London Independent Photography/Bill Jackson

[r.e.]

This is an organization that is currently holding its 21st annual exhibition.

I found out about the exhibit from an article in The Independent newspaper: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/london-independent-photography-celebrates-the-capitals-finest-snappers-1807957.html

The Independent has a slideshow of the work, together with the URLs for each of the photographers: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/london-independent-photography-celebrates-the-capitals-finest-snappers-1807957.html?action=Popup&ino=1

One of the photographers is a fellow named Bill Jackson. He is doing a series of 5x4 portraits using, if I understand correctly, two sheets of film for each portrait. He says on his site "Using 5 x 4 out on location into unknown territories, taking two matched photographs for the panoramic framing, is a testing one." Anyway, 20 of the portraits are on his site, at http://www.billjackson.biz/

Interesting work, very nicely presented.

I'd like to know more, if anyone has thoughts on the subject, about how he is doing this technically.

[csant]

Thanks for sharing, Bill Jackson's work is really interesting. I wonder, though, why he wouldn't use a 10x4 camera for the project…

[phaseone]

Firstly thank you for recommending my work on this site. The only reason I found out there was a post, was that my website stats showed a referral from this forum. Firstly I must point out I do not use film although I could but the way the pictures are taken would make it incredibly difficult to do. I use a 5 x 4 Silvestri camera with a Rodenstock 45mm f4.5 APO Sironar Digital lens. The reason I shoot two pictures is to have a photographic space which is a panoramic, creating odd spatial relationships inside the frame. The prints are 42 inches x 18 inches which requires the use of large format photography to retain tonality and clarity. Using one wide angle picture, be it 10 x 8 or 5 x 4 would not allow this exploration of the space in the way I perceive it. For those who are interested in more technical data I shoot all of them at f16 so my exposures can be upto 4 seconds. A real testament to my sitters who have an amazing ability to sit still. In using long exposures (a lot of my work involves non Kodak moments) the visual quality of the work develops into something quite special. I get a buzz out of the concept of light travelling over time and space. I hope this goes some way in explaining how I go about realising photographic ideas.

[csant]

Bill, nice to see you here :) Your portraits are very intriguing! So, if I understand correctly, you take two wide-angle shots, and stitch those into a panoramic view? There is fairly little distortion noticeable, it sure doesn't feel like wide angle.

[phaseone]

Yes I know what you mean and its a pleasure to be here. There is always a danger of distortion and you can see it on the edge of this picture

http://www.billjackson.biz/portraits/nev.html

but it helps to lead you into the main focus of the image. Its one of the very early pictures I did and I was getting used to system. You cannot place people on the edge as they end to flatten out and distort. The camera slides along its own axis, taking two pictures - one to the right and one to the left and this eliminates a lot of distort that can be found with wide angle lenses, where the central part of the image is pushed back and the edges pulled forward. That was not what I wanted. I didn't want to have the photograph to have an obvious angle of view. I have gotten used to using it, as it is not the easiest camera to set up for this type of picture making.

[csant]

Thanks Bill for the info! I didn't realize you'd *slide* the camera - now it all makes (some) more sense. The more "obvious" distortion I thought I'd noticed (with due respect - it doesn't detract anything to the shot, this is just a technical observation) was in The Railway Child: the shot really is (as far as I can tell) straight and aligned, yet the parallel lines somehow "bend away", more on the right side of the shot. It gives a nice "wavy" feel (a feel, more than a look).

And since I am curious (please feel free to not reveal your "secrets", I know I am asking a lot) - how did you take the Man With A Movie Camera? Obviously you'd need four shots of Simon alone, yet the middle "stitching area" doesn't compute for me if I split the shot in two. You can't have been stitching right through him!

[phaseone]

I actually took 5 pictures. When I set the shot up I had Simon who works with 16mm film and medium to large format photography, to set up on tripods the cameras he uses. They were all trained onto the table which had fallen apples on. I shot the two with him sitting at the table. It occurred to me that the cameras were prime for further investigation. I asked Simon to carefully move behind each camera. As I did not refocus the depth of field would be correct as if there were four people standing there for the shot. If you look carefully there is something odd happening with the scale of Simon standing behind his 5 4 camera.

http://www.billjackson.biz/portraits/simon.html

[phaseone]

If this appears twice I apologize as it went a bit weird when I originally posted. I took two with Simon sitting at the table, surrounded by his cameras. I then asked him to move each behind each of them. As I did not refocus, the photograph would be as if four people were in the original shot. I then placed Simon behind his cameras to the original two which were 'stitched' together. If you look at Simon behind his 54 then something odd seems to be happening with his proportion and scale. I have noticed on other pictures when very closely inspected that odd things are happening, which is great.

http://www.billjackson.biz/portraits/simon.html

[Andrew Tymon]

Hi Bill and welcome!
When I saw the title of the picture 'The man who shot Weegee' I knew instantly who the picture was about- Richard sadler! I was at Derby when Richard was the course leader, I think he retired from Derby in 1992(I left in 93). Richard was always entertaing and very knowledgeable about photography, it's a shame there isn't a book of his work, he has some really great images. Well it's good to see he's still knocking about, how old is he now-80 or something? Thanks for the blast from the past!

[phaseone]

Hi Andrew

Yes Richard is still going strong and he has reached a grand old age. There is a book which we have not made available yet as there are one or two additions to make, but I produced a book of one of his projects called 'Behind The Green Door'. Hopefully it will be on sale on the Blurb website in due course. He is one of the UK's most knowledgeable photographers and found some lost negatives of Bill Brandt which is in publication. When I next speak to him later in the week I shall mentioned your comments.