BLOG.KEITHWILLIAMSPHOTO.COM

Blog(s) merged...

Keithwms — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:14:00 GMT

I just merged various blog entries from different sites. Unfortunately the comments do not seem to want to import to this site. Should you wish to view comments, let me refer you to apug.org.

Oh and I am on facebook now too. Aren't I thoroughly modern? I still get most of my kicks from very old photographic equipment, however! To wit, a recent large format (4x10") b&w shot from Barboursville ruins...

Photographic and Musical Composition

Keithwms — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:07:30 GMT

Do you hear music when you compose a photograph?

For those with the condition of sound-colour synesthesia, the association between the visible and auditory experience can feel quite literal: colours can be experienced as sounds and vice versa. My own favourite synesthete, Russian composer Alexander Scriabin, developed quite a rigorous theory around his own associations of sound with sight, complete with a coloured keyboard to confound his contemporaries.

For the rest of us, the association between sight and sound is not quite so literal. We may loosely associate certain sights with certain sounds. This can of course happen after years of training by exposure to cinema and television... think of sharks and BAH-bah-BAH-bah-BAH-bah...! We may find deliberately impressionistic musical pieces especially evocative, even though the actual impression they fix in our thoughts might vary from one individual to the next (alas, Claire de Lune still sounds nothing like moonlight to me; apologies to Mr. Debussy).

Those of us without full-blown synesthesia may associate certain sights with certain sounds, but the associations generally seem triggered by memories and past experience. In this sense the associations are probably not hard-wired into our thinking but rather learned.

However, at a deeper level than mere 1-to-1 association, at the more abstract level of Stieglitz' Equivalents, there are many common threads that unite photographic and musical composition. At its core, both kinds of composition are a new product- an expression of new thought recorded with the desire of providing new experience to the viewer or listener. The composition may be motivated by something experienced, but it is itself an original act. Composition (unlike duplication) is at the very least an attempt (however futile it may be, particularly to the beginner) to set original thoughts into actions. How do we compose photographs, and how do we compose music? Are there similarities in these acts of originality, and can we learn about one from the other?

I have compiled a minimal list of three compositional 'tools' that I believe may be common to musical and photographic composition; namely:

key signature (tonality, colour);
time signature (the structure of the rhythm); and,
tempo - how quickly the piece is typically performed, on average.

I will assert that these are the three characteristics of a basic musical composition- the three things that a musical composer stipulates before the original ideas can begin to flow and be notated to form the score.

Might these three musical ideas have direct analogies in photography?

Feel free to comment/suggest/dissent and add your own thoughts.

~~~

The key signature of a composition implies its tone scale- the select set of all possible tone combinations that it uses. To the photographer or other visual artist, tone and colour are perhaps the elements easiest to translate into musical terms.

This is not to say that specific keys impart specific visual sensations (although some composers e.g. Scriabin believed that they did). The analogy that I propose is rather more abstract than that. Musical compositions that roam freely through many keys are sometimes said to be chromatic or atonal... in other words, colourful while not specifically coloured.

Now, personally, I do not have any clear visual impression of colour in most pre-romantic classical work. For me, colour really begins with Debussy. Bach and Mozart and are almost entirely black and white to my ear (eye?), though I do feel occasional flashes of colour from some of their direct heirs e.g. Mendelssohn and Beethoven. N.b this is not to say that I perceive colour to be missing from the works of Bach and Mozart- there isn't anything I miss in their work at all, and I appreciate it deeply. It is complete... yet it is not coloured, to my ear. I appreciate it in the same way that I appreciate a classic black and white photograph. I tentatively ascribe my 'black and white' impression of Bach and Mozart to their general adherence to consistent key signatures.

An especially colourful and dynamic Scriabin piece (to me, and apparently to Mr. Schweizer):

~~~

I am a toe-tapper, a finger rapper... an avid player of pencils and such in the office. Musically un[res]trained though I may be, I nevertheless hear it most of the time, especially when it's quiet enough to hear it best. I assume that this inner, personal soundtrack is not uncommon, because I see a lot of other toe-tappers and finger rappers all of the time and I conclude that at the very least, we all have some sense of rhythm. Rhythm is the fundamental element of music... its single most basic and unifying element. From reggae to ragas to raps and classical symphony, it could be argued that our most basic expectation of a piece of music is that it have rhythm. To put it another way: a piece of music can have nothing more than rhythm and little else, and it's still considered to be music.

What is the rhythm of the photograph- its absolute most basic component? I think it is the frame, the aspect ratio, the border that contains the whole composition and gives it a place to be or a direction to go. I can propose a few illustrative examples:

4/4 common time (and similar time signatures): a squarish aspect ratio; solemn, quite motionless. Centered. Perfectly Balanced.
6/8: not square at all... rather more directional and rectangular. A wider scene rather than a single weighty subject. Motion implied due to imbalance in the frame. Rule of thirds and all that.

~~~

Tempo and timing are as essential to musical composition as they are to photography. Whether we imply motion by selecting a slow or fast exposure depends on the subject's motion and the rhythm against which the composition is set. For example, it is not enough to freeze a subject at 1/4000 sec to make the subject truly appear motionless; if imbalance of the subject is implied or perceived, then the subject will appear dynamic even in the shortest of exposures.

Some basic trends seem relatively clear to me: street and journalistic photography, which often attempts to highlight a 'decisive moment' quite often implies motion through the use of subtle motion blur and rectangular framing: in this genre, the subject is usually not fixed, static, at the center of a square frame. Of course, there are always exceptions, but when I think of dynamics and decisive moments, I think of composing to suggest that the subject might literally escape the frame! Landscape photography, on the other hand, tends to wish to highlight the timeless aspects of a scene, as if to confirm our faith that the scene will persist. Again, there are exceptions, but.... this is about broad generalization

~~~

There you have it, just a few ideas concerning the common threads underlying photographic and musical composition. What else might musical and photographic composition have in common? Comments... even dissenting comments... are welcome :rolleyes:

What's So Special About Black and White?

Keithwms — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:39:04 GMT

What's So Special About Black and White?

'Fine art' photography has historically been so dominated by black & white that some might conclude that artistic photography is black & white. Why is this so? After decades of technical refinements in colour photography leading to modern c41, E6, colour instant film processes and the digital technologies, why is black and white photography still perceived as the higher art?

~~~

Reasons abound, of course. One point of view that some may offer is that black and white photography is intrinsically more artistic, because it fundamentally departs [coloured] reality. Clyde Butcher, for example, asserts that "Color is a duplication; B&W is an interpretation." John Sexton has commented that "It's so bizarre to me that I can show you a picture that's black-and-white and you somehow think it represents reality. When's the last time you opened a window and it was black and white outdoors?"

Does the un-reality of black and white photography underlie the common view that it is more artistic? This blanket assertion seems somewhat less appealing once one considers that artistic painting ...in all its coloured glory... dates back much further than silver halide photography. Why in the paintings of Vermeer, Rembrandt, and Van Gogh and so many others, do we find so much... colour? (this despite the expense associated with gathering the pigments, as opposed to the widespread availability of stable black, grey, and white media in every fireplace!) Why did da Vinci invent in black and white, but paint in colour? Did all those guys just not get it, that black and white is intrinsically more artistic?!

~~~

Here is a colour photograph of an opening moonflower (taken on Fuji 64T), and a simple photoshop b&w conversion of the same photograph:

Are there different emotional effects and associations at play? I think so. I see the green and immediately recognize the subject as floral; I see the b&w and see more of an abstract landscape. Others have told me that the b&w image evokes a ladnscape... or even a nude figure! Certainly not something one could find in the colour image, I suspect!

~~~

In answer to the question of why black and white photography has gained so much favour, some may cite the longer history of the black and white craft, which extends back ~200 years to Joseph Niepce in the 1820s (or perhaps further to Carl Scheele's discoveries many decades earlier). Cast against that long history, colour photography is still an infant, even if one assumes that it began with James Clerk Maxwell's demonstrations of colour separation (~1860). Colour media for realistic depictions have not been widely and inexpensively available for as long as black and white media. It could perhaps be argued that a convenient means for accurately representing colours under arbitrary lighting conditions (i.e. different colour temperatures) dates back only a decade or so to the advent of colour metering and digital processing. Regarding the colour films: are they successful because they are literal in their colour renditions, or because they lend an intriguing un-reality to a scene? Will the widespread availability of digital media lead to a fundamental change in how we perceive colour photography? Might colour photography soon be seen as even less artistic than ever before, because it is more literal and "correct" than ever before?

~~~

Whether black and white photographic media are and will continue to be preferred for artistic pursuits can be fairly debated. Perhaps we simply haven't been doing colour photography long enough to realize the artistic possibilities; historically, the worth of the arts tends to be established over many centuries and not mere decades. One simply cannot assume that past arts will be equally appreciated in the future, nor that future arts will be appreciated now.

In any case, we are left with one undeniable fact: black and white photography just works. Why? It is clear that it tends to underscore the more abstract features of a scene, e.g. geometry and texture, which might otherwise be overwhelmed by colour. It is also worth noting that our scotopic vision is almost entirely monochromatic (not really black and white per se, but at least dehued in a similar fashion). Scotopic vision provides generally much lower acuity than colour vision, and is activated in low-light scenes- hence the almost monochromatic appearance of moonlit landscapes and the like. One of the interesting features of visual perception is how well the brain can process the almost monochromatic, faint, low acuity scotopic image and form an interpretation. Thus on a faintly moonlit night, a face can be recognized in the dark, a deer discerned crossing a roadway... but so too a branch can become a snake, or a field of grain can become a lake. Scale cues are more difficult to reconcile... the mind conjures up many extraordinary interpretations where clear information is lacking!

Perhaps, then, the way we see and interpret black and white is inherently different, at the anatomical level. Perhaps the brain has actually been trained, over millions of years or more, to rely more on broader interpretative and contextual and extrapolative thinking when confronted with a black and white image.

So... black and white photography just works. Why does it work for you? Does it matter that you know why it works? And can colour photography work at the same level?

From Iceland

Keithwms — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:20:00 GMT

Had a great time in Iceland in January (yes, January).

My intrepid dad entering a lava tube...

Yummy fish heads...

Intrepid co-adventurers Milo and Noah...

And a pan stitch of some falls at Thingvellir...

The Blue Lagoon, which is indeed blue...

A typical Icelandic cemetery scene, in the winter...

...and yours truly, fighting for his life (or something) at Gullfoss...

..whew, he somehow made it out of the falls! Try that, Bear Grylls, you bloody poof...

Ragnar Axelsson: Faces of the North

Keithwms — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:28:15 GMT

I didn't find a review on this gorgeous book online, so here is mine!

I recently went to Iceland in mid-winter and was fortunate to meet Ragnar Axelsson and collect his signature on this book, which is filled with remarkably effective b&w images from his ventures in Iceland, Greenland, and the Faeroe islands.

I won't attempt to try to put into words what is best expressed in the images, but I will just make a few observations. First of all, Ragnar's images are full of motion, leaving the viewer with the impression of being part of a dynamic scene. This is a rather different approach than one often finds in the landscape imagery of the north, which (IMHO) tends to have a museum-like, tripod-bound, static geometry. Ragnar uses a variety of techniques to build the feeling of transience into his compositions, thereby lending value to the specific moments he records. Supporting these effects are some fairly long exposures, unusual [albeit not contrived] tilts, beautiful small/medium-format film grain, and honest, contrasty renderings that let black be black, and white be white. There is a sense of available light doing what it does best: highlighting expressions.

I'll just note that, to me, the landscapes of Iceland are especially lyrical... and so too the language and the culture and the people. This sense of rhythm is found in each and every one of Ragnar's compositions.

What you should also know is that Ragnar really gets to know his subjects. He lives amongst them; he interacts with them on a sincere, human level. He experiences what they experience, and risks what they risk. The personal, story-like impact of his photographs reveal an investment in people and their condition. There is nothing remotely dry and aloof about what he is showing us.

Chatting with Ragnar, I learned that he has a new book coming out soon, roughly on the subject of how climate is changing in the far north. I gather that some of the the images are being picked up by Nat Geo, so let's keep our eyes open for the book and the surrounding articles. I asked Ragnar if he's coming over to the U.S. for a show and will report here if and when that happens.

In conclusion, Faces of the North is a must have. Five stars.

Here is another review with additional nformation on Ragnar's tools and techniques:

http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/10/...-of-north.html

Grain, tonality, format size and all that

Keithwms — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:29:27 GMT

How much is grain per detail (and tonal smoothness) a function of format size?

First, the film grain per area is a constant of format size. This is important.

We can estimate grain increase per one stop increase in required film sensitivity as ~2x. In other words, if you shoot a film at ISO 200 then there will be ~2x more grain per detail than the same shot at ISO 100.

Obviously this is a very rough approximation and a rather pessimistic one at that. There are many different kinds of film grain, many different developers and developing procedures... and there is no reason to expect a linear relationship which will certainly fail at ISO extremes. Still, this ballpark estimate seems reasonable because detail per grain is ultimately nothing more than a signal to noise ratio, and if we shoot at ISO 200, we do so because the signal is 2x weaker than it would be if we could take the shot at ISO 100. The development process is basically an amplification process, so I think it's reasonable to say that 2x weaker signal corresponds to ~2x weaker overall signal to noise ratio. Again this is just a ballpark estimate! Of course it will fail at ISO extremes an for certain films and developers etc.

Alright... if you buy that a one stop increase in ISO means 2x as much grain per detail, then you see right away that a jump in format size which roughly quadruples the film area will give the same detail per grain as a one stop reduction in film sensitivity.

Let us list the format sizes and the approximate frame areas; I will define the letters A,B,C, etc. to denote roughly quadruple area format jumps:

35mm: 24x36 mm = 863 mm^2 = "A"
645: 56x41.5 mm = 2324 mm^2 = 2.7*A
67: 56x70 mm = 3920 mm^2 = 4.5*A = B
4x5: ~12903 mm^2 = 3.29*B = C
5x7: ~22580 mm^2
8x10: ~51612 mm^2 = 4*C

So here is my simple conclusion. The following exposures will yield roughly the same detail per grain:

Equivalent detail per grain:
35mm @ ISO 400
=6x7 @ ISO 800
=4x5 @ ISO 1600
=8x10 @ ISO 3200

35mm @ ISO 50
=6x7 @ ISO 100
=4x5 @ ISO 200
=8x10 @ ISO 400

Do you believe it? Obviously this is very rough approximation based on many assumptions.

Converting RB-545i back for Fuji Quickloads

Keithwms — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:59:19 GMT

Disclaimer: this particular operation was on my rb67-545i back. A 545 holder which doesn't already fit on your rb won't fit any better after this operation! This operation is to make it easier to use Fuji quickloads with your545 back.

I have a Polaroid 545i back for my rb67, with which I have been shooting type 55. Now that 55 is leaving us :( and I have only a few boxes left, I'll just use my remaining 665 for the rb and run Fuji quickloads through the Polaroid back. Seems like it might get some use that way because I really like the compactness and one-at-a-time shooting convenience of the quickloads... in spite of their expense. Moreover, quickloads are very easy to travel with and process individually.

[Yes I realize that only a 7x7cm area on the 4x5 film will be exposed, and no I don't care ;) There's plenty of great information in that 7x7 cm square, I like squares, and if I want to shoot full 4x5 then I'll just use a 4x5... ]

Now, various sites indicate that running quickloads through a polaroid back should work, although the back allegedly doesn't hold the film as flat as it could. This hasn't been an issue for me; perhaps if I were using f/2 lenses with the rb then I might see it! :rolleyes:

Anyway, to test the back, I inserted a Fuji quickload sheet and found that it was indeed deploying, releasing and re-clipping correctly.

But, unfortunately.... the quickload end-clip was hanging up in the holder each time I tried to withdraw it. At that point, the only way to get the film out intact is to disassamble the whole back. :o Not good!

The solution is a very simple operation as follows:

First disassemble the 545i holder. Next remove the offending clip (it is held into the holder front in a very obvious way). With that gone, the holder looks like the first photo attachment.

Next it is important to file or dremel down the screw ends that protrude up through the front, because these can grab the quickload clip as you pull it out. (N.b. these may have been my culprit in the first place- you can diagnose the issue yourself by looking at any bend marks on your quickload clips). With the metal spring parts bent down and the screw tips dremeled smooth, the front look like the second attached photo.

That's all there is to it. Shoot quickloads and be happy. When you pull out the darkslide cover, just be sure not to pull too far! But it will grab the quickload clip correctly and withdraw as smoothly (with the R button down) as in a proper Fuji holder.

Another tip: if you really don't plan to use the back for polaroid processing again, why not remove the processing rollers etc to decrease the weight of the back.

P.S. If you have a general 545 back and want to shoot quickloads with it, just try it first, and if it doesn't work (clips hang or whatever), consider the simple operation above, which only takes a few minutes.

Attached Thumbnails

Christopher Beane's "Flower"

Keithwms — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:02:34 GMT

This blog is a review of Christopher Beane's new book, Flower.

Flower is a floral autobiography.

Beginning with traditional, abstract, black & white compositions in the 1990s, Beane's early works make reference to a number of noted photographers but also reveal how he developed his own eye for presenting unusual floral shapes and textures.

In the late 1990s, Beane left the b&w world behind and dove head-first into vibrant colour. In the words of Anthony Janson, who narrates the book: "Fortunately, in 1997 Beane began to experiment with color photography."

Fortunately is an understatement: right from the first few photographs in Beane's aptly titled "orgy" series, we see a whole new world of color within his macro subjects, and Beane's explorations quickly depart from whatever preconceptions you may have of floral macro photography. Beane's colour work is truly his own: creative and evocative in a manner unlike what one typically finds in the sensual photography of pistils and stamens and pretty petals. In his representations you find more abstract emotion, perhaps evoking flames and mysterious sea creatures... as well as gasp-worthy ultramacro depictions of familiar subjects.

The cover of the Flower is itself a flamelike depiction of tulips; fortunately, an unadorned version can be found inside (plate 40). The book continues through the evolution of his macro photography, with each subject a new step forward for Beane. After mastering a particular motif, Beane deconstructs and reinvents his approach and summons up entirely new perspectives, new ways to infuse form with colour.

While it is impossible not to marvel at the intricacies of his macro subjects, from the Coral Charm Peony (plate 51) to the sensual Bearded Iris Blue (plate 42), his latter work moves forward ever more progressively and ultimately departs the ultramacro realm in the direction of abstract art. Particularly striking to my eye are the Fritillaria (plates 127 and 128) which play with a reduced colour palette in an entirely new way, departing from the natural colours of the flowers themselves but somehow remaining true to them in abstract impression.

In addition to plate after plate of masterful 4x5 colour photography, the reader will find details of Beane's battle with stage-4 lymphoma, how this affected his mood and vision, and how he returned, triumphantly, to his craft. Beane's adventure is inspiring and not only in the visual sense.

I very highly recommend this book. It is truly inspirational and provocative.

Well you have to Start Somewhere....

Keithwms — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:17:00 GMT

Alright, let's begin with a revealing self-portrait...

I am Keith Williams and this is the first blog entry on my site. It is quite possible that I am the very last member of my generation to create a blog; what can I say, I stay busy.

I'll use this site for comments and brief essay on photography, and to discuss photography with my friends and colleagues.

Quick summary of my details: I am a 30-something physicist with a nanophysics research group. Apart from that I do photography... from digital small format through 8x10 large format. I use almost any kind of camera, but feel most productive with medium format rangefinders and field cameras. I enjoy 'traditional' darkroom black and white printing and toning, and am also working on hybrid processes that combine digital with traditional techniques.

Well that's about it for now!

Please refer to my online gallery...

keithwilliamsphoto.net

... yes it's a work in progress but should give you an idea of my photographic interests.

-KW