Nicholas Nixon - Technique

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

Mr. Patti,

Which do you think is larger? An Arri BL or a Phillips 8 X 10? A Sony Betacam or a Wisner Pocket Expedition? Which takes a bigger crew to run? And yet how many documentaries have been made with the former two?

What it takes is time and patience. Nixon spent two years photographing at the school for the blind (name escapes me at the moment). Although they couldn't see him, they were certainly aware of him. If you spend days and days and days with your subject, "dry shooting", as Nixon may have, a rapport develops, trust can be built up. Eventually the subject relaxs and "acts natural" or at least as natural as it is possible for anyone to act in this wacky post modern world in which we live.

FWIW, Bebe Nixon, Nick's wife, is a documentary producer and worked on NOVA for quite some time.

If anything, Nixon's use of the 8 X 10 helps create a sense of trust with the subject - he cannot hide what he is doing as he could with a Leica or whatnot.

[Chris Partti]

Well, Sean, I agree: the equipment of documentary film makers is, in most cases, even more intrusive than Nixon's 8x10 equipment. Perhaps that is why I often find myself thinking when I see a film documentary that I am not watching these people doing what they are doing on film but these people in the presence of a crew, camera, lights, etc. Thus it is hard not to feel that the subjects are "playing" to the camera, that the camera becomes a central player in whatever drama we are watching, and that the "reality" we see is heavily influenced by its presence. To me, one of the advantages of the still camera for documentary work is that minimizes this effect, not through "stealth" exactly, but through its relative lack of obtrusiveness which allows it more easily to be forgotten. All I'm saying is that by using an 8x10, Nixon has to some significant degree undermined that advantage for no corresponding advantage that I can see. As a viewer of his images, I cannot forget the fact of his fairly intrusive presence in the room with his subjects, and that diminishes their impact for me. Perhaps not for everyone though.

[N Dhananjay]

I haven't done much portraiture but on the occasions I have, I found that the slow pace of work in LF actually makes the camera fade into the background. I confront a lot more awareness of the camera when I'm working in smaller formats. I suspect it is the same reason setting up a camera and remote triggering it (or setting up a blind and waiting a few hours or days) works so well with wildlife. Once the creature has got used to the structure, it ignores it. I suspect that psychologically that happens here as well. The slow pace of work (and the associated greater amount of time spent talking to the person) literally lets the camera fade into the background or rather it literally becomes a familiar part of one's psychological background - one stops being aware of it. Not to mention the fact that there is an art to the whole process beyond the mechanics of whatever camera you choose to work with - some folks just seem to put others at ease very naturally and effortlessly. Cheers, DJ.

[M.]

We must also keep in mind that he was the Dad of one of the fifth graders, so it wasn't like having a total stranger coming into the schoolroom.

[David A. Goldfarb]

One of the things I like about making portraits with the 8x10" camera is the sense of collaboration it creates with the subject. The camera might be fairly close in at full extension to get a tight headshot, so the subject needs to be still and needs to know something about the procedures. I explain how everything works and I might let them look at the groundglass. Sometimes I use unshuttered lenses with strobes, adding to the unusual character of the ritual (focus, insert film, remove darkslide, wait for expression, remove lenscap, fire strobe, replace lenscap) and requiring even more attention on the part of the subject. Rather than being intimidated by the big camera, I find they feel more part of the process.

[Urs Bernhard]

I completely agree with David Goldfarb and N. Dhananjay; I experienced similar r eactions from people photographed with 8x10. They feel more at ease with the big not hideable instrument, which is after a while part of the "background". With the small 35mm a lot of people are suspisious about the intention of the photographer; especially when the photogra pher is not speeking to them, revealing his intention verbally (a lot of photogs are "steeling" their images as hidden as possible). With 8x10 this is not possible; one has to establish a communication with the subject in front of the camera. It is a part of the photographers art and ab ility to make the people feel comfortable so they can act naturally without fear after a while. And to put into consideration: why do you think are all the selfportraits of Rem brandt such revealing images? Rembrandt was constantly playing in front of the mirror when drawing; he reveals his personality in hundr eds of played roles, coming from his imagination. Posing must not be false by definition. A snapshot taken from the undiscovered might be an image more telling about the anecdotic moment than about the person acting in this moment;or an image of a person aware of the process of portraiing might reveal m ore the persons character.

Urs Bernhard

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

While we're on the topic....

Any thoghts on Andrea Modica's technique?

[N Dhananjay]

The latest 'Contact Sheet' (hope that is the name of the magazine - it is Contact something) has a bunch of Andrea Modica's work (from the Treadwell series and some more recent work). I find her work interesting, though not with as much immediacy or as much gusto as I enjoy some other folks work. Don't know much about her technique, other than the fact that she works in 8x10 and prints in platinum. She seems to access/create some strange worlds - her questions and explorations would seem to ask for more guts than I've got. Certainly seems to dig deeper into personality and psyche than journalistic images - must call for immense trust.

I guess that is the difference I see between portraits made with larger formats and smaller formats. The smaller formats are obviously great for reportage kinds of situations, where the emotion of the moment overwhelms consideration of your sorroundings. The portraits in larger formats strikes me as a more considered invitation into some kind of inner sanctum - a sort of essence of the person. Even the spontaniety seems a different kind of spontaniety - something that seems to come from deeper within rather than without. And now I'm clutching at straws to describe what cannot be described, I guess. Cheers, DJ.

[N Dhananjay]

The latest issue of Photovision also has an interesting piece about Shelby Adams and his work in Appalachia and his techniques. Cheers, DJ.

[Michael A.Smith]

One reason Nick Nixon uses an 8x10 is so that he can make contact prints on Azo.

He works quickly and spontaneously. And sometimes he makes absolutely amazing photographs. If you know what you are doing, the camera does not get in the way of the interaction between yourself, as photographer, and the subject, whether the camera is an 8x10 a 35mm. It is always the photographer who gets in the way, never the camera.

Michael A. Smith