Once I arrive at a location, I begin by surveying the site. It's a good 5 minutes before I even remember I have a camera in hand. During this initial observation I analyze the space from as many angles as possible, trying to find symmetry and distorted perspectives. When my camera finally makes an appearance, I go to work. I focus the center of my camera to the object that I want to be completely in focus. Then, I move the camera in order to line up the buildings in an aesthetically pleasing, geometric way. Sometimes, this means that my camera undergoes all sorts of topsy-turvy maneuvers.
Once I have the image in the viewfinder exactly as I wish to see it on paper, I set the shutter speed to 125. While most photographers recommend using a shutter speed of 30 or higher, I prefer to use 125. This compensates for any camera shake that might occur once I press the shutter release and ensures a crisp picture. Then, I adjust the aperture in accordance with the ISO. (While a low aperture value will create a shallower depth of field and a high aperture value the opposite, I'm generally content with the results produced by this method, especially since I don't carry a tripod on my adventures.)
After leaving a location, I have to develop my film. I use the methods outlined in the photography room in Sage, using the mixed chemicals according to the temperature of the water and the type of film. Without even taking the chance to view my final images, I set my negatives to dry in the film dryer. After the film comes out, I cut in into strips of 6 and place it in clear negative sleeves. Now, I finally get to see my images on the light table. For me, this is one of the most exciting moments of the whole process, because the ideas I had in my head actually managed to become something stationary and concrete.
While most photographers would then run into the dark room to enlarge the negatives, I scan mine using the Nikon Coolscan in Sage's digital lab. While some would argue that the results of such a process are not as precise, my tests have proven otherwise. Computer manipulation yields the most consistent, precise prints and thus, is most in line with my geometric aesthetic. (Though some would argue in favor of the photographic print as an object itself, I prefer the perfection of my images to a photographic artifact.) To start, I set the scanner's dpi to 300 and the size to something greater than 14x9. Then, the digital files are born. From here, I begin to manipulate the files using Adobe Photoshop, changing the levels, curves, brightness, contrast, midtone contrast, shadows, highlights, sharpness, while fixing any dust spots or other abnormalities. At this point, I make sure my images are as geometrically sound as possible, using precisely placed guides to assist me when using the crop tool. After finalizing my digital files, I print them out, making sure the printer's settings are all correct. Though this process removes the artist's hand from the final print, for me, the photograph is based upon the artist's eye. When I view my works I feel as attached to them as a dark room-using photographer would, except I am unable to point out any flaws in the final products. They are as exact and precise as the measurements in the architectural drawings that they were based upon.
I think that you really need to clarify why you are making digital prints from negatives you created with a 35mm camera. Why don't you just use digital? Alternatively, and perhaps a better question, is why don't you develop your prints all the way through as silver gelatin? Simply saying that you want the perfection is not a good enough argument; it is far too easily dispelled. A truly masterful photographer can create perfect prints, so giving this reason reads as laziness. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but I think you absolutely HAVE to explore this for yourself. Try talking to Dan N.; he has an opposite view, and maybe talking together would help both of you.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I want to bring up something I said in my previous comment on your first post. I am still left wondering why you are making photographs at all - why aren't you designing buildings? Your last sentence really drove this confusion home - "They [the photographs] are as exact and precise as the measurements in the architectural drawings that they were based upon." Why are your photographs different from these drawings? What separates them from just being copies? What new and notable thing are they saying? In short, why are you making photographs? Again, I think this point is something you really need to figure out for yourself before you can construct a really cohesive statement about why you make art.