new york city

Image 13 (3)36

You can choose from a lot of different lenses and cameras combinations. One mean, lean, street-shootin machine combo was the Voigtlander R4M and Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon. I sold them off earlier this year (the lens and body separately of course to increase the value). This was from a roll of film I found lying around that hadn’t been developed quite yet. Seeing these fruits makes me miss her.

She was sold to purchase the Mamiya RZ67 Pro ii; a massive studio-oriented camera that is antithetical to the rapid fire shooting that a small rangefinder will allow. This is also a bid to further remove myself from 35mm film and dive deeper into 120mm. My Hasselblad SWC should be able to provide some of the same types of images (almost same field of view but square format, shallower DOF and different ergonomics). This is making me want to go on a walk!

Image 13 (3)33

Image 11

Image 13 (3)19

Image 13 (3)30

I am still in the 35mm film world though. Below is my trusty Nikon F3HP with 35mm lens. A gift from my brother, she’ll never be sold.

Image 13 (3)48

I never really mentioned it, but I’ve changed some of the style of shooting I’ve done over the past couple of months.  Partly due to the desire for new projects, partly due to the shooting of medium format.  I have slowed down, caught less candid snapshots, and focused more on a series or body of work than I have in the past.

Previously, I would shoot anything came my way.  This usually made for a bunch of shots on a roll that seemed to be randomly thrown in there.  There was little rhyme or reason to it (the only consistency being black and white film most of the time, the locations and my style of shooting).

Image  (3) (3) (3) (2) (2)-5

Not to say that everything I am doing now has a strict rhyme or reason. But one thing that has been a marker of my recent work is the shooting of fewer portraits.  I always thought portraits were the best but now I want to get good shots of both portraits and landscapes.  So I have focused more on landscapes.

Image  (3) (4) (2) (2)-3

Portraits are beautiful and I will always love a good one.  But I feel like it’s almost cheating a bit.  Landscapes are tougher to get a good photo out of because they require more interesting subject matter (in my humble opining).

Image  (3) (4) (2) (2)-4

The ultimate goal of course is to be able to grab both great portraits, landscapes and potentially the combination thereof?

Cheers,

J

Naturally, in New York City, you want to shoot upward.  There’s a whole lot happening “up there”.  But the results?  Not always so good.

Why?  The man’s hands above are larger than they should be (proportional to his body).  This is perspective distortion and it can’t be helped (all lenses do it).  Another issue is that the lines of the building in the back make it look like it is going to fall over.  Mind you, no distortion is 100% bad, you can use it to your advantage… but most of the time pointing the camera up doesn’t work that well for me (unless carefully thought out).

Here’s an example that does work:

Things feel natural in the above photo.  The framelines of the image mesh well with the lines in the photo.  A contrary illustration being the first shot in this post (the building should be standing up straight… not diagonally).

To further the argument, let’s look at some photos in the subway.  I took the next shot with the camera pointed slightly upward:

Compare that with this adjusted shot:

Notice the difference?  The second shot is the same as the first except with a horizontal transformation in post-processing.  The top of the photo was compressed, the bottom elongated.

Now look at the edges of the second photo – notice how the pillars in the subway match the lines of the frame of the photo.  Which feels better to you?  To my eye, the second (post-processed version) is better.

Now the frustrating thing is that you sometimes want to shoot upwards to get other elements.  In particular, I wanted to get someone walking along the top corridor in the above shot.  So I shot upwards.  Well… sometimes you have to.  But keep in mind what it is doing.

Happy shoot!

J

What is the nature of a mirror? What is it’s essence? Mirrors reflect that which is outside of it. So its nature is “aboutness” or “otherness”.

A mirror is perhaps the greatest metaphor for consciousness. Our thoughts are about something else. They reflect the phenomena of the outside world. In fact, we build mighty maps of the outside world inside of our heads. We have mental maps of our kitchen, our bedroom and our office. When someone rearranges the furniture, the changes surprise us and our mental maps must adjust accordingly.

As a kid, I would lie in my bed at night trying to objectify my consciousness. Take my ego, put it into a glass container, stick it on the shelf and marvel at it from a distance. Introspection, looking back at oneself, was always fascinating. But I never really understood why. There was this strange reverberation I felt from these private mental games.

Where did this buzz come from? Using the metaphor of a mirror directly, one might say that introspection is the same as two mirrors facing one another. And everyone knows when a mirror faces another mirror… new corridors are opened up. Introspection is no different. Consciousness manifesting the reflection of itself creates infinite dimensions that we can explore. So in turn we have come to a different conclusion about the mind. Rather than being a flat mirror reflecting exterior phenomena and devoid of intrinsic essence, introspection is the action which turns the mind into an expansive universe with new spaces and regions. A fount of potential.

So how does this connect with photography? How did we get here? How many reflections did it take to get here? Let’s retrace our steps:

1. My mind recognized some reflective surfaces and told my arm to bring the camera to my eye and compose a shot.
2. Clicking the shutter allowed light to penetrate the emulsion of a 35mm wide film frame for a split second.
3. This exposed film was then subjected to chemicals which stopped its light gathering abilities and fixed the reflection of the light it absorbed in place.
4. The film was then scanned by a digital scanner and saved to my computer.
5. I uploaded the file to this website and now your eyes are absorbing the light from your LCD screens and your minds are simulating the reality of that fleeting moment I originally captured.

Phew! Each step is a new direction the reflection has taken and a further development from the original scene I saw. The original reality I witnessed moved from my mind to film to scanner to internet to your mind (and who knows what dirty places you will take it!).

So a photo is marked by reference just as consciousness is. Perhaps this is part of the reason we find photography so intriguing. When we look at our images, we get lost in a deep sea of reflections. Taking a photo of reflective surfaces only drives the point further.

Keep an eye out for interesting reflections… They will serve your photos well!

Happy (self-referential) shooting!

J

I really wish shooting color on the subway was easier.  I really do.  I know in your mind, you are asking yourself, “what’s the problem Jeremy?”  Well, the fluorescent lighting of the subway makes the photos come out green.  And now you’re thinking, “Illustrate that for me homeboy!”  Well, I only aim to please.

Here is an un-color corrected photo in the Lorimer station:

Image

Here is a version that I have color corrected (no other manipulations besides more magenta on the white balance):

Image

Notice the difference?  The un-corrected photo looks like it was tinted by nuclear farts.  It’s an awful, vomitous color.  But even the corrected photo still doesn’t look perfect and this just goes to show you that color correction cannot fix everything.  Why is this so frustrating?  Well the red in that photograph just provides a great example of some of the vibrant, saturated and synthetic colors present on the train.  People dress down in lilac purples, sun spotted old yellers and ferrari red bedazzled jumpers.  But capturing it in color… no matter how hard I try… just doesn’t work because of this light.

Here’s a photo of a guy I caught pissing in Union Square:

I just am never happy with the results of color in the subway.  This forces me to really focus on my black and white down in that rabbit hole of a transportation system.  Not that this is terrible… au contraire… I LOVE BnW!!  And in some ways I am happy that the crappy lighting forces me to shoot in monochrome.  Here are some fun ones I have taken recently:

Digital photos are always captured in color but can also be changed to BnW in post.  So remember, if you shoot film in NYC and want to shoot in the subway, shoot black and white!

Snappy Trails!

-j