Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2017, 08:31:40 am
-
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/books/article/2122079/how-michael-kenna-dumped-his-hasselblad-holga-hong
The Holga is proof, Kenna suggests, that expensive gear isn’t vital for good photography.
“It’s like a pencil,” he says. “You can use it to do an incredible drawing or write some amazing verse, or be an accountant. It’s the same with a camera. It’s about your vision.”
-
Nice pictures and indeed proof that expensive equipment isn't everything, but I bet he didn't "dump" his Hasselblad ;)
-
Given Kenna's aesthetic, I'm not surprised that a Holga would be a comfortable and appropriate tool. Given the aesthetic of, say, Vieri Bottazzini (https://vieribottazzini.com/) or Steven Friedman (http://friedmanphoto.com), I'm not surprised that they use Leica or Phase One medium-format cameras. But neither Holga nor Leica nor Phase One alone makes one a Kenna or a Bottazzini or a Friedman.
-
I might have left the impression that the article, and my reason for posting it, is about Hasselblad vs. Holga. The title certainly grabs everyone's attention, as most of us are gear-junkies, at least to some extent. However, there are deeper thoughts in the article, some of which resonate with my own approach of "what else is there" (emphasis mine):
Kenna prefers not to be in total control of his photography, allowing accidents to happen as he attempts to capture the “unseen”, which hints at the supernatural, sacred or spiritual.
“When you photograph a tree or a mountain,” he says, “there has to be some sort of exchange of energy and sense of life in what you’re photographing.”
About equipment and creative process:
While Kenna started using Hasselblad cameras about four decades ago, working with Holgas injected new life into his photography.
“The Hasselblads I work with are heavy, cumbersome,” he says. “They make you really think about what you’re doing. The Holga is a very whimsical, instant, unpredictable piece of equipment. You can carry it in your pocket. With anything you do for long periods of time, it becomes a bit predictable. If you can somehow throw a wrench in that and allow another influence into your creative process, it helps.”
On modern technology, post-processing, and professional photography:
Excessive processing of images is another bugbear.
“Photography’s absolute power used to be its tie with reality: what you photographed was real and existed,” Kenna says. “That has now gone. With advertising and photography, most of it leaves me cold because I know it’s been done with technological tinkering, Photoshop and after-effects. The ubiquitous nature of photography has also changed the way serious photographers work. The market has all but disappeared. Most professional photographers can’t exist any more.”
-
At one point after reading that the reason he was able to make the photographs he made was because of the fine cameras he used, Walker Evans took up a box camera and made a few exceptional pictures with it. What matters is what's in your head, not what's in your hands.
-
Certainly wouldn't crave a Holga, but perfectly happy with 10 or 12 megapies. Cameras are able to do two things: they can help you and they can get in your way. Old ones usually helped me, but newer ones bring the little problem of editing out, once and mostly for always, all the functions they have which I know that I will never want to employ.
If there's a bonus, today, it's autofocus that makes my life easier than it would otherwise now be.
Computers and their influence? Once I was able to convince myself that digital darkrooms and wet ones have almost nothing in common, I learned to embrace the enemy and take from it that which I want.
Works pour moi.
Rob
-
I'm with you, Rob. I hate the fact that nowadays my cameras have to have a moving picture capability. If I want to make a bloody movie I'll buy a movie camera. There are too damned many bells and whistles on the things. The kitchen sink is included, even though you don't intend ever to go near a kitchen.
And speaking of automatic focus: When the Leica M8 first came out I was panting for one -- until I began to read about the fiascoes people were experiencing with the camera. I loved my rangefinder Leicas in film days. Now you wouldn't be able to drag me, kicking and screaming, to any sort of manual focus camera, including the Leica, which, in my own estimation has become a sort of overpriced retro art object.
And yes, 12 mpx is more than enough unless you're planning to make wall-sized prints.
-
Substitute iPhone (or similar) for Holga and much the same approach applies.
-Dave-
-
And a Leica is just a camera. What other peoples’ impressions of it are, and how they do or don’t treat it, don’t matter.
-Dave-
-
I don't know if it will happen, but if the Leica lenses do eventually embrace af, then they may well attract a wider market capable of the entry fee. I am aware that af exists within that brand, but I'm thinking of the M rangefinder system. It's all very well to explain how you can, after a lifetime on the street, judge focus by the position of the little knob on the ring, but hey, that's useable at f8 and be there, but what about the guy who, like me, would want to use those dream lenses wide open? Guess just ain't gonna cut it. From the relatively brief time I've used af, it is another dimension: put that central mark on the subject, and unless you are playing Saul games with windows and reflections, where even you become confused, you can get it as quickly as you spot it. No fiddling necessary.
It's great theorising on about careful, controlled and well-considered framing etc. but when you are in the heat of the moment, that's a different proposition. The use of anything as careful as judging sharpness on a screen becomes pretty useless. Sure, on a tripod, the game is something totally else.
Another thing that's silly (IMO) is the way people sometimes bad mouth slr cameras because the screen goes blank when you make the shot. If you were working at 1/25th of a second, you may have a point, but most of the time folks shoot a helluva lot higher up the scale, if only to stay sharpish. Return is so damned fast these days that I'm sure these folks are still quoting remarks made about those wonderful cameras of the 30s. Anyway, if your shot isn't the one you were trying for when you made it, what happens next doesn't much matter anyway - you were gonna blow it. Most of my working life was with hand-held cameras, and any shots I missed were because I didn't think fast enough. On a tripod, mostly with a 6x6 of one sort or another, yes, things were missed because of the flash recharging, not to mention the winding on process. The mirror didn't play much of a part in those losses.
There's so much crap thrown up in the air in photography these days.
Rob
-
There’s a gizmo, the Techart Pro, that can autofocus M lenses (and other manual lenses too via adapters) on Sony A cameras. This tech could be built right into a camera if there was enough interest in doing so. Kyocera made a Contax SLR in the ‘90s that AF’d manual Zeiss & Yashica lenses using kinda the same approach. (The Contax moved the film plane rather than the lens plane.)
It doesn’t interest me personally. RF cameras are what I learned with so I find ‘em second nature. And my eyes are still good enough to focus with an RF, which is one reason why I’ve lately returned to ‘em. Do what you enjoy doing while you can still do it. I actually have a rough idea where my old 50mm is focused by feeling the focus/lock tab position. Doesn’t apply to any other lens, though. :)
Growing up I had no impression that a Leica was anything special. My dad had one, which my mom used as much as he did (he preferred his Retina ‘cuz it was pocketable). His photojourno friend Ben had one just like it. My Uncle Jim had a Reid, which my young self assumed was just another model made by the same company. Looked pretty much the same. I thought my Brownie was the coolest of the lot ‘cuz it was the biggest!
Anyway I can get along with pretty much any portable camera. The pleasure and discipline of using it is the thing. Even the photos aren’t that important, particularly now that we’ve been awash in photos for over a decade. I was there and I saw…that’s what I carry with me.
-Dave-
-
Leica still makes marvelous lenses. I use a Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25 mm on my Pen-F. I think I get the same quality I used to get with Leica lenses on my Leicas, and it'll auto-focus.
-
With the advances in EVFs (Electronic View Finder) and the use of focus peaking, you'll be able to focus manual lenses more accurately and better than most AF, except in situation like tracking action/sports
-
The Pen-F has an excellent EVF system, but I wouldn't try to use it for manual focus while I'm doing street. And if your eyesight is good, I can't see how focus peaking really helps. I used to be damn fast with split-image focusing on my Leicas, but not as fast as the focus I can get with the push of a button, which, with the way I've set up the camera, is right under my finger on the front of the Pen. Shooting landscape is one thing. Shooting street is something else.
-
I like the PanaLeica 25/1.4 a lot on my little GX8. Their 42.5/1.2 is lovely as well, but I like the tiny non-Leica f/1.7 version for the same reason my dad liked his Retina.
I recently picked up a copy of the 40th anniversary edition of Nancy Rexroth’s Iowa. She took the photos with a Diana camera. I’m guessing Michael Kenna’s approach was more precise than Rexroth’s, but then again I haven’t (yet) seen his Holga book.
-Dave-
-
I don't know about the Pen-F, and agree that Street could be closer to action/sports in regards to focus. Having said that, focus peaking allows to focus on any area of the image, so no need to recompose, and it is getting better with every new generation of cameras. Ever tried to focus a tilted tilt-shift lens handheld?
-
Ever tried to focus a tilted tilt-shift lens handheld?
Isn’t that in the same why? category as focusing a Deardorff 8x10 while hanging from a tether connected to a helicopter? ;D
-Dave-
-
Kenna prefers not to be in total control of his photography, allowing accidents to happen as he attempts to capture the “unseen”, which hints at the supernatural, sacred or spiritual.
I never thought of calling my lack of total control intentional, ;D
Thanks for posting, Slobodan.
-
I've been having a lot of fun using cameras that make a Holga look like an upgrade! ;D It's far too easy to get hung up on camera gear, to the detriment of creativity.
Kent in SD
-
One of the reliefs in being an am these days is that I have found a different mindset - at last - and all thanks to digital.
As long as the focal length suits the desires, then ideas of 'reality', can be thrown out with the water and the friggin', screamin' baby, all in one gigantic swooosh!
Use the cameras you have, get the basic image into PS and then look at it for a while and think: where can this mother go? That's when you can get to elaborate the score and let your imagination play. Were it not so, then all the versions of White Christmas would sound exactly the same.
;-)
Rob
-
An artist's obsession can sometimes lead to extraordinary things. All too often, however, (and particularly with photography), obsession is misplaced and counterproductive. Too many (mediocre) photographers seem obsessed with sharpness, resolution, megapixels, bokeh, high-ISO/low noise, and/or high frame rates. Or, perhaps, ultra-thin DOF, arcane post-processing, eschewing post-processing, providing a back story, eschewing context, etc., etc.
45 years ago, I ran into a group of photographers who had all decided that 'cropping' was verboten. Cropping was a "lie". They even went so far as filing out their negative carriers so that the edges of the film frame would show in a print. While there were some excellent photos in the small show I attended, the mediocre ones were not elevated by the fact that they were "truthful" (i.e. uncropped).
There are good reasons for high-end photographic technology to exist, and for techniques to be used. But sometimes it seems that obsession with the medium supersedes the message.
-
One of the reliefs in being an am these days is that I have found a different mindset - at last - and all thanks to digital.
As long as the focal length suits the desires, then ideas of 'reality', can be thrown out with the water and the friggin', screamin' baby, all in one gigantic swooosh!
Use the cameras you have, get the basic image into PS and then look at it for a while and think: where can this mother go? That's when you can get to elaborate the score and let your imagination play. Were it not so, then all the versions of White Christmas would sound exactly the same.
;-)
Rob
My own favourite version of White Christmas (https://www.lempertz.com/uploads/tx_lempertzproject/Lempertz-961-1186-Sammlung-Vogel-Richard-Hamilton-IM-DREAMING-OF-A-WHITE-C.jpg) by Richard Hamilton.
-
My own favourite version of White Christmas (https://www.lempertz.com/uploads/tx_lempertzproject/Lempertz-961-1186-Sammlung-Vogel-Richard-Hamilton-IM-DREAMING-OF-A-WHITE-C.jpg) by Richard Hamilton.
Ah, the mystic realm!
Is it Bing?
Rob
-
On rereading, he isn't threatening anything revolutionary in his MO; rather is he just pushing a particular book. I giggled on reading that his square pics from the Holga are " square, very Instagram..." when all along I Imagined they were square because of 6x6 habits! Live and learn.
Rob
-
There are good reasons for high-end photographic technology to exist, and for techniques to be used. But sometimes it seems that obsession with the medium supersedes the message.
This is an issue whenever refined tools and techniques are involved, I think. Mastery and creativity aren’t the same thing. In the world of guitardom, where I spend some of my time, there are plenty of impressive technicians who aren’t much good at making appealing, involving, moving or even provoking music. Often that’s not even their aim: technical prowess itself is the thing. Which is fine…music, photography, etc. are all roomy endeavors.
When looking at photos or listening to music I tend to filter out the technicians. When doing those things, photography in particular, my techie nature can come out more than I’d like. Taking up a Holga or Diana, or maybe a little Fuji Instax, seems like a good way to de-emphasize refined skills in favor of more elemental ones.
-Dave-
-
Dave, don't you sometimes think that using "lesser" equipment actually makes you concentrate more on technicals, just as a sort of compensation for the natural inferiority in quality that such instruments can give?
I think I like the idea of shooting as best one can, and then doing the dumbing down within Photoshop; there's always the possibility that that shot could have a secondary use if the original has enough integrity. It was one thing with film, where further messing about was relatively limited when compared with digital, but if the required effect can be achieved on the computer, why not?
Rob
-
Rob, my experience (which is just mine, of course) is that the more possibilities a tool offers the more time I’ll spend digging into every nook & cranny I can find. With something like an SX-70, or HP5+ in a film camera, the pic-taking itself is simplified. Afterwards you can digitize and then polish up or dumb down as you wish. Or play it straight. :)
I got my first scanner (a small Sharp flatbed…probably still have it in a box somewhere) in 1990, and spent about as much time working with film scans pre-DSLR as I’ve spent with sensor output since then. With scans I did a lotta post work on everything, as it was just necessary. With current sensor output I do very little except when the photo is for someone, whether in the form of a processed TIFF or a print.
Edit: I should’ve added above that after playing with the myriad tools & options even earlier versions of Photoshop had, I settled on a subset that consistently worked for me and have stuck with ‘em ever since. Even now using Affinity Photo on my iPad I go with the same basic approach. But I must’ve at times printed dozens of variants of many early digitized photos: emulated lith and other monochrome toning techniques; watercolor filters; swirl filters; adding fake clouds to bland skies; etc. And many of them on printers not made for proper photo output (‘cuz at the time there were no such non-commercial printers). :o
-Dave-
-
All too often, however, (and particularly with photography), obsession is misplaced and counterproductive. Too many (mediocre) photographers seem obsessed with sharpness, resolution, megapixels, bokeh, high-ISO/low noise, and/or high frame rates.
I think of this as putting your efforts into image quality instead of quality of the image.
Kent in SD
-
I spend a lot of time in post processing but when I compare the resulting file to the RAW I actually do very little. I think perhaps this has to do with the total freedom I had as a painter and illustrator as opposed to valuing the limitations I have as a photographer. I'm not interested becoming an illustrator with a camera.
-
I think of this as putting your efforts into image quality instead of quality of the image.
:)
Nice summary. Out of focus, blur, grain, blown highlights, blocked up shadows etc are all tools. It's not that hard to use them with a DSLR+LR, but a lot of people seem to think they need to achieve maximum sharpness and smooth tonal gradation... everywhere.
So you get a Holga (or early 80's East German slide film or ...) and the "expressive" tools become compulsory. You can even combine expensive and artistic, by using a Hassy indoor, hand-held in low light (as I saw a while back in Barcelona). And it's a concept, which you can market ("faire un marketing" if you want to be French).
Whatever works, as Woody Allen once said.
(Example added: https://models.com/people/sarah-moon I don't think a Holga or a lens-baby was involved, but who knows. I doubt Sarah would sell many a7rIII's or D850's or Triphasic 100mpixies... )
-
Is it Bing?
Yup. another version (http://www.peopleandhighsociety.com/posts/78/Tate-Modern-The-Richard-Hamilton-Retrospective-file2.jpg)
-
So you get a Holga (or early 80's East German slide film or ...) and the "expressive" tools become compulsory. You can even combine expensive and artistic, by using a Hassy indoor, hand-held in low light (as I saw a while back in Barcelona). And it's a concept, which you can market ("faire un marketing" if you want to be French).
Or, how about a Holga lens (they sell them separately for ~$20) on a Nikon D800E? ;D Or shooting a pinhole on you DSLR?
Kent in SD
-
Or, how about a Holga lens (they sell them separately for ~$20) on a Nikon D800E? ;D Or shooting a pinhole on you DSLR?
I had a Holga lens in Canon EF mount c. 2004. It didn’t lock in place when mounted and actually fell off a couple times. Maybe this was by intent. :D I have an M mount pinhole body cap too. The image size (film frame or sensor) isn’t big enough for a proper pinhole effect IMO. Someone should make a pinhole cap for that Phase One 100 megger, though using it might provoke aneurysms in some circles.
-Dave-
-
I have a spare body cap and a lathe and some 0.8mm drill bits, so it would take about two minutes to make one... but maybe I shouldn't worry about getting the hole in the centre and just drill it somewhere near... or more than one hole ?
-
Or, how about a Holga lens (they sell them separately for ~$20) on a Nikon D800E? ;D Or shooting a pinhole on you DSLR?
Kent in SD
Love the rendition of the foreground tree.
-
Who could forget Lensbaby (https://crkphotoimaging.com.au/products/LBCP235C).
Cheers,
-
Who could forget Lensbaby (https://crkphotoimaging.com.au/products/LBCP235C).
Cheers,
Everybody?
Rob
-
Who could forget Lensbaby (https://crkphotoimaging.com.au/products/LBCP235C).
The deliberately crap lens with the price of a decent 50/1.4 ?
The Holga lens was a much, much better deal (hmm, no longer stocked by regular supplier of toys).