So I had the unique privilege of shooting one of our future Boutwell Studio brides in full traditional Japanese garb yesterday. I’ve never seen such beautiful Kimonos – such amazing detail and richness of fabrics… sorta makes the Haute Couture stuff that comes out of Paris look a little cheap by comparison (sorry, but it does). Anyway, I dragged the 8×10 up to Pasadena for the shoot and shot a half-dozen frames. One, there’s a part of me that likes the look of that medium when it’s done well, and two, I thought it would be an appropriate medium for a very traditional style of clothing. So here’s the last shot of the day, on 8×10 polaroid, which was my favorite of the large format stuff:
A couple thoughts on my experience, and on this image, and on the medium it was shot on. First, when I was in the car, on the way home, I was feeling like total shit about the shoot. I had the polaroids sitting in the passenger seat beside me, and I’d look at them once in a while when the light was red. I thought they were crap, and here’s why – no EDGE. No attitude, movement, etc. And furthermore, the somewhat ethereal quality that 8×10 Polaroids have just wasn’t showing through. I was actually going to swing by Camera West on the way home, and sell off all my 8×10 gear. Thankfully, they were closed by the time I got there.
But my frustration was abetted somewhat when I scanned this image this morning. I think there’s something about the way the polaroids themselves look that I don’t like. Scanned on the screen, and in reproduction, I like them. But I think the original prints look like ass. Weird. You’d have to be looking at both side by side to see what I’m saying. I think it’s probably that the original prints are on a heavy, glossy stock, and the surface and weight of the paper just seems to be at odds with the nature of the image. Polaroids are soft, ethereal… like they materialized out of the air. They are delicate, and the substantial, lustrous paper they come out of the processor on just kinda kills that. A little. Maybe I’m crazy.
Anyway, so I’m NOT selling my 8×10, but I don’t think I’m going to try to mix it in to shoots any more. It’s either all or nothing. And that’s because there’s a very different feeling to working with 8×10 and with an SLR. VERY different. Unless you have at least a couple assistants, shooting 8×10 polaroids is like a one frame every several minutes. And that’s if you’re going fast. Which is as it should be, since the stuff costs about $15 a sheet. So you go slow… the subject has to hold pretty much perfectly still once the camera is focused, because even at f/11, you have an inch or two of depth of field. They have to hold still for 10 seconds or so, while you close the lens, slam the film holder in, remove the darkslide, grab the cable release, and then make the exposure. So it’s a very still, meditative, formalistic kind of photo, enforced by the limitations of the equipment.
Shooting with an SLR, especially a digital one, is totally the opposite. You have shitloads of frames. Even in raw capture, my 5D will get upwards of 300 frames on a 4GB card. If the camera could keep up, you could shoot 3 frames per second for close to two minutes. So you dance around, you move, the subject moves, you shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. You catch little in-between moments and fleeting expressions. You aren’t tied to a tripod, so you constantly adjust your angle, you find dramatic perspectives, and you engage your subject and animate them. You toss out 100 or 200 frames for every real winner (and by that, I mean for every image that will end up, say, on your blog as one of the best from the shoot)
The problem is that, in trying to switch gears constantly between one medium and the next, you’re constantly killing the momentum you just had going. Going from 8×10 polaroids (even slower shooting than 8×10 sheet film) to a 5D is kinda like constantly trying to stop and start a semi-truck. It takes a while to get up to speed. Try this, if you’ve got a little time. Open up your favorite mp3 player, and load up some Slayer, or some Slipknot, or whatever heavy shit you have lying around. Load a whole album. Now go find your Enya, or your Vivaldi, or whatever you listen to while you do yoga or sleep or read the Pottery Barn catalog. Load that into the same playlist. Now rearrange the tracks so that they’re interwoven: Slayer-Enya-Slayer-Enya-Slayer-Enya, and so forth. Now listen to it. Fun, huh? Kinda makes your head explode. I imagine if I ever get into B&D, that’s what it will be like… pleasure/pain/pleasure/pain.
That’s what yesterday was like – two opposite extremes pulling at one another, and ultimately watering each other down. Won’t ever do that again. It made the digital worse because most of it looked like it should have been shot on 8×10 (because the mood on the shoot was static and still) and it made the 8×10 worse because I never got enough momentum going to finesse any particular shot and create that little bit of spontenaity that animates a photo.
Anyway, if you’re still reading by now (not likely), here are some of the digital frames that I shot. And yes, Haj was there, too… just liked the shots of Emika much more. And this is my stinkin blog :)
Edited to add this video – thanks Sean!
This is an interview with Alec Soth, who does a lot of personal work in 8×10. He has a few books out, and Niagara, the latest one, is pretty cool. Anyway:
scott neumyer
dude…you’re crazy! the digital shots are stunningly beautiful as well.
there’s definitely some truth in what you say about switching back and forth, though.
but certainly don’t beat yourself up over the digital shots. they’re still killer.
rock on!
Jun 26, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Jess
Oooh. I understand where you’re coming from. But the 8×10 was just perfect for this shoot. The polaroid looks like it could be a hand-colored carte de visite. Don’t get me wrong, your 35 mm is uber-strong too… But I just adore the feel of the large format with the costume and that hair!
Jun 26, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Sean Cayton
I managed to get through your post a couple of times. And I really enjoyed it.
You might also enjoy another missive on the qualities of an 8×10 view camera.
Alec Soth, Magnum photographer and master portraitist, describes it this way: It becomes this painting on an easel.
There’s a youtube interview. See it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEAxrmBz64
p.s. I like the polaroid more than the digital:)
Jun 26, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Calvin Tamás
The 8×10 is pretty incredible! It feels like an amazing art gallery piece that could be sold for $5000. The digital is great of course, but it seems less like art than the 8×10, or lets just say a different style of art. But I must say I have love what you have been blogging and can’t wait to watch you along your portfolio building process!
Jun 26, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Jeffrey
Doug,
I think your wrong. I know that it does not mean anything when you are the one evaluating your own work, and you are your own worst nightmare, but I still think your wrong. I love the 8×10 shot. I love that the bottom of the dress is blurred, it creates this materialized look. Her face is soft and less porcelain looking. I love the digi shots but have to say the 8×10 is better. I do appreciate reading your thoughts about a shoot. Now I know that I am not the only one who is crazy. Have fun in Figi.
Jun 26, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
angeline
wow doug, absolutely gorgeous. what else can i say?
Jun 27, 2007 @ 12:52 am
D Baker
I simply adore the 2nd digital shot. I am never worked in 8×10, and I guess I still in awe of digis.-db
Jun 27, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Matt Lange
Doug, love the work with the polaroid. I may be pretty retarded when it comes to this type of shooting, as I’ve never done it, but….do the polaroids come from the 8×10 camera or are their different cameras? If any of that makes sense…. is there a type of camera that you would recommend for shooting like that? I’d like to experiment and play with something like that. Great work again.
Jun 27, 2007 @ 7:15 am
admin
Ah, glad we could get a little art discussion going! Seems to be split opinions, and that’s kinda how I feel, too. In the future, I think it’s going to be just one kind of shoot or the other. 100%. Need a little more conceptual organization. I guess I’m just so hungry for doing something different that I end up trying to do too much at each shoot.
Matt – shooting 8×10 polas requires a few things. First, any old 8×10 camera will do. 8×0 (and larger) polas are unique because the film gets shot separate from the paper, then combined by a special processor. So you need special polaroid film holders, and you need a 8×10 polaroid processor. The film packs basically come with 15 sheets of film, and 15 sheets of paper. Shoot the film, then place the film holder and a sheet of paper in the processor, press the button, and after 60 seconds, peel apart.
Jun 27, 2007 @ 7:40 am
admin
Found a link on YouTube that basically shows the whole process:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XTnCSdI_yt0
-db
Jun 27, 2007 @ 7:52 am
danielchin.
Those are really beautiful photographs, Doug. All of them. I particularly love the DOF on that polaroid. Sometimes, I feel like we almost “need” that ancient stuff to slow down and be forced to make very deliberate decisions. It’s a good Yang to the fast-paced, reaction-based Yin that’s far more prevalent now. But I can see how switching between can cause a bit of temporary insanity.
Jun 27, 2007 @ 9:02 am
Kate Mefford
Thanks so much, Doug, for sharing so much detail and education with us. You are a true teacher, through and through! (For what it is worth, I read the whole post!)
I like both looks, but for different reasons.
Also, can’t wait to see the vid from Seattle!
Jun 27, 2007 @ 9:14 am
david baxter
you’re an inspiration! incredible talent!
Jul 01, 2007 @ 8:26 am
jen
wow! those shots are breathtaking!
i am a blog stalker, but had to come out of lurking just to comment on those amazing shots! you are VERY talented!!!! and an inspiration! thanks for sharing!
Jul 05, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Ann
I love these! And the Polaroid… wow, it’s simply beautiful. Great job!
Jul 12, 2007 @ 12:57 am