Short Takes from Around the World

Close attention
One of the most discouraging aspects of modern computer photography and its newfangled distribution models, to me, is the extent to which new audiences for photography insist that fakery and visual cant are unavoidable, that "it's always been done" and therefore it's not worth bemoaning or even considering. It's tantamount to insisting that photographs are essentially decorative and trivial and can't be expected to contain truth, and thus that it isn't worthwhile to try to decode them.

It seems to me that the online investigations of Errol Morris into specific pictures—most famously the Roger Fenton picture of the Crimean road littered with cannonballs, and more recently two photographs from Abu Graib in Iraq—serve as much-needed antidotes to this tendency. The Fenton discussion ran to more than a quarter of a million words, longer than the average novel these days. It's inconceivable that a print newspaper would have indulged such length. On the web, it's simply optional.

At any rate, Morris's latest can be found here. As usual, it's long; as usual, it's fascinating. Rainy day reading, possibly, but to me it seems very important to observe a thoughtful analyst putting this much close attention to decoding a photograph; it implies an intellectual stance, a mode of approach to photographs —and a much-needed one, in my opinion.

The world's fastest lens

Marco Cavino's extensive and interesting lens website has a great page about the famous Zeiss 50mm ƒ/0.7 (block diagram, above), one of the fastest lenses known outside of the defense community. Written in Italian, so it's slow going for me, but then maybe you read Italian.

This is a scene from Stanley Kubrick's classic film "Barry Lyndon," shot by candlelight alone with the Zeiss 50/0.7. After seeing so many movie representations of candlelight, it's interesting to see what life by candlelight really looked like.

The visually ravishing "Barry Lyndon" is still unique in my movie-going experience; I was totally engrossed the first time I saw it—I might even say "enraptured"—carried away, fascinated—and fairly bored the second time around. (Some of my friends had told me they were bored by it and I went to see it a second time to see if I could understand their point of view. I did.) I don't think I've ever had two more different experiences watching the same movie. Then again, I have somewhat the same reaction to reading Thackeray, too.

I really need to see that movie again.

 And that's not counting the pigeon-cam
And speaking of Italians, an Italian man was arrested in St. Mark's Square in Venice, one of the top tourist destinations in the world, when he was observed acting suspiciously with a shopping bag. Police found he had a camera in the bag. They also eventually discovered a collection of more than 3,000 photographs of what they politely termed "women's bottoms," taken by the perpetrator in the Square over a nearly two-year period. The article notes of the industrious voyeur that "...he is married with two young children and has a professional job in the nearby town of Padua," adding, with considerable understatement, "he might have some explaining to do when he finally gets home."

-

Hello, Goodbye
Those who like to follow camera introductions probably already know that the Olympus E-520, successor to the E-510, has been officially announced. The E-520 is slightly larger than the tiny E-420 but has in-the-body Image Stabilization. However, I also note that our friend Gordon Lewis, who reviewed the E-510 for this site not so very long ago, has said farewell to his.

So you think you want to be a sports photographer?
Not long ago I annoyed some of you by posting an article about horse racing, and was surprised that a number of people seemed to ignore the reason for the posting, which was, as usual, a picture—an action shot by Morry Gash of winner Big Brown and Eight Belles racing side-by-side with all eight hooves off the ground. Now comes a fascinating article by Jason Reed on the Reuters Photographers' blog about how the Reuters team set up to photograph the Preakness Stakes last weekend. If your vision of a sports event photographer is one guy crouching by the track peering through one camera, I think you'll find this a fascinating glimpse into the world of big-time sporting event photography.

And you should have seen the guy who got in the way of the shot-put
At a championship high school track meet in Utah, photographer Ryan McGeeney inadvertently wandered into an off-limits area that, unfortunately, turned out to be the landing area for the javelin throw—which, doubly unfortunately, was taking place at the time. He responded to warning shouts just in time to see an incoming javelin pierce his leg. McGeeney, a veteran of the Marines who served in Afganistan, knew instantly he wasn't seriously injured.

Javelin tosser Anthony Miles of Provo High, who later said he "felt terrible" about the accident, was awarded twenty extra points for the hit. (No, just a joke. He did win the championship, though.) For his part, the stalwart McGeeney documented his own wound because, he said, he knew his editors would question him about it if he didn't.

McGeeney was back on his feet within a few hours and is expected to make a full recovery.

What's old is new
Our friend Pete Myers has an article in the current (May/June 2008) issue of Camera Arts magazine called "The New T-Max 400: Teaching an Old Dog a New Trick." Pete says, "There are a lot of 'goodies' in the article, including 50X magnifications of grain from the old TMAX 400 film and the new TMAX-2 400 film. There is an exclusive interview about the film with the head of World Wide Film at Kodak. And I also managed to get Kodak to make me an exclusive scanning electron microscopy image of the film surface—and seeing is truly believing in the technology of this film," which he concludes is "exceptional."

Ilford's Rescue of a Polaroid Film Fails
And speaking of films, Ilford (Harman) and Polaroid had been in discussions about Ilford Photo taking on production of Polaroid's black and white professional instant sheet film. Despite their best efforts, the prospective partners reported in April that they could not find a commercially viable way forward.

Harman Chairman Phil Harris said, "The processes involved in the manufacture and assembly of professional instant sheet film products are very demanding, and it would require substantial investment to re-establish them at Harman technology's site in Cheshire, England. When compared with current and projected sales for the products, it was clear that such an investment could not be justified. While we had hoped to work together on continuing the production of instant sheet film, it is cost prohibitive to meet the declining demand. As a company, we are saddened that such an inspirational form of expression will disappear. But we will always remain staunchly committed to the long term future of monochrome photography in all its facets and we will continue to do everything we can to support it." (From an Ilford press release, quoted on the APUG board by Simon Galley of Ilford.)

Some people are just way smarter than me

And on a final film note, a man on flickr has posted a number of photographs of his friend's homemade, do-it-yourself film coating machine. Apparently the machine is up and running and working well. Me, I'm still thinking about how to fix the basement stairs.

Pixel-peeping—no, really
Ever wanted to actually see a digital sensor Bayer pattern? Our friend Marc Rochkind has put together a little free app that will open a NEF file so you can see the pixels, and he's written a short article about it. And don't worry if you don't have a NEF file to open: the app will open one it has built into it.

R.I.P. Flip

Graeme Phelps "Flip" Schulke. Photo:  Allen Eyestone, The Palm Beach Post

I was very sorry to hear that Flip Schulke has died at the age of 77. Flip was a major photojournalist of the 1960s. I first heard about him while sorting through the inevitable avalanche of PR materials sent to the magazine I used to edit. An odd one that I almost tossed aside touted customized bank checks decorated with civil rights photographs, of all things. The pictures turned out to be Flip's. I ended up having a couple of long and animated phone conversations with him about his pictures, and we did a feature about him in the "News & Products" section of the very first issue of our relaunch.

Flip had a full and rich career, with several iconic photos to his credit, including the famous picture shown here of Muhammed Ali (then Cassius Clay) supposedly "training" underwater. Evidently Ali, with his genius for publicity, had heard that Flip liked underwater photography and essentially conned him, despite not knowing how to swim and having never before actually trained underwater!

A passionate man who wore his concerns on his sleeve, Flip befriended, and was especially devoted to, Dr. Martin Luther King and King's family and activities. When we talked, he sent me his book about his friend Dr. King, which is still in print. It's called He had a Dream. (He also made a nice book for young adults about how he became a photojournalist.) Flip's picture of the late Coretta Scott King, the LIFE magazine cover of April 19th, 1968, was later named 'Portrait of the Year' by the magazine's editors.

Rest in peace, Flip. You left your mark.

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to dyathink, Sébastien Lallement, Edward O'Mahony, Clayton Jones, Judy Kiel, Oren Grad, David Emerick, and Bob Zimmerman.)

Comments

[Stephen Scharf]

Mike,
Loved the piece on the extraordinary Zeiss 50/0.7....I remember this lens specifically because it was used in shooting "Barry Lyndon" I also remember that Kubrick could not have made this film until a new fast film stock was available that also enabled the shooting of this truly candlelit scene.

I first "Barry Lyndon" when I was a very young man, and simply did not get it. I thought at the time it was very boring. But with age comes wisdom, and upon seeing the film several times as I have matured, I realize that it is a brilliant film, and that it's slow, deliberate pacing was intentional to convey a genuine sense of a time where the pace of life was considerably slower than today.

And nobody but Kubrick would have dared to shoot that incredible gambling scene in available light, and no one else but Kubrick could have pulled it off.

[Roger Hein]

I remember going to see "Barry Lyndon" specifically for the candlelit shot scenes. As I watched it unfolding on the big screen my jaw literally dropped in amazement. It was pure magic. This film is one of my all time favourites.

[William Furniss]

Now that's what I call blogging! A wonderful read (aside from the Polaroid news) at the end of a long day. Thank you.

[Scott Kirkpatrick]

Thanks for the link to the Abu Ghraib picture investigation. The New Yorker story that preceeded it also casts a new light on what images mean to our picture-drenched world. And "Weekend at Bernie's" can now enter the lexicon.

scott

[Charlie H]

Morris's stuff on fake and real smiles and the phsyiology behind the difference is fascinating. I love how engrossed Morris gets on a particular subject. He would make a spectacular detective. ch

[Rick Keir]

For me, the worst issue with photo manipulation is the manipulation done by the subject. We get worked up about someone Photoshopping in extra smoke to a battle scene, or removing a distracting pole from a sports shot, but we rarely hear any debate at all about the ethics of posed shots like the "Mission Accomplished" shot of Bush, where political operatives put up the banner and then claimed the crew had put it up, and where Bush is dressed up in a flight suit to give the illusion that he flew himself in, when in fact he was just a passenger who could have worn a business suit and gotten onto the ship like everyone else. That is truly evil photo manipulation.

[Lambert]

Fsacinating piece from Errol Morris. Lengthy but very absorbing. Thirteen reports not to shed light, but to fuzz things up.

[Mike Johnston]

"...but we rarely hear any debate at all about the ethics of posed shots like the 'Mission Accomplished' shot of Bush..."

Really? Seems to me I've heard LOTS of debate about that, and lots of criticism, and lots of analysis, and for years and years, too....

Just sayin',

Mike J.

[Matt Needham]

"One of the most discouraging aspects of modern computer photography and its newfangled distribution models, to me, is the extent to which new audiences for photography insist that fakery and visual cant are unavoidable, that "it's always been done" and therefore it's not worth bemoaning or even considering.."

While it may be true that you may be hearing/reading this more often now that the internet allows you to communicate with many more people much more easily than in the past, this debate has been going on since the beginning. Photographic manipulation of reality or truth, whether subtle or extravagant, is not new. What is new is that the methods have become more common knowledge to the general public.

To me it seems like this point that photography does not equal reality is most often made when someone insists that photographs should always equal reality, and that following the f/64 group philosophy of straight photography is the only way to do "real photography". I don't think the point of most folks who suggest that photography doesn't always equal reality is to suggest that straight photography is not worth considering. It's an oversimplified response to an oversimplified statement. As with many aspects of the real world the truth is neither black nor white, but potentially covers a very wide variety of the gray in between.

"After seeing so many movie representations of candlelight, it's interesting to see what life by candlelight really looked like."

To me it looks like a photograph of a candlelit room, but not very much like how my eyes and mind see it when I'm actually in a room lit by candles.

[Tim Gray]

Not sure quite how you establish the equivalence between "fakery is unavoidable" and "photographs are trivial".

[John Camp]

"One of the most discouraging aspects of modern computer photography and its newfangled distribution models, to me, is the extent to which new audiences for photography insist that fakery and visual cant are unavoidable, that "it's always been done" and therefore it's not worth bemoaning or even considering. It's tantamount to insisting that photographs are essentially decorative and trivial and can't be expected to contain truth, and thus that it isn't worthwhile to try to decode them." --Mike J

IMHO, this is close to the most critical issue in photography, that is, *What is it, and what it can be?* -- though I have to add that I don't really think that Morris's investigations, as fascinating as they are, have much to do with photography, except in the sense that he uses photography as evidence to examine other matters.

Photography, however, has great problems right now because it's being smothered by people who make claims to Art, generally under the ideas that "If I say it's art, it must be," "Anything can be art," "I worked hard and sincerely and the pictures are [are not] in focus and so it must be art," "It looks just like Ansel Adams, and Adams' work was art, so mine must be," and on and on.

There is this terrific worldwide urge by people to make art, as a way of demonstrating their value, and most of what almost all of them make is junk. I'm sorry, but if you make a beautiful picture of a clearing winter storm in the Sierras, it's almost certainly junk (in the artistic sense), because the thoughts behind it are essentially technical and retrospective. A serious artist making serious art shows a new way, demonstrates thoughts not thought before, makes what is essentially a philosophical argument.

If you wonder why the great impressionist painters rose in the years around 1860-70, and there have really been no great impressionists since...it's because impressionism is now a technique, rather than an innovative study of the effects of light. Ansel Adams photos are now a technique, readily replicable by anyone with a good camera, a couple weeks of experience at the Santa Fe Workshops, and some time to linger in the mountains. Taking the photos isn't hard; *thinking of taking them* was the hard part. Lots of people still paint photos in an impressionist style, but they're not doing anything innovative, they're just applying a technique.

Art photographers, or any serious photographers, for that matter, IMHO, have to decide who they are and what they're doing, and make it plain -- and essentially that will always come back to straight photography; it can be cleaned up, the contrast can be pushed, but if you take out a phone pole or put in a bush, you faked it, and it's no longer photography. It's something else. It's Photoshopismo.

Look: you can input almost anything into a work of "computer art." Doesn't have to be a photo -- it can be words, it can be numbers, it can be abstract black-and-white or multicolored blocks, it could be music. Photos are just the easiest thing, for the moment, and attract the people who want to apply a technique to something and then call that something art. It's not; it's just more internet junk. Fortunately it can mostly be made to go away with the push of a button.

JC

[Bob Dales]

Just visted the Napolean Exhibit in the Old New Orleans Mint. The paintings and artifacts, even the death mask, glorified the Emperor. Think what they could have done with Photoshop.
That said, is the intent not the tool what really matters? If so, how do we discern the intent from the content?
Bob

[Mike Johnston]

"I don't really think that Morris's investigations, as fascinating as they are, have much to do with photography, except in the sense that he uses photography as evidence to examine other matters."

You make many good points as usual, John, but the above made me smile. I think I could argue that the entire value of photography is its usefulness as evidence in examining other matters. It's what *distinguishes* it from art, which is an aspect of it that's important to me.

Mike J.

[Ctein]

Dear John,

I profoundly disagree with your use of the term "art." I, as the creator of the work, get to decide if I'm making art, not you. You, as the audience, get to decide if it's great, good, lousy, or execrable art. But just as I can't credibly insists it's great art if you think it's abysmal, you can't tell me I wasn't doing what I know I was doing.

pax / Ctein

[dyathink]

William Furniss...i ditto that!

[John Hicks]

Geez Mike, you've covered everthing. What's left to say other than that we'll miss Flip.

-jbh-

[John Camp]

"Dear John,

I profoundly disagree with your use of the term "art." I, as the creator of the work, get to decide if I'm making art, not you. You, as the audience, get to decide if it's great, good, lousy, or execrable art. But just as I can't credibly insists it's great art if you think it's abysmal, you can't tell me I wasn't doing what I know I was doing.

pax / Ctein"

Then we have to profoundly disagree -- but I would suggest to you that history is on my side. There are any numbers (thousands and thousands) of 19th century French artists, professionally trained and tremendously sincere, whose work isn't looked at any more, because just about everybody has decided that what they produced is not art. It's just painting.

The word "art" carries an implicit promise of quality, thought and communication; the word "craft" has an implicit promise of quality, but not of necessarily of thought. The words "painting" or "photography" only suggest the technique used.

There is no question that a wedding photographer practices photography, and perhaps even craft (if he's good) but what he does is unlikely to ever rise to the level of art. Same with landscape or street photographers. Just hoping, saying, asserting, or arguing that it is art won't make it so.

To be art, it must fulfill some general requirements (it must be high craft with a philsophical dimension) and it must stir a response in somebody other than its maker; at least, that's what I believe.

JC

[George Smiley]

I've gradually come around to the conclusion that Errol Morris is the most interesting intellectual in the United States today. His blog at the Times only cements that conclusion.

[Greg Smith]

Ctein - 1

JC - 0

Best wishes

[Robin P]

Mike, thank you so much for the Errol Morris link, a very long, very disturbing read - deserves more publicity.

As to the nature of "art", well, I'd rather have good "craft" than bad "art" any day. There is a lot of bad art about that can only justify its existence by J.C.'s criteria.

Cheers, Robin

[Charlie]

The only good answer to the question: What is Art?

Who cares?

[Bron Janulis]

ART is just a salesmans term; it neither alters nor adds to the object at hand.

Art history; opinions, not facts.

Morris was wrong, Fenton took w/o cannonballs first, then w/cannonballs second. I have just as much proof as EM for my thesis, I just killed a lot less pixels.

Bron

[Bob Wong]

Mike, Through many posts I think you have bemoaned the issue that the public is losing confidence in the ability of modern photographs to depict reality. Other comments have brought up the fact that photos may be completely staged to portray any story regardless of reality.

Missing from all of this is the fact that every photo is an abstraction of reality.

If reality is desired then it is up to the craft of the photographer to manipulate that abstraction so it depicts his version of perceived reality. On the other hand the photographer may also manipulate that abstraction to depict any desired perception.

Thus for a viewer to interpret a photograph you might say he must understand the photographer's intentions as well as something of that specific photographer's craft or art as well as his own capabilities of perception.

Errol Morris seems to have an understanding of these issues. But I wish the general public were better informed of them also.

So to drive the nail home. A responsible photographer must manipulate his photographs and we should applaud his efforts of manipulation.

By the way, I can hear Ctein giggling in the background.

Regards, Bob

[Jeff Glass]

Gotta love these little disputes about "art" and "craft" and "good" and "bad" and which is which and who decides, disputes that litter the internet and the pages of newspapers, magazines and books.

Who cares and why?

What stands or falls on the answers? The careers of a few folks, mostly privileged, mostly elite, and . . . . ? What else?

Now, I can say, "a real artist doesn't waste time arguing over what to call her work," but that ain't true, they do it all the time and they and the critics whose careers and sales, like the artist's, depend on the answer, do it for what, to them, is good reason: money, reputation.

Why should the rest of us give a dam whether it's art or craft or both, good or bad or both, interesting or innocuous or both?

If what passes for art on the internet and in the studios and galleries is, in fact, "art" because the "artist" intended it to be "art," then, of course, the term is meaningless, empty . . . . except as a signifier of value in the marketplace.

It's equivalent, these days, to the term "organic" or the term "super-delicious!" It doesn't mean a thing, except that it's gonna cost you more than the other product.

The endless, empty debates are like fiddling while Rome burns, except what's burning is our planet and we (writers, posters, critics, artists, elites) are all fiddlers.

[Carl Root]

Robin,

What is it about the art that you dislike that makes it bad? If it is the message or craftsmanship, that speaks only to what you are ready to consider or what rules you feel must be adhered to, no?

JC,

Who gets to decide if a painting has some meat to it rather than being merely derivative? Only a very few learned souls, I suspect. If I read something into a painting or photograph, it is art for me, even if the "artist" never intended it.

I do agree that art should be more that technique used to make a decoration.

[Mike Johnston]

I think I mentioned before one of my great critical principles. At the Corcoran in the 1980s the Photography Department was off in a far corner of the basement of the magnificent Beaux Arts building across from the Old Executive Office Building. To get there one had to walk down a long corridor where the Third Year Fine Arts students displayed their work, many of which were sculptures or small "installations" as they were called then (and may still be), and that sat on the floor in the middle of the corridor. Coming out of the darkroom late at night after working for many hours, I would sometimes attempt to leap over quite large floor-standing sculptures. My friends would always be horrified that I would land smack dab in somebody's prized artwork and ruin it, but I had strong legs and was a former trampolinist, and I knew my powers--I always cleared what I attempted.

The critical principle at work, which I declaimed brightly on many an occasion, was "If I can jump it, it ain't art."

I still think I should be famous as a critic for that.

Mike J.

[Mike Johnston]

It used to be art if Marcel Duchamp said it was, but he's dead now, so that sort of puts a damper on future possibilities.

Mike J.

[Mike Johnston]

And as for Ctein's formulation, I recall the story of the man who went to the top of the mountain in order to fly. He stood at the edge of a cliff and flapped his arms wildly, and nothing happened. When he returned from the mountain he was angry and disappointed, explaining, "I wanted to fly." A Buddhist monk came along and set off up the mountain to do the same thing, but when he came down from the mountain he was happy and satisfied. People gathered around him expecting great news, but all he said was, "I wanted to see if I could fly."

It seems to me that if a person says he or she is making art, then all they're talking about is what they're doing, not what they've done.

Mike J.

[Mike Johnston]

And, so as not to take sides, if John Camp's formulation were universally accepted to be true, then neither Vincent Van Gogh nor Franz Kafka would have had any reason to keep going. To name just two.

Mike J.

[Bob Wong]

With respect for all opinions, I don't think the issue is centered around weather an artist or craftsman or bozo is making art but rather is there a difference between a pretty picture and an artistic picture.

For me, there definitely is a difference and it's not black and white, but rather a very Grey line between the two.

And I will also recognize that your Grey line may not be the same as my Grey line.

Regards, Bob Wong

[Mike Johnston]

Bob,
Ah, yes--and then you get into the issue of something "functioning as [if it were] art." One of the books I'll be naming in my upcoming list of great books available now is one of snapshots. It seems undeniable that, as Richard B. Woodward wrote, "Professionals...may despair as they realize that offhand efforts with a camera frequently produce more visual excitement than their studied exercises." That is, certain snapshots function better as art than many photographs specifically intended to be art--even when subjected to the most rigorous deconstruction.

Mike J.

[Charlie]

Yes but who will the Cubs be playing in the World Series?

[Mike Johnston]

You mean in your fantasies? Who did they play last year in your fantasies?

Mike J.

[Mike]

Back to Mike's earlier point - I am increasingly dismayed by the ubiquitous magazine articles on how to blend in a new (old) sky etc to make your picture pop.

To me that would devalue what I'm doing because it isn't all about a synthetic thrill that is devoid of a connection with reality. Yep, I take blurred photos and sharp ones. Sometimes I leave the noise in and sometimes smooth it a bit, but it's all there and part of what I'm making.

I could go on about the metaphor for modern western life that this presents, but I think I'll leave it at that:)

Mike

[Ctein]

Regarding Morris' article, a bit of useful context he almost, but not quite, gets to.

As a gay women in the military, Harman must be "one of the boys" or she's gone. While the military is only illegally sexist, it is very legally homophobic. A gay in the military who makes too many enemies (or simply not enough friends) will get outed by one of them. That means their discharge.

Every gay lives with the fear of that hanging over their head. It affects how they "play well with others" and "don't make waves."

None of that in any way excuses, condones or forgives any of her actions, regardless of how you take them. But it is explanatory and important and relevant context.

pax / Ctein

[John Camp]

"And, so as not to take sides, if John Camp's formulation were universally accepted to be true, then neither Vincent Van Gogh nor Franz Kafka would have had any reason to keep going. To name just two." Mike J.

Of course they did; they were crazy. Name a great artist who wasn't a little nuts, and didn't need it to keep going...

And as for Van Gogh, how do you know that, at the very end, he didn't accept my formulation? After all, he shot himself... 8-)

JC