lotus photography
intuition changes

I traded cameras with a friend this week. How exciting! This means that I'm using a Nikon D70 and my friend has the pleasure of using the precious Mamiya 645pro. I've realized a few things...

1. Digital is extensive. You can take a lot of pictures, which is great for practicing. You can look at your image in an instant. You can use auto focus ;) I lured some friends into my "living room-turned glamour studio", with the promise of stunning renditions of themselves...and, vino. The outcome: questionable stunning-ness., unquestionable entertainment. Here are some out takes:

Thumbnail image for angels2.jpg
that's brooklyn, seattle and chi-town, at your service.

Thumbnail image for charming1.jpg
he's charming. really.

Thumbnail image for brooklyn1.jpg
hoopy. loopy.

Thumbnail image for vhands.jpg
she's good at what she does.

Thumbnail image for monica1.jpg
so is she.

2. I like what I know and I don't know Nikon so well. The Mamiya is intuitive, but then again, I've been using it for years. Practice with the 'new' technology will help, I'm certain of it. But will I ever get over the fact that photography, a medium utterly dependent on light, is engaged in a serious affair with the pixel...a human-generated grain of film? If you know me, you know how much I appreciate science. I can't believe how amazingly well our algorithms have come to truly interpreting light. However, film is still documenting light. Digital is still computing light. Legitimate or otherwise, I feel like this makes me less of a photographer. Does it? Let's think...

The Portland Art Museum's most recent exhibit was a photographic series,
Wild Beauty: Photographs of the Columbia River Gorge, 1867-1957
. It documented the gorge and its transitions, both social and geographical, that came in large part with the addition of two major dams.

Carleton Watkins was prolific in this exhibit. He was hired by construction companies to document the landscape before (and during) the impending changes. At the time of his early trips to the gorge (approx. 1867), photography was considered a science. It was not an art...and that's no surprise. Photography was new on the scene and far from accessible to the masses. Cameras were large and cumbersome, not to mention "negatives", as we know them, did not exist. Photographers were curious chemists who experimented with light sensitive chemicals on glass and metal plates. That being said, those whose images we admire today are few...and therefore special. Making a beautiful image in 1867, in the rugged topography and weather in the Columbia Gorge was mastered by Watkins. He had vision and tenacity; strength and scientific know-how.

He was shooting with a mammoth plate camera. This is an image of a camera similar to his.

Thumbnail image for mammoth.jpg

A person must be admired or at least appreciated for making such striking images under such challenging conditions. One had to have a true mastery of science and art...he didn't have light meters, auto-focus, instant previews; he had to use intuition, a keen understanding of light and deep knowledge of chemistry.

watkins1.jpg
this is one of my favorites. columbia gorge b/w mosier and the dalles.

Maybe roll film replaced glass plates with the same confidence that pixels are taking over roll film.  I guess the fact remains that there will always be a necessary intuition behind any good photograph or photographer. What changes is the nature of the intuition. Could Watkins have made a successful picture with a Mamiya 645? Could Terry Richardson with a mammoth albumen? Can Ani Nelson with a Nikon D70?

I think we all can...in due time.


| No Comments | No TrackBacks

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://lotusphotography.org/do/mt-tb.cgi/27

Leave a comment

Ani's Photo Blog

I had a crazy professor in college that published books...lots of books, and refused to capitalize any letters. She felt it was one of the many internalized processes of "othering" that were practiced by educated human beings. Exclusion and isolation led to power, discrimination and division. The final paper I wrote for that class was published. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The best way to describe my relationship with photography at that time was true, blinding love. I had confidence that I could blur the lines of duality with a single photographic experience; assurance that I would join the ranks of photographers who change how people see. In short, I was going to revolutionize communication...and I would drive it with the power of love. So it stands to reason that this final paper would extract a small photographic property and make it explode with purpose. It is the human propensity for monochromatic thinking that waters the roots of "othering".

Boy, I was really proud of that conclusion. I guess things like this lose a bit of their University flare when they're not tucked safely inside university walls. The point is, as my contextual knowledge of photographs grew, I developed a strong affinity for joining the non-joinable in all manner of subjects. Do non-sequiturs really hold water?! Don't our brains have a mind of their own? If you aren't convinced, hang out with a toddler for the day and you will know this as fact.

Photographs are a secret passage into all kinds of relationships. They are nostalgic and prophetic at the same time and I think that is so cool.


I like vacationing here. Maybe you will too...

Depth of Field Contest
Mark Ostow Photography
Ron Jude Photography
Blue Sky Gallery
Fifty Crows
This American Life
XKCD

Monthly Archives

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed


contact andrea nelson     ani.nelson@gmail.com | 503 . 560 . 7959 | more info >