Bruce Barnbaum's Art of Seeing workshop

[Dario]

Has anyone attended this workshop in the last year or so? I'd be interested in some opinions, thanks. :)

[stradibarrius]

+1 for me. I think this is something I really need to work on.

[Jim Galli]

It's been several years ago (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Barnbaum/Barnbaum%20Workshop.html) for me, so maybe this info is dated.

Bruce tends to attract groupies, much like I'm sure AA did. His personality and focus are such that if all you got was Bruce, you'd have no other options but to become a little Bruce. And that's not bad, obviously, his work is lovely.

Bruce is (was - as I say, I haven't been lately) wise enough though to include other strong instructors with strong viewpoints to counterbalance his. The time that I had the privilege to attend it was Jay Dusard and Yousef Khanfar (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/MichaelandYousef.html).

So, if you want to be a little Bruce, you're good to go, but if not, you should shop your workshop dependent on who else is going to be there as counterpoint.

I did have some fun with Bruce though. I had a Verito image I liked, and his rule is to bring print and negative. He kept arguing that image could not have been made from that negative as the negative wasn't sharp ;~')) *links take you to pages with images made on the workshop*

[mandoman7]

I really like the shots from that workshop, Jim. There's some great work there.

I happened to be in a gallery a couple of weeks ago and they had one of Bruce's signature images on display, the one where there's a rail fence in the foreground in front of a dramatic mountainscape with clouds. I've always liked the image when I've seen it in prints, but on this occasion I was kind of amazed to see the fence in the foreground was a little soft. It was notable enough that I went back after looking at some other work to confirm my first impression. Not a big deal accept that I guess I had a certain level of expectation based on the reputation perhaps. Maybe its my own obsession that's developed for avoiding smudgy foregrounds in landscapes.

[Jim Noel]

If you want a top notch workshop on seeing photographically get in one with Paula Chamblee. Just talking with her for a few minutes greatly increased my ability in this area. She is Michael Smith's partner so only does workshops with him.

[Jay DeFehr]

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.

[Brian Ellis]

I took Bruce's workshop but not within the last year. However, I doubt that the workshop has changed much, it's not like he teaches specific techniques that go out of date.

I thought the workshop was worthwhile and I'd attend again if it was offered near my home. I didn't appreciate his hustling the class for contributions to help fight some proposed structure or other project that if built would have affected property near his house. And I didn't like his harassing and denigrating the poor waitress with a southern accent who was having trouble keeping orders straight as people kept leaving and arriving at the large table where we were having breakfast. But solely from a photography standpoint I thought Bruce was an excellent instructor and the workshop was useful though I couldn't tell you at this point exactly what I learned from it.

I'm not sure I agree with Jim about becoming a little Bruce. Like any course of this nature, you can take what you want from it and leave the rest.

[mdm]

I enjoyed his book, its available on Kindle.

[36cm2]

Dakotah +1

[mdm]

Jay's photographic seeing (or at least the visible evidence of seeing) is limited to one subject only, and mostly small format anyway, which is probably why he thinks workshops are snake oil.

[Heroique]

Well, I think there’s a little bit of truth in the (overstated) snake oil remarks.

The same people who will purchase yet another expensive lens to “improve” their photography often attend workshops w/ the same extravagant expectations.

However, other photographers know how to select appropriate workshops to better make & better achieve future goals – just as a talented writer knows how to read great literature to improve how he reads and writes…

So count me among the workshop supporters ... w/ key reservations.

[Jay DeFehr]

''

Disagree with you Jay. If "photographic seeing" were so easy we would not be inundated with mediocre and lousy photos. Your view is the equivalent of those who buy paint by number kits believing they are artists.

I can't prove my view of " photographic seeing" is correct any more than you can prove it's not, but your analogy is false, all the same. By your reasoning, photographers who never attended workshops on "seeing photographically", would be doomed to mediocrity, and those who do attend would be ensured success, but we know that's not the case. The best photographers neither hawk nor attend such workshops, they just work and evolve a visual signature the old fashioned way, by dedication and persistence.

David--

Just keep telling yourself your "banality" is something other than boring mediocrity.

[Brian Ellis]

I've attended probably 15 workshops, at least one with every photographer mentioned so far in this thread and some not mentioned (e.g. Tillman Crane, Ruth Bernhard, Craig Stephens). With one exception (who will go unnamed but who isn't anyone mentioned in this thread) I've never attended a workshop that I thought was a waste of time and money. I always come away with something useful, whether it's some technique or just an attitude or approach to photography. And just the experience of getting away from home and spending a week or two with a group of serious photographers has been very enjoyable. I'd strongly recommend workshops with excellent instructors devoted to some topic of interest and at an appropriate level to anyone who wants to grow photographically.

[dasBlute]

The best photographers neither hawk nor attend such workshops

This is the kind of overstated generality that makes the internet so worthwhile:

Q: Has anyone experience with X?

A: No, I never use X, why would you ask such a silly question?
or A: you're stupid to use X
or A: No, but my Y is better
---

Reading his books, Barnbaum has a very strong take on things.
Looking at his images, he knows his stuff. I believe Jim Galli
knows whereof he speaks.

One can learn from workshops, and plenty of people
[even some of the 'best photographers'] took workshops from Ansel.

The main thing, in my opinion, is to have a rapport with the work of
the person giving it, and have some very specific goals for yourself.

-Tim

[Ken Lee]

One way to provoke a spirited conversation is to use categorical terms like "nobody", "everybody", "always", "never", "all", "none", etc.

There will "always" be someone compelled to reply :)

[Jay DeFehr]

This is the kind of overstated generality that makes the internet so worthwhile:

Q: Has anyone experience with X?

A: No, I never use X, why would you ask such a silly question?
or A: you're stupid to use X
or A: No, but my Y is better
---

Reading his books, Barnbaum has a very strong take on things.
Looking at his images, he knows his stuff. I believe Jim Galli
knows whereof he speaks.

One can learn from workshops, and plenty of people
[even some of the 'best photographers'] took workshops from Ansel.

The main thing, in my opinion, is to have a rapport with the work of
the person giving it, and have some very specific goals for yourself.

-Tim


I never implied one cannot learn from workshops -- I learned from the one I attended with Vaughn Hutchins -- but I learned techniques specific to carbon printing, not "photographic seeing", which I believe is not something that can, or that needs to be taught in this era of ubiquitous camera images. An understanding of the way cameras render images is so ingrained into every modern person it's practically innate, whether or not it can be articulated by any given person. I've read essays by Michael A Smith, Bruce Barnbaum and many others on the subject of "photographic seeing", and they all read similarly -- like sales pitches meant to make the author seem authoritative or especially gifted, with the promise they can impart that gift to others, for a fee, of course. I think it's all nonsense and wouldn't waste my time, let alone my money on one of these workshops, but anyone who feels differently has just as much right to their opinions as I have to mine, and maybe they will benefit by a workshop with someone they admire.

[36cm2]

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

[Jay DeFehr]

" I think it's all nonsense and wouldn't waste my time, let alone my money on one of these workshops,"

Those who offer and present the workshops are forever grateful.

There's no need to get defensive, or take my opinions personally, since nothing I've written has been directed to you, and since you don't offer "photographic seeing" workshops. Or, do you always take opinions contrary to your own very personally?

[Erik Larsen]

IMO you can never stop learning. I'm sure each workshop has something valuable and new experiences to ponder over. Having said that, I've not attended a "seeing" workshop because I fear I would parrot the instructors way of seeing and not evolve my own way of composing.
Erik

[dasBlute]

I fear I would parrot the instructors way of seeing and not evolve my own way of composing


And upon reflection, I believe I left off my main point here: that the organizer provide an 'environment' where self exploration and individuality are encouraged.

A doctor cannot heal you, and a farmer cannot will a plant into existence, but they can provide the setting that encourages growth.

And this, in my opinion, is the job of a workshop organizer [especially in the 'seeing' kind]. Not to teach you to see, but to provide the kind of space where you see things for yourself. Of course, this sounds vague: environment, space, etc. But I'm speaking of my experience in group dynamics, talking about the 'spirit' of the group, the mutual respect, the willingness to open up, the willingness to be honest and to allow for individual expression in a supportive, encouraging atmosphere, etc.

And this tone, this 'environment' [albeit, a very slippery substance] this can be influenced by the group leader. If this is done thoughtfully, the experience can be transformative, even for the 'leader'.

[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...:o

[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.

[jp]

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

[karl french]

Yes, a West Coast Vision and Technique would be wonderful.

[Robert Brummitt]

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!

I see that you are in Klamath Falls, Oregon. You should look up John Wimberley in Ashland. He also does an "Art of Seeing" workshop. I attended his and it was very interesting. Just FYI.

[Brian Ellis]

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

I don't know that you're missing the point, it might be just a question of degree or terminology. But you refer to seeing "a big picture" and to working with your "subject matter," then using the ground glass to "interpret" it or to find the "true image." What I took away from Micheal and Paula's workshop was more than that and involved literally moving the camera up, down, left, right, and all around to find the "big picture" or the "subject matter" in the first place. I'm sure Michael could explain better than I can.

I don't think most photographers work that way. I think most photographers see something that might make a good photograph before setting up the camera and then use the ground glass to refine the photograph they already have in mind. I say that partly because of the various threads here over the years about using viewing cards and other similar gadgets to find or compose a photograph. But I could be wrong, who really knows how "most" photographers work.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael's method is better suited to some kinds of photos than to others, obviously. If one is making a portrait, or photographing a still life, spinning the camera around 360 degrees is not going to be very useful, unless one is not very committed to the portrait or still life. Michael's approach seems useful only for those who have no preconceived notion of what they want to photograph until they see it on the GG -- landscapes and abstracts being the most obvious applications. If someone needs to attend a workshop to understand they can look through their camera to find a composition, they're sure to pick up a lot of other nuggets of wisdom along the way.

No offense intended to anyone who enjoys these workshops, which I think is the most important thing. Few of us has much riding on our photos other than our enjoyment of them, and in the process of making them. There are certainly worse ways to spend money and time than getting together with like minded enthusiasts and sharing experiences. The one workshop I've attended was an interesting experience, and I met great people with whom I'm still in contact. To Vaughn's credit, his workshops deliver everything he promises, and more, and they are very reasonably priced, making them great bargains for anyone interested in carbon printing. One thing Vaughn doesn't promise, is that he can teach his students to "see photographically", and for that, I am grateful.

[mdm]

There is a famous book called Golf is Not a Game of Perfect by Bob Rotella, one thing he talks about is practicing and working hard on technique, but when you are out playing, you play in the present moment without thinking about anything related to techinique. The same applies to life and to photography. How can you improve as a photographer without thinking about how you compose a photograph? Thinking about what works for you and what does not is very important, and a workshop is a very valid way of doing so, so is looking at books and prints etc. (Sometimes we benefit by seeing from another point of view.) Just look at how the published work of photographers develops over their careers. People who cant see past their own ignorance and prejudice are just plain stupid or perhaps insecure. Not enough confidence in the integrity of their own seeing. Consider that Vaughn works in the darkroom at a university, I expect (presumptiously) that a very large part of why he does his job and also sometimes teaches workshops relates to helping people to develop and see things they have not considered before, only difference is his style is less overt.

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Jay, for your kind words.

And no, I tend not to outright try to teach anyone to "see photographically". I tend to be a lot more sneaky about it and impart what I have learned about seeing through osmosis. And true to the nature of osmosis, sometimes the participants' seeing is as strong or stronger than mine, so some of it comes my way.

I get a bit worried when participants want to make carbon prints just like mine. I am worried that I am limiting their potential. The last workshop I gave (a one-on-one) was a lot of fun. The fellow had portraits he wanted to make carbon prints of. It was a great exploration for both of us. Workshops are such a scam -- I get people to pay me to learn and experience a bunch of stuff! LOL!

My first workshop I took was back in 1985 -- a large format workshop with Bruce Barnbaum, Harrison Branch and Jay Dusard...based in Page, Arizona. It was a great experience,. I got to see some slot canyons before they got overly-visited, and got to see some great prints. Got some great advice, too -- some of which I took, some of which I filed away for the future and some which I ignored. But all of it became part of my knowledge-base I have built-up over the years. Knowledge is not wisdom, but it is handy to have until wisdom finally arrives.

I would be very tempted to take a workshop from Michael and Paula (and/or John Wimberly)...not to become a little Michael or a little John, but just to add to my base of knowledge. We are influenced by all of our experiences -- I try not to limit the possible sources of experiences. One of my most powerful tools for self-improvement is listening to myself. When I hear myself say or think "I do not do xxxx." or "I always do xxxx.", that is a good clue that I should re-examine the 'why'.

I spend a lot of time looking (and seeing) before I set the camera up -- trying to distill the light I am experiencing into an image. Then I spend a lot of time under the darkcloth rediscovering/refining my vision. And I have found some wonderful things by rotating the camera on the pod 180 degrees. How this all meshes with the Smith's way of seeing and teaching, I am not sure.

[Jay DeFehr]

Vaughn,

Everything you've written makes perfect sense. Maybe I should clarify my point: I'm not suggesting one can't learn to "see photographically" -- to the contrary, I think we all do, by living in a culture saturated with photographic images -- which is why no one needs to be taught to "see photographically".

There was a time when no one "saw photographically", because photography didn't exist. People who lived without exposure to photographic images had to learn to interpret two dimensional, lens-formed images representing three dimensional scenes in full color. It was said that some aboriginal peoples were not able to recognize themselves, or others familiar to them, in photographs, but I think that's a myth. What is not a myth is that early viewers of motion pictures instinctively gasped and tried to move out of the way of projected moving images of oncoming trains, etc. Few people are startled by moving objects on the movie screen these days, unless the movie is projected in 3D, but that's still new. During the early decades of the photographic era, makers and viewers of photographic images alike had to learn to interpret photographic images, and so a workshop on learning to "see photographically" might have been useful in the late years of the 19th, or early years of the 20th centuries. Contemporary people are immersed in photographic and moving images from birth, and don't gasp and attempt to dodge screen images, and we certainly don't need help interpreting two dimensional images -- in fact, it's very difficult to trick people into misinterpreting them.

Michael's specific way of working under a dark cloth might be useful to him, and he might be able to share that with others, for whom it might also be useful, but that's not "seeing photographically", and that's not "vision", it's technique. Vision comes from within -- the culmination of our consciousness, as unique as our DNA. Artists learn techniques they apply to their vision, which emerges from the complexity of their individuality. We can't be taught vision any more than we can be taught to be Irish, or heterosexual. I recently read about an artist (Egon Scheile?) who learned Rodin's drawing technique, in which he never took his eyes off his subject. The artists drawings from before he learned the technique look different from the ones he made utilizing the technique, but the artist's vision remained intact, and quite distinct from Rodin's. Anything that can be taught is technique -- we can't be taught to be unique.

[Michael A. Smith]

What Paula and I teach is an approach to making photographs. As part of that, we describe and demonstrate those things that are a part of any successful photograph, regardless of subject matter or type of equipment used. What we have found is that most photographers do not take the kinds of things we teach into consideration when they are photographing. What we try to do is to get them on the right track. The unsolicited comments we have received indicate to us that we succeed and that the participants are extremely grateful.

Of course, when making a portrait one does not spin the camera around. But even when making portraits, moving the camera will often reveal wonderful surprises that take one beyond what one had in mind when one set up the camera. And it is in the acknowledgment of those surprises that real growth takes place. One can certainly make successful photographs and great portraits without moving the camera around, but for us, the point of photographing is to have an experience wherein one achieves a measure of personal growth. In doing that, the successful photographs, as a result, will come automatically.

To me and Paula, "seeing photographically" means taking everything in the picture space into consideration. As photographers we are responsible for every square millimeter of the picture space, the same way a composer is responsible for every note. A successful piece of music does not have a few bad notes. And likewise, a successful photograph should not have a few "bad" millimeters--areas that do not add to picture.

Everyone has their own vision, that's for sure. What we try to do is show people a direction so their own vision can emerge. For so many of the Ansel Adams clones (to take just one example), their own vision is not emerging. One quick story: We had a participant in one of our workshops who was quite serious, but he had given up making photographs for 15 years, because, as he put it, "My pictures looked like Ansel Adams' photographs and I could not get beyond that." But after hearing about our workshop he signed up. Upon emerging from under the darkcloth after looking at the ground glass with Paula he exclaimed, "Jesus Christ! Why didn't someone tell me that 15 years ago?" Subsequently, he sent us jpgs of wonderful photographs, one of which, some years ago, was selected for the cover of Black and White Magazine.

It was the things we discussed and showed leading up to his experience looking at the ground glass under the darkcloth that enabled him to be open to it.

Michael A. Smith