Beating an aesthetic out of silicon
I have a notion....
Pondering the working method for exposure of a now almost defunct film Kodak Kodachrome 64, I notice that there is a strong correlation that occurred with popular use of Nikon cameras and their centerweighted meters and the working exposure technique of the Kodak film. There is also another point to bring out in the regard of how lighting affected the aesthetic and the look overall of this approach and the meanings or relations that we are thinking and working with today using digital gear.
Firstly, note that the Kodachrome 64 was not highlight friendly. You HAD to expose the scene for the highlights and then let the shadows fall however they happen to be, this was a rigid working technique not unlike something that digital demands. The greater latitude in ISO sensitivity still offers no more dynamic range capability than before the D3, but the working method and capability of the machine is different. I am speaking about available light imaging and not allowing for the popular strobist style lighting that is all the rage today. So the available light exposure maintained control of the highlights and dropped other areas of the image into deeper shadow than how the scene appeared to the eye. This created a dramatic scene on film and in print that supported the nature of the imaging and publishing project. The magazines that supported all of this were Look, Time, Nat. Geographic, Life, etc. This print media effort supported and created a genre of "look" and style that is still with us today, if only in our mind's expectations. The newer styles of imaging shun so many of these norms and tenants simply because of how the machines are working today. So the machine and the medium, print - camera tool and film, defined an aesthetic that is still affecting our judgment today as to what is a good image.
The changes we have today are revolutionary and important. The idea to harken back to the old style has some merit and a niche potential that should find a good following, but it is the evaluation of the results as an aesthetic that is important. Just what is the defined look of today’s imaging? What is the best of the imaging today that defines our times? To say that there is something digital about this image is possible, but every image today is digital, no matter the starting point, and it is wholly affected by the working methods in print and on the Web and that intern decrees how the image will render to the viewer. This is important you cannot fight against this trend and must note the details to carve out a niche and style approach for yourself in this matter. Snapshots are one thing and fine with just about any imaging tool, but imaging that will stay, become an iconic representation and resonate as a point of reference for our times is still in a state of development and flux.
Some say that multimedia, and soundslides will powerfully change the aesthetic and the method of interacting with imaging as we are all without time enough to study a printed or published image or photo reportage as we used to enjoy. I disagree on many levels with this point and must relay my thoughts carefully on another occasion. The focus now is to note that the imaging tools are shaping the way we interpret and see into an image the currents of thought and feeling that landmark our times as something apart from other times. I mean, just what does speak to our hearts about this generation current? The controversial image of Obama comes to mind and it is dully noted that this snapshot was a ripped off, cropped, Pshopped to death and heavily promoted - very contrived.
So is it important to call attention and step back to the basics again? Should there be a resistance to avoid technology and the influence that the new camera's capabilities inspire and instead emphasize the photographer's vision and effort? These are complicated details and are largely debatable and subjective, but there is some concern that the influence of the camera is to be checked and the return, whether nostalgic or disciplined, to the old style is an important exercise toward a working aesthetic goal. The old style is one that was formed by the convention and constraints of the tools and the aesthetic that was derived from these working methods; print media dominated photojournalism and the best outlet for these efforts was the static page where the art director carefully crafted and shaped a story. This working method is practically over and without any common threads to the working styles and applications that we see available today. The Web is one outlet, print media is still hanging on some, popular magazines still support big name photogs and have reasonably big budgets for glorious photo projects, e.g. Vanity Fair and A. Leibovitz, but the small time folk like myself has a strong effort ahead to try and make a mark in all of this.
Wedding work is one area free from some constraints and rules. JB's experience demonstrates that hard work and personal vision makes good. Managing and balancing it all is a different matter. The tools we have available today are another open ended source of inspiration and potential. The issue with the tools is that they don't always push back very hard. If you happen to blow the exposure at the top end the LCD will blink at you and then you fire away some more until you correct the blinking. You haven't corrected the image so much as responded to the blinking of the highlights, just like you can hardly ignore a ringing cell phone or flashing text message alert. Does more texting mean you communicate more seriously or deeply? You can fix it in Pshop, you can tweak the WB later and you can copy and paste a more pleasing look to an originally lazy eye picture. These methods are here to stay and are powerful and significant. They must be channeled and controlled into something of a goal, a style and be made to support an aesthetic of some sort. I am complaining that all too often I am relaxing the approach that I take into a project that leads and winds according to the settings of the camera and the tools and I fail to appreciate carefully and with sensitivity the nature of the lighting, gesture, mood, composition, timing and more. So back to basics, sure, basics that matter and the basics that lead to strong images regardless of the camera tools during and workflows used after capture.
References:
JB - http://www.juliabailey.com/
Leibovitz – we all know who she is…
Note here on an example that does some illustration.
Understand too that the darkroom was a wholly different matter than anything in the field could suggest. A printer used burning and dodging the way a kid plays with Pshop today. Many images we regard as "iconic" got to that point through heavy manipulation in the darkroom.
See link here:
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_minamata.html
This is likely the single most powerful image from anything photojournalism has ever produced. I think many Capa images of WWII are right there too, but this image speaks of all the effort that comes through application and execution, field capture and darkroom effort. The aesthetic achieved here is unmatched by everyone. No one is likely to risk all the ills that come through such effort that E. Smith applied to get to this level. No need to repeat all the ills here, just trying to make a point.
And still too anyone can argue that there is a simple rip off of the Pieta going one here, but is not the Pieta from older long standing traditions and aesthetics?
FC
Pondering the working method for exposure of a now almost defunct film Kodak Kodachrome 64, I notice that there is a strong correlation that occurred with popular use of Nikon cameras and their centerweighted meters and the working exposure technique of the Kodak film. There is also another point to bring out in the regard of how lighting affected the aesthetic and the look overall of this approach and the meanings or relations that we are thinking and working with today using digital gear.
Firstly, note that the Kodachrome 64 was not highlight friendly. You HAD to expose the scene for the highlights and then let the shadows fall however they happen to be, this was a rigid working technique not unlike something that digital demands. The greater latitude in ISO sensitivity still offers no more dynamic range capability than before the D3, but the working method and capability of the machine is different. I am speaking about available light imaging and not allowing for the popular strobist style lighting that is all the rage today. So the available light exposure maintained control of the highlights and dropped other areas of the image into deeper shadow than how the scene appeared to the eye. This created a dramatic scene on film and in print that supported the nature of the imaging and publishing project. The magazines that supported all of this were Look, Time, Nat. Geographic, Life, etc. This print media effort supported and created a genre of "look" and style that is still with us today, if only in our mind's expectations. The newer styles of imaging shun so many of these norms and tenants simply because of how the machines are working today. So the machine and the medium, print - camera tool and film, defined an aesthetic that is still affecting our judgment today as to what is a good image.
The changes we have today are revolutionary and important. The idea to harken back to the old style has some merit and a niche potential that should find a good following, but it is the evaluation of the results as an aesthetic that is important. Just what is the defined look of today’s imaging? What is the best of the imaging today that defines our times? To say that there is something digital about this image is possible, but every image today is digital, no matter the starting point, and it is wholly affected by the working methods in print and on the Web and that intern decrees how the image will render to the viewer. This is important you cannot fight against this trend and must note the details to carve out a niche and style approach for yourself in this matter. Snapshots are one thing and fine with just about any imaging tool, but imaging that will stay, become an iconic representation and resonate as a point of reference for our times is still in a state of development and flux.
Some say that multimedia, and soundslides will powerfully change the aesthetic and the method of interacting with imaging as we are all without time enough to study a printed or published image or photo reportage as we used to enjoy. I disagree on many levels with this point and must relay my thoughts carefully on another occasion. The focus now is to note that the imaging tools are shaping the way we interpret and see into an image the currents of thought and feeling that landmark our times as something apart from other times. I mean, just what does speak to our hearts about this generation current? The controversial image of Obama comes to mind and it is dully noted that this snapshot was a ripped off, cropped, Pshopped to death and heavily promoted - very contrived.
So is it important to call attention and step back to the basics again? Should there be a resistance to avoid technology and the influence that the new camera's capabilities inspire and instead emphasize the photographer's vision and effort? These are complicated details and are largely debatable and subjective, but there is some concern that the influence of the camera is to be checked and the return, whether nostalgic or disciplined, to the old style is an important exercise toward a working aesthetic goal. The old style is one that was formed by the convention and constraints of the tools and the aesthetic that was derived from these working methods; print media dominated photojournalism and the best outlet for these efforts was the static page where the art director carefully crafted and shaped a story. This working method is practically over and without any common threads to the working styles and applications that we see available today. The Web is one outlet, print media is still hanging on some, popular magazines still support big name photogs and have reasonably big budgets for glorious photo projects, e.g. Vanity Fair and A. Leibovitz, but the small time folk like myself has a strong effort ahead to try and make a mark in all of this.
Wedding work is one area free from some constraints and rules. JB's experience demonstrates that hard work and personal vision makes good. Managing and balancing it all is a different matter. The tools we have available today are another open ended source of inspiration and potential. The issue with the tools is that they don't always push back very hard. If you happen to blow the exposure at the top end the LCD will blink at you and then you fire away some more until you correct the blinking. You haven't corrected the image so much as responded to the blinking of the highlights, just like you can hardly ignore a ringing cell phone or flashing text message alert. Does more texting mean you communicate more seriously or deeply? You can fix it in Pshop, you can tweak the WB later and you can copy and paste a more pleasing look to an originally lazy eye picture. These methods are here to stay and are powerful and significant. They must be channeled and controlled into something of a goal, a style and be made to support an aesthetic of some sort. I am complaining that all too often I am relaxing the approach that I take into a project that leads and winds according to the settings of the camera and the tools and I fail to appreciate carefully and with sensitivity the nature of the lighting, gesture, mood, composition, timing and more. So back to basics, sure, basics that matter and the basics that lead to strong images regardless of the camera tools during and workflows used after capture.
References:
JB - http://www.juliabailey.com/
Leibovitz – we all know who she is…
Note here on an example that does some illustration.
Understand too that the darkroom was a wholly different matter than anything in the field could suggest. A printer used burning and dodging the way a kid plays with Pshop today. Many images we regard as "iconic" got to that point through heavy manipulation in the darkroom.
See link here:
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_minamata.html
This is likely the single most powerful image from anything photojournalism has ever produced. I think many Capa images of WWII are right there too, but this image speaks of all the effort that comes through application and execution, field capture and darkroom effort. The aesthetic achieved here is unmatched by everyone. No one is likely to risk all the ills that come through such effort that E. Smith applied to get to this level. No need to repeat all the ills here, just trying to make a point.
And still too anyone can argue that there is a simple rip off of the Pieta going one here, but is not the Pieta from older long standing traditions and aesthetics?
FC
Comments