photographers of all time.

Note 1 ... "Mystery" ... a vitally important ingredient, IMHO.

Note 2. ZOUNDS!!! Southern California - characterized as ... whut?? "Puritanical"?

JDEf wrote

Michael all of the things you wrote about professional portrait photography conspire against the kind of emotional connection I referred to, and explain (to me at least) the disparity between pro/commercial work and amateure/personal work.

Click to expand...

JDEF since you are grouping all pros now against amateur work and saying there is no emotional connection and since "traditional portrait work" is not in the national spotlight where examples are possible, I'll give a few examples and tell me if there is an emotional connection here.

Dorothea Lange -- Migrant Mother

Avedon -- West Series

Karsh--- Winston Churchill

W. Eugene Smith --- Tomoko in Her Bath

While I'm guessing that you are referring to an emotional connection between a mother/father and child or lover to lover, in your hypothesis I can't believe that the above list of pros work doesn't represent any emotional connections.


Michael McBlane

This site and Forum are a corrupting influence - instead of doing the "mole impression" in my darkroom, I've been sidetracked into burying my nose into "Edward Weston - Forms of Passion".

This time I searched for references about his early "training" and the factors that served as "building blocks" of his genius.
I've been trying to find any information of those who served to be "tough critics" - who taught him "The difference between a "good" photograph and a "bad" one. So far I've come up empty. Apparently there were none who filled those roles.

The only information I've been able to glean:

"Having taken up photography passionately during his teens after the gift of a camera from his father, Weston briefly studied photography at a technical school in Illinois 1907-08."

Anyone know any more about his education?

There is so much more...

"Throughout his early work, Weston constantly approached composition unconventionally, often building his images asymmetrically and letting empty spaces dominate the picture frame. Critics suggested that he was influenced by Japanese prints and the work of painters from the preceding generation, notably Whistler. To this Weston replied: "Now I do not protest against any intimated influence, but I do say that mostly the artist takes the customs and types of the day - ugly or fine - and re-creates them to his fancy".

"... About 1920, he went even further in a series of photographs made in friends' attics, transforming oddly-angled alcoves and ceilings into massive planes and angles that overwhelm the meditative figures of his friends as they sit or stand in corners. In these pictures, Weston seems on the verge of photographing the architecture for it own sake and creating purely abstract images. But he was not at the point where he could eliminate the human element entirely, even though the people in these images can do nothing more than try to blend in with or try to hide from the Cubist- inspired geometry. Predictably, the critics did not respond well to these pictures: one called the image Betty in her Attic, 1920, "pure cussedness" and, "queerness for its own sake."

Jdef, I just don't see how you can make a general statement about "big city" photographers and then use a comparison between two small-town storefront operations as evidence of the statement's veracity. That's what I mean by "shifting sands," and it seems to be what Michael's struggling with as well, via your switching of topics into an apparent assertion that pro's have (by definition?) inadequate empathy.

As for my list(s) of artists, all of them, photographers or not, thrived becasue of their work in cities. Some (like Weston) may have had retreats, but they were still involved in a surrounding art scene based in cities, whether it be the patrons of Leonardo's travels or the wealthy San Franciscans (and others) who kept Weston and Adams fed (though Adams was in SF himself).

I really can't think of an exception to this in art history.

One might make the point that an amazing artist may live in, say, Cogswell North Dakota, whose artwork is as good or better than any uppity New Yorker's -- it's just never been seen by anyone outside his or her neighborhood. To which I respond that they have failed. Part of the job of the artist, as Duchamp famously championed, is to get their work out there to be seen ("I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist").

Ed, it seems you know little about Weston except what you have learned from "Forms of Passion." Have you read his "Daybooks"? If not, get them, forthwith. There are many other worthy Weston books as well. If you are interested in what contributed to his influenced, read "A Passionate Collaboration"—Margarethe Mather and Edward Weston.

And Paula and I are published a big (240 pages) Edward Weston book this spring—"Life Work." There are essays in nnit that yiu would find useful as well.

And there are many, many other fine Edward Weston books. You photograph nudes. Do you know the book titled "Edward Weston Nudes." And really, the list goes on and on.

P.S. I know a lot more about his education--where he learne dhis techniques, etc. A lot of that will be in our forthcoming book--there is way too much for anyone to write about it in a forum like this.

Interesting! Always good when art history books are made by artists rather than a pomo-crit-stud MFA type. Will there be an APUG pre-order?

Thanks for asking.

There will be a pre-publication offer for the book at a discount. It will be on our web site and on the Lodima Press web site. I'll make an announcement here when the time comes--in a few months. This really will be a studendous EW book--with the best reproductions of his work ever--600-line screen quadton--and 6 color to match the subtle tones of the platinum prints. There are a series of seven essays by Sarah Lowe on each stage of EW's career and a long essay by Dody Weston Thompson--Edward's last assistant and once Brett's wife. It is a greatly revised and expanded version of the essay she originally wrote for the Malahat Review about 30 years ago.

We are also publishing a whole series of modestly priced (under $30) books on the portfolios of Brett Weston. As well as other fine books.

Michael A. Smith said:

P.S. I know a lot more about his education--where he learne dhis techniques, etc. A lot of that will be in our forthcoming book--there is way too much for anyone to write about it in a forum like this.

Click to expand...

I was hoping for a "thumbnail" synopsis of Weston's "formal" education/ training, especially before his ARMCO works of 1922.

I don't think - at least I HOPE - that my knowledge of Weston's "spirit" is a little broader than the impession I presented.

I do have more than one book on my shelves ... the relationship and dynamics that existed between Weston and Alfred Steiglitz is interesting:

"Stieglitz's Emersonian goal - for himself, for artists, and for all - was the spontaneous and forthright expression of one's deepest feelings. Such expression was the sine qua non of art - and of a life worth living. In 1922 (hmmm ... 1922 - about the time of the ARMCO photographs ... ES) he would counsel Edward Weston, "The struggle is to live and express life untouched by the ideas of neighbors and friends. (1
The trouble with most photographers", he wrote in 1911, "and for that matter, also with painters and other people, is that they are always trying to produce work that is out of themselves. In consequence, they produce nothing that means anything to those who have the gift or intuition for truth: all else is really not worth a tinker's damn."(2

(1 - The Daybooks of Edward Weston, vol 1 (Mexico), 5.

(2 - Alfred Steiglitz to Sadakichi Hartman, Dec. 22nd, 1911.

- All above quoted from "Alfred Steiglitz - A Biography, by Richard Whelen.

I don't know just where this should be - again. I think this has mostly to do with "philosophy" -- why we do what we do, the support we need to keep ourselves going, and our progression "up the ladder" (??? well - so to speak. That "ladder is awfully nebulous).

I read this as part of the opening blurb on Netscape ...

An Advantage for using "Digital":

"Instant feedback of digital means you get better faster. Most digital cameras have LCD screens that allow you to check your photos as you go. Particularly for beginning photographers, being able to quickly learn from your mistakes is a huge advantage."

I wonder ... DOES anyone here think that using digital cameras really will make the beginning photographer get "better" faster?

My four year old understands digital photography in a way that he would not with traditional processes. He snaps the picture and looks at the screen, his picture is there. I think the impact would be lost after processing.
I am sure this would change though as he gets older.

What is meant is usually the crudest form of "better" -- i.e., did the flash go off? One can check for closed eyes, or blown-out skies, but that doesn't make a photographer significantly "Better" -- only better-informed and better-equipped vis-a-vis a particular range of technical-execution issues. But since 99+ % of all photography is "unary" -- that is, "here is Alice on Waikiki Beach," "this was a sunset that I thought was cool," "this is my dog Winkles,"etc -- that IS an advantage.

In addition, many people find quick response == more fun. And with fun comes a bit more incentive. But the process of "improving".... hard to say. One does waste less time spotting, just as word processors allowed authors to spend less time re-typing things. Whether that extra time is spent improving one's work or just as an excuse to drink more (or both) is up to the temperament of the individual, not the equipment.

Ed Sukach said:

I don't know just where this should be - again. I think this has mostly to do with "philosophy" -- why we do what we do, the support we need to keep ourselves going, and our progression "up the ladder" (??? well - so to speak. That "ladder is awfully nebulous).

I read this as part of the opening blurb on Netscape ...

An Advantage for using "Digital":

"Instant feedback of digital means you get better faster. Most digital cameras have LCD screens that allow you to check your photos as you go. Particularly for beginning photographers, being able to quickly learn from your mistakes is a huge advantage."

I wonder ... DOES anyone here think that using digital cameras really will make the beginning photographer get "better" faster?

Click to expand...

Yep!!! Sure do. Feedback is a necessary ingredient of self critique and hence progression. Decreasing the interval at which the feedback occurs would tend to increase progression. Do I use digital camera's? H*** No but I shot a lot of Polaroid at one time.

I prefer to believe in the saying "Patience is a Virtue".