ULF Photography - No, really. [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

GPS

28-Aug-2010, 12:14

Why so judgmental? He appears to be doing creative and original work, and having a good time doing it. And I would bet he is already familiar with the more ordinary methods of picture taking!

Sandy

There is nothing judgemental in realising that you can get the same results from a much easier, lighter and quicker to use construction. I don't think he is after unnecessary muscle work and straining exercise while carrying the beast from one point to the other.
Many years ago there was another US photographer who had the same idea of giant pictures. He used a more intelligent approach and was making pictures for professional use. And unlike this guy, he even used front standard movements for his pictures!

Keith Pitman

28-Aug-2010, 13:46

Only in San Francisco :-)

--P

Actually not! http://www.pinchbeckphoto.com/pinhole

Chris has been doing these pinhole/trailer photos for a long time.

sanking

28-Aug-2010, 15:01

There is nothing judgemental in realising that you can get the same results from a much easier, lighter and quicker to use construction. I don't think he is after unnecessary muscle work and straining exercise while carrying the beast from one point to the other.
Many years ago there was another US photographer who had the same idea of giant pictures. He used a more intelligent approach and was making pictures for professional use. And unlike this guy, he even used front standard movements for his pictures!

Well, that sounds judgmental to me, but I bet that fellow could care less what you and I think. He is out there doing his thing and apparently enjoying the experience.

What do you think about this big camera project?

http://www.theamericanportraitproject.com/

Sandy King

GPS

28-Aug-2010, 15:26

...
What do you think about this big camera project?

http://www.theamericanportraitproject.com/

Sandy King

From the pedagogical point of view it is an excellent idea! It will remind people of the photographic light mysticism which is available to all and which haven't ceased to touch all who came to the contact with it -from the time of the first Camera obscura - but which disappeared to a large extent with the arrival of the digital photography.
From the technical point of view you can see that instead of making a huge box camera they go after making a huge bellows camera - a more intelligent approach for many reasons.
These guys just want to shout loud the little boy in us who holds a negative and wonders... Good for them and those who hear them!
They should have a small view camera shop near for all those touched in a more serious way...:)

Jim Cole

31-Aug-2010, 07:29

http://www.theamericanportraitproject.com/

Sandy King

Sandy,

Thanks for that link. What an amazing project. I can't wait for the resulting documentaries.

domaz

31-Aug-2010, 09:06

The guy has an impressive resume-built in a relatively short time. But in all honesty, if one did not know the monumental effort required to produce the images.......if you just randomly ran into a show of his in a gallery without knowing the process.......what would you think of the images?

http://www.lightdark.com/

His images being very large are probably pretty interesting to see in real life. But I suspect your are hinting that art should be judged without the process it took to make them in mind. I'm not really sure that's valid- especially in the modern gallery "scene". People ARE interested in process, especially in this digital age, they want to see something that was not created by the "ordinary" means. Not to say that some art can't stand on it's own without process- but process is an undeniable part of some art.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2010, 09:50

Domaz, I think extraordinary effort, by itself, doesn't make successful art. As a matter of fact it can be detrimental to ones vision if the wrong tools are used. I have seen this again and a again with students who insist on trying to shoot subject matter with something like an 8x10 that is better done with 35. Its kind of like building an enormous hammer to swat flies with.......ok so.......

So let me be clear-I'll stick my neck way out and be judgemental-nothing wrong with that when it comes to adult established artists IMO. I have not seen this fellows work in the original, but judging by what I see on his website, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to see it. The large camera images seem very derivative of New Topographics and poorly executed. Robert Adams 1983.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/On_Signal_Hill,_Overlooking_Long_Beach,_California.jpg

Daniel_Buck

31-Aug-2010, 11:45

Pity the photographer didn't realise that all that monstrous mechanical construction of his camera is completely unnecessary for picture taking of this kind...

sometimes the process is more enjoyable as the final result :)

Pawlowski6132

31-Aug-2010, 11:48

I think HOW the art came to be cannot be ignored (even if you tried) when emotionally evaluating it.

If I saw a ship in a bottle and you told me a computer/robot did it...well...OK.

If you told me a blind seven year old boy did it ...well...it gives you a deeper sense of appreciation.

But, on the other hand, I see your point. As I sometimes to objectively evaluate some art too w/o knowing the source. Often times when I hear some really old blues recording, I think it sounds like crap. But, then, when you learn the provenance, you can appreicate it more. But it still sounds like crap.

David Hedley

31-Aug-2010, 13:14

... extraordinary effort, by itself, doesn't make successful art. [/IMG]

No question about that. On watching the video, I felt a frisson of excitement when the prints were unrolled, and did think that they were likely to be highly expressive. The examples on his website look very different, and seem less successful to me. On balance, I'd certainly make the effort to see some prints in person, if only to make my mind up.

Brian C. Miller

31-Aug-2010, 14:01

While I am impressed with John Chiara's camera, I must admit I was quite disappointed by his choice of subject matter. Yes, the photographs are big. No, they are not interesting. I think that he is photographing what is convenient, and then making a sales pitch about it.

The "New Topographics" exhibition was really a display of the banal, conceived and promulgated by academics. I don't consider the images to be interesting. Maybe stuff like that is interesting to someone who doesn't get outside very much. Honestly, I've seen some test images posted on this forum that were more interesting.

Really, photography like this is not what invigorates people to make photographs. Who wants to look at some dumpy motel (http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi3/m197700660002_ful.html)? I mean, seriously? Does it inspire or is it pretentious nose-in-belly-button-lint time?

My personal rule: if a picture needs "interpretation" then it has failed. Good photographs don't need a sales pitch.

Paul Kierstead

31-Aug-2010, 18:35

I first came across new topographics-style work completely context and interpretation free. I was very intrigued and fascinated, and found the work quite interesting. I found it needed no interpretation at all.

Perhaps tastes differ.

Paul Kierstead

31-Aug-2010, 18:36

Oh, and yes, I find the dumpy motel inspires. Perhaps not warm and fuzzy feelings, or particularly pleasant inspiration, but yes, quite inspiring.

rdenney

1-Sep-2010, 05:39

It seems to me quite dangerous for us to determine whether what this guy is doing is worth his time and trouble to do it. He thinks it is, and our determination should be limited to whether or not it moves us.

He is an example of a type of person I described in another thread: Someone whose focus is entirely expressive, and who believes the accidents associated with "freedom from technique" become part of the art. He seems to have purposely developed a system with technique so challenging that it forces an indeterminant result. He does apply technique--I was especially intrigued to see him dodging in front of the lens, during exposure--sort of his own grad filter. He also admitted that the sheer size of the camera limited choices of subjects, and seemed to favor the notion that this limitation forced him away from over-represented subjects. And he admitted that it was very difficult to get any sense of what was actually in the picture until it was done--another attempt to limit his exertion of control over the image.

Whether or not I like his results, he seems to have a reason for what he is doing, and the results clearly affect some viewers.

I also agree that some understanding of the process is essential for the appreciation of the craft used to create art, and appreciation of craft is at least a component of appreciating the art. That tension between art and craft, or between expression and technique, has caused wars in the art world, of course, no matter what the medium. We can carry the argument forward but we will not resolve it. I have found myself on both sides of it depending on mood.

A lot of modern photography seems to eschew a focus on technique as inhibiting to art. We suspect that in many cases it is an excuse to avoid the effort required to master technique. Whatever else we might say about this guy, nobody can accuse him of being lazy.

Rick "who could spend an afternoon making this guy's camera a lot easier to use" Denney

Brian C. Miller

1-Sep-2010, 12:33

It seems to me quite dangerous for us to determine whether what this guy is doing is worth his time and trouble to do it. He thinks it is, and our determination should be limited to whether or not it moves us.

No, it is not dangerous. Nobody is going to show up on his doorstep and thwap him with darkslides or flog him with cable releases or flap focusing hoods at him, or even fart in his general direction. I'd just like to see him park that camera in a more interesting spot.

Bill Jay wrote about getting a critique of his essays that ended with, "but you didn't tell me where to point the camera." That is a central problem with photography. Where to point the camera. This reminds me of Vincent Flander's Web Pages That Suck (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com), which teaches good design by pointing out bad design. Unfortunately in art, the banal and easy has become fashionable, with even photographs of bags of garbage being shown as "art." While John Chiara goes to a lot of effort to use his camera, he parks it in banal spots. Honestly, there are plenty of interesting places to park a big camera, even if it takes its own trailer, even if he doesn't want to go outside SF, even if he doesn't want people bugging him while he is doing his photography.

Whether or not I like his results, he seems to have a reason for what he is doing, and the results clearly affect some viewers.

But that's always true of anything. That's the exact reason that we have the word "kitsch" and there are people who keep the kitsch industry in business, and very profitably in business. There is always a niche for any invented artwork, you just need the right sales copy and marketing.

I also agree that some understanding of the process is essential for the appreciation of the craft used to create art, and appreciation of craft is at least a component of appreciating the art. That tension between art and craft, or between expression and technique, has caused wars in the art world, of course, no matter what the medium. We can carry the argument forward but we will not resolve it. I have found myself on both sides of it depending on mood.

It isn't a proper war until Weegee photographs the blood on the sidewalk! :eek: "See? He was an upcoming public enemy number one. Look at that beret, sunglasses and goatee!" "Nah, he ain't even had a MOMA exhibition! $5 for that one, and that's it."
There are some things that do impress me, like spelling "IBM" with atoms, or the Hubbell space telescope. A humongous camera being used to produce banal images amounts to a sideshow. What I do think is, "If I had a camera like that, where could I go with it?" So that's why I asked about his lens.

What is true about that camera is that I don't think that Ben Syverson would have an issue with whether or not the image "holds together"! ;)

Paul Kierstead

1-Sep-2010, 13:17

... even photographs of bags of garbage being shown as "art."

What about photographs of bags of garbage makes them inherently disqualified as art?

rdenney

1-Sep-2010, 13:36

No, it is not dangerous. Nobody is going to show up on his doorstep and thwap him with darkslides or flog him with cable releases or flap focusing hoods at him, or even fart in his general direction.

Not dangerous to him. Dangerous to us. When we judge stuff like that, we close doors rather than open them. That doesn't mean we run out and make similar images, it just means that his idea of banality might differ from yours, both in terms of what you both consider to be banal and in terms of whether banality disqualifies it as a serious work of art.

Bill Jay wrote about getting a critique of his essays that ended with, "but you didn't tell me where to point the camera."

I would like to interrupt his argument to express appreciation for this concept. I've always said that 95% of any photograph is defined by where we set up and point the camera, and when we push the button. It was a guaranteed conversations stopper on the Canon DSLR forum when mediating knock-down fights about whether Lens X delivered 94 or 98 lines/mm.

Rick "'f/8 and be there'" Denney

tgtaylor

1-Sep-2010, 19:18

Bill Jay wrote about getting a critique of his essays that ended with, "but you didn't tell me where to point the camera." That is a central problem with photography. Where to point the camera.

It turns out that most photographers don't have a personal vision - they have to be shown or told what to shoot.

Morca

1-Sep-2010, 23:08

My personal rule: if a picture needs "interpretation" then it has failed. Good photographs don't need a sales pitch.

I take it you disregard the majority of critically important art produced in the last half century?

Nathan Smith

2-Sep-2010, 08:28

Ultimately all art is subjective. Even if you could produce something that all of humanity could agree was great art, they'd still appreciate it to different degrees, and for different reasons.

If you can produce something you enjoy and others do too, then, in my humble opinion, you've succeeded.

It looks to me like this fellow has produced something that has succeeded not only in creating something that many folks do enjoy, but also creates debate, and inspires others - either to do the same, to improve on his process, or to do their own thing. He doesn't appear to be telling anyone this is what everyone should do, or that his method is the best. He's just doing what he wants to do.

Sounds good to me.

2-Sep-2010, 13:41

No, it is not dangerous. Nobody is going to show up on his doorstep and thwap him with darkslides or flog him with cable releases or flap focusing hoods at him, or even fart in his general direction. I'd just like to see him park that camera in a more interesting spot.

I'd like to that camera produce some photos in Washington DC. The process would be 100x more interesting as it would get mistaken for a WMD. The youtube video would be exceedingly entertaining.

Really with the right subject matter, it could prove pretty interesting. Architectural scenes would be my choice. Making it wide angle pinhole could be cool too, perhaps placing it on a catering hi-lift and getting a good wide angle perspective on a 747 jet with a big airport scene in the background.

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 19:44

Why so judgmental? He appears to be doing creative and original work, and having a good time doing it. And I would bet he is already familiar with the more ordinary methods of picture taking!

Sandy

I agree, this is great. He isn't just doing pixel whoring. It is a really very interesting process that really gets him involved in the picture. What I find so neat is that rather than domineering over his camera, his camera domineers over him. That is symbolic of the control that he lets go of. I thought it was interesting how he was just kind of using intuition to block out light from pre-exposing the top of the film, but get the bottom of it pre-exposed.

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 19:46

Check THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYWehyfFcM&feature=player_embedded)out. I don't even know what to say.

That image he unrolled is really great, interesting, magical. It has a nice sort of dreamy quality about it.

What I really like is him getting inside of his camera!

That seems like a lot of fun!

Kirk Gittings

2-Sep-2010, 19:49

I thought it was interesting how he was just kind of using intuition to block out light from pre-exposing the top of the film, but get the bottom of it pre-exposed.

What the heck does that mean?????? It looked to me that he was simply dodging in-camera.

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 20:10

What the heck does that mean?????? It looked to me that he was simply dodging in-camera.

LOL, I didn't mean literally using his "intuition" to block out the light, by psychic power or something. Yea, I meant dodging in-camera...when he was waiving his hand over the top part of the lens. I actually think it isn't a bad idea, if you have a lens large enough to do that (I could probably do it with my 90/4.5...when stopped down, do they still get light from the top parts of the lens?)

In any event, this actually gave me an interesting idea for avoiding blown out highlights. You take negative film out into field, along with whatever you need to develop it in the field. You do your metering, composing, focusing etc as you normally would. You want to avoid blown out highlights, so you take a normal shot with your negative film, but underexpose it by say 2 stops (e.g., 1s exposure, when metering says you should use 4s). Develop it in the field to get your B&W negative developed, but develop it normally (so it'll come out underexposed). But still, your shot is there, and the highlight areas would be grayish, while shadow or midtone areas would be either clear or nearly so.

Take that film into a film-loading tent where you have a slide with one unexposed B&W negative loaded. Load your 2-stop underexposed on top of the unexposed negative. (you'd obviously need thin film for this). You now have a kind of "layer mask", that will block some light from getting to the more highlight areas of your shot. Load the film cartridge into your camera and take the exact same shot again, with some compensation for the fact that you have a kind of "layer mask" on top of it.

Kirk Gittings

2-Sep-2010, 20:33

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 20:44

Actually not! http://www.pinchbeckphoto.com/pinhole

Chris has been doing these pinhole/trailer photos for a long time.

Do you really get substantially more resolution by using a trailer-sized pinhole camera vs. an 8x10 or 11x14 for the same field of view? If so, why? It would seem to me that at the enormously large f-numbers you're effectively getting even with a small 8x10 pinhole camera, you're already resolving at the diffraction limit...so what gain is there in moving up to a larger size capture medium and even larger f#?

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 20:52

Seriously??
You will have to dry the film right? In that time the light will change-the sun will move-you will not get good registration as there is some slop in film holders......................................................................................

Mere "technical problems". You'd have to do what you could to try to the film in the same position it was in before (maybe bang it on top each and the side each time before loading to get it aligned?), and would need thin film (like Adox Pan 25 or Kodak Aerographic PanX II), so you could load two in one slot.

The dry time is probably insurmountable...in one day. If you could leave your camera in exactly the same place and not worry about anyone stealing it, you could come back the next day at the same time to complete the process.

Might want to take the first image a little out of focus at key parts, because of possible changes from one day to the next, and so you don't have sharp edge-border masking?

Or maybe a much more subjective broad process of having a thin piece unexposed but developed B&W film (so it is clear) or something clear of the same size that you can load in there over the film. First put it on top of the ground glass and color with a marker or something over broad areas that are very bright?

Just an out-loud brainstorm.

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 21:02

While I am impressed with John Chiara's camera, I must admit I was quite disappointed by his choice of subject matter. Yes, the photographs are big. No, they are not interesting. I think that he is photographing what is convenient, and then making a sales pitch about it.

Well, yea, a camera that big really limits what you can photograph...unless you tack it onto a Hummer and have some serious heavy-duty wheels on the trailer.

Really, photography like this is not what invigorates people to make photographs. Who wants to look at some dumpy motel (http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi3/m197700660002_ful.html)? I mean, seriously? Does it inspire or is it pretentious nose-in-belly-button-lint time?

LOL, I agree.

My personal rule: if a picture needs "interpretation" then it has failed. Good photographs don't need a sales pitch.

I agree, but I think some of his photographs stand on their own, particularly that first one he unrolled, and the one he was looking at on the wall.

rdenney

2-Sep-2010, 22:17

Do you really get substantially more resolution by using a trailer-sized pinhole camera vs. an 8x10 or 11x14 for the same field of view? If so, why? It would seem to me that at the enormously large f-numbers you're effectively getting even with a small 8x10 pinhole camera, you're already resolving at the diffraction limit...so what gain is there in moving up to a larger size capture medium and even larger f#?

It's the only way I know of to get a really large direct positive print--a singular, first-generation print rather than a print from film. Elsa Dorfman is doing the same thing, with the same lack of regard for what many think is banal, with a 20x24 Polaroid. This guy just wants it to be bigger.

Lots of people seem to want to print at 4x5 feet these days, or even larger. Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints. This guy has found a way to do both.

Rick "seeing the appeal" Denney

dh003i

2-Sep-2010, 22:48

It's the only way I know of to get a really large direct positive print--a singular, first-generation print rather than a print from film. Elsa Dorfman is doing the same thing, with the same lack of regard for what many think is banal, with a 20x24 Polaroid. This guy just wants it to be bigger.

Lots of people seem to want to print at 4x5 feet these days, or even larger. Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints. This guy has found a way to do both.

Rick "seeing the appeal" Denney

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

i.e., I get that the reason why 4x5 and 8x10 get sharper pictures than 35mm is because at equivalent larger f-stops for DOF, they're a lot closer to the diffraction limit. Ok, check! But at pinhole sizes, I'd expect 8x10 to basically resolve at the diffraction limit. I'd also expect the same thing of a U Haul sized camera, for an equivalent "pinhole" in terms of DOF and angle of view. So I wouldn't expect much increased detail (although I'd expect it to be smoother).

In short, I'd expect that any difference in the sharpness of what you get from pinholes from one film size to another to have purely to do with the interaction with the film and resolution of the film...but I'd expect diminishing returns there quickly as the film resolution greatly outstrips the resolution of the aerial image.

also, the photos that John Chiara was unrolling certainly didn't look like they had "infinite depth of field".

Nathan Smith

3-Sep-2010, 01:57

I don't think he's using a pinhole, is he? Thought I saw a lens.

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

i.e., I get that the reason why 4x5 and 8x10 get sharper pictures than 35mm is because at equivalent larger f-stops for DOF, they're a lot closer to the diffraction limit. Ok, check! But at pinhole sizes, I'd expect 8x10 to basically resolve at the diffraction limit. I'd also expect the same thing of a U Haul sized camera, for an equivalent "pinhole" in terms of DOF and angle of view. So I wouldn't expect much increased detail (although I'd expect it to be smoother).

In short, I'd expect that any difference in the sharpness of what you get from pinholes from one film size to another to have purely to do with the interaction with the film and resolution of the film...but I'd expect diminishing returns there quickly as the film resolution greatly outstrips the resolution of the aerial image.

also, the photos that John Chiara was unrolling certainly didn't look like they had "infinite depth of field".

Paul Kierstead

3-Sep-2010, 05:41

Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints.

I love polaroids. I'm certainly no 'artist' with them (And don't try to be, I like them as snapshot materials), but there is something about it conceptually. I keep an old polaroid camera around (shooting 3000 speed B&W). When I go to a friends house, they come here, I sometimes get it out. Now these friends are buried in colorful, professionally produced photographs everyday (like most of the tech saavy world). But shoot them with some crappy polaroid camera, show them the print and they very very often say "can I take this home". You could shoot them like crazy with another camera, no real response. But something about the uniqueness (truly) of that polaroid seems to suck them in. Of course, the peel-apart heres-a-photo magic still helps, and the old-timey camera really disarms them; many a friend who is all 'oh, I don't like pictures of me' etc are suddenly "oh wow, is that an antique camera" etc and are posing before you know it. The photographer/subject interaction is really great, and I like that I give them the print and never have the opportunity to sweat it, or examine it, or the like again.

Oh, and kids, especially the more curious quiet smart kind, practically go crazy for them.

rdenney

3-Sep-2010, 09:54

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

Maybe I wasn't clear. I suspect that resolution is not the driving force behind Chiara's work or anyone who might be doing something similar using a pinhole instead of a lens. If the uniqueness of the print (existing only in the original) and the large size of the print are simultaneous requirements, then Chiara may have found his solution that fulfills both. 8x10 would not fulfill both. I doubt he's doing this to achieve ultimate resolution--his images did not reflect that requirement. And focusing his beast seems to require help from a 4-ton Porta-Power, so precision in focusing is probably not attainable in any case, even assuming he can really tell what's in focus by studying the dim projected image inside the camera. I see many, many photos presented and praised that show no evidence of sharpness anywhere in the photo. I wonder what sort of tonality Chiara's direct prints might achieve.

Rick "guessing at Chiara's requirements" Denney

tgtaylor

3-Sep-2010, 14:34

Maybe I wasn't clear. I suspect that resolution is not the driving force behind Chiara's work or anyone who might be doing something similar using a pinhole instead of a lens. .

I agree. I imagine he wants’ to escape from the banality of today’s super sharp and super-saturated image. I find myself seeking the same by starting to use a soft focus lens and considering alternative methods - dabbing in pictoralism dare I say. It’s as refreshing today as f64 was in the 1920’s.

Drew Bedo

17-Sep-2010, 18:08

How really cool! that rig could be made to work at scenic roadside turnouts all over the country.

Seeing that camera makes me think of other arrangements. Think of the panoramic camera that a 20' shipping container could house: Curved film plane and rotating lens . . .think of a GIANT Noblex.

sanking

17-Sep-2010, 18:50

Well, yea, a camera that big really limits what you can photograph...unless you tack it onto a Hummer and have some serious heavy-duty wheels on the trailer.

You know, I have seriously thought about mounting my 20X24" camera on the front of one of those three wheel off-road vehicles, folding it down when traveling and then just opening it up facing the subject when I arrived. I could take that rig almost everywhere I used to hike. I still think that would be just too cool for words, and damn efficient at that.

I just hate for the size of my camera to limit the subject!!!!

But then I look at the superb detail in my 13" X 32" prints from the Noblex 150U and wonder why one would even need to use small sheet film, much less ULF.

Sandy King

benrains

19-Sep-2010, 11:36

I think Shaun Irving's "Cameratruck" is a nicer setup for this type of work- http://www.cameratruck.net/

As for the American Portrait project, that looks like some sort of cheesy steampunk pipe dream. Nice 3D CGI animation, website, and pitch material, but it seems too preoccupied on flashy presentation than any kind of real substance. I much prefer the DIY efforts of folks like John Chiara, Chris McCaw, and Shaun Irving who focus on making pictures and not trying to get someone to bankroll their "big idea".

dh003i

19-Sep-2010, 12:58

You know, I have seriously thought about mounting my 20X24" camera on the front of one of those three wheel off-road vehicles, folding it down when traveling and then just opening it up facing the subject when I arrived. I could take that rig almost everywhere I used to hike. I still think that would be just too cool for words, and damn efficient at that.

I just hate for the size of my camera to limit the subject!!!!

But then I look at the superb detail in my 13" X 32" prints from the Noblex 150U and wonder why one would even need to use small sheet film, much less ULF.

Sandy King

I wonder if the shocks would cause problems for the camera frame, alignment.

I've thought about a setup to cart my gear around with a kind of wheelbarrow tire, but would probably want some sort of suspension/shock absorption.

dh003i

19-Sep-2010, 13:05

I think Shaun Irving's "Cameratruck" is a nicer setup for this type of work- http://www.cameratruck.net/

Neat, but a lot of the images seem like they have clipping problems, and half of the links to images on that site don't work!

As for the American Portrait project, that looks like some sort of cheesy steampunk pipe dream. Nice 3D CGI animation, website, and pitch material, but it seems too preoccupied on flashy presentation than any kind of real substance. I much prefer the DIY efforts of folks like John Chiara, Chris McCaw, and Shaun Irving who focus on making pictures and not trying to get someone to bankroll their "big idea".

Tend to agree, neat idea though.

cosmicexplosion

19-Sep-2010, 15:00

One point to remember is that John Chiara is rejecting the lush fine prints that most here aspire.

Instead he is being an artist, doing his own thing. Painting with light.

I like his images a lot as they are more like a painting. Ok so some of my landscape paintings have a similar ambience, that come from layers and layers of thin glazes.

Painting has the advantage of being unlimited by circumstance.

I have a friend the same as john, very quiet shy, but highly original and creative.

Unafraid to do his own thing. Uninterested in opinions as he loves what he does.

GO JOHNY!

Roger Thoms

19-Sep-2010, 15:29

He could at least paint the outside of the camera white or stop whining about how hot it is.

I do really like what he is doing.

Roger

Steve M Hostetter

20-Sep-2010, 17:16

I really admire the guy.. I would think it wouldn't be to much trouble to make a GG sring back and have a film holder made .. Then he could do two shots a day ..

I would think that the emulsion would be effected by his body heat inside that thing..

20-Sep-2010, 20:03

I'd paint the whole thing white on the exterior of course. Then I'd build a false floor in it to hold a tray(s) and chemicals for processing, or tubes for storing spent film for later processing. A projector screen would probably be an adequate replacement for a groundglass if it's viewed from inside. I'd probably figure out a way to install a light trap double-door rather than climb through the plastic bag. He's either lacking some mechanical ingenuity and making up for it with willpower, or building a list of changes for version 2.

Kirk Gittings

20-Sep-2010, 20:28

One point to remember is that John Chiara is rejecting the lush fine prints that most here aspire.

Instead he is being an artist, doing his own thing. Painting with light.

Instead he is being an artist???????????? What are we chopped liver?

jnantz

20-Sep-2010, 21:57

thanks for posting this link. it is nice to see someone
making singular prints using an interesting technique ...

does anyone know the archival stability of the kinds of prints he is making ?

Brian C. Miller

21-Sep-2010, 00:04

Instead he is being an artist???????????? What are we chopped liver?

With onions and herbs, pan fried in butter. :D
Or would you rather be vegan mock chopped liver?? :eek:

Remember, being an "artiste" is about advertising and promotion.

GPS

21-Sep-2010, 04:53

...
I'd probably figure out a way to install a light trap double-door rather than climb through the plastic bag. He's either lacking some mechanical ingenuity and making up for it with willpower, or building a list of changes for version 2.

You've pretty much nailed it down. Personally (and I know that others can have exactly opposite opinions) I regard his art as being on the same level as that of his "mechanical ingenuity". The whole camera could be built ten times lighter, much more practical, and much more useful for his purpose with just some common sense considerations. Never mind.

jnantz

21-Sep-2010, 06:09

Steve M Hostetter

21-Sep-2010, 06:47

i don't think it matters whether he will modify his camera or final product
or methodology (to please everyone), but will he be able to
bring it to slot canyon and shoot a (clichéd) nude against the rocks ...

and then you might ask yourself , why restrict myself to those (cliched) vista shots W/ blown out skys

I do admire the guy for his determination but it's not like he is the first guy to do this sort of thing..

jnantz

21-Sep-2010, 07:14

and then you might ask yourself , why restrict myself to those (cliched) vista shots W/ blown out skys

I do admire the guy for his determination but it's not like he is the first guy to do this sort of thing..

yup, someone was doing the same thing since about 1839
with dag, salt wet, dry, ortho ... everything is a cliché at this point ..
at least he is having fun ...

Steve M Hostetter

21-Sep-2010, 08:22

yes, so well said.. I would have to agree..

cosmicexplosion

22-Sep-2010, 02:11

Instead he is being an artist???????????? What are we chopped liver?

What i meant was that, he is not restricting himself to a graphic nature. To realism.

it wasn't a content or composition-based statement.

I suppose in my head, there is a difference between an artist per se and a photographer,

That is simply an approach and my bias/conditioning, coming from a painting background.

I said it without thinking, and it is both a true and false statement.

An art exhibition is not a photographic exhibition. They are subtly different. There approach is also generally different.

It would take me 10 years to paint one snap shot! So maybe the word artist is strictly reserved for what is created by the self, by hands?

Photographers dont call themselves artists even though they are. They say, hi, i am a photographer, first. Then explain what sort, fashion, landscape weddings, or go on to explain how they shoot landscapes but employ a unique printing process.

I understand I may be digging a grave here but hopefully not.

From an outsiders point of view a lot of photography seems to be capturing a moment in time, person building etc

A painter usually creates the image from scratch, so there is a certain freedom from the limitations of the real. The out side world.

It is more of an inner world thing, often purely imaginative.

But there is also limitations of skill, materials and imagination.

Photography has the advantage that the world already exists and is already amazing.

Seen from a certain angle and captured, with relative ease we can have an image.

Though 'being there' is not taken lightly.

Poor sculptors, they have to chip away for months on one work!

I have seen John Chiara's other work and it is very abstract. Not at all like the relatively tame landscapes in the doco, in fact quite wild.

But history is full of trail blazers and then people who walk on the trail.

Best to make sure you are exited about your own work, if not experiment.

I find an artist like this interesting and will keep an eye out to follow his career.

may you all have a wonderful and creative day:) :) :) :) : xx

Paul Kierstead

22-Sep-2010, 05:16

Photographers dont call themselves artists even though they are. They say, hi, i am a photographer, first. Then explain what sort, fashion, landscape weddings, or go on to explain how they shoot landscapes but employ a unique printing process.

...

From an outsiders point of view a lot of photography seems to be capturing a moment ...
Seen from a certain angle and captured, with relative ease we can have an image.

Although certainly a good amount of photography may fall into what you are saying (the majority for sure), there is also a very large swath of photography that is most definitely made, not taken. Photographers who work very very hard to produce one gallery worthy shot and only produce a few a year, photographers who control every aspect of the process, not just go find something to shoot and produce it with 'relative ease'. Sure they could produce a result with relative ease, but it would not be one they would call their ... art. This large swath of photography can be easily found in galleries (especially the non-commercial kind) and the like. I like this fellows work, but there are plenty of photographers going though other extremes to go beyond well beyond straight photography (which is basically what you are suggesting all other photography is). In fact, straight photography has been the minority (outside of commercial and personal use) for quite some time.

As soon as you step outside traditional boundaries of 'art', the terms get difficult (talk to bespoke or boutique furniture makers...) and, I think, probably obscure the real discussion.

rdenney

22-Sep-2010, 07:07

I suspect it is a commonly held perception that many photographers are wannabe artists who cannot draw well.

And I suspect it is a commonly held perception that many other photographers are playing with toys rather than ideas.

I don't think any of us would be prepared to insist, let alone prove, that these perceptions are without precedent.

That said, there are a lot of painters whose work suggests they would rather be a photographer, except that they preferred to be called an "artist".

Both painters and photographers aspire to say something. Their statement may be limited to their craft, which can reach amazing levels even if that's the limit of their expression. Their statement may be about the subject. It may be about the process used to make form and color. It may be some inner scene nearly inexplicable to the viewer without considerable effort. Often, though, it's just "look, my painting of a tree actually does look like a tree". Or, "look, my photograph was made at a time when a scene was really dramatic."

Not all painters are aritists, of course. That's why there used to be a commonly used term: Illustrator.

Making the expression obviously fills a need for the artist. Whether the expression is perceived as valuable by any given viewer is the viewer's decision, not the artist's. But if it does have clear expressive value at least to some viewers, then we have to call it art, it seems to me, even if we are unmoved by it.

But if it seems to communicate only to the artist and to nobody else, well, at least the artist is pleasing one person.

Rick "who can't draw trees for shit" Denney

cosmicexplosion

22-Sep-2010, 13:43

[quote] paul kenny: (which is basically what you are suggesting all other photography is). In fact, straight photography has been the minority (outside of commercial and personal use) for quite some time.

yeah look, As i said, i am conditioned one way, but it is just habit.
my whole life

i have said hello i am an artist

now i say i am getting into photography

clearly photography (and i wish it was a shorter word)

is for people who cant draw trees for shit.

A lot of photographers are very clean neat mathmatical types who tuck there shirts in.

When i grew up, my father role model, as my father was not around, was a photog named richard eastwood. he is from tasmainia.

he made a living from it, but he was the funniest person and the wittiest.

possibly a genius? but any way, i dont have bad things to say about photographers, exept this one tucked his shirt in to. His house was very very clean, and he was a spartan/minimalist.

I am the oposite yet i try and keep things clean. i think painting makes you messy. or at least you start to love mess, a messy studio is a productive one, paint every where 6 feet deep of paint paper wood canvass paint and more paint. dont worry about dust, and infact we want heaps of light.
not to be kept in the dark.
so in conclusion,
painters are superior.
just kidding. But i would like to hear about some interesting artist who use cameras and think out side the square.

thanks

i

rdenney

22-Sep-2010, 14:42

Actually, I was just being funny. I can draw trees, heh.

As you attempt to make worthwhile art using photography, you might gain more appreciation for how difficult it really is. My choice of medium affects technical quality but not the artistic idea of what I do. And I have as much trouble expressing that idea using photography as I ever did with painting. I certainly didn't take up photography because I was a lousy painter--I took it up because it gives me access to language more useful for saying what I have to say. My paintings and my photographs achieve lousiness through the banality of that idea or message, not through lack of technique at either medium.

But some people, in finding they have little to really say, attempt abstract techniques as a means of hiding their vacuity (or, they go the other way and come to revere hyper-technique). Maybe building a trailer-sized camera is a way to hide something--maybe it's a tool for expression. We can't assume either one just because of how the guy goes about what he does. The work has to stand on its own.

Rick "for whom realistic clarity is a favorite language, often used to say nothing" Denney