A repudiation of all the over complication of photography.

Just because I can change something doesn't necessarily mean I should.  Many, many years ago I was walking down Commerce Street in San Antonio.  There was a fantastic bookstore called "Brock's Books". It had been there just about forever.  I shopped there from time to time and my real pleasure was going into the maze like basement, through acres of magazines, books and other collections of paper, searching for the vintage photography magazines.  I'd stand there for an hour or so, until the smell of mildewing paper overwhelmed me, and I'd leaf through photography magazines from the 1940's and the 1950's.  The magazines were enormous then.  Hundreds of pages.  Hundreds of photographs.  And the writing........

It's enough to make you cry.  Back in the days of the American enlightenment, before the fall from intellectual grace that began in earnest in the 1980's and has accelerated since then, even visual magazines paid attention to the written word.  Interviews spanned five or six pages.  Discussions of trends and styles were meaty essays that left you sated, like a good meal.  Now.....American Photographer and even Photo District News run articles that are little more than captions.  Squiggly gray space between photographs.

The image above is so simple.  I was walking around with some sort of sad sack camera from Nikon.  I'll guess it was the original FE.  I had the cheapest 28mm lens on the front.  Had to be the old 28mm 3.5.  Probably had to be updated to meter on that body.  I was just out walking,  on the prowl for images and coffee and pastries, though not necessarily in that order.  I was alone.  Always alone.  Because photographers are like little magnetic fields and when they come into contact with other photographers or even just people who want to tag along, it distorts and disrupts the purity of the magnetic field and causes problems.  The creative impulse gets detuned and the underlying rhythm of of the walk gets distorted and wrenched out of shape.  Some people are totally immune to disruption.  I don't know what to say about them but they seem to be the same people who are immune to positive social pressure, subtle hints or straightforward instruction.

Anyway,  I walked over to Brock's Books and stood in the open shade looking down on the box of bargain stuff that they always put outside.  I don't know if they ever sold the stuff in the boxes or if it was just there to let people know that the store was open.  On this particular day I leaned over to see what was inside and loved the look of the True Romance magazine cover.  I shot two or three frames on automatic, with slide film, and then I moved on.  Didn't think much of the image at the time but it's steadily grown on me over the years.

It's too simple an image for anyone to appreciate these days.  Too quiet.  Bereft of flash and sizzle.  And that's what I like about it.  It's about the content and the juxtaposition to the close surroundings.  It's calm.  You can rest your eyes on the image.  At most it's decorative art.

But the process of bringing it to life was so simple.  An interested look.  A cutting out of the image from it's multi-dimensional existence.  A commitment of resources and then,  like water behind a boat I moved on and it receded from my immediate consciousness.  

Have you ever noticed that much great art is relatively simple?  I think of Picasso's Dove of Peace series.  Simple lines, casually drawn.  Quick, intuitive gestures.  And then he was smart enough to leave it alone, in a simple state.  Distilled to its essence.  The same with the line drawings of Matisse and the beautiful Nakamura drawings.

I was in a short, three way discussion with two other photographers last night at an opening.  I had an epiphany.  The difference between printing with Photoshop and an inkjet printer versus printing in an old fashioned wet darkroom is all  encompassed in risk and intentionality.  The traditional print maker must take a risk at the time of print creation.  Every segment of the process is analog.  It's never precisely repeatable.  Even the chemistry of the developer changes subtly between each iteration.

The wet printer makes decisions, executes them and moves through the process with necessary commitment.  Most artists have limited resources.  They needed to get wet prints just right in as few iterations as possible.  They didn't/don't have the luxury of endless tweaking and endless indecisive manipulation.  They can never really return exactly to a previous version.  Everything changes.  The motions of burning and dodging aren't mechanical.

Conversely, digital printers can, through soft proofing, try variation after variation after variation with no real economic or temporal consequences.  Rather than working to get the perfect image as a reflection of the camera capture, they become free to be like the clients we love to hate in our day jobs as photographers:  You know the ones.  You'll likely be doing a fashion shoot for some mall property with a little agency.  The art director doesn't get to do many photoshoots in the age of cowardly stock photography usage.  He knows there's real money riding on the shoot.  When asked "Which colored shirt should we use on the male model?"  He will become paralyzed.  Unable to make a strong, assured creative decision he'll move to cover his bases.  He'll answer,  "Let's try all of them.  Let's do some with the red shirt, some with the green shirt and some with the yellow shirt."  Then we ask the same thing about the female model's wardrobe and we get the same answer.  So if we try every combination of the colors for both models we may end up with a possible matrix of 12 or 16 or 20 pairings.  Imagine shooting that!!!!!!!  Imagine trying to keep up good energy on that set.

But I conjecture that the lure of PhotoShop and digital printing exerts as similar effect on budding artists and, in a way, diminishes their energy to truly create photographs.  There is always something you can fix.  But should you.  In the  photo above, it would be normal to find a pleasing color balance and exposure.  Once you do that the image is created.  But the addiction to "playing God" with the images rears its incredibly ugly head.  Now it comes to mind that with a few layers and a few simple key strokes you might just be able to increase the dynamic range.  You could restore the color of the cover (never mind that doing so would destroy the feel of the image completely....).  You could increase the shadow detail in the tennis shoes.  You could create a mask in order to do something to the tile floor.  You could add elements to the scene you could use filters and you could liquify.  But at some point you'll become paralyzed by two things:  1.  The enormous, almost infinite range of abuse you can bring to this image with no financial consequences and no rules.  2.  There is no stop sign or safety net.  There's nothing to stop you from absurdly continuing to torture a simple image until it's not longer recognizable as the original image or until you drop from exhaustion from your efforts.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't use a digital printer to output your images.  And I'm not saying that no one should use PhotoShop.  I just think it's instructive to think about how much less is required to make art than a current generation in love the with the ability to add ad absurdium is willing to admit.  The Mona Lisa won't necessarily be better if we fix the faults, add some glitter around the edges, drop in a few images of Lady Ga-Ga and 50 Cent into the background for extra flavor, maybe Photo Shop the Giaconda's outfit for a some cleavage and even the hint of a nipple.......

At every step there needs to be commitment to an original vision.  Otherwise every image is nothing more than a gessoed canvas waiting to be sprayed by the latest (soon to be cliche) technique.  I guess my first rule would read:  Be true to the content.  Everything proceeds from there.

Tempest. Kirk's low light test of his 5D2.

So.  Based on reviews and DXO tests and anecdotal evidence I had a reasonable expectation that the Canon5D2 would perform acceptably at 3200 ISO but you never really know until you fire up the camera and go shoot in your own style.  3200 ISO can look great if all you shoot is high key stuff with lots of sparkle and snap.  But I figure I'd put it to my typical worst case scenario and go shoot some theater with it.

I got a call from Ann over at the Austin Shakespeare Theater asking me to shoot the preview show of The Tempest.   I said, "sure" and packed a small bag.  Here's what I took:  One 5D2 body, one 70-200mm f4 L (not the IS) and my newly acquired Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE lens.  I had many questions:  Would the f4 zoom be too slow?  Would I regret not getting the IS version?  Could I still manual focus the Zeiss even though I had not yet gotten the Eg-S screen?

To answer each question in turn:  No,  the f4 zoom was just right.  The light levels at 3200 gave me a comfortable 1/180 or 1/250 to play with and the benefit (based on painful years of buying f2.8 versions of these lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Leica ) was that the light weight and small size was very manageable for a two hour long shoot.  That little sucker is pretty sharp right at f4 and it handles side light and flare very well.  On to question #2.  I am not the steadiest handholder the world has ever seen and I like my lenses with the IS but in this case I came equipped with surprisingly good, after market IS (image stabilization).  It was at least as good as the Canon version.  Maybe better, because it worked with every single lens in the bag!!!  It's called a monopod.  I've pooh poohed them before but I decided to grab one of the three that sit in the umbrella bucket next to the door and give it all another shot.  You know what?  They work well.  And they work best with lenses that have tripod collars......like my Canon 70-200 f4.  I was able to shoot at least three stops slower than I could handhold.

My favorite monopod is a Leitz  Tiltall monopod that Belinda gave me as a birthday present back in 1980.  It's a very lightweight, all aluminum stick with knurled leg locks.  That makes it slower to set up and adjust but it's so minimal and black and tactical looking.  I ended up taking a Bogen/Manfrotto model which has (unfortunately) a bright metal finish.  It uses flip locks for the leg extensions so it's quicker.  I used a quick release on the top.  It's nice enough.  It's just not as cool as the Leitz Tiltall version.

Finally, there's the question of whether or not I'd be able to focus the manual focus, Zeiss 50mm 1.4 lens on the Canon 5D2 which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, set up to make manual focusing easy. Actually, it came back to me pretty quickly.  I don't this you can spend years peering down into a  dark Hasselblad screen trying to focus a slow 50mm wide angle without retaining some chops.  Ditto with the decade or so I spent under the dark cloth of the 4x5 view camera, gazing at the Stygian screen, rendered at f16 trying to find pinpoint focus.  When you've focused in hell, focusing in the modern world doesn't seem as tough......

I find that truisms in photography die hard.  When most people think of taking photographs of live theater they immediately engage a part of the photographic brain, stoked by the lore from yesteryear, that they must use the fastest lenses available.  They rush to find the 85mm 1.4's and 1.2's.  The 50mm 1.2's and 1.0's and the long fast glass as well.  I was just as guilty because I always remembered the days when we shot with ISO 400 films and every photon gathered was precious.  But it's all changed.  And I'm happy.  Fast lenses aren't always good lenses.  At least, they are never as good wide open as a cheaper, smaller, lighter lens can be at f2.8, f4 or f5.6.  If you've got one of the new generation of cameras that does really decent ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 like the Canon 5 or the Nikon D3 you can rid your lore books of much old treasure.

I seem to be getting better files because the lenses can be better corrected if they aren't speed demons.  Several lens specialists, and especially Erwin Puts, haven't written volumes about how many times harder it is to design and produce faster lenses when compared to tamer designs.  The new Canon 70-200mm f2.8 zoom cracks the credit card at nearly $2500 while the older f4 version is a very affordable $650.  What do you give up?  A pound or two in weight and one stop.  Locked on a tripod and compared side by side it would be an imperceptible difference in quality between the two at every aperture.  And I'd be willing to bet that the little Canon is a bit sharper at f4 than it's new big brother is at f2.8.

The second reason for speed back in the old days was all about focusing accuracy and finder brightness. Focusing was real work and took real skill.  People practiced focusing in their downtime. Now that's so much less important because it's the rare photographer who flips the switch on the camera body or the lens barrel and goes into the manual focusing mode.

Yesterday I upgraded the Canon 5D2 screen to the Eg-S screen and there's a little bit of difference.  Mostly it's all down to practice and acclimation.

There's not a lot to say about the ISO performance of the 5d that hasn't be said elsewhere.  It's a great camera for low light shooting and I'm very pleased with the files.  The nice thing for  me is that, even with the high speed noise reduction set to standard, there is a lot of detail preserved in the files.  It really does look nice.  Next time I'll be brave and try the 6400 setting.

I didn't have time to do these files on Thurs. because we were engaged in a corporate shoot.  We shot from 8 to 11 am which is what? Three hours.  But I've been editing the 1300+ files, doing global color corrections, processing to smaller jpegs and uploading to Smugmug for most of this day.  Amazing how much back end work there is for a typical photo assignment and how little that part gets talked about.

On Sunday I start another two day project so I want to make sure I process as I go.  Nothing worse than getting behind when there's money to be made.

Two more photos and then I'm off to D.J. Stout's book signing at the Steve Clark Gallery.  Should be fun.

I hate packing. But I'll have help with the unpacking and the re-packing and the unpacking that goes with it.

This is my secret weapon.  Her name is Amy and she's smart, strong and fun to hang out and shoot photos with.  I wish every job came with an "Amy" budget.

On most shoots I try to handle as much detail as I can by myself.  The reason is that business has been slow for the last year.  Slower than I'd like.  And I usually have enough time to handle stuff without running into too many roadblocks.  Where it all falls apart is on shoots that have tight schedules, require lots of gear, and require leaving the studio to make it all work on location.

Tomorrow is a great example.  I'm going on location to shoot a bunch of small groups of people against a white background.  I'm pretty boring when it comes to lighting white backgrounds.  I do it the same way nearly every time.  Here's the way it goes:  1.  I set up a nine foot wide white seamless at the far end of  the biggest room the client can find for me. That takes two light stands.   2.  I pray that we don't need full length portraits because, if we do, I'll have to bring a couple of shiny white boards with me for people to stand on.  They have to be shiny so they bounce enough light that they burn to white.....  3.  I'll set up two lights as far from the sides of the background paper as I can and about 45 degrees out from the center.  If you look at the set up the center of the seamless is the sharp point of a "V" between the two lights. There's two more light stands.  4.  I'll overlap the light beams a bit so they lights are almost pointing toward the opposite side of the white seamless.  5. Once I do that the lights end up hitting the subject or wrapping light around the subject so I need a black flag on either side to keep any direct light off  the subject.  Each black flag requires a light stand.  6.  Then I'll use a big light like a Photek 60 inch Softlighter for the subject.  There's another light stand.  7. Occasionally a client will want a total, bland, fill light so there's another light stand.  8.  I'll want a stand so I can use a small flag to help block light from hitting the lens and causing flare.  There's another light stand + magic arm + black wrap flag.

(For a more detailed discussion of my method of white backgrounds, please check out my Studio Book)

Add in the cameras, lenses, loupes, meter, batteries, extension cords and everything else I might need and you've got a ton of stuff.  Could I go Minimalist?  Sure, but on this job we'll be shooting 60 people in 20 or 30 groups, shooting 20 or 30 variations for a worst case scenario of up to 900 shots.  That's a lot of battery juice, a lot of waiting around for recycle or a handful of fried flashes coupled to high output batteries.  For a one person portrait I'd definitely roll with speedlights.  On an agency job with 60 people?  Thanks, I'll go with Profoto or Elinchrom gear and back-ups.  

So tomorrow I'll use a small set of Profoto lightheads hooked to an Acute 600e pack for the background and an Elinchrom Ranger RX AS pack and head or heads for the foreground.  Why two different sets?  I want to be able to precisely control the ratio between the front and the back.

So I spent a couple hours packing today.  I found the umbrellas I wanted to use.  Made sure the camera batteries and the flash batteries and the back up flash batteries were all charged and ready to go.  I packed my main camera, the Canon 5D2 and my back-up camera, the 7D.  I chose prime lenses that have the fewest elements so I'd have a fighting chance against background flare.  Then I cleaned out the Honda Element, checked it with a Geiger counter just to make sure there was no residual creative radiation from the last shoot, took out the back seats and started to load it up.

All you professional photographers who use assistants for everything you do will laugh at me for loading up the day before but our call time is 7 am, the location is about an hour away, (add 15 minutes for a Starbuck's Run) and there's no way I'm going to get up at 5:30 am in the morning just for the privilege of watching my nice assistant break a sweat before the sun comes up.  The idea that a team of assistants will work from a check list and load up your Bentley station wagon while you have fancy donuts with super models is so last century.  If you still have clients with budgets like that you don't need to be reading this ragged little blog......

So I loaded one car up this afternoon but I'm taking another car to another job tonight.  Why the second car?  Don't want a car full of Swiss and Swedish lights sitting unwatched on the mean streets while I photograph the dress rehearsal of a Shakespeare play.  Go Tempest!!!!

When we hit the client's office tomorrow we'll have to drag everything out of the Honda, put it on the big multi-cart and drag it down endless corridors to the designated temporary studio area.  If we're lucky they will have taken out the tables and chairs.  If we're unlucky there will be an unmovable conference table right down the middle and they'll expect us to shoot around it or use alien technology to make it invisible.  So, from 7am til 8am we're unpacking, setting up, testing and re-testing.  We'll mark the floor with white tape and mark the exposures at those marks.  It'll save time in the long run.

The final thing I'll do before the first group walks through the door at 8 am will be to use a lastolite gray target (on of those pop up things) to make a custom white balance for my raw files.

We'll shoot all morning long and then, at 11:30 am we'll reverse engines and pack it all up.  Put it back on the cart, move it back down the hall, stick it back in the car, drive it all back to the office, unpack it from the car to the cart and then from the cart to the various shelves in the studio.  So,  look what a big percentage of photography involves the logistics of packing and moving!!!!!

With luck we'll have a bunch of files with animated, gesturing employees.  With more luck the backgrounds will just have crested 255 in PhotoShop.  Once the client makes their choices it should be an easy thing in PS to make selections and send the files on their way.  If it all works the way it's supposed to.

This is the kind of shoot that you really need to use an assistant on.  The logistics are too odious otherwise.  I hope to be back in my part of town around "late lunch" time.  

The afternoon will find me doing global corrections and making web galleries in Lightroom 3.  Can't put this off because we start a three day corporate job on Sunday.

That's a behind the scenes look at the glamorous, "white background" shooting day of an average commercial photographer.  Does it really sound better than sitting in a comfortable chair, eating pizza, drinking Mountain Dew and writing code?  Didn't think so.  I'll let you know if we EVER get to do a shoot with the super models.

Thanks.