Thanks for your interest in my “Taking a Picture” series. Just as a note, I have continued improving my digital workflow and some of these notes are now out-of-date. Feel free to drop a line in the comments or contact me directly if you would like more information on my photographic workflow.
This is part one in what may ultimately prove to be a very long series on the physical process of taking photographs. I had assumed that writing this introduction would be fairly straightforward, but after thinking about it for a while, I’ve become less sure of myself. This is usually the entire decision-making process when it comes to equipment selection for me:
I mean, right?
Well, the whole idea behind documenting this process is about challenging my basic assumptions, so let’s start with this one. What’s so special about black and white film?
Unlike a lot of people who shoot black and white, I didn’t grow up with it. I didn’t get really serious about photography until after the digital revolution, and basically learned how to take pictures with a digital SLR. So why have I switched almost completely to film?
There are plenty of reasons to love black and white film. Shooting in black and white itself is a special kind of process that is very different than shooting in color. I tend to think ahead a bit more, asking myself what a scene will look like in monochrome. Black and white adds a layer of abstraction to an image that allows me to insert a bit more of myself into the photographic process.
I also love the physical characteristics of film. I was looking at some Bill Brandt photographs the other day and realized that some of his night photographs of London are more grain than image, and I loved it. Digital, on the other hand, feels too clean, too processed. I would even say the same about some of the more modern films like Delta and T-Max… my preference remains with the older-fashioned black and white emulsions.
I do have reservations about shooting in black and white, though. I look around in the contemporary art world, at the work of photographers I admire, and I don’t see very much straight landscape work. People seem a bit obsessed with portraits right now, especially environmental portraiture. I don’t mind work of this kind; some of it, I think, is pretty spectacular. But after a while a lot of it starts to blend together for me.
Of the landscape work that is being produced right now, almost none of it is in black and white. While I think of black and white landscape as timeless (think of the work of Robert Adams or Frank Gohlke), a lot of people probably see it as dated. I produce my work first for my own satisfaction, but I do have a desire to connect with an audience, and I worry a bit about whether or not black and white is still relevant to most people.
These choices have already been made for this project (I will be continuing my exploration along the southern Brooklyn coastline this weekend), so I don’t plan on revisiting this decision any time soon. But it’s an awful lot to think about just to go out and take a couple of pictures, isn’t it?
This series of blog posts follow a single image from it’s very conception all the way through to the final print. When I’m done, I’m going to give the print to someone who has commented on one of the posts along the way.
Click here to read other posts in this series.
I just bought myself a Hasselblad 503CW so I’m looking forward to this series Dalton.
I noticed you don’t tend to use alot of (if any) post processing on your photos so I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on that front. Digital workflow etc.
Cheers, Robb.
PS. Liking the new site already
Hey Robb,
Thanks for dropping a line. Congratulations on the new Hasselblad, I have a feeling you’re going to love it. I have an almost unhealthy relationship with mine.
I am planning to go through a full digital workflow, including contact sheets, scanning negatives, and some before and after processing examples. I am always stunned by the amount of change that happens between my first contrast adjustment on a flat scan (which I consider the digital equivalent of a work print) and the final image. There’s usually quite a lot of work that happens in-between, including localized contrast adjustments, dodging, burning, toning, noise reduction, sharpening. My goal is always to end up with something that feels reasonably natural, though, so your perception of a lack of much post-processing is a good sign to me.
yeah the thing about digital is that it’s too easy to just shoot everything without too much thought to composition, etc. it’s a much more planned out process with film. on the other hand you never have those “if only i had a camera” moments.
Interesting comment on digital photography. I’m now to the point where digital BW has a recognition factor due to the ‘clean-ness’ of the images, it’s like they are homogenized. Very weird but that’s how I see it. I still shoot film about 99 percent of the time. I picked up a cheap p/s Canon S3 for doing pano stitching of graf. This seems to work well and better than my 35mm except when I’m in very narrow lanes then I go to a 15mm.
Back to film. Interesting to see the price of film cameras being pushed back up lately. I’m wondering if film’s getting a slight resurgence. I think so.
OT , I should learn to use PS and will.
Hi Jan. Yes, I agree, I think there is a kind of homogeneity with digital. Images come out a little too smooth and plasticky for my taste. Of course you can use Photoshop filters and techniques to add some texture back in, which I have done in the past, but that process started to feel a bit false to me and was actually part of the reason I took an interest in B&W film.
Not that I don’t manipulate my images. As I mentioned in my reply to Robb, I do a fair amount of post-processing, but my intention is to maintain subtlety. I’m not crazy about photographs that appear heavily processed.
I’m as much worried about the price of film as I am the price of cameras. Inevitably, supply will begin to dwindle as fewer people use it, and the next thing you know, prices will go up. I still have an interest in large format color work, but the price has kept me from experimenting too much.
By all means, you’ve got to give Photoshop a try. It is the most valuable tool I have… more so than the camera, or film, or any of it. Having spent my fair share of time in the darkroom, once I’ve developed and scanned the film, all of my adjustments and printing are digital. I wouldn’t imagine going back. Of course, there’s always platinum printing and other alternative processes to try out, but that is for very rare occasions.