How to make photos like Vivien did?

[stompyq]

ok well to me only the lady looking at flowers and the bike were worth the shots....
the composition on the first isn't great and the tones need more time, to make the blacks more black if that makes sense to you?

actually, that last photo of the city is a perfect example of what I mean. your last buildings and the skyline disappears into a white nothing.

I like the ladder shot.

 

[Brian Legge]

to make the blacks more black if that makes sense to you?

Thats interesting. I generally try not to have too much go totally black and usually try to retain details in shadow unless I specifically want it gone. Similarly, I prefer to keep detail in the sky. The last shot is an example of being lazy with scanning. If I wanted to keep detail in the sky, I would have had to scan multiple times and composite the results. There was a hint of detail in the negatives but I wasn't able to keep the full tonal range and get it in.

Perhaps thats part of the difference then between older work and what people see online? More volume which means less time spent getting it perfect?

Edit: In addition, looking at prints online, we all have displays which are calibrated differently which makes consistent presentation even more difficult than it would be in print.

 

[lcpr]

How do you make photos like Maier? Simple: shoot often, then wait 50-60 years before looking at them gain so what was once familiar looks alien, exotic, romantic even. The passage of time always helps.

And since everyone is posting their own squares, I'll throw my hat in the ring too:

I used the tube a lot over the last three years!

 

[Pioneer]

Just a couple of quick observations.

One, perhaps it is my computer screen, but the pictures you have shown look a bit over exposed. Most of Vivian's work has much more detail visible in the highlights.

Two, Vivian used settings that had quite a bit of depth of field.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I think you'd have to isolate yourself from other people and live a very quiet private life like she did, for 20-40 years, and then maybe your photos would get more "intensely film-like".

If you met her back then you'd have probably thought she was a nutter with bad breath.

 

[charjohncarter]

How many Bo Jacksons were there in the 20th century. She had something that had a slight edge on everyone else. But I do agree if you shoot for 60 years a roll a day you will have something maybe not Vivien but enough.

One film that I used to use (you asked about older films) that I thought was really great (in 120) was Verichrome Pan. It had three layers which were normal speed, high speed and low speed. This gave great highlights and shadows forever. It was not as sharp as other films in 35, maybe that is why it died. But in 620 or 120; bliss.

 

[froyd]

There is something about the passage of time, as lcpr note.

However, until the OP comes back to the thread and elucidates us on his choice of words to describe Maier's work, I offer the observation that most of today's taste has shifted toward higher-contrast images, more "etched".

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137117

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137117

A few points.
There are two sets of V.M photos..
I have seen a few of one set.
The exhibition at Stephen Bulger,Toronto was stunning!
That is why there are two books.One book is way better.
The one at Stephen Bulger. A book that is superb..
The negatives were scanned and printed by a great craftsman..

We have no idea of what VM had in mind, when she shot.
From what was said, very few of her negatives had been printed..One does not know!
The fact there were few or only contacts, doesn't mean there never had been prints.
I thought some of the children shots may have been her charges..Those families may have prints..

How to achieve that "intense" look.
Not easy. Film is thinner and different.
VM did use good pro processing for her negatives.

Shooting regularly helps. TLR will really slow one down.
Using smaller apertures for more depth of field.

Will that make it happen?
I don't think one needs the TLR, film.
Sorry. It needs the "eye", the "sense", the "feeling".
As HCB said, "You must smell it.."
Study VM photos.See if you can see an actual print.

 

[mszargar]

I just received Maloof's book on Vivian, and I think I understand what he means. Looking at the prints, my first thought was "Hey, did old films have more silver halide or what? Have films, like other daily products, gradually got thinned out on quality?".

Only my second thought was "I wish we would reflect as much about a single shot we want to make as she did...".

I guess the second question is related to experience and technique. Yet, the richness of tones in some of the photos is just extraordinary as compared to what we get from today's films after a lot of care and attention.

Btw, I saw an interview with Maloof (i.e. the guardian of the collection) on a local news channel, and he seemed to be scanning the photos, at least those of the website, on a v700 or a v750. I guess many of us here have access to that kind of equipment, or better...

 

[johannielscom]

Jerome,

Your understanding is correct. I look upon each step as an art form. It is a rare photographer who can shoot, develop and print like say Bernice Abbot or W. Eugene Smith, especially today. I look upon being a shooter, developer and a printer as three levels of craftmanship.

Perhaps because I try to frame my photography as art the craftmanship is very imprtant to me. Printing is the final product and why would I want to compromise my quality if I consider myself an artist? This is why I have a day-job.

Also know that I do photography to please myself, and it is not important to me to please others. This really annoys others, so I must be doing something right. LOL.

Cal

Beautiful post. I can relate 100%. Thanks.

 

[noisycheese]

How to make photos like Vivien did?

No one but Vivian Maier can make photos like she made. My goal is to make the best images that I am capable of (that is a big enough task in and of itself) rather than to try to emulate or copy another photographer's work. That's just my approach; it seems to be working so far...

I think what the OP means is the visual aesthetic of the prints, rather than the subject matter. And I'm curious too. They just have a richness and depth of tone I rarely see in contemporary work.

Perhaps that's because her images were made on film and the vast majority of contemporary work is done on sensors?

Also the fact is that the film of Maier's era was of a different chemical makeup than is today's emulsions. Tri-X v.1956 was a vastly different emulsion from Tri-X v.2013 (if she indeed shot with Tri-X)...

 

[Darthfeeble]

Does anyone know if the pictures we are seeing on the web (and consider that too) are scans of her negatives or scans of her prints? Do we know if she developed/printed herself or had it done? I thought I read that the find was in a storage shed of some sort and was all prints. Wouldn't that have an impact on her "look" more than the film?

 

[zauhar]

Randy,

I still contend that if you want to be a good photographer one must shoot a lot. I also think that the "character" you mention is also a product of shooting a lot.

Perhaps I have been projecting into my post because like Vivian and Garry I have concentrated on image capture and development for the past 5 years without much regard to printing. I know my self imposed standards seems to annoy some people who want to see prints. This particularly annoys my girlfriend who does not understand my process. LOL. BTW this also annoys my friends who are photographers. Double LOL.

Printing is the last step after learning how to make good exposures and optimizing development, but printing is where photography gets expensive, especially if you have high standards. Because Vivian concentrated on image capture primarily with little regard to printing perhaps the original poster should of stated in the title "How to make negatives like Vivian did?"

Cal

Well put, but then how much is owed to whoever made her prints? No one looks at her negatives in a gallery, and she had no concept of scanning them.

I suspect her negatives are not too difficult to print, I don't have the sense that a lot of 'adjustment' went into those - the light is too good in every corner. But that is my gut evaluation, you may see it differently.

Randy

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137117

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137117

No! The storage boxes were all negatives, with some contacts.
M may have never made any prints..except contacts.
or if she did, maybe for some of the families she worked for..
Photography was way more expensive, in VM's time.
I do wonder about the high grade equipment.
Rolleiflex and Leica. I don't think any 35mm has been shown.

 

[peterm1]

Sometimes I think its partly due to the distinct shortage of time machines in my part of the world.

When I look at images made by the likes of Vivienne Maier or Saul Leiter I am looking into the past. The street scapes the cars, the clothes are all different and exotic.

Whereas when I make images the people and streets I shoot are just the people and streets I see everyday. So they seem a little boring to me.

Perhaps its a case of giving it 60 years or so and your images (and who knows maybe mine) will be considered just as interesting and meritorious as Vivienne's.

Lets hope.

 

[mszargar]

Troves of negatives, and yes, these are negative scans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI - Look at 3:20 - 3:50

Apart from a Leica and a Rollei, I see a Fuji (or Voigtlander) as well as an Exacta and a Contarex among her cameras: http://www.vivianmaier.com/research/vivian-maier/

That's quite a collection!

By the way, she did process her own films in her bathroom...

 

[MIkhail]

What i dont get is: why try to be like somebody else? I would think its not a good thing even if by chance, but to TRY to be like somebody else, replicate somebody.... I saw picture in gallery, replica of Martin Parrs iconic image... Everybody congratulate the author on this resemblance. I personally would never deliberately shoot something so obviously done already. I dont get this.

Perhaps its a case of giving it 60 years or so and your images (and who knows maybe mine) will be considered just as interesting and meritorious as Vivienne's.

Lets hope.

With respect, I really don't mean to offend you... it will not.
Times when photograph was a value by itself are gone. One has to go much further than that to be interesting now, let alone 60 years forward.
It is my strong believe that now you have to develop your niche, your shtick if you will. Simple shooting of crowds of people on a street will not do it.
If you look at anybody who's is worth anything in photography now (I am not talking generally about "application photography" like wedding and such, of course, but it happens there to) they have their angle. One shoots sports with Holga, another portraits of huge size, third- black dn white and colors afterword’s, etc., etc.,... I believe that is more, much more important to find your own angle than to become a second Vivian Meyer, Wingorand ... (who needs second anyway?) Again, no disrespect, it's just what it is.

 

[peterm1]

What i dont get is: why try to be like somebody else? I would think its not a good thing even if by chance, but to TRY to be like somebody else, replicate somebody.... I saw picture in gallery, replica of Martin Parrs iconic image... Everybody congratulate the author on this resemblance. I personally would never deliberately shoot something so obviously done already. I dont get this.




With respect, I really don't mean to offend you... it will not.
Times when photograph was a value by itself are gone. You have to go much further than that to be interesting now, let alone 60 years forward.
It is my strong believe that now you have to develop your niche, your shtick if you will. Simple shooting of crowds of people i=on a street will not do it, I think.
If you look at anybody who's is worth anything in photography now (I am not talking generally about "applicational photograpy" like wedding and such, of course, but it happens there to) they have their angle. I beleive that is more, much more important than to become a second Vivian Meyer (who needs second one anyway?) Again, no disrespect, it's just what it is.

No offence taken of course. I was being a little tongue in cheek in my reply. I agree that any old images in the street will not do. I see too much bad street photography to believe otherwise.

What I meant is that assuming images are good (and lets not debate what that means right now) even if they are excellent its seldom I find street photos that are as interesting as the best ones made 60 years ago (give or take). Time gives them a certain "something" that they otherwise cannot get simply because its a window on another world.

Or as the old adage goes............... "They sure don't make nostalgia like they used to!"

 

[MIkhail]

Time gives them a certain "something" that they otherwise cannot get simply because its a window on another world.

Or as the old adage goes............... "They sure don't make nostalgia like they used to!"

I think the problem with this: huge jump in visual communications, or, as they say, “paradigm shift” ;-) Image is not king any more, not a unique thing, with the wide spread of simple means of taking that image. It happened not now, the wide spread of instagram and IPhones is not the one to blame, I think. It happened 20-30 years ago, if not more. That’s exactly what made artists such as Jeff Wall and like, turn into creating images by setting up the stage, rather than taking them randomly, waiting for something happen by chance.

In other words, the old notion “okay, you learned the language, now let's hear what do you have to say?” is important now like never before.

 

[mszargar]

I don't think street photography has ever been an easy sell. When Kappa visited Cartier-Bresson's exhibition and heard from him that he does surrealist photography of everyday life he gave him a piece of advice: Do whatever you want to do, but never tell anybody what you think it is. Tell them you do photojournalism, tell them you do documentary, because once you are branded in a different way, it is difficult to attract attention. Of course Cartier-Bresson had art training and knew what he was doing, but still he says this is one of the most valuable pieces of advice he has ever had. At the time, I am sure, there were many other photographers that did other types of photography and had an easier life. But I don't think we remember many of them as well as CB. There is a certain aesthetics in his work and a certain human view that is unparalleled, even today. I guess if somebody today gets to that kind of visual language that starts from style but cuts deep into meaning, he or she will find a place in the contemporary photography as well. What I see in Maier's photos is her own peculiar way of seeing the world which bridges urban and humanist photography and has certain recurring visual elements that go hand in hand with her views on the society. In that sense I don't think her shots are interesting because they show extinct and exotic stuff. I am sure she would be able to go to a street shoot on the streets of New York today and come back with pretty amazing stuff...