This past week I was lucky enough to attend a joint lecture and slide show of photographs given by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee at the Michener Art Museum (also on exhibit and discussed were Paula’s beautiful paintings).  I know Michael and Paula and saw an exhibit of their work that was part of the currently running View Finders: Four Photographic Voicesshow I recently wrote about.  Even with my familiarity it was one of the most informative talks I’ve had the opportunity to hear. They presented a great distillation of their approach to photography and what is important to them for making great images.

If you are unfamiliar with their work you need to check out their website (http://www.michaelandpaula.com) or their many beautifully printed books. Of course it’s best to see the real prints. Their photographs are beautiful and the print quality is incredible! Both use large format cameras and primarily contact print from 8×10 (Paula) and 8×20 (Michael) black and white negatives using their own Lodima silver chloride contact paper (they have done some color work, scanning the negatives and printing them digitally).

I thought it would be instructive to share some of the highlights of their presentations. Let’s start with Michael.

• An important point of photography is to have an experience; it’s much more than just clicking the shutter. Their way of working is quite the opposite of the digital capture routine.
• Neither he nor Paula worries about what time of the day they make photographs. Photographs are made whenever they present themselves.
• Always be aware of the spaces in the photograph using the edges and the corners to define the boundaries.
• Everything in the photograph is important and must be in the right place.
• When photographing people with the view camera everything and everyone has to be in the right place at the right time; you have to wait for the right moment when everything relates to one and other as you only have one shot.
• When photographing he has no preconceptions and never has any idea of what he will photograph.

Now Paula.

• You don’t have to travel to exotic places to photograph; you merely need to look in your own backyard.
• Seeing the upside down image when looking through the ground glass of the view camera was her most important photographic discovery.
• She searches for spatial ambiguity and focuses on the rhythms of spaces and lines.
• The only thing you need to know as is photographer is where place the edges when framing the photograph; then how forms fit into space and the tension of how they fit into a rectangle.
• She doesn’t worry about what things are, but rather how things will look.
• You never know where your next influence will come from.
• Whenever she and Michael travel they search out and visit local museums to absorb visual information.

Think about what Michael and Paula said and make your own wonderful photographs!

I know that websites, blogs and YouTube videos that focus on gear are much more popular than those which discuss thinking about and making photographs. Like the one you looking at now. I get it. I don’t really want to discuss gear that much. A little while back I talked about having recently purchased two older lenses to use for some very specific purposes. Now I want to follow up by saying that you are wasting your money in most cases if you buy new gear … or expensive used gear, e.g., certain Leica.

Stop laughing for a moment while you ask what’s the point; you think very little film gear is being produced.  Wrong … new gear is still being made. Especially lenses, but some cameras too.

My point is never pay full price when people are always willing to sell what they have so they can buy something “better” or “newer”, which they are convinced will make them better photographers. Or kids just selling off Mom or Dad’s dusty old camera and lens in its leather case on eBay or Craigslist.  That little outfit could become your new best friend!

The fact is there simply is so much great used gear … much of it wonderful film bodies from the golden age of camera building … in virtually pristine condition that you are a fool to pay top dollar for something you don’t really need.  The only reason I can think of buying new is to have a warranty, and in the case of Leica, if you feel you need to have the latest uber expensive bodies and newest lenses. Will they make you a better photographer by owning them instead of an M2/M3/M4, or M6 if you need a built in meter, and a more vintage Summicrons? I don’t think so.  Will the image quality be dramatically improved? The latest designs and coatings may give you some added resolution wide open and slightly improved edge to edge sharpness, especially if you feel compelled to make larger prints. But think about all those defining images made by Cartier Bresson, Frank, Smith, et al. and look at what they used.

Yes, I know I own some lenses that have now become some outrageously expensive. Fact is they were all purchased used and were screamer deals. Otherwise they never would have been bought. But are they really better than the older and less expensive versions, or even other brands for what matters to me?  I’m not really sure.

In all my years of camera/lens ownership I’ve never had a major repair.  That doesn’t mean I haven’t had a CLA done on used Leicas I’ve purchased.  All of them have had it done by either Don Goldberg or Sherry Krauter, which means they will last longer than I will!

So here is the real opportunity. Think of this as a chance to acquire fantastic vintage mechanical gear, often built by hand in ways that perhaps can only be matched in construction and feel by the current Leica MA or MP. In 35mm, think older Leica in less than mint condition. I think non-metered Nikon F or F2s, or Pentax SVs are spectacular. Beautifully unadorned viewfinders to compose your image without the distraction of needles, or worse yet, blinking lights! And the lenses that were made to go with these wonderful bodies are no slouches either and can be picked up for a song. Think of the somewhat rare but still relatively inexpensive Pentax 50mm f/1.4 eight-element screw mount job. Depending on condition, they go for $150-$250.  Too much?  Then try the seven-element version that followed its production. They can be had for less than $75 and may be nearly as good.

No distractions. Simple, elegant, effective, and inexpensive. Think about the possibilities. With your savings you can purchase a serious amount of film, buy lots of paper and outfit a darkroom. How’s that for an idea!

Bucks County and the surrounding Delaware Valley is a fertile environment for fine photographers. Last week I went back to the James A. Michener Art Museum to see the exhibit View Finders: Four Photographic Voicesagain before it leaves town and to hear an excellent talk given by Liz K. Sheehan, the show’s curator.

The exhibit features the work of area photographers Michael Smith, Paula Chamlee, Catherine Jansen and Brian Peterson.  I very familiar with Smith and Chamlee’s work, as I have taken their workshop, assisted Michael with printing and have come to know both of them well. I had not seen Jansen’s or Peterson’s photographs before, but had heard about them, especially Peterson, who besides being a fine photographer had served as the Michener’s chief curator from 1990-2013.

Most people are familiar with Smith’s landscape work. In this case, the focus was on portraits made with the 8×10 or 8×20 view camera and displayed as contact prints.  For Smith every millimeter of the photograph matters. It’s all about tones and the rhythm and placement of objects and shapes, as well as tiny portions of the scene that can be the most significant element of his image.

Paula Chamlee uses an 8×10 for most of her work and also makes contact prints. Like Smith to whom she is married, she often views the world in terms of abstract shapes and is concerned with the balance of tones and relationships of the shapes she sees. Smith and Chamlee often photograph in the same locations, but their work is distinctly different.

Much of Brian Peterson’s work was mysterious in nature. According to Sheehan a major area of his focus is on the metaphorical, especially concerning light and water. Images were both analog and digitally based.

Most of the work displayed by Smith, Chamlee and Peterson was black and white. Mostly film based and darkroom printed. Catherine Jansen’s work was the complete opposite. Massive color rectangular panoramic images created in India. Produced by stitching together many related pictures of the same subject and its surroundings with the aid of Photoshop.

All the work was fascinating, but I left the museum thinking as much about the nature of photography today, as much as the pictures I saw.  The question beyond analog vs. digital is what really constitutes a photograph. I mentioned this to Ms. Sheehan after her talk and she agreed that it certainly is an issue for consideration.  What forced me to think about this was the work by Jansen. There’s no hiding the fact by the artist or curator that the final images constructed. They simply wouldn’t be possible without Photoshop.  However if you were not made aware of this you might never know.  Powerful in many cases … yes … photographs … I am not so sure.

Yes, I know almost all photography is a departure from reality in some way. Cropping, burning, dodging and perhaps bleaching as necessary to create a powerful photograph in the darkroom.  Just look at Adams’ dramatic and majestic image Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.  I have seen an initial pilot print and various printings of the image that became more brooding over the years.  Nevertheless, the picture remains the magical singular image that Adams first witnessed in 1941.  To me it is very believable … and yes … very real.

Art can be many things.  It takes vision, technique and talent to be able to create images that visualize “sacred storytelling” as Jansen has done.  I know I couldn’t possibly do it.  But I wouldn’t want to. I like to make photographs that capture what I saw in my mind’s eye.  I also do not wish to alter the component pieces within the image space I am printing.

When I look at photographs I want to feel confident I am viewing a picture of something that really happened or exists in nature. While many digital photographer/printers are honest about what they are creating, I worry that many will hide the facts about what they have created.

It’s time to think about the real differences between analog photography and digital work and call them something very different, because in fact they are very different. Let’s do that and be done with it!

View Finders: Four Photographic Voices is a show worth seeing.  It runs through August 26th at the James A. Michener Art Museum.

Well here is something unusual; I actually was able to go to a photographic exhibit I wanted to see before having to rush to get to it just before it was ready to close. Ok this doesn’t always happen, but it happens enough. I drove into Philadelphia last weekend to make some photographs and see the newly opened exhibit Face to Face: Portraits of Artists.  It took forever to drive the roughly 40 miles from my house to the museum. About another fifteen minutes or so and I could have driven to Coney Island at more than twice the distance!  But it was well worth the effort. Not only did I get to see the newly opened show, but I also made what I hope were some good photographs on the massive staircase leading up to museum entrance.  I’ve hung out at this spot several times and there’s always something of interest going on that seems worth photographing.

Once I was satisfied with what I got I strolled into the Museum. What I didn’t realize was this was the day of the month when people can visit the museum at no charge. Packed, but the crowds failed to distract me from the more than 100 wonderful images of famous American artists, writers and musicians going back 150 years.

What a show!  Arnold Newman, Man Ray, Irving Penn, Lee Friedlander, Alfred Stieglitz, Richard Avedon, Paul Strand, Jill Krementz, Dorothy Norman, Bert Stern, Carl Van Vechten and Ansel Adams. I am sure I missed a few, but you get the picture (sorry … I couldn’t resist!).  All in all, not a bad line up!

A few out of the many that stood out for me were Billie Holiday with Her Dog, Misterby Carl Van Vechten, Alfred Stieglitz at an American Place, New York City, 1944by Ansel Adams, Georgia O’Keefe, 1918by Alfred Stieglitz, and George Biddle Painting a Portrait of Man Rayby Man Ray. Then there was a fantastic grouping of portraits of famous members of the Harlem Renaissance by Van Vechten. Fanstastic!

So here are a few takeaways. All but one image was black and white. Yes I know color film was not widely available until after WWII but you get the picture (sorry … again). Most of the images were no larger than 8×10. Some were 11×14 but nothing overly large. Finally, in terms of composition, most of the subjects were placed on one side of the image, or at a minimum off center or leaning into the center.  These takeaways served as a valuable affirmation for me of my own feelings concerning our medium, and how we should compose and present our work.

All in all a very worthwhile show if you live near or are planning to be in the Philadelphia area!  Face to Face: Portraits of Artists runs to until October 14^th.

I’m not sure what is a greater existential issue for me … that another year has come and gone so quickly, or that I am coming to the final conclusion that it may be a waste of my time to visit juried shows of contemporary photography.  The major reason deals with content and the means used to mask the lack of it.  I know I have said this before but to repeat myself yet again, I am underwhelmed by the current trend that stresses size over content. More than not the results are inversely proportional to one another … large images of boring subject matter. Which brings me to this year’s Phillips’ Mill exhibit, one of the premier shows in this artistic county.

Most who read this live far away from Bucks County so you probably couldn’t give a fig about this show, but you should. Why?  Because the shows near where you live most likely mirror what I see here. Again, as was the case with what I saw last year, bigger must surely better. Technically perfect and digital of course.  Mainly color.  Still mostly emotionally barren. Interestingly, the best photographs I saw didn’t win any of the honors.

What does this all mean?  One thing I’m guessing is that digital photography has enabled and promoted a casual means of working … and yes … thinking. And digital printing has enabled the easy production of large prints.  The bigger the better … right? It’s like we’re going back to the age of the dreadnaught class sized cars of low quality that Detroit churned out in the Sixties and Seventies.  Almost put U.S. car manufacturing under.

This weekend I went out photographing.  First I spent a couple of ours walking around Doylestown where I live. The next day, Philadelphia.  Almost 100 degrees outside, but beautiful sunny days.  One camera with one lens, loaded with Tri-X.

Suddenly the world seemed right again, and it was good.