hasselblad friday: roll #4 (or the one where I ramble on about photography & metaphysics) »
While I was in Salt Lake City, I was happily able to spend a few minutes chatting with my sweet friend, Justin Hackworth (who, incidentally, took my bio photograph for the inside flap of my book). At one point I interrupted him:
"Justin, you know what?" I said. "I just need to tell you something I've been meaning to tell you for a while. I really love your work. Your images are so simple, so pure and so beautiful -- they're really just breathtaking."
He smiled his usual quiet smile. "Thank you," he said simply.
"Seriously," I insisted. "I've tried to photograph just like you, and I can't."
"Well, actually," he said, "there is a theory that says a photographer imbues something into his photograph when he shoots. That there's a reason that you can't identically copy another photographer's work. You could never shoot like me, and I could never shoot like you, even if we tried."
"In fact," he continued, becoming more animated, "I read an article once, where someone was visiting Ansel Adams, and Ansel took a shot -- and then the person used Ansel's camera and took the identical shot, and processed it identically. And even though, at a glance, the photograph looked the same, if you stared at it long enough, it immediately became clear to anyone which of the photos was taken by Ansel, and which wasn't." *
"You know, I totally believe that," I said. "I've tried it with other photographers -- taken photographs of the same subject side-by-side with them. I'm not sure what it is, but you definitely can tell the difference, even when our camera settings were exactly the same."
* * * * * * *
In the interest of continuing to share with you my learning curve in using this camera, these are the thoughts that ran through my head when I pulled the images above up on my computer, in the order in which I thought them:
1. Oh good, they came out fine.
2. Of course, it's really difficult to screw up photographs when you have subjects as lovely as these.
3. The things I wanted in focus are in focus (more or less), and vertical lines are vertical and horizontal lines are horizontal. Score.
4. I think I'm finally getting the hang of this camera!
5. I'm still a bit dissatisfied.
It might seem silly, I suppose, that I wouldn't be fully happy yet, especially since I consider the images technically fine. But the truth, I think, is related to the discussion I had with Justin: I don't quite feel that a part of myself -- the part which expresses how I felt during that moment in time when I took the shots -- is accurately expressed in these photos. This might sound like metaphysical hooey, but regardless, something still doesn't feel quite right. My "imbued spirit" isn't translating, or something. It could be, of course, that I'm not used to shooting film, having shot digitally for the past decade; but honestly, I don't think that's it. I do think however, it has something to do with the type of film I'm using.
I mentioned when sharing roll #2 that I wasn't sure I was a fan of the film I've been using (Kodak Portra), and I think I still feel this way: the colours (despite what their website shows) feel muted, flat. As is probably apparent by scrolling through the archives of my site, I'm more of a vibrant-pop-of-colour kind of girl, and try as I might on Photoshop, I can't get the images to show the sort of vibrancy I'd like, without seriously skewing the feel of the image. The best way I can describe it is like this: it's like taking a shot with your Instagram app on your iPhone, and you want to process it using the Lomo-Fi filter, but for some reason it's broken, and the only one that's working is Toaster.
(Okay, maybe that wasn't the best description. But those of you who use Instagram on iPhones probably get my point.)
Anyway, the upshot is this: for roll #5 (currently being processed), I tried a new film: Fujicolor Pro 400H film, which people tell me is known for colour vibrancy. Hopefully I'll have some good images to share with you next week, and I can tell you if the images feel more "me." Fingers crossed. And ultimately, please know that, regardless of my muted, flattened imbued spirit, I'm having a WHALE of a time using this camera. Seriously, it's like having a brand new toy to play with, and it's so much fun.
(In other completely unrelated news, as always, I'm sharing the things I'm grateful for this week over at Bliss Your Heart. Oh! And I'm trying to figure out how to drink more water -- any tips?)
And after all that crazy talk, have a great weekend, everyone.
* If you're interested, the article to which Justin was referring can be downloaded in PDF form by clicking here. It's a really great read.
Fri, January 27, 2012
Reader Comments (18)
I love these. Sometimes less color brings out true simplicity. I love the way the mountains fade into the sky on the first shot. Salt Lake has character because you gave me a view of it through your hasselblad.
How are you tweaking the color? Have you tried flipping to LAB space and just bringing the A & B curve end in a bit? I find that upping the saturation that way is more natural than playing with saturation/vibrancy sliders. Or you could just "cheat" and use the Alien Skin Exposure plug-in.
Either way, I completely agree with you about trying to take the same pic. Try as I might, I can never take the same picture as my partner, who is way better technically than I am. *sigh*
Years ago, when I shot with a 35mm point-and-shoot, I shot almost exclusively with Fuji, because the colors were far more vibrant than on prints from Kodak. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if your new film is the same.
Keep having fun!
I understand what you mean, even though the hassleblad shots have been truly lovely (and I really am enjoying your talking about the learning process!), and the portraits still have what I'd consider your voice in them, they aren't quite *all* you yet.
Film is really important in film photography! LOL
(OTOH, the strong voice you have does shine through in your portraits and the photo of the tulips from last week, particularly!)
Totally know what you mean! And you described it very well. David Duchemin calls it vision & voice, and it's your unique style or your distinct look. You'll find it, it takes time. I'm still figuring mine out. It's almost like a formula, those things you do every time you take a picture that make it yours and that create the look you are trying to achieve. Katie Jane talks about it in her recent post, scroll down to how she describes how she has been able to use VSCO Film Profiles to find her distinct look. I'm not promoting this particular tool or anything, but just trying to point out that often the very distinctive photographers, the ones that are hired for their look, have worked hard to create a look. You are creating an entirely different and separate process with film, and it takes time to figure out the formula that matches your vision. The way that you are working at this though? You'll find it.
you inspire me!
Do you love your camera? Maybe there's a disconnect between you and the camera and it's coming through? Also, perhaps it captures light differently?
Pictures are beautiful, but I understand when things don't look quite the way you want them too.
I don't know, Walrond... these are stunning to me. The first shot literally took my breath away.
That picture of Jordan is one of my favorite pictures of yours. So beautiful.
I just read an article about a woman and her violin. She was saying how you have to carve out a song on the violin and how she actually had a relationship with this particular instument. I figure that even though the object is inanimate on its own it is you as a soul who animates it therefore of course the results would exude your own soul qualities and carry with it the vibration you are currently holding. Maybe like if you took photos during your Klaus times they would be inherently crabby! Someone out there knows. And love is a beautiful thing no matter how you slice it.