Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
One thing I see clearly demonstrated in her work and behavior is her passion for creating and making these images. The circumstances and mystery seem to add up to create ambiguity to form a mystic. The homelessness towards the end of her life seems to add an exclaimation point. Even though Vivian died in obscurity, the legacy that she created lives on.
There is a suggestion that Vivian identified with the underclass and the poor. To me this makes sense. I think of her story as being one of artistic dispair, yet full of life, with a happy ending (having a legacy).
Cal
Exactly...
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
It seems to me that even when Vivian could not afford to develop her film that she continued to shoot. How can this not be seen as a body of work?
Cal
It could be she liked the act of photographing more than the finished results... at times, we can both relate to that. There's just something about getting to know your city while photographing that we can relate to.
Pioneer
Veteran
She died before being discovered and so far her written work has not really provided a lot of insight into what she intended. The only thing left are some excellent pictures. Lots and lots of them. It seems that we are left to decipher her life and her intent through her visual record.
In my book that qualifies as a "body of work."
In my book that qualifies as a "body of work."
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
Certainly what you write could be true, but perhaps economics comes into play why so few prints exist. The references to being drawn to the poor I think is a projection of her identity of being economically oppressed.
Cal
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
This is not a 'knock' on Vivien, whatsoever.... I love her work. I bought the book. But:
• I wonder how compelling those photographs would have been if they had been seen at the time of capture.
• Time and nostalgia are significant components in their appeal today. Not to mention the story of her 'exposure.' I could walk around NYC or Chicago and snap pictures every day for the next five years. I probably wouldn't like any of them as much as i like seeing images from the 40s-60s, because those older photographs have the benefit of historical context, and the 'novelty' of 'foreign-ness.' But, i could go to Bolivia or Ecuador or Peru, possibly, and take photographs that have a similar feeling of 'vintage.'
• To make photos "like Vivien did" now? Use an old lens, and a classic film and developer. Eliminate modern elements in the compositions — clothing, cars, etc. "PhotoSmith's" portrait above is a good example. You can't tell when that image was made. I don't know if it's Vivien-ish, but i like it.
• I wonder how compelling those photographs would have been if they had been seen at the time of capture.
• Time and nostalgia are significant components in their appeal today. Not to mention the story of her 'exposure.' I could walk around NYC or Chicago and snap pictures every day for the next five years. I probably wouldn't like any of them as much as i like seeing images from the 40s-60s, because those older photographs have the benefit of historical context, and the 'novelty' of 'foreign-ness.' But, i could go to Bolivia or Ecuador or Peru, possibly, and take photographs that have a similar feeling of 'vintage.'
• To make photos "like Vivien did" now? Use an old lens, and a classic film and developer. Eliminate modern elements in the compositions — clothing, cars, etc. "PhotoSmith's" portrait above is a good example. You can't tell when that image was made. I don't know if it's Vivien-ish, but i like it.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
VM worked as a live-in nanny for 40 years. I believe reading somewhere she had one day a week off. Not a lot of time to learn printing in the darkroom since her passion was photographing. I haven't read anywhere who or where she went to to get prints made from her negatives. I doubt she printed them herself once she retired, as she was living on Social Security. Some of the children she took care of bought her an apartment later in her life. There were about 1,000 prints discovered when her work was first found.
lcpr
Well-known
Overexposed or are the highlights blown? Because if it's the latter, I like to place the highlights as close to the edge of the histogram as possible since I prefer having a clear white and black points in my scans - they may look blown out depending on the screen.
As for your second point, true... but usually in the bright light of midday. There are many examples of Maier using shallow DOF.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Histograms don't exist for film and wet prints. Maybe this tells you something.
Cheers,
R.
lcpr
Well-known
What about the zone system? One could make an argument that the histogram is the digital abstraction of that.
As an aside, most of us view most of our images on screens, in fact screens were the medium that introduced the world at large to Maier.
Kwesi
Well-known
And there in lies the problem " you would be "snapping". She didn't "snap" her images. She made them. The time period has very little to do with their raw emotive power
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Para 1: Not really.
Para 2: What of it? A screen is at best third-rate. Proper prints are first rate. Does this tell you something?
Cheers,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
To my eye they seemed a bit over exposed, but it could certainly be how my small laptop screen is rendering the image.
While you are right that Ms. Maier's work does show examples of shallow depth of field occasionally, it is not typical from what I have seen. Besides, with medium format it can sometimes be challenging to avoid it entirely. But I do find that the majority of her frame, and certainly all parts of her subjects, were clear and sharp.
Pioneer
Veteran
While I agree that time and nostalgia may have been what made her story interesting initially, but her work was exceptional to start with. I do believe, as someone else already said, that she could walk around today and be just as good.
I do love the prints. I know that they were scanned and then printed. Asian Offsets was the company that did the prints and binding for Street Photographer, and they did do a terrific job. There was probably some digital manipulation that was done, but I do believe that her negatives made that work easy.
As a small example, just look at the image of the little boy playing at the edge of the sidewalk in his coonskin cap. That image is extremely simple but full of humanity. It is also sharp as a tack in all the areas that count. And her exposure is dead on the money. The strip of fur along the top edge of the coonskin cap is at the very point of blowing out, yet the deep shadow of the dirt under his arm shows the detail of a small patch of grass. That picture could have been made anytime, today or 60 years ago, either way it is still a great image.
lcpr
Well-known
1) Care to elaborate?
2) Of course, prints > screens any day, but Maier's scanned negs still look different to say, my own scans. It's a combination of film+developing+scanning+processing, and each link in that chain contributed significantly to the final result. It's highly likely that the prints in the Maloof/Maier book are digital scans of the negatives with more work done on them. Now, "What of it?" you ask - well as I said, most of us probably got to know Maier's work via a screen, and from what I could tell, Maloof used a V700 for the initial batch he posted on flickr groups. Yet again, the scans looked different, which means that your assertion that just because Maier had wet prints done in her time isn't actually pertinent since our exposure to Maier has mostly been through a digital medium - unless you've seen one of the many shows of Maier's of course (but then you have to ask the question again, are they inkjet prints from scans or real wet prints?).
39 out of the 100-odd photographs in the Maloof/Maier book have DOF that is similar or shallower than the examples of my own work (not that I'm trying to mimic her at all by emphasising this point). I bet if 50's/60's Vivian Maier somehow found herself in the same places I was in with the same Rollei, same film and the same light, she'd end up using a similar DOF. I wouldn't say that shallow or deep DOF typified her style, but rather she chose whatever felt right for a scene. For people and details Maier seemed to err towards a shallower DOF - but as you said, not so shallow that the subject wasn't clear - and for scenes with more prominent geometry she went for a deeper DOF.
Pioneer, I'm interested to hear if this reprocessed version of my last shot is any better, the left shot is the one I posted earlier, on the right is a version where I didn't push the whites as hard:
rolfe
Well-known
There are lots of posts here that are non-responsive to the OP, which is, paraphrasing --
"Why do these pictures look different and more intense in the midrange than contemporary ones made with the same or similar film and equipment."
1. These are clearly expert scans (probably drum scans) made by those at the top of their craft.
2. In the 1980's, when the price of silver went through the roof, all the film manufacturers seriously reduced the amount of silver in their emulsions. We were assured that "there was no difference". Maybe, maybe not.
"Why do these pictures look different and more intense in the midrange than contemporary ones made with the same or similar film and equipment."
1. These are clearly expert scans (probably drum scans) made by those at the top of their craft.
2. In the 1980's, when the price of silver went through the roof, all the film manufacturers seriously reduced the amount of silver in their emulsions. We were assured that "there was no difference". Maybe, maybe not.
Pioneer
Veteran
Pioneer, I'm interested to hear if this reprocessed version of my last shot is any better, the left shot is the one I posted earlier, on the right is a version where I didn't push the whites as hard:
This seems to be a bit off topic but I will make a couple of comments.
By de-emphasizing the whites your blacks are also less black. With this small reduction in contrast you gain back some of the mid-tones in your image and you can actually see texture in several areas where it was not obvious in the first image. The picture is now a little less "in your face" but it is more pleasing and, to me, more interesting.
But please understand, I feel that too many people today are trying to differentiate their work by amping up the contrast. I have been known to do this myself. This is easy to do with Photoshop and is frequently the first adjustment that people want to make when the program opens your picture. This usually just destroys the texture and tonal range available. Sometimes this is ok, but most times it just ruins a good picture in my opinion. Then we ask..."why don't my prints look like (insert the name of the artist of your choice)?
I find this trend interesting. If you study the images of most of the masters we admire, any contrast inherent in their pictures is naturally part of the image. Ms. Maier's pictures are that way. Her picture of the older woman in her backyard seems contrasty until you realize it is only because the entire scene is a contrast. Compare the whites in other areas of the picture with the whites in the woman's blouse and her silver hair. There is no difference. The contrast is in the image of a well dressed, elderly woman, standing amidst old storm windows, paint splattered ladders, and other debris. The contrast, as well as the interest, is built in; it does not depend on bumping up the whites.
I hope I have not offended, that has not been my intent. I really don't feel I am the right person for this. There are others on this forum who are far more capable of providing you with useful feedback.
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Did they? If so, it would not have been due to the silver price, the Hunt silver price juggling happened in the seventies, and had already ended in a price crash in 1980 that brought the silver price down below former levels. The next big technological change in black and white was the introduction of T-Max, in 1986. Most other black and white film makers did not follow until (or after) the end of the decade, and did not invest much into "dead" black and white film until after Kodak shocked them with T-Max - the eighties were a decade of massive developments in colour film. So the silver content, T-Max in the second half of the eighties aside, will have been quite constant across that decade.
Besides, I can't say that I can observe a change to the worse in professional black and white prints across the eighties - if any, they look less flat and more dramatic than older prints. Which, fashion aside, can probably be attributed to the increasing use of electronics in cameras and in the lab more than to changes in film technology - the exposure accuracy doubtlessly improved on all sides.
What's more, the silver content of unprocessed film has no relation to that of the processed negatives - the permissible density of (and hence the amount of silver in) negatives is constant, a requirement of the print process. Older film simply was more wasteful, with more silver ending in the fix, as a greater volume of the silver crystals was unaffected by exposure.
Ansel
Well-known
I dont see any real difference between pics taken today with a Rolleiflex and Tri-X....