Atkins, Virginia, 2003Over the weekend Mike Johnston posted one of my pictures at his blog, The Online Photographer. A couple people asked about the shot because they couldn't find it anywhere on my web site. So, a little background.
The picture was made in 2003 and originally printed in Pt/Pd, shortly after it was made. Then in 2006 when we acquired a high-end digital printer I selected it as one of ten shots to make a demonstration portfolio of digital prints from negatives originally intended for platinum. The portfolio also had a theme of something like "orphan pictures." I generally work in series or projects. But even when traveling to shoot, say, drive-in theaters, I don't pass up any interesting subject. So I decided to group a set of pictures that weren't part of any series into this little folio. For some reason, I never got around to making a web version, so I corrected that this morning. Anyone interested can link to it here.
6 comments:
Although you call these orphan pictures, the lack of sidewalks and the kudzu-taking-the-shape-of-houses give them all the look of the 30's South that we learned from Walker Evans and William Christenberry. What's the purpose of the stanchion next to the white building that was on TOP? The light seems to have been an afterthought, so was there originally a store sign hanging from it?
scott
Scott, a sign would be my guess. Probably an office rather than a store. Real estate? The local heating oil distributor? The two Atkins shots were made together, I hardly moved the camera position except to turn about 90 degrees. While very different shapes, the two buildings were the same simple white-painted brick construction and identical window treatment. Probably part of the same business when built. There was nobody around to ask about it.
Scott, I got out the laptop and checked my notes. What you see in the background of the first Atkins shot is "Jerry's Homes," a trailer park. The road is US Rt. 11. A quarter mile farther south I saw a new Jerry's Homes facility on the other side of the road. My sense is that this was probably not the first business to own and use those buildings.
Hi Carl. I'm intrigued by the look of these photos, and many of the other photos in the galleries on your main website. I don't know enough to be able to describe the look technically, though "high-key" often comes to mind. How much of the look is a product of camera and film materials? Are you trying to mimic the look of a particular sort of print, perhaps?
Incidentally, I think I see hints of the same sensibilities in your colour work: there's a kind of modesty to the colour pictures (often reflected in restrained palette and contrast) which I also see in the black and whites. (Apologies for the sweeping generalities, especially if you disagree!) If you ever feel like writing something about your aesthetic, about why your photographs look the way they do, I'm sure lots of people would interested to read it.
James, I wouldn't say that I'm mimicking another medium with the on-screen presentations, but they are "informed by" forty-five years of work with film, print reproductions of professional assignments, and hold-in-your-hand prints. So with the "Ten 8x10s" I want the screen JPEG files to hint at what a platinum/palladium print from these pictures looks like, or probably a lot closer, what my digital print from a scan of the 8x10-inch negatives looks like. That digital print of course is informed by what I had in mind for the Pt/Pd print I was imagining at the time of shooting...
The color, since digital capture is not yet a mature technology and like everyone else I'm exploring it for what I can get, is partly a search for the things I liked about media as diverse as Kodachrome and Reala, plus whatever new twists can be found.
In both b&w and color, I tend to want to see *everything* that was in front of the camera, so I avoid large areas of undetailed shadows. I understand that exaggerated contrast and lots of black can add excitement to a picture, but it just doesn't seem to work for mine. If I need to bury parts of the subject in shadow, maybe I didn't properly come to terms with turning the subject into a picture.
I've kept this blog light on text, but in fact I've written extensively for the former PhotoTechniques Magazine (currently undergoing a full remake) and at The Online Photographer blog. The articles tend to be on a specific technical aspect of photography, but there's actually a lot of "why my photographs look the way they do" in there between the lines. Like, if I'm concerned with retaining full descriptive information in harsh sunlight, it indicates I want that full information to be conveyed by the presentation. If a user report on a digital camera pays careful attention to its ability to retain highlight detail, that detail must be something I think I need for my pictures to work. Etc. Thanks for the question.
Thanks for the reply Carl. Your posts on the Online Photographer are terrific reading. Your "Do Not Fear the Sun" post, and that write-up of the paper towel test from a while back (from a Pentax K20 review?) particularly spring to mind. (Some very nice pictures in that "Do Not Fear the Sun" post, btw.)
I'm a big fan of the colour work you post on Working Pictures. It's great to watch someone exploring the nooks and crannies of digital subtlety!
Post a Comment