Bruce Barnbaum's Art of Seeing workshop

[Erik Larsen]

Well said Cletus.
Erik

By the way, my favorite childhood dog was affectionately known as Cletus

[Brian Ellis]

. . . Few photographers before Adams exercised so much control over the marketing and publication of their images, so whatever percentage of his images were published, were the ones he chose to represent his body of work, so it's not a matter of some conspiracy to pigeonhole Adams as a B&W photographer of grandiose landscape views, but a thoughtfully presented body of work by one of the most marketing-savvy photographers of his generation. . . .

Jay, I often agree with you and even when I don't I enjoy your posts. So please don't take this the wrong way but it's clear that you don't know much about Adams. He wasn't especially marketing-savvy at all, in fact just the opposite. He didn't even make a living much less any serious money from his prints for most of his life. He supported himself and his family mainly through working as a commercial photographer. He only began to be marketed well and finally make some real money after Bill Turnage took over as his business/career manager. Adams was about 70 years old when that happened. To the extent that there was any great marketing savvy applied to Adams' photographs, it was done by Turnage not by Adams, and then only for latter part of Adams' life.

[Jay DeFehr]

Cletus,

Maybe never having had the experience of having your work critiqued by another photographer causes you to overestimate its usefulness. Being a photographer, even a good one, doesn't necessarily make one an insightful critic, or an effective verbal communicator, both of which are required for a useful critique. I don't think any of us is as isolated as we might imagine. I lived in Idaho for most of my photographic life, with very little association with other photographers. I learned to seek out feedback from those I felt were in a position to offer something useful, and not just friendly encouragement. With very few exceptions, the most insightful and useful feedback I've received has been from non-photographers. Photographers rarely provide me any new insights or thoughtful commentary. Since moving to Seattle, I've been fortunate to meet many artists, working in all manner of media, as well as gallerists, curators, historians, and theorists. I think the value of the feedback one receives from anyone is proportional to one's ability to articulate one's artistic goals and objectives. If you don't know what you're trying to achieve, it's unrealistic to expect anyone else to offer you guidance. In the end, it's almost always to look within than to seek the approval of some luminary, real or imagined.

[jp498]

I think all this "photographic seeing" nonsense is snake oil. Anyone alive in the 21st century sees photographically, and "teaching" someone to do it is a bit like teaching them to see three dimensionally, or in color -- one can draw some attention to the mechanisms at work, but beyond an explanation of the human visual perception system, what is there to add? If you want to learn to emulate another photographer, a workshop with them could help, but anyone wishing to evolve their own visual signature has to do it the hard way. That's my take on the subject, but I don't mean to suggest one of these workshops would not be enjoyable for others.

I think "photographic seeing" is something of a mix of old proven and highly developed conclusions from art history and to a lesser extent, contemporary crap that we don't know how it will stick or be a fad, and to some extent intuition and experimentation. Some people observe and apply this more easily than others. To these people, it's snake oil.

I'm a life-long learner so to speak... I like to photo history and took two Tillman Crane / Russ Young workshops in pictorialism. I enjoyed the craft learning aspects, doing things with other photographers, and the challenge to improve my work to a different standard. The workshop isn't responsible for the improvement, I have to choose certain things I've learned and put it to work. These teachers recommended the hard way (Like Jay has) for improvement; at least a hundred photos per lens over a long period to have photos as you visualize them, essentially guiding us from being lens collectors to using a lens or two for prolific photography. Not all participants are going to heed that well. I've been doing the hard work with one lens, but collecting others on the side for later use.

Jay's seemingly limited subject matter shows he is working hard at a particular visual signature; you can't deny that. Unique and quality photos of family in a different style has been Sally Mann's claim to fame and inspires perhaps more photographers than AA. (I think of AA inspiring many non-photographers, and consider photography primarily a woman's hobby at the moment, despite this forum) Jay is beyond good at family portraits because I'm guessing he's put in the creative and physical effort, which is not something supplied by a workshop.

I'll take more workshops from time to time in the future for the challenge. I enjoy learning craft and history, and enjoy other photographers and what they bring for talent and skill. You can learn a lot from a forum or youtube video, but not everything can be taught that way.

[Michael A. Smith]

Photographic seeing: What Paula and I teach in our very occasional weekend workshops (sometimes just one or two a year) is an understanding of those visual things that going into the making of any fine photograph. We have learned from those who have taken our workshop, and who have also taken others, that they always learn something at the workshops they have taken, and have a good time, meet other photographers, etc., but that afterwards they do not necessarily make better photographs on their own terms. After our workshops almost everyone makes better photographs on their own terms--not ones that look like ones we would make. That is because they learn about the kinds of visual things they need to consider when making an exposure, and they learn an approach to seeing photographically that is different (we have been told) from the way others approach the making of photographs.

As one participant remarked when we ran into him a year after the workshop: "Before the workshop I wouldn't take out my camera until I saw the picture. Now I don't see the picture until I am looking on the ground glass." Arriving at that understanding is a lot of what Paula and I teach.

When Paula and I show our photographs to curators and collectors we do not say a word about them; we just present them. But a few years ago a long-time curator at a major institution asked us questions that led us to say some of the things we say to participants in our workshops. After only a minute or two he stopped us and said that we had to write this down (someday!), that he had never heard a photographer talk about approaching the making of photographs the way we do. We are certain we are not the only photographers who approach making photographs the way we do, but we seem to be able to articulate and demonstrate that approach in a particularly useful way.

For those suspicious of what I just wrote, I suggest you go to our web site, here: http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/workshopcomments.html where there are unsolicited comments by former participants. We never ask for feedback and all of these comments are truly unsolicited. They are almost all based on the "vision" part of our Vision and Technique Workshop.

Michael A. Smith

[Jay DeFehr]

You're very kind, JP.

[DennisD]

As one participant remarked when we ran into him a year after the workshop: "Before the workshop I wouldn't take out my camera until I saw the picture. Now I don't see the picture until I am looking on the ground glass." Arriving at that understanding is a lot of what Paula and I teach.

Thanks for your reply, Michael. Could you elaborate on this:

"Now I don't see the picture until I am looking on the ground glass"

This seems like a statement of the obvious for any serious LF photographer, unless I'm missing the point.

Don't most photographers first observe "a big picture" ready for gg interpretation. It's only after that " big picture" is on the gg and I have a chance to work with my subject matter that the true image appears, I.e. my personal vision, ready for exposure. I don't think I ever saw a picture (precisely) until it was on the ground glass.

I'd like to know what others think. If I've missed the point please tell me.

Thanks

[Michael A. Smith]

From Dennis D: "Don't most photographers first observe "a big picture" ready for gg interpretation. It's only after that " big picture" is on the gg and I have a chance to work with my subject matter that the true image appears, I.e. my personal vision, ready for exposure. I don't think I ever saw a picture (precisely) until it was on the ground glass.

I'd like to know what others think. If I've missed the point please tell me.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

No, Dennis, most photographers do not work that way. In our experience, teaching workshops, we find that most everyone has a preconception of what they want their photograph to look like. Whether or not they see the picture exactly as they want it before setting up their camera, they know pretty much what they want. And that limits the discovery process. Their discovery is within narrow boundaries. That is the very short answer. The long answer is an entire chapter in a book.

When I set up my camera, most of the time I haven't a clue of what the picture will look like, and often the exposure I make is of something in another direction entirely from where I began looking on the ground glass. Paula and I use the ground glass as a discovery process, not as a confirmation of what we already know. One can only respond to what, on some level, one already knows. So for most folks, their photographs confirm what they already know. They may make beautiful photographs, but no real growth is taking place. In order to grow in the process of making one's photographs, one needs to photograph what one doesn't know. The paradox is: how does one do that, if we can only respond to what we already know. In teaching our workshops, Paula and I resolve that paradox.

Michael A. Smith

[h2oman]

Michael, how about a workshop on the west coast sometime? All the travel to Pennsylvania or Paris + motel + workshop cost is just too prohibitive for some of us!

[Michael A. Smith]

Paula and I would be happy to teach a workshop on the West Coast. We expect to be there in January. All we need is a place to hold it and enough people to make it worthwhile. Eight is ideal. We could do one of our Vision and Technique Workshops, which involves a darkroom, or just the vision part, where a darkroom is not needed. Send us an email and we can discuss. Our email address is on our web site. Anyone else interested, let us know, too.

Michael A. Smith