ADVANCED PHOTO 3 STUDY GUIDE FOR SEMESTER 1, 2013-2014
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT PAGE THREE
– THERE IS VERY VERY VERY
IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT
YOU NEED TO KNOW
A pinhole camera is the simplest possible camera. Light rays reflect off of objects in all directions, and the lens on a camera re-aligns the
rays so that they meet at the same spot on the film when the lens is correctly focused. Instead of a complex arrangement of glass lenses the
pinhole camera uses a tiny hole to block almost all of the light rays except for the ones which are already aligned correctly. A mechanically
timed shutter is replaced with anything that can cover the pinhole when the camera is not taking a shot.
Designing a pinhole camera is a fairly simple and straightforward process. The first thing that needs to be done is to make or buy a pinhole. If
you want to make your own pinhole at home, a good material to use is the metal from the side of a pop can. The thinner the better, as long
as it is light-proof. Use a pin and a hammer to gently poke a hole through. Use an eraser or something soft to support the aluminum so it
stays flat when being pressed on. Use some 600 grit sandpaper to sand away the protruding metal on the opposite side. If you have a
microscope or a flatbed scanner you can inspect the pinhole roundness and quality. Special carbide micro drills can be purchased but a high
speed drill press is required to use them. Pinholes can also be purchased from eBay or a few other specialty sites on the internet. Google will
find an up-to-date list of locations.
Once the pinhole diameter is determined (or already known) then the focal length of the camera can be calculated. The formula is; focal
length = (pinhole diameter / 0.03679)2. The focal length is the distance that the pinhole should be from the film.
Example using 0.3mm pinhole:

focal length = (0.3mm / 0.03679)2

focal length = (8.17438)2

focal length = 66.49mm
The next value that needs to be calculated is the view angle of the pinhole. This is the angle which is the maximum angle that a ray of light
can make it through the pinhole. The controlling factors of this value are the diameter of the hole and the thickness of the material.
The view angle is solved using right-angle trigonometry. The simplified formula is:
view angle = tan-1( (d/2)/(t/2) ) x 2
Example:

view angle = tan-1 ( (0.3/2)/(0.0762/2)) x 2

= tan-1 (3.937) * 2

= 75.74 * 2

= 151.5o
This view angle is information is crucial to determining if the pinhole, at its focal distance, will cover the film appropriately. Too little coverage
and the result will be a circular image with black corners and edges. The diagonal of the film frame needs to fit inside the diameter of the
coverage. The formula to determine the image diameter is:
image diameter (mm) = 2 x focal length x tan ((View angle)/2)
Example:

image diameter (mm) = 2 x 66.49 x tan (151.5/2)

= 132.98 x tan (75.75)

= 132.98 x 3.937

= 523.61 mm
In this example for calculating image diameter, the diameter has come out very large, meaning that combined with a curved film plane, it will
allow for a 6cm tall by 17cm wide image to be taken on 120 film. This will produce a very panoramic and extremely wide view.
Camera Building
(Click for bigger view)
Once the math of the camera design is complete, the physical design and building can begin. The film and pinhole are placed in parallel to
each other, the distance between them should be equal to the focal length. Utilizing a curved film plane allows the entire length of film to be
exactly the correct and consistent distance from the pinhole, to ensure an even exposure.
The camera can be made from a pre-existing box or one can be made from scratch. It can be made of any material that can be light-proofed.
A metal rod with one end filed flat and a guitar knob can be used as a film advance handle. Two are required, one to loosen the supply spool
and one to tighten the take-up spool.
A shutter mechanism can be as simple as a piece of tape stuck over the pinhole, to a pivoting piece of wood, to a spring-actuated sliding
shutter with shutter release cable thread. I built one which could be actuated by shutter release cable, and is held shut by a spring.
There needs to be a hole in the back of the camera to read the film frame numbers off of. The inside of the camera needs to be painted black
to absorb any stray light.
Exposure
The next value that can now be determined is the equivalent f-stop. The f-stop value is a relationship between the diameter of the pinhole
and the distance to the film. This number is valuable for calculating the exposure time required when taking a picture. The formula is:
f-stop = focal length / pinhole diameter
Example:

f-stop = focal length / pinhole diameter

f-stop = 66.49mm / 0.3mm

f-stop = 221
Obviously, no other camera or meter is going to allow f221 as an option, so we need to make some calculations to find out how to do an
equivalent exposure time from something that we can measure.
f-stop values have certain cornerstone values, and the difference between these values is that the amount of light allowed through is halved
each time. Essentially, the area of the circle formed by the aperture is halved each time, and thus the light. These values are as follows; 1.4,
2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 44, 64, 88, 128, 176, 256, 352. Anything past f22 is going to be unavailable on a light meter, so here's how
we are going to determine a multiplication factor for the pinhole;
Pinhole exposure is not an exact science, so precise math is not required. This is the kind of thing you'll have to calculate out in the field, so
doing it in your head semi-accurately is acceptable. No need to bring a calculator. So, if the pinhole is f221, lets round to f256 to make life
easier. If we count backwards to f16, there is a difference of 8 values. This means the amount of light through an f16 aperture is 28 times
more than f256. This just so happens to be 256. This means that when we take a digital camera or light meter, set the ASA/ISO to the speed
of the film in the camera, set the aperture to f16 and get a shutter speed, we multiply it by 256. For example, if we measure a value of 1
second, we will need to expose for 256 seconds to get enough light.
Reciprocity Failure
If all that calculating seemed straightforward, unfortunately its more complex than that. When exposed for a short period of time, film's
response to light is linear. Expose the film for twice as long, and the film will react twice as much to the light. However if you begin exposing
for more than a few seconds, the film stops responding linearly. It actually takes a lot more light than you would expect. This is called
reciprocity failure and it happens with all film. The solution is to use a chart to estimate the extra time needed. There is one attached above
and can be printed out and brought with you when shooting until you have enough experience to make estimates without it's help. Your film's
datasheet will have a section on its reciprocity characteristics and can be found online.
Using the example of a 256 second exposure, the reciprocity factor is approximately 4x for that length of exposure, so 256 seconds turns into
1024 seconds. 4 minutes to 17 minutes, what a huge difference! Of course, this is all just for "ideal" exposure. A few minutes less, or more,
won't hurt anything. In fact, I exposed my first test roll only 1/8th as long as I was supposed to and it came out looking pretty good.
Obviously with shutter speeds this long a tripod will always need to be used, and the camera should not be touched during the duration of the
exposure.
The finished camera:
After developing, here are the results (click for larger view):
Further Reading
We got your attention, didn't we? There is a great Instructable going into depth (yes, even more than here) on some of the aspects. It was
also written by Matt, so expect great explanations, high-end math and Laser cutting.
If you are seeking to build a camera without all the math behind it, check out our Pinhole photography section, lots of goodies there, like 23
pinhole cameras you can build at home. If it is a challenge that you are seeking, go after The Battlefield or the La Guillotine - very complex
but also very rewarding.
D E T E R M I N I N G
E X P O S U R E
T I M E S
F O R
P I N H O L E
C A M E R A S
Determining the correct exposure time for a pinhole camera is truly a hard nut to crack. The situation is complicated by small
apertures (high f numbers) and long exposure times, and in their calculation, the reciprocity law failure (Schwarzschild effect) must
also be taken into consideration. Before I describe how to calculate correct exposure times, I would like to point out one important
fact. Taking photographs with a pinhole camera is always something of an experiment and requires a bit of playing around.
Achieving perfect results is not always the most important aim and certain insufficiencies in the exposure do not therefore lead to
a fatal mistake. Many "pinhole" photographers successfully simply use estimated exposure times and leave the light meter at home
in the drawer. Also, many commonly used films have high exposure latitude and therefore are, to a certain extent, less sensitive to
incorrect exposure times.
However, if we want to minimise the risk of poor-quality photographs, it would be helpful to be able to calculate exposure times as
simply as possible so that one has more time to concentrate on the photograph itself and also so the whole process does not
become a mathematical nightmare. One option is to prepare a simple table for each pinhole camera whereby the time measured by
a light meter can be quickly converted to the required time for the given pinhole camera and film stock. You can use
the PinholeDesigner program to help you with the following calculation.
f number
In order to calculate an exposure time, it is important to know the f number of the pinhole camera. Compared with normal
cameras, it does not change (the hole is the same size) and the calculation is simple: the distance from the light-sensitive material
divided by the diameter of the hole. For example, the formula for a pinhole camera with a focal length of 100 mm and a pinhole
0.4 mm in diameter is: 100/0.4 = 250, hence the f number is 250.
However, the problem is that the high f numbers common on pinhole cameras are not available on the majority of light meters.
The only way round this is to set the light meter to a different aperture, usually f 22, and then convert the measured exposure time
for the aperture of the specific pinhole camera. This is done by dividing the f number of the pinhole camera by the f number set on
the light meter; this number is squared and the result is used to multiply the measured exposure time. For example, if
the measured exposure time for f 22 is 1/60 second, the calculation for our pinhole camera with an f number of 250 is:
(250/22)2 = 129. The measured time is increased 129 times, therefore the exposure time for the pinhole camera will be 2 seconds
(rounded).
Reciprocity law failure (Schwarzschild effect)
Originally it was accepted that the photochemical change is caused only by the amount of absorbed radiant energy which is
proportional to the sum of the amount of light and the length of time the material was exposed to this light. The relation between
the photochemical reaction and the amount of absorbed energy is therefore directly proportional. However, research by several
scientists, including K. Schwarzschild, showed that this reciprocal rule does not apply when light intensity is low. In reality, low light
levels over a longer period have less effect than strong light levels over a shorter period, even though the sum of light intensity and
exposure time is the same.
What does this mean in practice? For long exposure times, usually for exposures longer than several seconds, it is necessary to
extend the measured time. The additional time is different for each type of light-sensitive material and for each measured time.
The majority of film stock manufacturers indicate in their technical specifications by how much the exposure times should be
extended; if not, then the only way to achieve correct exposures is experience.
Tips for correct exposures
Choose a material with high exposure latitude, this increases the probability of obtaining a useful negative despite certain mistakes
during exposure. In general, conventional light-sensitive layers (which do not use T-grain emulsions) have a higher exposure
latitude, such as Ilford FP4 Plus, and also the majority of commonly used colour negative films.
It is very difficult to set the correct exposure time for interiors where the lighting conditions are generally not so good. In most
cases, the times are very protracted, often more than one hour. Usually, the only possible method to obtain a correct exposure is
trial and error.
When it comes to setting exposure times, the use of photographic paper instead of negative material would require a separate
chapter. The light sensitivity specified by manufacturers is measured in a completely different way than for film, and is unfit for our
purposes. The sensitivity of the photographic paper should be tested. The light meter should be set to somewhere between 2 and
10 ISO.
Obviously, during exposure the pinhole camera must not be moved, otherwise the picture will be blurred. If the pinhole camera is
light and cannot be fixed to a tripod, it should be weighed down.
As I mentioned previously, a good idea for simplifying exposures is to create a table for each pinhole camera and each type of film
stock. The table for our example pinhole camera might look like this:
Example of an exposure table for a pinhole camera with f number 250
exposure time measured
for f 22
time converted for pinhole
aperture f 250
time including Schwarzschild
effect for Ilford FP4 Plus
1/500
1/4
1/4
1/250
1/2
1/2
1/125
1s
2s
1/60
2s
5s
1/30
4s
11 s
1/15
9s
25 s
1/8
16 s
1m
1/4
32 s
3m
1/2
1m
9m
1s
2m
33 m
To take a photograph, just measure the scene to be photographed with the light meter set to f 22 and then, in the row for
the measured time, look up the time for the given pinhole camera and film stock.
PINHOLE MATH
This section is not necessary AT ALL to do pinhole photography. It is written
for people, like myself, who have to know what is going on and why. If math
bothers you, go back to the tables and you will do fine. The ART is more
important!
When talking about measurements for a pinhole it is easier to think in metric,
as in millimeters. You already do this if you own a 35 mm camera in that your
lens' focal length is sized in millimeters. A normal lens being around 50-55
mm and a telephoto being anything greater than say 100 mm A wide angle
lens is from 18-35 mm and so on.
In deciding on the ideal pinhole you can go from a fixed focal length and then
determine the size of the ideal pinhole or you can go from the size of the
pinhole and go for the ideal focal length.
There are many factors influencing the size of the pinhole and authors will
disagree as to the intensity of the effects of any particular factor. The
calculations below are based in empirical observations by the author of this
web site. [ie. done with actual pinholes, film and such] One factor is the color
of the light. Blue light has the highest resolution and red the lowest. This
affects the size of the hole. For practical purposes, we compromise on green
light (560nm) to be equivalent to daylight.
Metric (mm) formula for green light (560 nm): see TABLE OF PINHOLE SIZE
TO FOCAL LENGTH
Focal length of lens = (size of pinhole) X (size of pinhole) X 750
if we have a pinhole of 0.4mm then
120mm = 0.4mm X 0.4mm X 750
or an ideal focal length of 120mm is found.
Constants for other types and colors of light:
Daylight (560nm)
Blue (450nm)
Green (550nm)
Red (650nm) [also used for tungsten]
Infrared (750nm)
750
934
763
647
561
Now the other way round: see TABLE OF FOCAL LENGTH TO PINHOLE
(mm)
size of pinhole = squareroot (focal length/750)
from the previous example, we will choose a focal length of 120mm
= sqrt( 120/750)
= sqrt(0.16)
= 0.4
Just for fun let us assume you are going to use your living room for a giant
pinhole and it is 15 feet from the window to the wall. How big a pinhole would
we need?
25.4mm = 1 inch and 15 feet = 15 x 12 = 180 inches or 4572 mm
= squareroot(4572/750)
= 2.45 mm or about 1/10 of an inch
Remember: F# = focal length / diameter of lens opening.
This can get confusing in terms of using a light meter, so to help out here is a
normal progression of F numbers past what we are used to seeing:
Since pinhole f-numbers are usually not even as in the above table, here is a
formula that can help:
Bright Sunny day exposure in seconds = ((f# x f#)/ASA) x 0.0039
OR = (f#/16)^2 / ASA (gives the same answer)
If you have a hand held light meter, set it to the proper ASA and read the
value at F16, then use this formula to find the exposure:
Seconds = ((f# x f#)/ASA) x (f16 exp) x 0.39 OR = (f#/16)^2 x (f16 exp)
DON'T FORGET RECIPROCITY FAILURE! -see the data sheet that came
with your film
REMEMBER each jump in F# is a halving of the amount of light available
One of the neatest things about pinhole photography is the time dilation
effect.
Over a one-hour exposure, people and cars will disappear!
Why do larger formats look sharper?
As the size of the negative gets bigger, so does the size of the ideal pinhole
for the same angle of view.
Let's calculate the total lines of resolution for each format, from 35 mm to
8x10, lines of resolution is the size of the pinhole x five for daylight. You can
get a bit higher with a blue filter, but this will do for purposes of this
discussion.
Format
Focal Length
Ideal Pinhole
Neg Diagonal
Lines/negative
fstop
35mm
22
0.171
43
1257
128
6x7
42
0.236
90
1907
177
4x5
74
0.314
154
2452
235
5x7
100
0.365
210
2877
273
8x10
150
0.447
308
3445
335
The change in negative diagonal from 35 mm to 8x10 is 7 fold, but the
resolution is only 2.7 fold higher, so clearly there is a diminishing return for
going to a larger size. Basically, use the largest size you are willing to carry.
[and can afford the film for!] ALSO, remember the f-stop gets higher with the
larger formats, so you run out of light/time at some point.
Personally, I find the 4x5 format to be near ideal. There are a large number of
films available [more varied than 35 mm actually], access to roll film backs,
etc. The negative is just large enough to contact print and still be visible.
Enlargers are in the painful, but still possible range [8x10 enlargers are in the
obscene range!]. Lastly, using a pinhole camera is already a SLOWER
process, so carrying around a 4x5, though slower to use than 35, is not that
much different for pinholes. [8x10 cameras need an assistant or pack animal
to carry around]
Deterioration of Photographic Materials
Photography can be defined as any method producing a visible image by the interaction of light with a layer of chemicals. Since the birth of still photography in 1839,
photographs have been manufactured employing many different methods. About 40 of
these methods have been used commercially and examples of the resulting images can
now be found in great numbers and varieties in archives and library collections.
The development of a commercially successful system for recording and viewing
moving images was the result of work by many people in the latter part of the 19th
century. The first successful public demonstrations were given by Lumi_re in Paris in
1895. Since then many advances have been made including the introduction of sound
and of colour. Many different frame rates and sizes of film were devised before the
industry stabilised on to a few "standard" formats. A film collection still has to be able
to handle films on many formats.
Microfilm was developed to secure original print and image material with special
historical, commercial or scientific value. The use of microfilms can also improve the
access to the information carried by the original documents. The use of microfilm for
access will, as with other forms of access copy, help preserve the original by
protecting it from wear and tear and from theft.
The most recent developments are as a result of the computer revolution. New
techniques have been developed using equipment such as ink-jet and thermal
sublimation printers to produce copies of digitised images. These should be
considered as printing techniques and not as photographic materials although they can
provide a good representation of the original photographic image. Because of the
short life expectancy and the sensitivity to light and heat, these printing techniques
cannot be considered a substitute for photographic materials.
The best practice for photographic materials is to have several sets of images:
The Original Image kept in ideal conditions and disturbed as infrequently as
possible.
A Safety Master used as a reserve copy. It should be stored in a separate place to the
original in case of the loss of the original in a fire or some other disaster and also kept
in good storage conditions.
A User Copy Master made from the original or the safety master and used to make
User Copies.
User Copies for routine access to the images.
Though photographic images have been made in a great number of different sizes from microfilms to large posters - the deterioration and preservation principles are
dependent upon the chemical process used to make the image and not the size or
purpose of the image. As the production of photographs has included many different
chemical processes in the capture of the image, photographs also have a wide variety
of ageing properties. Some materials were made of extremely selfdestructive
components, others were very sensitive to physical contact and almost every
photographic material is sensitive to the environment, not only temperature, relative
humidity and air pollution but also oxidising substances found in emissions from
some building materials, wall paints and wooden furnishing. The cardboard and paper
in boxes and envelopes used for protecting the items from physical damage may also
contain harmful substances.
Deterioration Factors
Deterioration factors can be categorised in two ways internal and external.
1. Internal Deterioration
Internal deterioration factors are dependent on the components of a photographic item
and the residual chemicals from developing and post treatment processes. The speed
of the decay processes is related to relative humidity, temperature and oxidising
substances.
The most commonly known example of a photographic material deteriorating from
internal processes is cellulose nitrate film, which during deterioration emits
substances that both accelerate the deterioration process as well as attacking materials
in the vicinity.
Another materials group exposed to self destruction is that of acetate film the first
safety film. Until recently, acetate film was considered as very stable but today the
problem of the Vinegar Syndrome the popular name for the deterioration of acetate
film with the emission of acetic acid (vinegar) vapour as a by-product that acts to
accelerate the rate of decay is widely known. Still another example, although
involving an old process, is the yellowing of albumen prints, where the egg white in
the emulsion bleaches the silver image.
Colour photographs - negatives, prints and transparencies - generally have bad ageing
properties as the colourcomponents are unstable unless kept below 0C. Photographic
colour materials are not only subject to light fading - fading of the colours and image
in the presence of light - but also to dark fading - fading in the absence of light.
Transparencies are commonly considered to have better colour stability than colour
negatives and prints but ageing properties may differ greatly due to different chemical
properties.
A Few Examples
Collodion, one of the earliest photographic emulsion materials, was used in several
similar photographic techniques during the midl8th century, e.g. ambrotypes,
collodion wet plates, pannotypes, ferrotypes and celloidin paper. The collodion
emulsion contains cellulose nitrate (also used for the first "plastictype" film base) and
emits nitrous gases, though far less than cellulose nitrate film. These gases may attack
other objects in the vicinity and, due to the loss of gas which leads to shrinkage of the
emulsion, the emulsion may eventually crack.
Supports that are subject to self-deterioration include cellulose nitrate film, acetate
film and some of the modern resin coated or so called plastic paper. The main
ingredient of nitrate film is cellulose nitrate which emits nitrous gases. The gases are
not only oxidative but also toxic and explosive. In a selfaccelerating deterioration
process, the support the film base and the emulsion are eventually completely
destroyed. What is left is a sticky substance. Cellulose nitrate film is flammable at
fairly low temperatures and rolls of film, like motion picture films, might even self
ignite at a room temperature as low as 41C when kept for an extended period of time
in a badly ventilated environment, for example in the traditional metal film can.
Cellulose nitrate film sheets do not self ignite in the same way because the mass per
volume is much less and normally the emitted gases slowly evaporate away from the
negatives when they are kept in envelopes and open boxes.
Acetate film was introduced in the l920s as a substitute for the flammable cellulose
nitrate film. It was labelled "safety film" as it was less flammable than its predecessor.
The early acetate film lacked dimensional stability which made it shrink and loosen
the emulsion from the support. The acetate base was improved and was considered
more or less stable until the vinegar syndrome was discovered during last decade.
PE or Resin Coated papers are made from paper fibres covered with polyethylene
with the gelatine emulsion outside the polyethylene layer. Until about the mid 1980s
this photographic print paper had bad ageing characteristics. The paper base contained
optical whiteners which absorbed light energy. An oxidising substance was formed
which attacked the resin coating resulting in cracking. The oxidant also attacked the
silver image and bleached it. During the last decade an antioxidant has been
introduced and thus the resin coated papers now have improved longevity.
Microfilms have been and are produced using a variety of processes but the silvergelatine developing-out film is considered to have the best long-term stability. Diazoand vesicular processes are commonly used for making access copies but they do not
have long-term stability and are not recommended for preservation copies.
2. External Deterioration Factors
External deterioration factors are harmful substances in the preservation environment.
Among the many contaminants, a few should be particularly mentioned. Lignin, alum
rosin sizing and oxidative residual chemicals in paper and cardboard used for
envelopes, boxes and mounting boards as well as plasticisers in PVCfolders and
similar storage media are the most common together with air pollutants. Furbishing in
repositories should not consist of materials emitting oxidising gases. Oxidising gases
react with photographic materials in a similar way as common air pollutants. High
temperature and relative humidity accelerates these processes.
Synergetic Effects of Internal and External Deterioration Factors
The external deterioration factors may cooperate with the internal factors to increase
the reaction speed of the internal deterioration factors.
Materials with good initial ageing properties i.e. with few internal deterioration
factors may last longer in a bad environment than an object with bad ageing
properties i.e. with many internal deterioration factors kept in a good preservation
environment.
Good storage conditions will counteract deterioration of materials with bad ageing
properties to a certain point, while bad storage conditions will always accelerate
deterioration processes.
Recommended Measures for Improving Preservation Conditions
The best way to preserve photographic materials is to emphasise measures on
preventive care. The necessity of proper storage materials envelopes, boxes, archive
furbishing etc. and storage climate cannot be over estimated.
If possible a photographic collection should be divided and stored in two archives; an
active and a passive. The active archive is for frequently used material mainly copies
of originals and the passive archive is for long term keeping of the originals. The
passive archive should have a stable climate with low temperature and relative
humidity. A number of recommendations exist but they do not differ significantly
from the requirements listed in the following table. These are weighted for a good
cost/effectiveness ratio. The requirements can be difficult to achieve but must always
remain the target. The target temperature and humidity readings can be relaxed
provided that the conditions are kept stable and with the proviso that the humidity
level is kept above 25% and below about 65% - the level above which moulds are
encouraged to grow. The penalty in most cases is, however, a shorter life expectancy
for the carriers.
Preservation Climate Requirements for Photographic Materials
Temp
±/24h
±/Year
RH
±/24h
±/Year
Negatives
<18C
±1C
±2C
30%-40%
±5%
±10%
b/w Prints
<18C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
Cellulose Nitrate Film
<11C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
Colour Negatives
<2C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
Colour Slides
<2C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
Colour Prints
<2C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
STILL IMAGES
MOVING IMAGES
Colour Films
-5C
±1C
±2C
30%
±2%
±5%
b/w Safety Films
<16C
±1C
±2C
35%
±2%
±5%
b/w Nitrate Films
4C
±1C
±2C
50%
±2%
±5%
<18C
±1C
±2C
30%40%
±5%
±10%
b/w MICROFILM
Silver-gelatine
Basements and attics are usually not suitable for storing photographic materials.
Basements are usually very humid and often accommodate plumbing which, if it starts
to leak, may cause irreversible damages. Attics, if not properly insulated, will have an
uncontrolled climate affected by the outdoor conditions.
High temperature and high relative humidity (RH) accelerates most deterioration
processes. The cooler the temperature the slower the deterioration rate. The control of
relative humidity is even more important in an archive with photographic materials.
These types of damage may occur when the RH is TOO HIGH:






Mould and fungi start to grow when RH rises above 65%.
The emulsion swells and get sticky.
Residual chemicals will accelerate deterioration processes.
Glass plates might start to deteriorate and the glass may turn foggy.
Deterioration processes caused by air pollutants, paints etc. may accelerate.
Photographs on metal support, Ferrotypes, may start to corrode.
The following damages may occur when RH is TOO LOW:



The emulsion dries out and might flake.
Dry emulsion may fall off the support.
Film support may lose its flexibility
It may be difficult to keep the air in an archive clean since most major archives
usually are situated in the centre of major cities. But it is nevertheless of the utmost
importance to keep the areas free from air pollutants as possible. They are very
reactive with substances in both b/ w and colour photographs. Listed in the following
table are the requirements for clean air in photographic collections.
Other harmful substances exist in the air but good chemical filters customised for the
substances listed in the table will control these as well.
Air Quality Requirements in Archives for Photographic Materials
Gas
Active Archive
Passive Archive
SO2
1 g/m3
1 g/m3
NOx
5 g/m3
1 g/m3
O3
25 g/m3
2 g/m3
CO2
4 5 g/m3
4 5 g/m3
Fine Particles
75 g/m3
75 g/m3
If the collection includes any nitrate moving films, seek advice from the local fire
authorities about the storage requirements, the maximum quantity of film that can
be kept in one storage area and any other restrictions that they may require. This
action is not merely good advice - it is essential. Nitrate movie film is considered to
be an explosive by the fire authorities in many countries.
Conclusion
Photographic objects belong to a very delicate category of our cultural heritage which
need special attention by trained personnel. Materials are susceptible to air pollutants,
both fuel generated and emitted from furbishing and protective materials in
repositories, as well as high humidity and temperature. It is important, therefore, to be
in control of the preservation environment. It is also important to be able to identify
the photographic methods represented in a collection and thus be aware of specific
preservation problems.
Specifications, methods and measures for improving the preservation environment for
photographic materials can be found in special literature and standards. Some of these
are listed below.
Standards
ISO 417
Photography Determination of residual thiosulfate and other related chemicals in
processed photographic materials Methods using iodineamylose, methylene blue
and silver sulfide.
ISO 543
Cinematography Motion picture safety film Definition, testing and marking
ISO 3897
Photography Processed photographic plates Storage practices.
ISO 4331
Photography Processed photographic blackandwhite film for archival records
Silvergelatin type on cellulose ester base Specifications
ISO 4332
Photography Processed photographic blackandwhite film for archival records
Silvergelatin type on poly(ethylene terephthalate) base Specifications
ISO 5466
Photography Processed safety photographic films Storage practices
ISO 6051
Photography Processed reflection prints - Storage practices.
ISO 6200
Micrographics - First generation silver-gelatine microforms of source documents Density specifications
ISO 8126
Micrographics - Diazo and vesicular films - Visual density - Specifications
ISO 9718
Photography Processed versicular photographic film Specifications for density
ISO 10214
Photography Processed photo graphic materials Filing enclosure for storage.
ISO 10602
Photography Processed silvergelatine type blackandwhite film Specifications for
stability.
ISO 51
Photography Density measurements Part 1: Terms, symbols and notations
ISO 52
Photography Density measurements Part 2: Geometric conditions for transmission
density
ISO 53
Photography Density measurements Part 3: Special conditions
ISO 54
Photography Density measurements Part 4: Geometric conditions for reflection
density
Reference Literature
Garry Thomson
The Museum Environment
ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford 1986
ISBN 07506 2041 2
Preservation of Microfilming does it have a future?
Proceedings of the First National Conference of the National Preservation Office, at the State Library of
South Australia, 46 May 1994, Canberra 1995
ISBN 0 642 10639 8
Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming in Canadian Libraries
National Library of Canada for The Canadian Cooperative Preservation Project (In English and French)
ISBN 0 660 57970 7
Henry Wilhelm & Carol Brower
The Permanence and Care of Colour Photographs: Traditional and Digital Colour Prints, Colour
Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures.
Grinnell, Iowa, 1993, ISBN 0911515003 (hardcover)
ISBN 0 911515 01 1 (paperback)
Imaging Processes and Materials
Ed. by John M. Sturge, Vivian Walworth & Allan Shepp, New York 1989
ISBN 0 442 28042 6
James M. Reilly
Care and Identification of 19thCentury Photographic Prints
KODAK Publication No. C25, CAT 160 7787
ISBN 0 87985 365A
Schrock, Nancy Carlson
Preservation and storage
In Picture Librarianship ed. By Helen P Harrison, Library Association, London 1985
The Conservation of Photographs
Eastman Kodak, Rochester, New York, 1985
Brown, Harold Godard
Basic Film Handling
FIAF Preservation Commission, Brussels
Brown, Harold Godard
Problems of Storing Film for Archive Purposes
British Kinematography No. 20, 1952
The Book of Film Care. Publication F-30
Eastman Kodak Ltd, Rochester, New York, 1983
Handling, Preservation and Storage of Nitrate Film
FIAF, Brussels, 1987
Looking Into the Face of Our Own Worst Fears Through Photographs
by Thomas Roma
I cannot imagine anyone seeing the 22 portraits in "Photographs from S-21," an
exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York this summer, without being
deeply moved. We see in these portraits photography's ability to communicate a sense
of drama in a still moment with an economy of visual device. In picture after picture,
all of the subjects are seen frontally: The point of view barely changes. Yet they
convey a remarkable range of feeling, from resignation to terror. Each subject is fitted
with a number, which adds a troubling sense of mystery. And in one picture, of a boy
looking directly at the viewer with a completely detached expression, a small
numbered patch appears to be pinned directly to his flesh.
These starkly powerful photographs are as complex and human as any series of
portraits I've ever seen during my career as a photographer. But this exhibit differs in
a significant way from other shows of emotionally challenging portraits, by the likes
of Diane Arbus and Richard Avedon: The museum's wall text tells us what fate befell
the people in these pictures after they were taken.
Among other things, we learn that S-21 was a former high school in the district of
Tuol Sleng -- in Cambodia's Phnom Penh -- that had been turned into a secret prison
by the Khmer Rouge. We learn that S-21 was one of many prisons, and that between
1975 and 1979, 14,000 Cambodians were imprisoned there. That men, women, and
children accused of being enemies of the state were interrogated and tortured, and that
all but seven were brutally executed. That the photographer was unknown, and that
these photographs were meant to be a record of prisoners -- some taken just after
blindfolds were removed.
Obviously, these are deeply troubling facts, seemingly out of place in the Museum of
Modern Art, whose wall panels more commonly discuss the lives and work of the
artists being shown. Since I first saw the photographs, I have read several articles
about the exhibition and have learned even more disturbing details about the events in
S-21 and about the photographs themselves. (A similar exhibition is at Boston
University's Photographic Resource Center through November 17 and will travel to
other museums.)
In 1993, two American photojournalists, Chris Riley and Doug Niven, came across
6,000 negatives of Khmer Rouge prisoners in a back room of S-21, which had been
renovated into the Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide after the Khmer Rouge fell from
power in 1979. Riley and Niven organized the negatives into a photo archive for the
museum, selecting 100 photographs to print for themselves. Seventy-eight were
published in a book called The Killing Fields (Twin Palms, 1996). Riley and Niven
also made several sets of art-quality prints, which they are selling to collectors and
museums.
Some writers have criticized, on moral grounds, the idea of showing these pictures in
art museums at all, considering that their subjects were murdered after the pictures
were taken, and considering that many Cambodians are still trying to discover the fate
of their loved ones. Cambodians are so desperate for images of their lost relatives that,
according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, "People scour the world for former
friends or neighbors who may have captured a missing relative on film before the
war."
It's also worth noting -- as a reviewer in The Village Voice did -- that, although the
Museum of Modern Art declared in its wall text that the photographer of the portraits
was unknown, Reuters had reported the photographer's name, Nhem Ein, some four
months before the exhibit opened in May.
The question of who actually owns the S-21 photographs is a moral one. Riley and
Niven have obtained the international copyright for the 100 negatives they printed,
prompting one writer to ask if anyone can truly "own" the evidence of lost human
lives.
Since coming of age during the media-saturated Vietnam War, I have absorbed a
steady stream of accounts of the horrors that humans are capable of inflicting on each
other. So I have to admit that the details of the Cambodian atrocity were not
unfamiliar. I couldn't help comparing Pol Pot's murderous regime to other
documented genocides in recent history. It was heartbreaking for me to realize that
such cruelty has become no longer unthinkable, but only unbearable, until, in what
must be an act of self-preservation, one's mind turns to other things.
Still, I was unsettled by the details of the Museum of Modern Art's wall text, by
something beyond the horror of the subject matter, something that I couldn't put my
finger on, that I kept coming back to. It was only later, when I was editing some of my
own work, that I realized what had most disturbed me about the exhibit: the idea of
the selection process necessary to create it in the first place.
As a photographer, I understand just how crucial a role in photography editing plays.
After pictures are taken, a photographer must make a series of critical decisions,
starting with looking at contact sheets and choosing which images to make into "proof
prints." (A proof print is a kind of rough draft of the final, finished photograph.) The
next decisions are even more important: Which of the proof prints should be made
into final prints, and thereby become part of one's body of work? The photographs
must meet self-imposed standards. Most photographers agonize over these choices.
The question is not simply whether a picture is "good" in some formal, technical
sense, but, Does it mean what I need it to mean? Writers can edit sentences that may
be well-crafted but that don't express an intended thought. But in photography, there
are no revisions: A photograph is in or it's out, and the photographer must live with
the consequences of his or her choices.
In "Photographs from S-21," I had to ask myself, What was at stake, and for whom?
How could these pictures -- made as documentation for the Khmer Rouge, a record of
who was to be killed -- be viewed critically by anyone, whether editor, curator, or
viewer? How could someone look at 6,000 of these images and make decisions about
which 100 to print? I found myself asking, Whose portrait was good enough to make
the cut? By what measure? When I discussed these questions with Todd Gitlin, a
professor of culture, journalism, and sociology at New York University and a
columnist for The New York Observer, he compared the prospect of selecting which
images to print and display to having to decide who was going to live or die.
I do believe that the two Americans who found and printed these negatives had their
hearts in the right place in wanting to bring the pictures to the public's attention. But I
wonder: Weren't they afraid that, just by choosing which prints to make, they might
be participating in some other injustice? Given the public's notoriously short attention
span and our demonstrated inability to empathize with the plight of others, weren't
Riley and Niven afraid that the chosen 100 might fill our quota for Cambodian victims
and push the 5,900 other victims forever out of our consciousness? Did they weigh the
risk of their choices, and, more important, was it their risk to take?
I still don't know if the Museum of Modern Art -- or any museum -- is the correct
place to exhibit these pictures. But the larger question really is: How can we learn
about the S-21's of the world in a meaningful way? At best, the photographs from S21 allow us to look into the face of our own worst fears and to contemplate our failure
to protect others from living their worst fears. For me, as disturbing as it was to
imagine someone deciding who will, or will not, be remembered, it was that very act
that kept the larger human issues surrounding this body of work alive in my mind.
And kept me thinking about those other, unseen faces.
**********
Thomas Roma is director of photography and an associate professor of art at
Columbia University. After leaving Boston University's Photographic Resource
Center on November 17, the exhibition "Facing Death: Portraits from Cambodia's
Killing Fields" will be at the University of Arizona's Center for Creative Photography
from January 18 through March 1, 1998; at the University of California at Riverside's
California Museum of Photography from April 4 through May 31; at the Museum of
Photographic Arts, San Diego, from September 10 through November 5; and at other
locations through 1999. The exhibition was organized by the Photographic Resource
Center with the Photo Archive Group.
Copyright (c) 1997 by The Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chronicle.com
Date: 10/31/97, Section: The Arts, Page: B10
Quotes on Photography
We hope you enjoy these quotes. If you have any to add, send us an e-mail.
Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a
child. Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)
Any one who knows what the worth of family affection is among the lower classes,
and who has seen the array of little portraits stuck over a labourer's fireplace . . . will
perhaps feel with me that in counteracting the tendencies, social and industrial, which
every day are sapping the healthier family affections, the sixpenny photograph is
doing more for the poor than all the philanthropists in the world. MacMillan's
Magazine (London, Sept. 1871)
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a
camera. Dorothea Lange (1895-1979), U.S. photographer. Quoted in: Los Angeles
Times (13 Aug. 1978)
Sent to us by Kim Navarre of Bowling Green, Ohio:
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen eavesdrop. Die
knowing something. You are not here long." Walker Evans
"The tree which moves some to tears of joy, is in the eyes of others
merely a green thing which stands in the way." William Blake
"Photography is about finding out what can happen in the frame. When
you put four edges around some facts, you change those facts." Garry
Winogrand
"A miracle is simply the wonder of the unique that points us back to
the wonder of the everyday." Maurice Friedman
The magic of photography is metaphysical. What you see in the photograph isn't what
you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organised visual lying. Terence
Donovan (b. 1936), British photographer.Guardian (London, 19 Nov. 1983)
A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there-even if you put them end
to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from
eternity. Robert Doisneau (1912-1994), French photographer. Weekend Guardian
(London, 4 April 1992)
In America, the photographer is not simply the person who records the past, but the
one who invents it. Susan Sontag (b. 1933), U.S. essayist. On Photography,
"Melancholy Objects" (1977)
We regard the photograph, the picture on our wall, as the object itself (the man,
landscape, and so on) depicted there. This need not have been so. We could easily
imagine people who did not have this relation to such pictures. Who, for example,
would be repelled by photographs, because a face without color and even perhaps a
face in reduced proportions struck them as inhuman. Ludwig Wittgenstein (18891951), Austrian philosopher. Philosophical Investigations, pt. 2, sct. 11 (1953)
Photography suits the temper of this age-of active bodies and minds. It is a perfect
medium for one whose mind is teeming with ideas, imagery, for a prolific worker who
would be slowed down by painting or sculpting, for one who sees quickly and acts
decisively, accurately. Edward Weston (1886-1958), U.S. photographer. The
Daybooks of Edward Weston, vol. 3, pt. 3, ch. 10 (ed. by Nancy Newhall, 1925), June
1934 entry
I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the termmeaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort
as the production of a good watercolor or etching-there would be a vast improvement
in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often
leads to creative disaster. Ansel Adams (1902-1984), U.S. photographer. "A Personal
Credo," in American Annual of Photography, vol. 58 (1944; repr. in Photographers
on Photography, ed. by Nathan Lyons, 1966)
If I were just curious, it would be very hard to say to someone, "I want to come to
your house and have you talk to me and tell me the story of your life." I mean people
are going to say, "You're crazy." Plus they're going to keep mighty guarded. But the
camera is a kind of license. A lot of people, they want to be paid that much attention
and that's a reasonable kind of attention to be paid. Diane Arbus (1923-1971), U.S.
photographer.Remarks made in class, 1971 (published in Diane Arbus: An Aperture
Monograph, 1972)
It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to
be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so
ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary. David
Bailey (b. 1938), British photographer. Face (London, Dec. 1984)
Items of Humor
(This page is intended for the open submission of photography related humor. Feel free to e-mail us funny
incidences in the field, jokes, teaching experiences or whatever. We reserve the right to only publish those items that
make us laugh. If you prefer, total anonymity will be observed.)
From Michael Seewald, a photographer from California:
A few years back I made a 16" x 20" easel from foam core and placed it on a wooden
crate down on my cramped little darkroom floor. (Starving artists must make do). I
then reversed the enlarger on the base so I could project the image down from the
table to the crate on the floor. With nice classical or jazz music playing in
background, I'd be in my own quiet world, working late into the night. One time I'd
just placed a 2¼" negative in the carrier and bent down to focus, stretching my arms
up trying to reach the focusing knob. All of a sudden, out of the corner of my eye, I
was startled by something that scampered across the easel. It seemed to be the largest
roach I'd ever seen, or maybe a mouse. (I must say, I don't have a lot of roaches
around, but I don't see many mice either.) Anyway, for someone who thought they
were tough I was surprised at how scared I got. I envisioned this thing running right
up my pant leg! In a split second I'd turned on the lights and grabbed the closest
weapon I could find, a flimsy 3' wooden ruler that would probably snap on anything
I'd hit.
With heart racing, I cautiously looked around the base of the easel but found
nothing. I finally calmed down after not finding whatever it was and turned the lights
off and went back to work. After I turned the enlarger light on the creature reappeared running back on top of the easel. I got a better look at the size, about 4 or 5
inches long, and fast. I went through the whole process again, still with no luck
finding it. I soon became less scared and more mystified. How can this thing hide so
quickly? Three times a charm as it happened again, but this time I opened up the
enlarger head and discovered something. A baby moth the size of a knat had been
running around on top of the negative, getting enlarged right along with it!
From David Halpern, a photographer from Oklahoma:
Here is one of my more amusing field experiences. (There are a lot more where this
came from.) One summer morning in 1988, while serving as artist-in-residence at
Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, a friend and I had our large format cameras set
up on a less frequented trail well below the canyon rim. Each of us was concentrating
on his own work and neither was attentive to what the other was doing. I was under
my focusing cloth making adjustments when I heard a series of rather nervous, high
pitched giggles coming from the area where my friend was working.
I came out from under my cloth to see what was going on and when I looked in my
friend's direction, I saw there were two people under his oversized focusing cloth (one
of those super size cloths with a silver material on the outside to reflect the sun's heat).
The second person was a Japanese tourist with two 35mm cameras around his own
neck. He had been unable to contain his curiosity when he saw a photographer
"buried" behind his 4" x 5" and much to my friend's dismay had crawled under the
cloth without warning. Soon, the curious visitor was joined by another member of his
party and both of them spent several minutes checking out the images on which we
were concentrating. Neither of them spoke English, and neither of us spoke Japanese;
but we had no trouble communicating with gestures. Their giggles were a reaction to
their surprise at seeing inverted images on the ground glass.
From an anonymous university photography teacher:
At the beginning of my last critique this semester I passed out a pop quiz to all of my
intermediate and advanced students. I felt that some were slipping by this semester
and I needed to define some of their grades with the added help of this "simple" quiz.
It was a 20 question paper and I handed it out to about 28 students. Here are the best
answers from question 8. Not all my students did not get it but the ones that didn't,
well...really didn't.
8) SLR is an abbreviation for what?
Answer is Single Lens Reflex
Some interesting answers listed below
STANDARD LENS R.....?
SINGLE LENS REFRACTION
SOLAR LENS READING
STANDARD LIGHT READING
SLIGHTLY RETARDED (JUST KIDDING) SHUTTER LENS RELEASE
SHUTTER LIGHT RATE
SHUTTER LENS RELEASE (This one showed up on a number of tests. Cheating! Is
suspect).
SINGLE LENS REFLECTOR? REFRACTOR?
Granted, many of these students are from around the world and there is a bit of a
language problem, but everything on this test is part of our vocabulary, in class, week
after week........
From Dave Hills who formerly owned the Hills Gallery in Denver:
Your photo viewers may applaud this notion advanced by Man Ray:
As the story goes, Man Ray was being chastised by a fellow painter for his use of a
camera. The painter argued that a photograph was only capable of reproducing
something exactly as it appeared. The strictly documentary nature of the photographic
medium, he said, limited the creative input of the artist and therefore was forever
stuck in a world of reality....( no doubt a surrealist speaking). In reply, Man Ray asked
if the fellow had a girlfriend, and if so, did he have a snapshot of her. Proud of his
sensuous, new, live model, the painter quickly produced a well worn, wallet sized
print, a full length nude, to demonstrate her beauty. Man Ray studied the image for a
moment and returned it to the painter saying. " Very lovely...a pity she is so small."
Another story from Dave's gallery days:
As a former photo gallery proprietor, I do recall with a smile a lady who came in one
morning earnestly seeking a large "picture" for reception area of her office. She
published a small, monthly Bible study journal and was really hoping to find a copy of
a "photograph" she had seen somewhere else. A friend had suggested she come to my
establishment. I asked her to describe the image. It was "really big" , she said, "and
showed Noah's Ark perched on a mountaintop...and ...the sun was just coming out." I
could go on but will stop here....
From Ben Breard, owner, Afterimage Gallery:
I recently thought of this incident, and, as Dave Berry says, I am not making this up.
Occasionally I will receive a call from a salesman who works for a company not
normally associated with photography. This fellow was with a publisher of graphics,
and for some reason they had published a portfolio of Hollywood portrait
photographer George Hurrell. It costs several thousand dollars, and I wasn't in the
market. But I couldn't shake this guy. He kept going on and on, getting more and more
excited about the portfolio. Eventually he said, "You know that Hurrell was a master
of lighting." I agreed, knowing that my saying anything positive might push this guy
over his emotional edge. Then he said, "That photograph by Ansel Adams of that
western town with the moon: well, Hurrell did the lighting for that!" I have heard
photographers extolled before but never deified!
From Tom Tarnowski, a university-level teacher:
Student proposal for a final project: "I will be doing a photographic story of a life,
from beginning to end. It will consist of approximately 8-10 pictures."
Here's an occurrence sent to us by photographer Rob Pietri of Colt's Neck, New
Jersey.
I was photographing the front of a museum in south Jersey with my 4x5 Sinar when a
gentleman came up and asked me where the rest of my camera was. Sensing that he
was teasing, I said that there is plenty of camera right here.
He smiled and then showed me what he was carrying under his arm. It was a painting
of the Jersey Devil, a mythical legendary demonic creature that is said to haunt the
New Jersey Pine Barrens. He said that he was going inside to see if it was worth
anything. I complimented him on the painting and then asked very seriously, "Now
did he pose for that or did he give you a photograph to use?"
He then gave me a look as if I were the Jersey Devil himself and without a word,
quickly walked away. Apparently he took me seriously!
From another university-level teacher:
During my first semester as an adjunct instructor teaching photo-history, I learned that
taking anything for granted can be risky. I spent the first half the term referring to
"19th century photography;" only to learn in the mid-term exam that almost every
member of the class thought I was talking about the 1900's.
When I taught a beginner’s class, I was amazed at how difficult it was for some
students to remember the necessary sequence in making a print. Many of them would
first get out a sheet of paper and put it in the easel; then they would put the negative in
the enlarger and compose and focus the image on that sheet. This completed, they'd
turn the enlarger off, set the timer and make the exposure---all on that same sheet of
paper. They would ask, "Why is my picture so dark?"
I had a student in that same beginning photo class come to me in tears because every
print she tried to make came out totally black. I went through every step of the process
with her in the darkroom to determine what she'd done to fog the paper. But, she had
the sequence "down pat" and in fact seemed to be a very careful worker. When I told
her I couldn't understand why her prints were fogged, she said that she knew it
couldn't possibly be due to defective paper---because the first thing she did after
buying it was to take it home, open the package, and inspect every single sheet.
I asked how could she make this mistake after I'd spent so much time in class
explaining the light-sensitive nature of photographic paper and she replied that she
thought this only applied to ENLARGER light.
Another funny incident is when I asked a class of second-term photo students to write
a very brief paper which would help me assess their experience level and long-term
interests in photography. One student, apparently impressed by the potential of a
career, described how if one became a really-really good photographer, one might
someday win "the Pull It Surprise."
Observations on Using an 8 x 10
(This is an e-mail by Chip Simone of Atlanta. He has been in the field for 40 years and wrote this letter to another
photographer who forwarded it to me. It has been edited somewhat and is published with Mr. Simone's permission.)
I did 8 x 10 exclusively for ten years. It is a remarkable and seductive format. It's easy
to see why it remains the standard by which photo-quality is assessed. It is capable of
amazing things, including taking over your life and dominating and dictating your
vision. All too often, photography became an exercise in justifying the use of this
slow, cumbersome, 19th century ritual, finding static images that would wait for me to
get my standards squared (ah, the thrill of the grid!) And, of course, I only contact
printed, on AZO (when you could find AZO), in Amidol. God, I miss Amidol. The
blackest blacks....but I digress.
See, there's nothing wrong with lovin' photo-process, it's just not what photography is
about. You're absolutely right; photography is about pictures. While I was a Callahan
student (me, Linda Connor, Emmit Gowin, Bill Burke, Jim Dow, John McWilliams,
others), Minor White was 40 miles up the road at MIT teaching his version of the
zone system. MIT photo students' pix were pretty different from ours, so I asked
Harry about Minor and MIT. In his own non-verbal fashion he replied, "I don't think
you should try to make photography into religion." So much for the zone system.
The allure of photography is, all too often for too many, the toys and distractions. But
photography is an empirical process, being present in the world, looking at real life.
Seeing it your own way: perhaps the most important commandment of all. I suspect
that you know this and that I am preaching to the choir, so please don't be offended.
But herein lies the rub. Many...most who do camera work don't get it and never will.
Being able to type doesn't make you a poet. Being able to do photo-process, no matter
how skilled or refined or informed, no matter how large a format you master, simply
doesn't make you an artist. It's about so much more. Who can deny the versatility of
photography, it's ongoing evolution? The power of the camera-generated image has
less and less to do with either format or process, and the 21st century is about to
discard even more old saws.
It is the images, the powerful images, that this optical media generates, that always
have and always will define the significance of photography. By the way, I've got an 8
x 10 and three lenses for sale.....
Chip Simone (1/13/98)
An Encounter with Richard Benson and William Garnett
(These two pieces are from e-mails sent to me last year by Baltimore photographer Jeremy Green. At the time,
neither of us thought about publishing herein, but I thought they were so interesting and moving that I had saved
them. It occurred to me later that others would enjoy reading them, so here they are, with Mr. Green's permission, of
course. Richard Benson is at Yale and is renown for his printing work and as a photographer. William Garnett is the
best known aerial photographer of our day.)
Richard Benson
After lunch with Richard Benson, he sat me down with a box of 11 x 14 B&W prints
by Lee Friedlander. They were a collection of self-portraits (shadows, reflections,
etc.) that Richard is working on for a book. The box that the prints were in was Agfa
Multicontrast Classic.
It was reassuring to me (especially after talking it over with Richard) that variable
contrast fiber paper is A-OK in the eyes of these big boys. Richard's favorite paper
was Oriental Seagull till it was fazed out. I'm quite happy with the Agfa Multicontrast
Classic and will not worry about it any more. I loved the way he said it: "Whatever
looks good to you." He's a pretty techy guy when it comes to photographic
reproduction, and he stated that modern products have a lot designed into them to
compensate for the loss of silver content. He was confident in the current products out
there.
I pulled out my recent acquisition, "The Family, Lazarra, Italy" by Paul Strand, and he
admired how good the print looked. He showed it around to the people in the office.
He affirmed that he had indeed made that print about 20 years ago, and he signed in
pencil on the back "Made by me for Paul in Orgeval - Richard Benson". He also
pulled out his favorite photography books which were old Paul Strand photogravure
first editions of various titles. He offered to lend them to me, but I declined. I was
content to sit alone at a table off his office and look through them and the Friedlander
prints while he worked.
After my visit I walked around the Yale campus - gosh it was beautiful in the late
afternoon New England fall light! Then I hit the highway for home. It was really
great.
William Garnett
I drove up to Napa last Saturday to go meet Bill Garnett and take him up on that flight
offer. He lives in a modest California-style ranch house shrouded by live oaks and
surrounded by vineyards. He has a devoted little wife who understands what it is to be
married to a pilot. She was very hospitable.
Bill's other love is that plane, all silver with the flowing lines of an old Buick. I asked
him why he had no paint job on it, and his answer was one that comes from a designer
- because it would obscure and ruin the natural beauty of the machine. He went to Art
Center College of Design a LONG time ago, and he is a Guggenheim Fellow. He
taught design at U.C. Berkley (with tenure) during the tumultuous late 60s and early
70s. He was at ground zero of the revolutionary melee of those times, and he was of
the establishment.
After some small talk (mostly about shooting/flying techniques), we drove over to the
Napa Airport and pulled out his bird from the hanger. After he showed me all the
details of a pre-flight check, we took off across the valley we all know from his
photographs. I opened the side window and he slowed the plane down for me to shoot
a little. The conditions were not optimum, but my negs look pretty good. But I was
using a new Nikon, and he uses a medium format Pentax for that stunning quality.
We landed at a small historic airport near Sacramento and had lunch at a "Flyer's
Club" he belongs to. We sat and talked for a long time. I think he misses company. I
shot a portrait of Bill with his plane, and then we took off for home. He let me fly for
a little while (my first experience). At his home he signed my book and his wife
brought out some snacks that seemed very old rural California (like elderberries on
top of pastry). They offered me dinner and I respectfully declined. I drove back to San
Francisco in the dark having been there since 11:00 A.M. I really had a great time
with that old man.
Jeremy Green
Photograph by Jeremy Green, 1997
Stephen Shore's Artist's Statement
Reprinted with Stephen Shore's permission as reproduced in his book Uncommon Places,
published by Aperture, 1982
Until I was twenty-three I lived mostly in a few square miles in Manhattan. In 1972 I
set out with a friend for Amarillo, Texas. I didn't drive, so my first view of America
was framed by the passenger's window.
It was a shock. I would be in a flat nowhere place of the earth, and every now and
then I would walk outside or be driving down a road and the light would hit
something and for a few minutes the place would be transformed.
Color film is wonderful because it shows not only the intensity but the color of light.
There is so much variation in light between noon one day and the next, between ten in
the morning and two in the afternoon. A picture happens when something inside
connects, an experience that changes as the photographer does. When the picture is
there, I set out the 8x10 camera, walk around it, get behind it, put the hood over my
head, perhaps move it over a foot, walk in front, fiddle with the lens, the aperture, the
shutter speed. I enjoy the camera. Beyond that it is difficult to explain the process of
photographing except by analogy:
The trout streams where I flyfish are cold and clear and rich in the minerals that
promote the growth of stream life. As I wade a stream I think wordlessly of where to
cast the fly. Sometimes a difference of inches is the difference between catching a fish
and not. When the fly I've cast is on the water my attention is riveted to it. I've found
through experience that whenever--or so it seems--my attention wanders or I look
away then surely a fish will rise to the fly and I will be too late setting the hook. I
watch the fly calmly and attentively so that when the fish strikes--I strike. Then the
line tightens, the playing of the fish begins, and time stands still. Fishing, like
photography, is an art that calls forth intelligence, concentration, and delicacy.
Stephen Shore, 1982
Photographs from Iraq
by Cpl. Reynaldo Leal, USMC/0311
Cpl. Leal sent these photographs to Afterimage Gallery back in early 2006. He is now
safely back in Texas.
My name is Reynaldo Leal and I am an infantryman
in the Marine Corps. I was born and raised in
Edinburg Texas, son of two Mexican immigrants.
I've learned photography through reading books and
in the early stages through pretty much mirroring
other people's work. I always wanted to be that war
time photographer... the one with the cover photo on
TIME. When I graduated high school I had the
choice of going to a photography institute or joining
the Marine Corps... I have no regrets. I've learned so
much in the Corps, and to be honest I've had this
world opened to me that many photographers wish
they could see. I've always had a love for
photography and figured that I'd be finishing up
school by now... but duty called. I am currently in
Iraq with 3rd Battalion 5th Marines conducting
combat patrols through the villages along the
Euphrates. I always take my camera with me (a
Canon 20D). I would like to share my photographs
with you and hopefully you'll like them as much as
my platoon does. I'll be here for another six months.
Thank you.
Cpl. Leal emailed us some images recently, and we thought his work would be an
arresting addition to the website. His email address is reyk47@msn.com.
Click your mouse on the images below to enlarge them.
Fig on the Steps
Day After
Mendez
Tired Marine
Death at Window
Goudy in the Sky
Looking Up
Sgt. Homestead
Palm Grove 1
Three Girls
Children at the Wire
Smoking in the Rain
Simmons
Firm Base
Shower Room
Quick Nap
A Short History of Photograph Collecting
This is an excellent article on collecting photography by Penelope Dixon
(copyrighted 2001 and used with permission). She has over 30 years experience in
the field and since 1981, has headed her own photography appraisal firm, Penelope
Dixon & Associates. She resides and works from Miami, Martha's Vinyard and New
York, and her website can be viewed at www.peneloped.com.
The collecting of photographs was practically simultaneous with the invention of photography. P & D Colnaghi,
a well-established art gallery in London, sold photographs as early as the 1850s, representing both the work of
Roger Fenton and Julia Margaret Cameron. People became obsessed with capturing their own likenesses. A
popular past-time in the mid-19th Century was the exchange of carte-de-visites. People collected cartes of their
friends and family and put them into albums, much like children exchanging school pictures today. Much like
our present fascination with Hollywood personalities, they were also avid collectors of celebrity images. A
recent exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London, The Beautiful and the Damned: The Creation of
Identity in Nineteenth Century Photography, [accompanied by a fine catalogue] explores the effects of early
photography on society.
Travel photographs were another early collectible. The very wealthy would set off on long excursions, “the
grand tour”, and instead of taking their own photographs [the cumbersome and complicated equipment
precluded this] they would purchase photographs of each place they visited, later putting them into large
albums. An English gentleman’s album of the 1860s might include photographs by William Notman of Canada,
Charles Clifford of Spain, Carlo Ponti and Fratelli Alinari of Italy and Felix Bonfils or A. Beato the Middle
East.
Many photographs were published in albums in the 19th Century, presumably to be sold to institutions or
wealthy private collectors. Examples include Peter Henry Emerson’s Life and Landscape on the Norfolk
Broads or John Thomson’s Street Life in London. These early albums were precursors to the photographic
portfolios produced today by contemporary photographers. Other parallels between 19th and 20th Century
collecting can be seen in government or corporation sponsored photography. The Glasgow City Improvement
Trust hired Thomas Annan to record the Glasgow slums and this work was published in 1874 as Old Closes and
Streets of Glasgow. Edouard Baldus was hired by the Monuments Historiques in France to document the
architecture of the country on his 1851 mission heliographique. Many similar projects have been done in this
century, beginning with Lewis Hine’s work for the National Child Labor Committee.
Photographic auctions also had their beginnings in the mid-19th Century. The first auction of photographs took
place in London in 1854. The first auction in America was a century later, The Marshall Sale, held by Swann
Galleries in 1952. The prices from that sale would make you cry.
Although “photography as art” was still being debated, by the early 20th Century photographs had become
firmly established as a collectible. Alfred Stieglitz had various galleries in New York from 1905 until his death
in 1946. Like many contemporary galleries today, he exhibited photographs alongside the work of modern
artists. Along with Stieglitz, Julian Levy’s gallery in New York, open between 1931 and 1949, introduced many
photographers to the collecting publish, including Weston, Sheeler, Strand and Atget. Famous in the 1950s was
Helen Gee’s “Limelight” and after a dry period in the 1960s, the early 1970s saw the beginning of the
photography market as we know it today. From a few galleries in New York, London and other major cities, we
can now find hundreds worldwide.
A Short History of the Market
Most people know the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the Ansel Adams market. In some ways it is a
good example of the market as a whole. Photographs by Adams which were selling in 1975 for $400 were
selling for between $4,000 and $16,000 by 1979, thanks to the astute marketing of Harry Lunn. By the early
1980s Adams prices had dropped to between about $2,000 and $10,000. Today, they are back up again, but this
time coming close to the $100,000 mark for particularly fine vintage prints of his signature 1941
image, Moonrise Over Hernandez. What happened? First, the limitation in 1975 of his prints and subsequent
creation of rarity, which coincided with a widespread demand for photographs and investors into the market.
Then came a bad economy and supply began to exceed the demand.
A related change in the market happened in the early 1990s. Prior to this time, there had been less interest in
vintage prints, that is, those prints which were made close to the time the photographer made his/her original
negative. Hence, there were extensive reprintings by Ansel Adams, Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson as
these photographers, and many others, jumped on the bandwagon.
Other effects on the market have been certain “blockbuster” museum shows which have contributed to a larger
public awareness of the medium as well as providing new levels of understanding and an increase in value for a
certain photographer or period of photography. Also, blockbuster auctions, such as the multi-media Man Ray
sale at Sotheby’s in London in the mid-1990s where only 1% of the items offered failed to sell, contributed an
energy and stability to the market.
Auction houses have changed the structure of the contemporary art market and will continue to do so. More
people attend auctions than ever before, the houses serving as middlemen between buyers and sellers.
Now, Why Should You Collect Photographs?
Investment potential is an obvious answer but aesthetic considerations are far more important to my mind. You
might have to live with a particular photograph for some time before you can sell it, so you had better like it. I
used to collect photographs because I loved the images, because of the accessibility of so many pictures on the
market along with the relatively reasonable prices. I stopped collecting and have sold most of my collection, not
because any of those reasons changed but because I couldn’t take good enough care of the prints [I live in two
humid locations], and any works on paper do need a lot of love and attention. Also, going back to the
investment potential, many of my photographs hadgone up in value so it was a good time to sell.
How to Collect: What to Look For
My first memory of photographs was Edward Steichen’s Family of Man exhibition and book. I spent hours as a
child pouring over the images. Some 20 years later the first photograph I bought was an image by Bill Brandt of
the girl on Lambeth Walk, parading in her mother’s high-heeled shoes. I think I paid about $150 for it and
recently sold it for over $2,000, not a bad investment, although I certainly didn’t buy it with this in mind. So,
what should you look for when collecting photographs? There are a number of criteria to follow, which are the
same ones I use in establishing value in my photographic appraisals.










The artist
The particular image
The dating of the print
The medium
The signature or identification
The condition
The size
The edition or known extant prints, i.e. rarity
The provenance
The place in the market of the artist and the particular image
The artist: who is he or she, where do they fit into the history of art, the history of photography, what is their
place in the present market and how does their work relate to future trends, is their work exhibited regularly, is
it critically acclaimed?
The image: do you love it? Can you say, as did the well-known collector Arnold Crane in responding to the
question, “what do you look for in a photographic work?”, “I look for nothing! It looks for me! It hits me first in
the gut and then in the eye!” How does the subject relate to the particular artist’s body of work – Adams made
landscapes, but he also took portraits of important artists and some of these are very good…Arnold Newman
makes portraits but he has also taken landscape photographs, a few of which are good, but not most, in my
opinion. Is the artist’s identity inherent in the image? How does this particular image relate to the history of art,
the history of the medium, is it a masterpiece, what is a masterpiece? Can you predict the future masterpieces in
contemporary photography? Why do Edward Weston’sShells range in value from about $15,000 to $150,000,
even within the same image?
The Date: When was the print made, is it vintage or contemporary, is it something in-between? Who made the
print? Weston’s photographs come in four varieties: true vintage prints; prints made later by himself, in the
1930s from 1920s negatives, in the 1940s from 1930s negatives; “project prints” made under his supervision by
his son Brett in the 1950s when Edward developed Parkinson’s disease and posthumous prints by his son Cole.
Is a vintage print necessarily better than a contemporary print? Both Ansel Adams and Irving Penn have made
beautiful, large contemporary prints from their earlier negatives. Is one better than the other? Is it not a matter
of taste, and in some cases, budget?
Medium: What kind of print is it, what is the process, is it stable? [Platinum always is, early calotypes can
continue to fade]. Is the process what this particular photographer did best? Penn’s later platinum prints are
probably better than his earlier silver prints, which takes us back to the issue of vintage or contemporary.
Printing styles in the same medium can also change, depending on the available papers and the age of the
photographer [Bill Brandt’s prints became darker after the 1970s, due to deteriorating eyesight or the
photographer’s choice?] What does the photographer himself think of a print? – a valid, but not necessarily the
ultimate opinion and also, occasionally a dangerous proposition as photographers are known to have torn up
older prints brought to them for authentication.
Signature: Again, what is the norm in this particular instance? An unsigned contemporary Adams photograph is
a problem, an unsigned Walker Evans is not unusual. As John Szarkowski once said, “Buy a photograph for
what’s on the front, not the back” which is good advice; however, what is on the back or the mount helps us
date the print [but is not necessarily a guarantee because photographers are known to have sometimes used
older stamps on later prints].
Condition: a very important consideration, but again, only relevant to what is normal for a particular
photographer’s work from a particular period. Most contemporary photographs, with the exception perhaps of
the Starn Brothers, are expected to be pristine; photographs by Weegee are expected to be creased or marred
[but not in a uniform way which recently tipped off one dealer to a group of fake prints]. 19th Century prints are
often faded, as the richest examples are already in private collections or museums. The key is to buy the finest
example of an image which you can find [and afford].
Size: is only important when considering what is available, what you like and what you can afford. However,
certain smaller editions by photographers, such as Sally Mann’s 8 x 10 inch prints, will probably never go up in
value like her larger, smaller-editoned 20 x 24 prints. Which brings us to the next point…
Extant prints: The edition or known extant prints, i.e. rarity, is an important factor. For contemporary works
this information is often easily available by the edition of the print but prior to the 1980s, most photographers
did not limit their prints from a particular negative – there was no need. So when artists such as Ansel Adams,
Harry Callahan or Andre Kertesz responded to the rapidly evolving market, they produced a lot of images
without numbering their prints, as they already made prints of most of their images and couldn’t start arbitrarily
numbering these new ones. However, by now the market has absorbed most of these images and they are only
found on the secondary markets.
A buyer must be aware of how each image is limited, e.g. prior to her new large-format landscapes, Sally Mann
used to print each of her images of children in an edition of 25 in 20 x 24 inches and again in 8 x 10 inches
while reserving the right to produce yet another 25 in 16 x 20 inch format. So you might never know exactly
how many prints of your photograph exist without checking with the artist or her dealers. This is also a good
example of the market: Mann’s 20 x 24 inch prints are the ones which frequently sold out and so therefore will
be the ones to retain their value. Mann’s prints also give us an example of step-pricing: the first five prints sold
started at around $1,500, the next five increased and so on until the final print was sold at around $7,500.
Provenance: has always been an important factor in the painting and print markets and is fast becoming the
same in photography. Besides the possibility of contributing to an increase in value because of the reputation of
the previous owner, provenance is also important in determining that a photograph is not a forgery.
Market: The place in the market of the artist and the particular image has been discussed above, and knowing
the sales records for the artist and for the particular image is an obvious last point to consider before buying a
particular photograph.
Other Considerations: Eventually, you should decide on the kind of collection you want to pursue…should it
be an “investment grade collection”, i.e. well-known photographs by well-known artists, or something more
adventurous, such as up and coming artists who can often be found in benefit auctions like those held by Center
for Photography at Woodstock. Are you interested in a particular period, or genre of photography; do you want
to collect a particular artist in depth? Are you interested in anonymous works? One thing to be careful of is
trends – what is fashionable today could be in the trash heap tomorrow. Buy what you like, the worst thing that
can happen is that you will enjoy it for many years to come.
How to Collect: Where to Buy
Now that you know what to look for in a photograph, where do you go to fine it?
First, I always tell new collectors to find one or two dealers or galleries which show the kind of work they like
and establish a relationship. Don’t be afraid to go into the fanciest galleries in San Francisco, New York or Los
Angeles – they may look forbidding but they’re generally run by nice people who want to sell you something!
Most importantly, support your hometown dealer. Loyalty to a dealer who has spent time helping you with your
collection will pay off with offerings of special prints and good prices.
Secondly, are the auctions. There is a plethora of photography auctions today from Sotheby’s and Christies and
Swann in New York City to smaller regional houses around the country, benefit auctions in Boston, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Woodstock, among others, European sales in France, Germany and England.
With the exception of benefit auctions, new collectors should start with the previews, where you can observe
the prints close-up, make notes in your catalog, overhear interesting comments by other viewers and then go to
the auctions to observe how the bidding works, who the players are, how realistic are the estimates. When you
have more of a grip on prices and have previewed very well, then you can go and bid, with firm top bids so that
you won’t be swayed by momentary auction fever.
One exception to these rules is benefit auctions. Go to as many as you can, buy for fun, and your support of the
not-for-profit organization will usually result in your acquiring some good pictures at way below their retail
values. Almost everything contemporary in my collection is from the annual CPW auction. This year’s auction
contains wonderful work by Michael Kenna, Joyce Tennyson, William Wegman, Larry Fink, Keith Carter,
James Fee, Kenro Izu, Andrea Modica, Ellen Carey and many, many more renowned and emerging artists.
Thirdly, are the dealer’s fairs. AIPAD, the largest, is held annually in New York in February. Fotofest is in
Houston every other year. Chicago and Los Angeles now have annual fairs, as do Paris and other European
cities. These are great places to see lots of work, compare prices, meet dealers from other parts of the country,
go to symposiums, and compare notes with other collectors.
Becoming an Informed Collector
Now that you know what to look for in a print and where to buy it, what else do you need to prepare yourself to
become a collector of fine, or fun, photography? Visit museum shows to see the best examples, particularly in
19th Century, of photographic prints. This will give you a point of reference from which to judge. Also,
museum shows are curated by academics in the field who often help us see work in new contexts. There is one
caveat here: we should be aware that the label of “masterpiece” affects our judgment. We should never be afraid
to criticize of disagree or find our own masterpieces.
Subscribe to publications such as Photography in New York, which lists exhibitions around the country and The
Photograph Collector newsletter, which reports on auctions, analyzes the market and gives the latest gossip.
Subscribe to all the major auction catalogs; even if you don’t go to all the sales, you can obtain condition
reports and price results.
Read, read, read more. The website www.photoeye.com out of Santa Fe is a great source for all the latest, and
older, photography books.
And finally, understanding value, that it is not solely inherent in the photograph but rather is a result of many
market conditions, that the lowest price for a particular image may not be the best buy, that price should reflect
quality but does not necessarily do so, that one person’s idea of a masterpiece, may not be another’s.
Something from Nothing: Reading Things into Portrait Photographs
by William McEwen
I have been a photographer for a long time, and for the last six years,
I’ve concentrated exclusively on portraiture. It is one of the greatest jobs
around. I get to meet and spend time with interesting people and record
their faces for the future. I am very fortunate to have the opportunity to
spend my time this way.
As a portrait photographer, it is my responsibility to record what
someone looks like. And if I do my job well, the person, the
background, the light, and the composition will all work well together
visually to create an interesting whole. There’s no more to it than that.
But to my bewilderment, the audience sometimes sees more. They see
things that aren’t there, and they make all sorts of interpretations. Here
is a perfect example. Last year, someone e-mailed me about my
photograph of Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk. "I understand exactly what you
were saying in that picture," he wrote.
Huh? What I was "saying?" I wasn't saying anything. I just used my
camera to make a photograph of what the man looked like. I told Mayor
Kirk to stand over there, I moved my camera around until everything
looked good, and then click, I recorded it on a sheet of film. No
statement, no interpretation. Just reality. A man and his surroundings.
Once, while speaking with high school students at a museum exhibition
of my portraits, one young man looked at my picture of orchestra
conductor Keri-Lynn Wilson and said, "The way her arms are folded in
front of her shows she was uncomfortable."
Quite the contrary. Keri-Lynn and I had hit it off, and we spent most of
the photo session laughing. For the picture that ended up in the
exhibition, I had merely asked her to do something interesting with her
arms. She folded them in front of her, and click, I made the picture.
I’m certainly not the only photographer to have fallen victim to people
interpreting their work, seeing something when there is nothing.
A good source of people reading all sorts of things into photographs is
the PBS American Masters special about the portrait photographer
Richard Avedon. Referring to Avedon’s picture of the writer Dorothy
Parker, the singer/actress Andrea Marcovicci said:
She [Parker] looks like every bit of wit
that she ever had had just left her a second
before that photograph was taken. And I
know what he [Avedon] must have been
doing. He must have been contrasting one
of the world’s greatest wits, one of the
greatest wisecrackers and a person who
really knew how to have a good time, with
their darker side. And he preserved
forever an image of some inner truth of
what she really had to go through in life.
To this observer, looking objectively, it appears that Avedon simply
stood Parker against a gray wall and clicked the shutter.
I once photographed a prominent Dallas businessman. When I showed
the prints to his wife, she was elated. "You really captured his
personality," she told me.
That was a nice compliment, but in my opinion, without merit. Can a
photograph capture a personality? I don’t think so. If anything, she
merely recognized an expression she had seen countless times during
many decades of marriage.
Photographer Duane Michals, in his book Album, gets it right. He
writes: "Some photographers can be very presumptuous in their self
delusions about ‘capturing’ another person with their cameras. I know of
no one who actually believes that he reveals the soul of his sitters with
his photographs of them. What you see is what there is."
Agreed. A personality is just too complex to capture in one photograph.
When we photographers are told that a specific photograph doesn’t do
the subject justice, I think most often it is because the personality cannot
transfer into a photograph. With many, charisma or charm plays a key
role in his or her attractiveness. When charisma or charm is extracted
from their presence by a photograph, we evaluate the subject, perhaps
for the first time, on purely visual terms.
That is not to say that a camera is incapable of recording emotion, or at
least the appearance of emotion. (For this article, I am referring only to
collaborative portrait sittings, not photographs made by news
photographers. The pictures that we see in newspapers and news
magazines quite clearly show terror in the faces of, say, hostages with
guns pointed at them, or the grief of families at funerals.) Richard
Avedon’s 1956 portrait of actor Bert Lahr, in character as Estragon from
the playWaiting for Godot, shows sadness. Sally Mann’s 1986
photograph of two of her children visiting their grandfather at the
hospital, entitled "He is Very Sick," reveals the children’s discomfort.
And all of us have certainly seen many pictures of young children
experiencing joy during happy occasions.
But that doesn’t mean there is always emotion present. Sometimes, the
extra things people see are deliberately put there after the fact by
enterprising photographers or writers. The world’s best-known
photographic portrait is probably Yousuf Karsh’s 1941 picture of
Winston Churchill. It is a very well made portrait, and it is also one of
the most read-into portraits.
Caption writers, and Karsh himself, began building the legend almost
before the first prints were dry. The story goes like this: Karsh set up his
equipment and was ready to take the portrait, but there was just one
thing wrong. Churchill was puffing on a fresh cigar. Karsh picked up an
ash tray, held it in front of Churchill, and asked, "Will you please
remove it, sir?" The request was ignored. Karsh went back behind the
camera to check the focus one last time. He then walked back to
Churchill, said, "Forgive me, sir," and pulled the cigar from the great
man’s mouth. "By the time I had walked the four to six feet back to my
camera," Karsh writes, "he was looking as belligerently at me as if he
could have devoured me. And I took the picture."
I’ve looked at that photograph countless times over the years, and I
don’t see belligerence. I simply see a lack of a smile. The belligerence
claim is further called into question by the fact that Churchill smiled
warmly for a second picture made a moment later. Even a man of
Karsh’s considerable charm couldn’t have turned Churchill from lion to
lamb in an instant.
One of my favorite interpretations of a photograph claims to detect
much more than emotion. It says a 1924 photograph taken by Alfred
Stieglitz of his lover, the artist Georgia O’Keeffe, standing against her
sister Ida, illustrates the nature of the relationships among them. In a
1993 auction catalog that included a print of this image, an unidentified
writer tells what he or she sees:
Interestingly, Stieglitz represents the
sisters as sharing the same body (their two
heads emerging from the black mass of
their coats) – an obvious reference to
kinship and, perhaps to the dark
(mysterious) female element. Their facial
expressions and body language reveal
much about the sisters, and of course, are
also telling with regard to their
relationship to Stieglitz: Georgia stands
confidently, erectly, and confronts her
paramour with the arrogant and direct
gaze so familiar in many of the later
studies; Ida appears softer, her mien
unsure and unassuming, and averts her
gaze to the left. As a pictorial study of
contrasting female types the portrait is
emblematic of the formalist underpinnings
of Stieglitz’s directorial eye, and his dual,
and conflicting perception of women.
Wow! Two years later, another observer wrote this about the photo: "Ida
casts a nervous glance her sister’s way as if to suggest that she knows
something that her sister doesn’t."
It must be remembered that photographers are working in the visual
realm. It appears to me the details recorded in the Stieglitz photograph –
the similar clothing, Georgia looking at the camera lens and Ida looking
away – were just pieces that made things visually interesting. Stieglitz
himself once said, "I want solely to make an image of what I have seen,
not of what it means to me. It is only after I have created an equivalent
of what has moved me that I can begin to think about its significance."
That’s it. The interpretations come later.
Despite the auction catalog writer’s fine hyperbole, the photograph sold
for $24,200, which was below the $25,000 - $35,000 preauction
estimate.
Eight years after taking the photo of the sisters, Stieglitz made a
photograph of his friend Dorothy Norman’s hands. The actor Charlie
Chaplin saw the photo at Stieglitz’s New York gallery and spent the
next 30 minutes staring at it. Chaplin told him, "Stieglitz, what you’ve
gotten in that!"
"I didn’t ask him what he saw," Stieglitz later recalled.
Edward Weston made a famous picture of Charis Weston during a
mountain hiking trip. Had she not been fully clothed, the manner in
which she was sitting would have been of considerable interest to a
gynecologist. Despite the fact that the picture shows an attractive
woman in a far from ladylike pose, one observer looked beyond the
person to find human characteristics. Writing about the picture 50 years
after it was made, Wilson said: "Then there was the critic who
determined that the sexuality was symbolized by the indentations in the
rock wall behind me."
OK, let me get this straight. The woman isn’t sexy, the rocks are? Hey,
look at those rocks – hubba, hubba?
In this essay, I have tried my best to avoid doing what I am complaining
about – reading things into photographs. Just as a magician can spot a
fraudulent mystic when a scientist cannot, I believe my background as
someone who has photographed thousands of people makes it possible
for me to objectively view the photographs discussed here.
Works
consulted:
Richard Avedon: Darkness and Light (Home Vision Arts video, 1995)
Richard Avedon: Evidence, 1944-1994 (Random House, 1994)
Yousuf Karsh: In Search of Greatness (Alfred A. Knopf, 1962)
Yousuf Karsh: A Sixty Year Retrospective (Little, Brown and Company,
1996)
Sally
Mann:
Immediate
Family (Aperture,
1992)
Duane
Michals:
Album (Twelvetrees
Press,
1988)
Nancy Newhall: From Adams to Stieglitz (Aperture, 1989)
Dorothy Norman: Alfred Stieglitz, An American Seer (Aperture, 1973)
Charis Wilson and Edward Weston: California and the West (Aperture,
1978)
Getty Museum: In Focus, Alfred Stieglitz (J. Paul Getty Museum, 1995)
Photographs
(Swann
Galleries,
1993)
Prices Realized List (Swann Galleries, 1993)
About
the
author:
William McEwen’s photographs have been exhibited throughout the
United States, are in several public collections and have been published
internationally. He lives in Arlington, Texas with his wife Jennifer and
their daughters Erin and Lindsay. His book People and Portraits:
Reflections and Essays was published in 2001. More of his work can be
viewed on line at http://www.mcewenphoto.com.
TERMS
Albumen Print - Introduced in 1850 by L.D. Blanquart-Evrard. The most common
photographic print in the 19th century. Made by coating the paper with the egg
albumen and sodium chloride, producing a rich sepia color and slightly glossy surface.
These prints were often toned with gold chloride to subdue the sepia tone and improve
the permanence of the photograph.
Ambrotype - This process was in general use from 1855 to around 1865. It is a
positive, silver image on glass. Due to the fragility of the glass backing ambrotypes
were put in cases similar to those used for daguerreotypes. Although often confused
with a daguerreotype, an ambrotype will always appear as a positive no matter the
angle of view. A daguerreotype on the other hand will switch from a positive to a
negative image depending upon the angle at which it is viewed.
Artist Proof - These photographs are printed especially for the artist and excluded
from the numbering of a limited edition, but are exactly like the editioned prints in
every other respect. Usually appears as "A.P."
Blind Stamp - An identification mark embossed onto the mount of a photograph, or
in some cases, such as the photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson, onto the
photographic print itself.
Calotype/Talbotype - Invented in 1839 by William Henry Fox Talbot, this was the
first practical process of photography. It was revolutionary at the time in that it
allowed for making multiple positive prints of a single image. The calotype process
was used until around 1850 when it became gradually superseded by the collodian
process on albumen paper.
Chromogenic Print - Color print made from a color transparency or negative. The
print material has at least three emulsion layers of silver salts. Each layer is sensitized
to one of the three primary colors in the spectrum. During the first stage of
development a silver image is formed on each layer. Dye couplers are then added
which bond with the silver and form dyes of the appropriate colors in the emulsion
layers.
Cibachrome Print - An extremely high-gloss paper manufactured by Ilfochrome and
first introduced in 1963. A silver dye-bleach process that forms an image by
selectively bleaching dyes already existing within the paper. Renowned as one of the
most stable, longest-lasting of all color prints.
Collodion/Wet Plate - Invented by Frederick Scott Archer in 1848. A sheet or plate
of glass was coated with collodion, made lightsensitive, exposed and developed, all
before the emulsion dried. The finished negative was usually varnished to preserve
and protect it. Collodian wet-plates were most often printed on albumen paper. This
was the most commonly used process from the mid-1850s until the 1880s, when it
was replaced by the gelatin dry plate process.
Collotype - A photomechanically printed image made from a photographic image.
This process produced an extremely fine and delicate grain, and was favored by
publishers who wanted a means of reproduction that emulated the appearance of an
actual photograph.
Contact Print - A print that is the same size as the negative used to produce it. A
contact print is made by placing a sheet of sensitized material in direct contact with
the negative. Nearly all photographic images produced prior to the 1890s were contact
prints. The process was also widely used by Edward Weston and others of the modern
era.
Cyanotype - Sir John Herschel invented this process in 1840. Herschel was an
astronomer and inventor who first used the terms "negative" and "positive" to describe
the making of a photographic print. Among the earliest permanent processes, the
name cyanotype refers not to the blue tonality of the prints, but rather to the use of
ferrous cyanide in the emulsion. In the 1870s it became known as a "blueprint" and is
still widely used to reproduce architectural plans.
Daguerreotype - This, the first published photographic process, was invented by
Louis J. M. Daguerre in France in 1839. It soon became the most popular medium in
the mid 19th century, producing a unique and permanent direct positive image on a
copper plate without the use of a negative. The plate was exposed in the camera for as
long as 20 minutes in daylight, which required the sitter to remain very still for long
periods of time. The silver surface has a mirror-like shine and, being fragile, were
often placed into a special viewing case; sizes vary but are measured from double
whole plate (8 x 13 inches) to sixteenth plate (1 5/8 to 2 1/8 inches) with the sixth
plate the most common (2 x 3 inches). The daguerreotype process was eventually
replaced by the wet collodian process in the 1850s.
Dye Transfer - One of the most permanent and beautifully rendered of all color
printing processes, this method required three separate sheets of negative film to be
produced through red, green and blue filters. These separation negatives were then
projected or contact-printed to make three matrices dyed in cyan, magenta and yellow
dyes. Each matrice was then brought into registered contact with a sheet of transfer
paper that absorbed the dye, producing a finished print made up of a combination of
dye images. The film used to produce this very caustic process was discontinued in
1996.
Editioning - A limitation on the number of prints produced of a photograph from a
single image. This number is set by the artist and noted on the photograph itself,
usually appearing as a fraction, such as 1/25.
Ektacolor RC Print - Photographs produced from color negatives printed on paper
coated with a resined plastic. The most commonly produced color print of the modern
era.
Emulsion - The light-sensitive coating, consisting of silver-halide crystals suspended
in a gelatin. Applied to photographic paper, plates and film, in which the final
photographic image is suspended and protected. In albumen and collodion prints, the
silver halides rested on the surface of these substances. With salt prints, platinum and
palladium prints, the emulsion is absorbed into the paper itself.
Gelatin Silver Print - Introduced in the 1870s, this is the most common of all
printing processes in which paper is coated with gelatin that contains light sensitive
silver salts. This is the standard contemporary black and white print method used
today and is also referred to as a silver gelatin print, or simply as a silver print.
Glass Plate - A transparent plate of glass was coated with an emulsion containing
light sensitive silver salts, then placed in the camera and exposed. It was then
immediately developed and later varnished to preserve and protect it. In the late 1890s
when Edward S. Curtis began photography for The North American Indian he was
using 14 x 17" glass plates. By the end of the project some thirty years later
technology had progressed to the point where he could use 6 x 8" plates and still
retain the desired quality and sharpness.
Halftone - A photomechanical reproduction process of a photograph made on a
printing press. An original photographic image is re-photographed through a screen
that transforms the continuous tones of the image into a series of dots, relative to the
amount of darkness in the original. The new image is then transferred onto a printing
plate. The amount of ink deposited onto the plate is determined by the density of the
dot pattern. This process was sometimes used in Alfred Stieglitz's Camera Work.
Limited Edition - The stated number of prints of a particular photographic image in a
particular size and format, as set by the photographer. It is understood that once this
edition number has been set that the photographer will not produce any further prints
of that stated nature from this particular negative.
Mount - A secondary support to which a photograph is attached. Contemporary
mounts should be of the best quality stock and always acid-free to preserve the
archival image.
Orotone/Goldtone/Curt-tone - A positive image printed on glass, often made from
contact printing the original negative. In the case of Edward S. Curtis, the man who
perfected this process, the positive plate was then backed with a mixture of gold dust
and banana oil. Due to the fragile nature of the plate, these images were most often
sold framed in ornate gilded frames produced especially for the Curtis Studio.
Photogravure - Invented in 1879, this is a photomechanical printing process which
produces a hand-pulled gravure. It is perhaps the most beautiful ink processes used for
reproducing photographs and was made popular by Edward S. Curtis' The North
American Indian, as well as Alfred Stieglitz's Camera Work, and the fine art
photography books of Karl Blossfeldt. The process starts with the photographer's
glass plate negative. From that a glass plate positive is produced. The image is then
acid-etched onto a copper plate. This plate is then inked by hand and used to produce
prints, one per inking, on a hand-operated press. Due to the very laborious nature of
photogravure printing it was later replaced in commercial use by the halftone plate.
Recently however, a handful of contemporary artists have revived this difficult and
beautiful process.
Platinum and Palladium Prints - This method of contact printing was used primarily
from 1873 to around 1915, when as a result of World War I, platinum paper was
replaced for the most part by palladium. A black and white printing process in which
the image is formed of metallic platinum or palladium in the fibers of the paper
(instead of an emulsion coating on the surface). The hand-coated images are known
for their luminosity, extraordinary detail, beautifully rich tonal range, permanence and
stability. Platinum and Palladium printing has enjoyed a revival in recent years as
well.
Printing-Out Paper - A commercially manufactured paper that was quite popular in
the 1880s and 1890s and continued to be produced until the 1920s. Coated with silverchloride emulsions and designed to develop a print from a negative by using light
alone, rather than chemistry. This process was favored by photographers in the early
American West, as field prints could be produced to review their work without the
need of a darkroom.
Salt Print - A print produced by coating fine-quality writing paper with lightsensitive chemicals and sodium chloride. Most often found in varying shades of
brown or sepia with a matte surface quality. This was the earliest form of a
photographic positive paper and the most common print produced up until the
invention of albumen in the 1850s.
Silver Print - A generic term referring to all prints made on paper coated with silver
salts. (Also see Gelatin Silver Print)
Tintype/Ferrotype - Introduced in the mid 1850s, a printing process in which a thin
sheet of iron was coated with black lacquer. The light-sensitive emulsion was then
coated on the iron plate just before placing it into the camera for exposure. The plate
was then developed, producing a very durable, efficient and inexpensive photograph
that was small is size (approximately 2 x 3 inches). Used most often for portraiture
and made popular in the 1850s by street photographers. Also commonly used during
the Civil War and remained popular to around the turn of the century.
Type C Print - A color printing process made from a color negative or transparency
which was replaced in 1958 by Ektacolor. Type C is an archaic term which is
commonly used generically to identify an Ektacolor RC print, the most common color
print made today.
Vintage/Modern Prints - A relative term that describes a print that is made on or
very near the time of the negative. A print made later from the original negative is a
modern, or later print. The date of a print can often be determined by the paper on
which it was printed, as well as the overall condition of the paper surface. Other
factors to consider are the overall quality of printing, the presence or absence of a
signature and/or stamp, and the source from which it was obtained. Their are also
many helpful tools, such as a black light which can assist in dating a print.
Recommended Reading:
On Photography, by Susan Sontag. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1977
The Photograph Collector's Guide, by Lee Witkin and Barbara London. Boston: The New York
Graphic Society, 1979.
The History of Photography: From 1839 to the Present Day, by Beaumont Newhall. 5th Revised
Edition. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1982.
The Encyclopedia of Photography. New York: International Center of Photography/Crown
Publishers, 1984.
An American Century of Photography: From Dry Plate to Digital, by Keith F. Davis. New York:
The Hallmark Photographic Collection, Harry N. Abrams, 1999.
Authentication and Forgery Detection of Prints & Antique Photographs: Introduction to
Methods, by David E. Rudd. Seattle: Cycleback Press, 2001.
JUST BREATH SIHAM
THERE ISN’T A STUDY GUIDE
WE ARE
DOING A
PROJECT