Ffffound: Let it wash over you

No idea how I stumbled on this. I just found it in my Bookmarks one day, and now I’m hooked. No idea how it works; no idea how the images get there. But it’s just so relaxing sometimes, to just go there, and start scrolling down. And if you get courage, click on something, and see which foxhole it takes you down. Thirty minutes later, you look up, and you’re smiling.

Kathy Ryan, N. Kander, R. Haggart, or “What would YOU do if YOU got the call…?”

I’ve been thinking about the Nadav Kander picture story in the NY Times; can’t get it out of my head. I remember seeing the first image on the web version, as a Preview to the Magazine, last week. It was the picture of Rahm Emanuel, and I remember thinking, “Whoa, WTF, why is this white-seamless portrait on page one?” It looked, on page one, more like Rahm Emmanuel got busted for a BJ or something. It looked like one of those Hugh Grant or Nick Nolte 2am mugshots. Then I saw the photo credit, and I thought, “well, this is going to get interesting”. Then, I read about it on Rob Haggart’s site, and perused the Comments as well. Then, like the wimp that I am, I posted a comment anonymously, as well, under the name Dueling Standards. Then, I saw that my friend Robbie McClaran posted on Rob’s site, and also on his own blog. So I wrote to Robbie, and jumped his shit for what I thought was him defending the images. And we’ve been exchanging emails back and forth, comparing notes. It’s mostly him writing intelligently, and me yelling back at him. That’s my style.

First off, a few disclaimers:

1. I come from a journalism background, even though I’m a commercial photographer now. (Had to find some way to actually make a living).

2. I love the NY Times. I love Kathy Ryan. (Never met her, just admired her work from afar).

3. I’m a news junkie, and a politics junkie. And a portrait junkie. (So that Obama’s People story certainly got my attention.)

4. I’m kinda old. I’m not cool. I’m sorta Old School. I grew up following Avedon and Penn and Roversi. I’m more “classic” than “green gel rimlight cool”. (If you don’t know what green gel rimlight cool means, then you’re not cool either).

So anyway, about the pictures: I looked at them, over and over, and I thought, “I just don’t get these pictures”. I mean, I love Nadav Kander’s work, he’s a true leader and innovator, but something just bugged me about the pictures, (besides the fake stripped-in drop-shadows that I’ll probably complain more about in a second). I just can’t get my head around that double-umbrella thing with the front fill, that makes everyone look like they’re stuffed, or living in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Wax Museum. Again, I’m not cool. But I just think, if the goal of the story was to give you an intimate glimpse into the BackRoom People that are truly gonna be calling the shots in the next four years, why would you make them look stuffed?

You couldn’t help but compare to Avedon’s similar work in the past. (Keep clicking right and left).

I mean, I would see Gibbs or Emanuel or Axelrod or Gates interviewed on television, and they’d come off in a certain way, and then I’d see the Kander portrait, and I thought, “Wow, these are not portraits of Obama’s People; these are all just portraits of Nadav Kander. Or even worse, portraits of Nadav Kander’s retoucher!” I just thought that the images should have been credited as photo illustrations, instead of “straight” photographs, due to the drop-shadows being inserted. And only because the photos were in a newspaper. If they’d been shot for ArtNews or Modern Painter, no big deal, but for the NYTimes, I just think you’d got a basic responsibility to the reader to be somewhat transparent. But that’s just my opinion. So I guess you know you’re a pretty big deal when you’re hired to shoot a story, and your “style” takes precedence over the actual content of the story. I mean, I’m sure, on some level, Avedon’s thumbprint is all over the place, in his 8×10 political portraits, but for some reason, it seems so much less heavy-handed. You still get a sense of the humanity of the person being photographed. I mean, if you don’t have humanity, what have you achieved? These people are not war criminals; they are hopefully here to bring a new sense of transparency and progress to this country. These are the GOOD guys; if you need proof, note the White Hat on Ken Salazar! This story was not an attack piece; why the need to shoot it this way?

On the flip side, I don’t know how many young photographers know how lucky we all are to have Kathy Ryan running the show there. It’s one of the rare avenues where somebody still takes chances. (Even if I don’t agree with some of the chances). I still applaud someone not taking the safe way out, all the time.

And every photographer reading this, take a second and imagine that it’s YOUR phone ringing, and when you pick it up, the voice says, “This is Kathy Ryan from the NY Times Magazine. Do you have a minute to talk about a project…?” Imagine how you’d feel if she started describing this Obama project. How would YOU shoot it? How would you light it? Would you use white seamless? It’s just a dream project. Also view Jeff Riedel’s excellent piece in a recent GQ as well. Very very nice work.

——-

Download a really badly-scanned PDF that I did, of the Kathy Ryan interview, in Image Makers, Image Takers. I’m sorry, the pictures look awful here, but I had to darken everything, because the text was not contrasty. But better than anything, buy the real book.

——-

And here’s a strange article, too. See if you can plow through the syllables to find the content. Was this guy sent in by The Calvary, to shore up the gates, and provide cover?

St. Augustine chapter added to website

Cemetery in Old Town, Fernadina Island, FL (click/enlarge)

Images from recent St. Augustine, Florida, road trip were added to the website tonight.

Overheard in Ad Agency offices — from film to digital (and back?)

It’s funny lately, how I’m reading these articles again about the joys of film, versus the clinical-clean digital files that everyone is now shooting. It’s almost like memories of an old girlfriend, where all you remember are the good parts about the relationship. It’s almost like some kind of Harmonic Convergence of a recoil against digital, when, for so long, it was such an uphill battle to get digital accepted.

The overheard conversations went something like this, (circa about 2002 to present day 2009). Feel free to send me your own Overheard Comments and I’ll add them to the timeline:

“What do you mean shoot digital? Digital pictures? Won’t there be those jaggy lines?”

shifted to:

“Wow, well maybe you could shoot digital, but if you want to shoot it, you’ve got to do a test for me, and shoot the same scene digital and film side by side”.

which shifted to:

“How come the picture looks so different on my monitor than it does in the CMYK proof?”

which shifted to:

“Wow, I’m not sure about this digital stuff, but it sure is nice to see it big on that 24″ monitor, instead of a little folded Polaroid”.

which shifted to:

“I know we’re shooting this job on Monday, but we go to press on Friday. Can we see everything you shot by 8am tomorrow?”

which shifted to:

“The AD can’t really get away and fly there. Can you set up a modem on the beach, and upload everything to his computer in New York, as you’re shooting it, frame by frame, for him to sign off on?”

which is now shifting to:

“Just so we make deadline, make sure you shoot the job digital, but if you want to, you can shoot a couple of rolls of 120 for yourself.”

which is now shifting to:

“Yeah, we got the uploaded web galleries of the stuff you shot yesterday, but these two rolls of 120 really are nice! We love the grain and the color!”

which is now shifting to:

“Why don’t we shoot this next job on film. Everything is starting to look the same with digital — too clean, too perfect, too normal…”

Book highly recommended: “Image Makers, Image Takers”

I’ve been reading this book for the last few days. It’s basically a softbound book made up entirely of interviews of photographers and curators and gallery people. Author is Anne-Celine Jaeger. Oftentimes, these types of books would be hypey, and look-at-me, and I tend to roll my eyes and put them aside, but this Jaeger person asks some pretty good questions. (Although I’d love to submit some of my own real-world questions as well to her list). Most of the names are commonly-recognized photographers, but there were a couple I had not known of — especially Charles Freger. Other highlights in the content and candid answers were: Naomi Harris, Alec Soth, Salgado, Eugene Richards, and Stephen Shore. A very good book for a photographer at any point in their career.

What’s also interesting is how many of these leading photographers are still shooting film, and never migrated to digital. Coincidence?

New chapter added on website: I.C.S. School

Screengrab from ICS chapter on site

Tonight, I quietly added a new chapter to my website. We shot this personal project in November of 2008. I had read about this interesting school, the International Community School, located in Decatur, Georgia, on Christmas Day of 2007, in the NYTimes. The school accepts children from all over the world. I believe that up to fifty-two languages are spoken there. One day every year, the school hosts United Nations Day, and each student comes to school dressed in the clothing of their native homeland. It was pretty chaotic, but we corralled about forty or fifty kids into a makeshift photo studio that we’d thrown together in one of the hallways. I got off about five or ten frames of each child.

There will hopefully be more children added later, once we secure more releases. The photos were a piece of cake; but the releases, (signed in fifty two languages), have been quite the adventure.

Go to my site, and click on “i.c.s”.

(PS. I have sized them a tad large. The country names are below each image, and might not show up on a 15-17″ monitor. Just the excuse you need to go buy a new Apple 20″, to save the economy.)

In my mind, 1967, on vacation

St. Augustine Moose Lodge entrance. (click/enlarge).

Starting to work on some of the Florida images. Here’s one quick practice run at the St. Augustine Moose Elks Lodge. Wouldn’t you love to know what goes on inside that joint? And when they were building it, George said to Bill, “You know, I see a giant moose elk on a pedestal, out by the road; it’ll be real pretty. And Bill says, “George, I can see it too. I’ve got a backhoe, let’s have the moose elk in a moat. And let’s have another drink”.

(Update/Edit: Yeah, several comments have indicated that I’m a city boy, and I don’t know a moose from an elk. I stand corrected. I even found the link to their site; check out the music!) (My goodness — is this not an opening for a great photo story? Moose lodges, elks lodges, etc.? There is this amazing building, downtown Nashville; but it’s cloaked in mystery. What actually goes on inside these buildings?)

Here’s my comment on the current Economy

Detail from empty showroom on Broadway. (click/enlarge).

I shot this last week. Still infatuated with these deserted car dealership showrooms. Feels like some scene out of an FSA/WPA Walker Evans image, but about sixty years later. Dust Bowl. Dried up and blowed away… (Maybe if we wait a few more months, and things get even worse, the WPA and FSA will come rolling back into town).

How nice to edit physical contact sheets again

Thirty rough images for scanning. (click/enlarge).

I have the greatest lab in the world, Chromatics, downtown. I’ve used them for almost thirty years, nonstop. None better. But last night, I got one of those calls that every photographer fears — it was that dreaded call from the lab, when you’ve got a job in there. Every photographer knows it. If you ever get a call from your lab, and it’s not your regular contact person, it sends that immediate heart-racing, forehead-sweating, body alteration that every photographer dreads. Because you just know that something’s wrong. Last night it was a guy named Chuck, (I think). I’m not sure his name, because as soon as he said “I’m calling from Chromatics”, my heart began to race and I didn’t hear much of anything else for a few minutes or so. I don’t have kids, but it must be similar to the way a parent feels if they had a kid in high school, and it was Prom Night, and you just knew your kid was gonna get hammered, and you pick up the phone, and the guy says, “Uh, sir, this is the Police…”.

Anyway, So Chuck (I think), begins to tell me about some “airport scanning damage”, and my heart sank. On this last road trip to Florida, a couple of weeks ago, I only took a couple of Hasselblads, and some C41 220. He began to describe some slight damage due to airport radiation, or whatever it is they do. (Please, a couple of my friends have already reamed me a new one, so please, nobody write and call me an idiot, for putting the film in my checked baggage. I’ve learned my lesson). It’s been the first film I’ve shot, (out of town), in many many years, and for some reason, in my mind, I just KNEW that carry-on was zapped unless you could find a hand-check, but that checked luggage was not zapped. Wrong. But today, when I picked up the contact sheets, I could not see any damage whatsoever. Chuck, (I think), also mentioned some “adhesive” that was stuck to the film in spots, he thought, from the pressure plate or rollers. Man, I felt condemned to die by the Kodak Gods. The first time in years I shoot film, and not one but TWO bad things happen. Made me want to start looking for another H Hassie.

Anyway, I got home and tried to find a loupe, (long thrown away), but I did find a yellow grease pencil, and what a joy to just sit down and TOUCH something again, after so many years with digital, where nothing is real, and everything is zeroes and ones and FTP’d.

So above are the thirty or so frames that I’m gonna have scanned. I’ve been in this 60’s/70’s mood lately, and once the scans are back, I’m going to attack these scans with all the force that Abba or Led Zeppelin can bring forth. I see these images just as “starting points”, and by the time I’m done with them, I hope they’re more like illustrations than traditional photographs.

Still not sure how I feel about this film thing. Yes, it’s great to touch something, but seeing these negs laying on the table, and knowing that they are the only copy, and they can’t be backed up with Synchronize Pro X, it’s just a little unnerving. But how nice to see those funky reds in a C41 contact sheet again.

Not even sure why I went on this trip — maybe to escape Christmas and all the downtime, or maybe just to “practice seeing” again. Sometimes it’s nice to just drive and be “on” for six or eight hours a day, kinda like going to the gym, but for your brain.

A Sunday Drive on a grey day

Shotgun houses near Werthan development, (w/ '56 Chevy).

Headed out today, (Sunday, January 4th), to snoop around about a loft that Kristin mentioned yesterday. Ended up over on Hume Street, next to Werthan. What a collision of cultures is happening there — these new contemporary condos bumping right up to old skinny row houses. Germantown is changing fast.

A million birds sitting on power line over I-40

Then headed home and ran upon this weird power line that’s strung up over I-40, near the Broadway exit. For some reason, there was a bird convention going on there — thousands of them there, like they were watching a college football game or something. I shot this to try to one-up my friend Michael Prince, competing for the best bird picture.

I found another empty dealership (but this one just moved)

And then a block from there, I found yet another empty car showroom. This one didn’t go under; I think they just moved to MetroCenter. (Related post, with pictures).

(I also changed Templates today, here on WordPress. I switched to the DePo Masthead theme. I’m viewing this in Firefox browser (as you should be!), but if anything looks weird in another browser, let me know. I know HTML, but not CSS very well).