ADVANCED PHOTO 3 STUDY GUIDE FOR SEMESTER 1, 2013-2014

BE SURE TO CHECK OUT PAGE 61 – 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.

ExposureThe 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 FailureIf 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 ReadingWe 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 numberIn 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 exposuresChoose 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 1/21/125 1 s 2 s1/60 2 s 5 s1/30 4 s 11 s1/15 9 s 25 s1/8 16 s 1 m1/4 32 s 3 m1/2 1 m 9 m1 s 2 m 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 MATHThis 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) 750Blue (450nm) 934Green (550nm) 763Red (650nm) [also used for tungsten] 647Infrared (750nm) 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 f-stop

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 inter-action 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 0C. 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 41C 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 silver-gelatine developing-out film is considered to have the best long-term stability. Diazo- and 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

STILL IMAGES

Negatives <18C ±1C ±2C 30%-40% ±5% ±10%

b/w Prints <18C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

Cellulose Nitrate Film <11C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

Colour Negatives <2C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

Colour Slides <2C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

Colour Prints <2C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

MOVING IMAGES

Colour Films -5C ±1C ±2C 30% ±2% ±5%

b/w Safety Films <16C ±1C ±2C 35% ±2% ±5%

b/w Nitrate Films 4C ±1C ±2C 50% ±2% ±5%

b/w MICROFILM

Silver-gelatine <18C ±1C ±2C 30%40% ±5% ±10%

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 417Photography 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 Silver-gelatin type on cellulose ester base Specifications

ISO 4332 Photography Processed photographic blackandwhite film for archival records Silver-gelatin 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 LiteratureGarry 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 S-21 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 (1889-1951), 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 term-meaning 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 re-appeared 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.

Tired Marine

Fig on the Steps

Mendez

Day After

Sgt. HomesteadLooking Up

Death at WindowGoudy in the Sky

Three GirlsChildren at the

Wire

Palm Grove 1

Smoking in the Rain

Simmons Shower RoomFirm Base

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 silver-chloride 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 light-sensitive 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