Bruce Barnbaum's Art of Seeing workshop

[Brian Ellis]

Ok, let's see if a real-life example helps here. As I mentioned, a couple of years ago I attended Bruce's Death Valley workshop (Jack Dykinga and Jay Dusard co-led with Bruce). We photographed in the morning and critiqued participants' portfolios in the evening. Most of the participants were accomplished photographers or very advanced amateurs. One of the participants was a 20 year old who accompanied his father. He wielded a consumer grade dslr while most other participants worked with 4x5. It's safe to say that most of the group didn't take him seriously given his age and kit. He was the last participant to show his work to the group. It was amazing. Jaws dropped. This kid had an innate sense of vision, particularly chiaroscuro, that most of the rest envied greatly. Even Bruce was taken aback. We spent a long time talking about what he saw and how he saw it. It struck me as having a lot to do with openness to perception. Paying attention to the broad and specific.

Anyway, my point is that we don't all have great vision. I don't. This kid did. But we can improve our vision. I have. That workshop helped.

All the best,
Leo

Funny you should mention that kid. I had a similar experience in the workshop of Bruce's that I attended. Most of the participants were, like those in your workshop, advanced photographers using large format gear. But there were two older ladies who were good friends and did a lot of traveling together. They used 35mm or digital cameras, I forget which. Most of us thought it was cute that these two ladies would attend a workshop like Bruce's and we expected to be embarrassed for them when they showed their travel snapshots after all the work us serious photographers had shown. Uh, wrong. We all agreed that theirs were the best, most interesting, most creative photographs in the whole group.

Maybe Bruce brings in a "ringer" to each workshop like your kid or these ladies to teach us that we should never judge a photographer by his/her age or equipment.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think our expctations are colored by our prejudices, and it's usually nice when we're surprised. My own expectations seem to be exactly opposite those expressed above. When I see a middle aged man with a LF camera, I expect boring, derivative, static compositions of worn out subject matter, and would always expect more interesting work from other age groups with more dynamic equipment. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.

[MDR]

LF often but not always equals = landscape shots trying to emulate the great AA. So I have to agree with Jay

[wiggywag]

Ive been to workshop with both Bruce and Michael and Paula. I never met anybody like Michael and Paula that can teach 'seeing' in such a remarkable way, making it so practical and accessible. They really know how to help students to develope their photography. I was really blown away. I did not go to the 'seeing' workshop with Bruce but the his normal one (dont remember the name). What I found with all of them is that they are all in for the best picture and love for art, and technique is only a tool.

[DennisD]

LF often but not always equals = landscape shots trying to emulate the great AA.

Yes, maybe so.

But many who participate in this area are "amateurs" (i.e. not in the sense of accomplishment, but not earning principal income from the activity). For those people, photography is pure enjoyment, love of the medium, or simply owning equipment to have access.

The "middle aged LF person" syndrome mentioned by Jay is indeed real. Many have contributed, myself included, I'm sure. The challenge is how does one get beyond the work by those so famous to the point of something new and original, or that which has our own "trademark". NOT so easy.

A great deal of photography, whether on forums or elsewhere, can easily be pegged as: "Adams did that", "looks like a Weston", etc, etc. While there certainly is a place for the generic "art of seeing workshops", I don't believe seeing can really be taught. But if it can, won't it only generate more of the same "seeing" ?

The real benefit is that individual from within the group (who surprises), "kid" or otherwise, who opens our eyes to something new and original. I have not attended a workshop in some years, but I recall those instances of seeing work that was original, inspiring and caused me to re-think my own approach and direction without emulating what I saw.

Clearly those events are a key to helping us assert our own creativity into whatever manner of photography we pursue. If only every workshop could guaranty the presence of that "ringer".

[Brian C. Miller]

LF often but not always equals = landscape shots trying to emulate the great AA. So I have to agree with Jay

I've seen a lot of LF that doesn't emulate AA in any way, shape, or form. And I've seen a lot of non-LF that does.

Before I was fascinated with photography, I associated AA with Alcoholics Anonymous. I learned about Adams not from a landscape, but from his three book set.

When someone says, "Oh, that looks like Adams!" is it just because it's a photograph of something in a forest or wilderness? Has Adams "monopolized" the concept of photographing mountains, trees, hills and shrubs? There is no "HipstaAdamstic" filter for the iPhone, where the banal becomes the beatific.

At some point, somebody who likes the outdoors landscape and owns a camera is going to go out and photograph it well. That doesn't mean the person is an Adamsite, whose vision is dictated to him as a doctrine. It just means that the person went out and made a nice landscape photograph. And Adams wasn't looking over their shoulder when it was done. What did happen is that people enjoy trying to put other people into boxes, one way or another. Only about 5% of Adams' work has been published. Based on a YouTube video, when he went out he loaded up a lot of gear, including a panoramic camera. Has anybody seen a shot from that camera? I haven't. Adams has been put into the "8x10 B&W landscape" box, and nobody wants to let him out of it. Nobody remarks about what Adams did other than his landscapes.

The most important bit of going to a workshop is getting a critique by many other photographers. That's the important part. I've never been to a workshop, as I've always thought that the price was steep, not because my "vision" would be subverted or re-formed in the forge of the workshop's host. If someone's personal "vision" gets completely changed for every workshop attended, then that person may be very susceptible to suggestion, or hasn't spent time really thinking about what to photograph and how it could be photographed. It's just a session with someone you regard as an expert, and whom you trust. More than that, it's up to the photographer to develop an internal critique compass. Do you need to go to a big-time expert, or just someone with an eye for what's good? Your money, your time, your trust. My first professional critique was from Chess Edwards, and it was quite enlightening. Yeah, it stung a bit to my ego, but that's life. It was important to get that feedback.

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian, you have a strange take on Adams. Adams didn't photograph the banal, but the grandiose, and whatever "box" he's in, is of his own making. 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. We've not gotten Adams all wrong, or forced some narrow view of his work -- we've seen exactly what he chose to show us, for better or for worse.

[Cletus]

I am in agreement with Brian, although I have yet to attend a workshop of any kind, or even spent much time photographing with others, period. Because of this self imposed "Artistic" isolation, I am sorely lacking in feedback and constructive criticism of any kind, which has to be one of the roots of my constant slumps and frustrations and difficulty defining new subjects or ideas. Because of this, I have to be content to make my own judgements about the quality and direction of my work, based only on what I read in books, or glean from poring over the work of others. The path of the lone photographer, completely out of touch with any other living and breathing being leaves much to be desired.

I think the opportunity for some feedback and critique from a photographer whom you personally respect or admire (and who has hopefully attained at least enough formal recognition to be considered a reliable gauge of what is good and why) would alone be worth the price of admission to the right workshop. Add to that, the chance to work - since it is a "workshop" after all - with a group of others who are like minded, serious and interested in the same things (growing, improving, refining style, etc.) could only be a positive.

And all this benefit to the participant before even the specific subjects that the workshop is tailored to are addressed, which would all be bonus material as far as I can guess. This is also the part where the 'take it or leave it' decisions come into play, as has already been mentioned here. If you aren't interested in emulating the approaches and style of the workshop leader and still insist on "hoeing your own row", you at least leave at the end of the day, having sampled many other viewpoints and photographic tendencies and having received the same about your own work from others. That would be worth quite a bit to me.

Did I just take the really long way around just to say "I think critiques are a good and necessary part of growing as a photographer"? Sorry. I have a "way" with words...

[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.