Tag Archives: Words words words

Imagery & Infinite Regression, or Almost Cameraless Photography

About this time last year, I was experimenting with origami pinhole cameras, with both photographic paper and black card (with film). What interested me, was how a simple manipulation of the medium allowed it to become a complete means of image-making.

Further experiments involving zone plates and camera-less photography, as well as a meandering train-of-thought, lead me to ponder the possibility of a photographic image that was capable of reproducing itself, ad infinitum. The notion posited a kind of photographic quine that is at once original, reproduction, and apparatus.

Deeper contemplation lead me to the realisation that if an image of a zone plate of “normal” perspective could be made at 1:1 scale, using identical zone-plate optics, then the image could be used to reproduce produce itself. (It wouldn’t practically matter if the image produced was positive or negative, as the zone plate could still work optically.) In the real world, of course, the number of “generations” would be limited by creeping image degradation, leading to “sterile” images that could no longer “reproduce”, but the conceptual basis of the process is certainly intriguing enough.

Further experiment pending.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alternative processes, Experimentation, Optics, Projects, Techniques

So, Um, Why DO People Photograph?

Feeling, as I sometimes do, in need of inspiration to get out and shoot something, I recently got around to reading Why People Photograph (Aperture, 1994, ISBN: 0-89381-597-7), a collection of essays and book reviews by Robert Adams. I had previously encountered his earlier Beauty in Photography (1981) – essentially a defence of photographic art for its own sake – and I hoped that I might be able to discover in the later writings something to recharge my enthusiasm enough to kick off a new round of projects.

The problem with collections like this (or so I find), regardless of size, is that you need to approach them certain threshold of enthusiasm. I don’t lack patience, and I enjoy reading just about anything, but whatever revelation or insight you hope to find, it will probably comprise less than one per cent of the total content. The remainder will seem increasingly irrelevant with each paragraph, no matter how articulate.

And Adams is articulate, in a self-conscious fashion that prevents him from sounding at all pretentious or condescending. I presume the academic-and-accessible manner stems from his background as a secondary-school teacher. His enthusiasm for landscapes, and by extension, the environment is palpable, surfacing in many of the essays. I might say that all of the essays and reviews have an easy feel, but that couldn’t express the obvious care with which the author crafts each of them.

Notwithstanding, by the third essay, my impression of Why People Photograph was a feeling that it was a bit… sparse. Photographic literature, and criticism in particular, represents an inversion of my Special Theory of Readability, in that it cannot be too heavily illustrated: It becomes job of the prose to serve the pictures. Shore’s The Nature of Photographs has (by my reckoning) an image for every seventy words. Adams rations us two plates per essay. When discussing imagery, the text can be spoiled by too many words.

If you reference a particular image as supporting your argument (or contradicting it, or being thematically, contextually, or even tangentially related) you had better bloody include it in your book, ideally on the very next page. Most tellingly, Adams does reference his own work in his essays, but beyond the front cover that work is nowhere to be found in the book.

I didn’t find what I was looking for in Why People Photograph, though, in a sense, it did give me the push I needed. On balance, I do feel the richer for having read it. I’ve come to the conclusion, that inspiration isn’t some precious pay-dirt to be mined. It now seems like a much more elusive quarry. One that must be hunted.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books

Zone-plate Objectives

A wee while ago (it must be about two years, now), I became interested in diffraction optics, particularly zone plates (aka: Fresnel plates, after Augustin-Jean Fresnel). After pursuing the technology and its properties for awhile, I filed my notes it away in my “curious_projects.txt” file, in order to concentrate on Serious Business.

Zone plates utilize the optical properties of diffraction and interference to converge (focus) incident light, and can be used to create photographic images. They consist of concentric, alternating opaque and transparent rings (“Fresnel zones”) of equal area. The more rings, the sharper and brighter the image. “Binary” zone plates have an interesting property, in that they create images with soft focus and interesting, luminescent halos (reminiscent the halation of old, thick, glass plates examples). Introducing a smooth, sinusoidal transition from transparent to opaque zones (as opposed to a hard edge) eliminates soft focus, creating a sharper image. A zone-plate objective for your SLR can be as easy to make as a good, sharp pinhole (instructions), if you can acquire a spare body cap and some contrasty film with a nice, clear base.

It occurred to me at the time that one of the big drawbacks of zone plate optics was that chromatic aberration could be pronounced and impossible to correct. I suspected that the solution could lie with multiple, RGB-filtered zone plates focussing different wavelengths. Now coming back to the problem (I have plenty of spare time, just now), it occurs to me that coaxial C-M-Y zone plates could present a more elegant solution. The question now is how to prototype a sandwich of coloured zone plates, precisely focussed for three primary wavelengths. I’m not sure I can even get good slide film, these days.

1 Comment

Filed under Experimentation, Optics

Feininger on Photogenicity, Part 2: You’re Doing It Wrong

Having dealt in my last post with common qualities of photogenic subjects, I would like to return to Andreas Feininger’s Photographic Seeing. This post will discuss the common pitfalls, “unphotogenic subject qualities” as the author labels them: those properties of a subject or scene that weaken an image. I am of the opinion that no photographer ought to arbitrarily avoid subjects, much less disregard something that has already caught their interest, but I believe that without understanding how an image can fail before they attempt it, they will always be disappointed with their efforts.

  1. Insipidity and lack of subject interest can be most easily described as the absence of any and all of the photogenic qualities previously discussed. I’d have thought that the lack of anything to catch the eye and recommend a potential subject would lead it to be overlooked. Unfortunately, there are more than enough examples to the contrary.
  2. Overabundance of subject matter would reasonably be considered as the antithesis of the photogenic quality of simplicity. Feininger warns that a propensity to “cram as much of their surroundings into a single view as possible” is a common and grievous habit of beginners who “labor under the illusion that what impressed the roving eye in reality should be equally effective in picture form…”
  3. An unphotogenic background. Having found a promising subject, many photographers become so intensely focussed upon it, to the exclusion of all else, that they become oblivious to whatever else they may include in the frame. The go-to example is a portrait in which a tree appears to be growing out of the top of the subject’s head.  The broader classes that Feininger lists are distracting, obtrusive, “busy” backgrounds, gaudy backgrounds used with subdued subjects, and conversely backgrounds that contrast so little with the subject that they disappear into it.
  4. An unphotogenic foreground, particularly, an empty one. Feininger uses the example of an empty foreground in outdoor portraiture, but a lack of foreground interest is an even more grievous sin in landscape photography.
  5. Subject contrast, in hue or brightness, when either too high or too low. Excessive contrast in a subject or scene can force a photographer to choose whether he must sacrifice detail his highlights or shadows. Weak contrast can cause a dull “muddy” image. Feininger acknowledges that there are valid exceptions to this rule, he implies that they require exceptional imagination and virtuosity to execute.
  6. Shadows that are wrongly placed or too harsh. In studio photography, this often manifests as multiple shadows at unnatural, divergent angles. Also common in this category are distracting shadows, such as those cast by objects outside the image (including the photographer), and shadows cast upon the subject, or by the subject over the scene.
  7. “Posing and faking”, as mentioned in the previous post destroy any sense of immediacy, spontaneity or natural flow in an image. Feininger sees such photographic perfidy as the hallmark of cheesy, confected, commercial images or excessively contrived portraiture. I certainly agree that there is such a thing as a stiff pose and poor direction, Feininger’s condemnation of “fake” photos reads like a blanket reproach against commercial photography in general.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Practice

Feininger on Photogenicity

In Photographic Seeing (1973), Andreas Feininger lists and discusses what he considers “photogenic qualities” that distinguish subjects and scenes (or aspects thereof) that lend themselves to creating interesting images, and those that merely get in the way.

Feininger emphasizes that the combination, rather that the mere presence or absence of such qualities that lends photogenic potential to a prospective subject. I would go so far as to say that it is the interaction, or emphasis placed on these qualities by the photographer (through framing, focus, lighting, space, et cetera) that helps to build strong images.

Listed here, in the order discussed in the book:

  1. Simplicity, order, and clarity of the subject. The author considers these to be the most important qualities in a potential subject. Due to the mechanical objectivity of photographic capture, it is up to the photographer to properly define the subject or scene, and to remove, exclude, or de-emphasize distracting “clutter” in an image. “When in doubt, it is often better to take away than to add, to go closer than to back up, to show less … and generally to remember that … a part can make a stronger impression than the overall view…”
  2. Subjects characterized by bold and simple forms. Primal, recognizable shapes and outlines would represent an graphic extreme case and corollary to simplicity and clarity of subject. Feininger gives as his prime example the silhouette.
  3. Hard, sharp, concise outlines. This would seem to fly in the face of some established photographic styles and techniques, most obviously the technique of soft focus. The sole exception that Feininger admits is motion blur, when utilized to suggest speed in a subject.
  4. Surface texture and fine detail. Emphasis on the surface texture is said to assist in a subject’s definition and characterization, by communicating its material or structural composition. Feininger warns that: “If texture is an important characteristic of a subject (for example, the texture of hair and skin in portraiture) but is rendered in unrecognizable form, the picture is bound to be disappointing.”
  5. Coloration. Feininger notes that colour can be an ambivalent quality in a subject, depending on how important it is to the subject’s “characterization”. It goes without saying that scenes with a monochromatic or subdued palette are much more easily rendered in black-and-white, or that peafowl would be next to unrecognizable so captured. Even in colour photography, it is advantageous to the photographer to control and restrict the palette as much as possible. “A few large areas of color are preferable to many small and spotty ones; combinations of related, harmonious or complimentary colors are photogenic, whereas combinations of unrelated, disharmonious, and clashing colors are unphotogenic.”
  6. Animation and dynamism. “Live subjects and objects in motion are potentially more photogenic than inanimate subjects or objects at rest”. Feininger’s argument seems to be that such dynamic subjects make for endless and ever-shifting forms, aspects, positions and relationships within the scene, whereas static, inanimate objects necessitate the intervention of the photographer to create such variety.
  7. Spontaneity. Corollary to the dynamic quality, a natural, uncontrived subject injects a sense of immediacy in an image. Feininger expresses a low opinion of staged, posed subjects in contrived scenes. “The worst a photographer of people can do is to tell his subjects to ‘hold it’ or command his model to say ‘cheese’ in order to force a smile… Overdirecting … weakens spontaneity, and posing destroys it.”
  8. The unusual. Uncommon subjects, unfamiliar aspects, original approaches or odd juxtapositions invariably elicit more interest than the familiar. Feininger particularly warns against imitation without analysis, which he believes is a “dead-end road”. Perhaps more importantly, he also warns against seeking novelty for its own sake, seeing it as a source of meaningless and contrived images.
  9. Repetition of uniform shapes suggests structure and order, but can also be visually dynamic and exciting. I prefer the term “uniform” to Feininger’s “identical”, because it   better expresses the point that the inclusion subtile irregularities and breaks in a repetitive pattern creates a more believable and interesting image than a perfect pattern.
  10. Motion. It becomes clear that Feininger likes subject movement in general and motion blur in particular. See animation and dynamism, and spontaneity. In addition, he suggests motion as another means of adding an original spin to an otherwise familiar subject.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Practice