Single-Serving Photo

It’s not every day you come across photography that is simply arresting. Even in the realm of surrealism, so much is possible with software these days that few photographic creations make you look twice and wonder “How’d they do that?” Such was the effect that Gregory Crewdson’s work had on me when I first saw it.

His works are (from what I’ve seen, at least) untitled, which is a subject for another article. I don’t know how much post-processing goes into these images, but I know that Crewdson is known for his elaborate lighting setups, which leads me to believe there isn’t much. He’s well-known enough to have his own page on Wikipedia, a distinction reserved (by the site’s own policy) for those enjoying defensible public recognition.

The subject matter of his work is, to put it lightly, creepy. Most of his images depict figures in various stages of undress, none possessing what you might call Grecian physiques, in situations of emotional distance, consternation, shock, or macabre solitude. The pools of light and the occasional volumetric beam add such a drama and intensity to the stuff that it’s hard to look away.

I’d love to see behind-the-scenes photos of his setups, but I couldn’t uncover much. Here is a neat walkthrough of a Crewdson setup in Massachusetts, though they don’t even show the final image, which was a big disappointment for me.

There are some decent views of some of the setups he’s used here on the Aperture 190 site; you can see that he works mostly with hot lights (lights that remain on, as opposed to strobes), just as though he was shooting a movie. The boston.com article revealed that he shoots with an 8×10 view camera and apertures as small as f/45, producing what must be the most amazingly detailed and tack-sharp images. After reading that, I want to see a real Crewdson print up close and personal.

Like Crewdson? Ever seen prints in person? Comment below!

Perhaps I sound a little bit like a shady salesman with a headline like that, but it would be incorrect to think that I perform the services I do with only myself in mind. Nay, this blog and my photography workshops exist only to serve you, my gentle readers, which is why I come to you today with this update.

First, something I’ve been thinking about lately, which I had designs to write an entire post about but that now strikes me as somewhat too unfinished a thought to deserve such treatment. It has to do with a growing trend among digital photographers that the quality of your work and of your prints can be judged if not exclusively at least primarily by some group of statistics.

~~/Places/California/SanFrancisco/GoldenGateLookout.jpg~~

First of all art has never been judged based on numbers. The moment that art is judged not for its certain craft, its inspiration, content, execution, and the ways in which it moves you is when it ceases to be art and takes on a new life as the subject of technical research. I grant that technical research has made possible many of the great innovations in the craft of photography that have opened doors for artists and made possible wonderful works. Those works, however, were to be judged on their own merits, divorced from the particulars of their creation.

I see this jaded math-lust happen the most in the process of printing digital images. Not only do you have to be a board-certified chemist to understand what inks are actually made out of these days, but debates rage among the upper echelons of fine art print makers regarding whether 9^12 bits per million in 17.2 square decileters of molar protein creates a quantization effect of 9.8383-repeating magnitude using 4-picoliter ink spots on granite tile. Or some such nonsense.

As important as some measurements, such as resolution, may be in print making, the fact remains that very well printed photographs can still suck, and very poorly printed photographs can change your life. The trick is to understand all of this mumbo-jumbo only to the degree necessary to achieve the results that make you happy, that satisfy your needs as an artist.

That may have sounded like a bit of a rant…

Edit: Perhaps it wasn’t as much of a rant as I thought at first. Here is a really cool article by Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer about over-reliance on measurements when evaluating the performance (specifically) of equipment. He also goes on to criticize people who use charts and graphs to make meaningless, subjective data appear meaningful and objective. If only it wasn’t true! Good stuff, Mike.

~~/Places/California/SantaCruz/Peaceful.jpg~~

Ranting notwithstanding, it’s still true that I’m teaching a digital printing workshop in February. If you want to learn how to soft-proof, color manage, and output your own images at a high-end digital lab, this is your big chance. I’ll be teaching alongside Chris Blake, back at Calypso Imaging in Santa Cruz, CA; read about the workshop and sign up here. You will get to print proof images and then make final prints during the workshop, so everyone gets stuff to take home with them. It’s only $599; you won’t find a better deal than that anywhere.

There are some other exciting learning opportunities right around the corner, too, including our workshop in Cape Cod in September, a fall foliage workshop in cooperation with Dan Heller in Vermont in October, and then later on that same month, our City on the Hill Boston workshop. That should be enough to keep you busy before the holidays, right? It’s sure going to keep me busy, I can tell you that much.

Of course if you have any ideas for workshops, questions, comments, rude gestures… Leave a comment!

In the style of chef Gordon Ramsay, I will now shake my hand in the air beside my head and exclaim that the solution for anyone’s languishing business or hobby is to stay fresh, local, and honest. Though chef Ramsay is usually talking about produce and grass-fed beef, I am talking about capturing scenes right in your own community.

I might have mentioned in passing that my “day job” brought me to New London, Connecticut almost two years ago. New London is a rather scenic city positioned on the bank of the Thames river—very near to its mouth—which empties into the Long Island Sound. Although not without its social and economic problems, it is a historic city with a great deal of architectural and maritime attractions.

I was absolutely floored to be reading The Online Photographer and to run across a stunning photograph taken literally five minutes up the opposite bank of my river (yes, I own the river) in Groton, Connecticut by Tom Kaszuba (check out the post in question, his website, and his Flickr page). As one would expect, he’s received over 60 comments on that photo on Flickr, probably many thanks to Mike at TOP, and all of them are well-deserved.

So anyway, here is the image.

The Lighthouse Sanctuary, by Tom Kaszuba. New London, Connecticut.

Taking a few minutes to look through Tom’s Flickr page invigorated me and inspired me to photograph the very river and scenery surrounding me here in New London. He has captured the coast of the Thames and the city of New London in a unique and flattering way. My hat is off to you, Tom; keep up the great work!

Edit: One of my favorite blogs, Lifehacker, just posted a short article with a similar message, Take a Cheap Vacation in Your Own City. Therein, they suggest grabbing a guidebook for your area (you can usually find them at visitor’s centers, on your city or town’s website, at the city or town hall, or in a local library) and doing some of the suggested activities or visiting the suggested locations. This could be another great way to revitalize your photography without spending a lot or going too far.

Nearly two hundred years after the invention of photography, creations in the medium are finally being considered “safe” investments. The value of photographs as collectibles is rising sharply, to the pleasure of auction-goers and to the woe of some photographers.

Though paintings, sculptures, prints, and other works of fine art have been spotlighted on the auction block for many years and for tremendous money (works by Jackson Pollock and Gustav Klimt—to name only two—have sold at auction for more than $100 million apiece), the world of fine art collectors has seldom been penetrated by even the most renowned photographers.

This, however, is changing. (more…)

Yesterday, Dan Heller posted an interesting article called Creative Commons and Photography in which he decries the Creative Commons not only as an ineffective and misguided licensing structure for photographers, but as a detriment to its own ends when used by them. I truly believe that he couldn’t be further from the truth, but because his article was so specific I would be doing everyone a disservice to leave my reaction as a mere sound bite.

After the jump, more of Dan’s rantings followed by more of my rantings, hopefully to end with a meaningful conclusion… But no promises. (more…)