Mike Disfarmer Studio Technique

[Mark Crabtree]

I've been intrigued by Mike Meyers/Disfarmer since not long after Julia Scully started writing about him. I fully realize that not everyone likes these photos, but for those that are interested in them I'd like to start some discussion about the photos and the technique behind them. To me, this would be more interesting than usual just because the technique is seemingly so simple and transparent, yet not really agreed on. As I've found with other photographers I've researched, writers seem to miss some things that seem kind of obvious. Much of this is probably from lack of practical experience in the exact type of work they are discussing. Of course, this will probably get worse as time goes on, though maybe the continuing interest in reviving early techniques will help keep practical knowledge available.

Then again, I may be completely wrong in my observations too, so would like to hear what others have to say before I steer things on a particular course.

A few things to start off:

Disfarmer shot almost entirely on glass plates for his studio work. His largest size seems to have been 3.25 x 5.5 inch postcard format, often printed on Kodak postcard stock. I believe he also shot smaller plates, but don't have a clear source on that at the moment. He only seems to have made contact prints. A couple enlargements exist, but were made for him.

His lighting was from a tall almost north facing slanted window, maybe not technically a skylight, but similar. I've not seen much discussion of light modulation, but he must have done some, most skylight photographers had blinds or similar, though by not going as flat at the top as most skylights he might not have needed as much.

And, of course, my interest is actually in the pictures he captured. If you are not familiar with his work, it is worth taking a look. Like them or not, his pictures are nearly unique in their presentation of their subjects. Better to let you make your own conclusions. My interest is in what he accomplished and how he accomplished it.

[Tin Can]

Was not familiar.

Now I know a little.

I like them.

I think I will change my studio setup and my manner.

Getting ready for the hard times coming...

[cowanw]

The Disfarmer website says "Using commercially available glass plates, Disfarmer photographed his subjects in direct north light creating a unique and compelling intimacy. He was so obsessed with obtaining the correct lighting that his lighting adjustments for a sitting were said to take sometimes more than an hour. (this is a quote from the funeral director, quoted over and over again.)
Looking at his work the lighting is always the same; about 30 degrees to left of camera and about 30 degrees above with a fill light for catch lights in the eyes and fill under hats, at camera position. I supposed he opened a shut the blinds for exposure values
Did you read this;
https://www.americansuburbx.com/2012/01/mike-disfarmer-disfarmer-rediscovered.html
and especially this.
http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=4870

[Jim Noel]

I remember well the days of Disfarmer. The country was still suffering from the Dust Bowl, particularly the farmers, many of them tenant farmers. These are the people whom he photographed. They didn't have much reason to smile. I remember the members of my extended family who had the same problems on small farms near the Mississippi River in west Tennessee. To get them to smile was difficult because life was hard every day. I began photographing in the 30's and when I went out of the city I faced many of these people with my cameras.
I have always admired his tenacity to continue his work in these difficult times. He photographed people as they were, with no effort to make them pretty, handsome or well to do.

[Mark Crabtree]

You know what they say about making a small fortune in photography? Personally I'm working at making a small pittance out of my larger pittance. I had fantasized a few times over the years about doing small town portraits as a way to earn a modest living, but the little I've actually done that I've quickly realized that you don't easily do that making pictures that would be interesting to me.

Lately, I have been doing something roughly in this vein. Not the style of Disfarmer, but letting people sit in front of the camera and be themselves. It sort of came about naturally since last fall. I started out wanting to do skylight portraits, then settled on window light. Fell deep into Julia Margaret Cameron, but eventually came out the other side a bit more like Disfarmer. I don't really have anything exactly like that in my few Flickr uploads, but here are some prints hanging to dry from my best day's shooting:
https://live.staticflickr.com/7829/32198777167_9d1d59e031_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/R4i9Et)New prints 2_18_19 (https://flic.kr/p/R4i9Et) by Yew Piney (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90951949@N02/), on Flickr

I shoot the pictures, give every person a print. I plan to make up the loss by doing more of them.

[Mark Crabtree]

The Disfarmer website says "Using commercially available glass plates, Disfarmer photographed his subjects in direct north light creating a unique and compelling intimacy. He was so obsessed with obtaining the correct lighting that his lighting adjustments for a sitting were said to take sometimes more than an hour. (this is a quote from the funeral director, quoted over and over again.)
Looking at his work the lighting is always the same; about 30 degrees to left of camera and about 30 degrees above with a fill light for catch lights in the eyes and fill under hats, at camera position. I supposed he opened a shut the blinds for exposure values
Did you read this;
https://www.americansuburbx.com/2012/01/mike-disfarmer-disfarmer-rediscovered.html
and especially this.
http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=4870

Yes, there are a lot of divergent memories and interpretations. I've read everything I can find, and did particularly notice that one. To me, you've spotted the lighting well, though sometimes it is from slightly left, and sometimes slightly right. I think the entire bottom of the skylight was blocked off, and you can see remnants of that in the 1960's pictures of his abandoned studio. I'll try to find those pictures online later.

I had the Vintage Prints book and believe it had some discussion about the studio layout, but I loaned the book out shortly after getting it and have never been able to get it back. Now the darned thing is $100. If anybody can see what info is in that I would love to hear.

[cowanw]

You go to the same financial advisor as I do.

[cowanw]

I remember well the days of Disfarmer. The country was still suffering from the Dust Bowl, particularly the farmers, many of them tenant farmers. These are the people whom he photographed. They didn't have much reason to smile. I remember the members of my extended family who had the same problems on small farms near the Mississippi River in west Tennessee. To get them to smile was difficult because life was hard every day. I began photographing in the 30's and when I went out of the city I faced many of these people with my cameras.
I have always admired his tenacity to continue his work in these difficult times. He photographed people as they were, with no effort to make them pretty, handsome or well to do.

This reminded me of the centre in Cambodia which was a torture and documentation prison for people just prior to execution. There was a large display of the head shots that the photographer made of every single person. About 1/3 were angry/distainful, about 1/3 were shell shocked, but surprisingly about 1/3 of these people, who knew they were going to be murdered, still faced the camera and put a smile on, hesitant and forced, but just as if it were a family function. That really surprised me and reinforced the conventions of taking a snapshot that had been ingrained the world over in the 20th Century.

[Mark Crabtree]

Smiling for pictures is not all that common in early pictures. More so by this time, but still not what everybody thought was the way to present themselves. If you look through a lot of his pictures, you see a whole range of expressions including smiling and even pinup sort of poses by some of the women. The trouble online is you often see just the same pictures posted over and over. The two books of vintage prints are good because these are pictures right out of peoples albums, still selected by the publisher, but not chosen for reprinting from one of the surviving plates by a curator. One original subject said they went there for entertainment. It was something like 25 to 50 cents for the sitting and a print or three. People apparently came to town on Saturdays and crowded the streets, and getting their picture made at Meyer/Disfarmer Studio was often part of the outing. He also did film processing and printing (contact) too.

It is usually said that he had his camera mounted in a partition and stated or implied that the subjects can't see the photographer. I think the Vintage Prints book talked more about that. There are some obvious discrepancies in the various reports, but I imagine there really was some sort of partition. I want to look more closely to see whether the camera height ever varied. It seems generally a bit low, certainly well below eye level for standing figures.

[Jim Galli]

Ever since I discovered Disfarmer I've had a fantasy about dis-appearing in some corner of Mexico with the '39 Ford truck and doing contact prints for food. Never to be heard of again.

I think the odd size is because He used a sliding dual frame back on 5X7. Studio camera on wheels with 2 exposures on 5X7 plates and I recall the lens is also very simple, a Goerz Dagor 300mm. 12" on that constricted plate size is a good angle of view for portraits. Probably a Packard shutter behind the Dagor. Also likely 10 cents for a picture. He certainly captured a window in time magnificently.

[Tin Can]

Jim, retire to Mexico was my plan. Worked for my parents, before the cartels...not going there now.

I like your analysis of sliding back, I have used a couple and they are the fastest way to shoot 2 for a portrait.

I am going to try setting up some Disfarmer studio hints.

Such as a wall between photographer and subject. I get to talking too much and screw everything up trying to 'relax' a sitter.

Standing the subject close against a set backdrop is also good. Setup soft strobe with modeling lights. Maybe just set fixed focus. My glaucoma is getting worse, focusing will soon be over for me.

And I have a new 8x10 slider to use.

I could find almost the same people and clothes all over this ex-coal mining area. Getting them in my studio may be the problem...

How far is Disfarmer from NOT ART?

[Jim Galli]

How far is Disfarmer from NOT ART?

I think he might laugh himself silly if he knew what a fuss people are making over his simple portraits 80 years later. But they definitely mesmerize . . . me, at least. I can look and look and look at them, but then, I am guilty of romanticizing that time frame. The honesty interests me. What you saw is what you got.

[Oren Grad]

I think the odd size is because He used a sliding dual frame back on 5X7....

FWIW, the brief bio on the ICP website says "Disfarmer used 5 x 7 inch glass plates early in his career and 3 ¼ x 5 ½ inch plates later".

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/mike-disfarmer?all/all/all/all/0

There are plenty of pictures available to browse at the webshop site run by the Howard Greenberg gallery - perhaps some of these will give clues:

http://www.disfarmer.com/gallery/

[Oren Grad]

I think he might laugh himself silly if he knew what a fuss people are making over his simple portraits 80 years later. But they definitely mesmerize . . . me, at least. I can look and look and look at them, but then, I am guilty of romanticizing that time frame. The honesty interests me. What you saw is what you got.

Yes... the fuss over them as Art is a bit much, but they're utterly absorbing as documentation.

[Richard Wasserman]

If you're an Amazon Prime member they have an interesting video titled "Disfarmer"". It includes interviews with people he photographed and knew him. It won't answer all your questions, but it's worth watching.

[Tin Can]

Finally something interesting on Prime!

Thx

[Tin Can]

Richard the Disfarmer movie is the best thing I have seen for a while.

Excellent!

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=disfarmer&i=instant-video&ref=nb_sb_noss_1



If you're an Amazon Prime member they have an interesting video titled "Disfarmer"". It includes interviews with people he photographed and knew him. It won't answer all your questions, but it's worth watching.

[mdarnton]

My books are all at my shop, but I believe that one of them says that he used one of the normal folding Kodak roll film cameras with a plate back on it. He didn't seem much like the kind to go in for the fancy stuff.

I'm a big fan, and my technique might be similar to him, though my results aren't. I just put people in front of the camera, tell them that after I focus they can't move, so they should find a post that's easy to hold, and that's what happens.

[Mark Crabtree]

Ever since I discovered Disfarmer I've had a fantasy about dis-appearing in some corner of Mexico with the '39 Ford truck and doing contact prints for food. Never to be heard of again.

I think the odd size is because He used a sliding dual frame back on 5X7. Studio camera on wheels with 2 exposures on 5X7 plates and I recall the lens is also very simple, a Goerz Dagor 300mm. 12" on that constricted plate size is a good angle of view for portraits. Probably a Packard shutter behind the Dagor. Also likely 10 cents for a picture. He certainly captured a window in time magnificently.

Jim, I've had that sort of fantasy off and on too, but have accidentally stumbled onto something similar enough to be kind of satisfying right now. The biggest difference is the money only goes out, nothing comes in. And it is hard to get people to come to you, so I'm setting up where the interesting people I know are. Plus, maybe not coincidentally, these are mostly country and small town folks.

The directness and honesty of the pictures is I think what I find so appealing too. I was taken by surprise to find people that accept that in pictures today. Not asking for anything of them beyond the image of course helps.

Lens I've seen specifically mentioned is a 12" B&L Tessar in #5 Betax, so that might make it a Ic f4.5. Not that it would have made a lick of difference if it was that or a Dagor. The other mentioned by Alan Trachtenberg in the same book, "Original Disfarmer Photographs" by Steidl, is said to be shorter focal length and is (mis)described as a "Wollensak Double Anistigmatic #6". I would guess a Series I or Ia of some sort, but maybe you can think of something else that could mean.

An actual partition of some sort seems reasonably well established and kind of fits with the photo booth with supervision look of the pictures, but I've also thought along the lines of a studio camera. I'm curious to judge whether the camera could be moved forward and back and up and down. That seems likely, but is not obvious to me in the pictures so far. They really do seem to be 3 1/2 x 5 1/2" glass plates, which was a standard size regularly offered. Of course you could fit a back to any view or studio camera, and this again doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference anyway. I believe more than one person claims it was a camera he built, and I can easily see him adapting just about any ground glass camera to his needs and that would fit with everything mentioned.

Anything that really mattered happened on either side of the camera.

[Mark Crabtree]

My books are all at my shop, but I believe that one of them says that he used one of the normal folding Kodak roll film cameras with a plate back on it. He didn't seem much like the kind to go in for the fancy stuff.

I'm a big fan, and my technique might be similar to him, though my results aren't. I just put people in front of the camera, tell them that after I focus they can't move, so they should find a post that's easy to hold, and that's what happens.

Michael, I'm glad to find some other fans here. If you have the "Vintage Prints" book I think that is the one where I read about some details about the studio setup. A few of the comments in the mostly excellent Trachtenberg essay in the book I still have don't really ring true to me. I'm curious if the other book draws any different conclusions. I'm talking here about the studio setup and his approach (and lighting), more than the actual equipment, though the partition is interesting. I think some of the writers are trying too twist things too much in order to fit the distant memories of the few people who remembered anything. Court cases have clearly shown the reliability (not) of eye witnesses.

Oren, I agree on the art fuss, but am glad for it anyway since we would never have seen this work. Whatever else it is, I think it is a great use of photography. The ICP bio seems oddly inaccurate in general, especially considering the source. Still, I don't doubt that Mike Meyers shot some other formats early on, but it is when he became Disfarmer and shortly before that the work most people are intrigued by came along. The shifting style appears very consciously done, though we'll never know what was in his head. I don't have a reference to anything larger than 3 1/2 x 5 1/2" in those years. That was also a different location than the earliest pictures. It would be interesting to know when he abandoned the larger size, but it might well coincide with the depression. Once again it points up one of the things I like best about this work in that it wouldn't really make a difference in his pictures, just maybe that we wouldn't have as many to look at if he had not worked so cheaply.