How to make photos like Vivien did?

Walk the streets and make photos for 60 years, and then we will see... BTW, I think that at times she was shooting sideways...
 
A little, not that much. Society has though and quite a bit of the feeling she gives is from the subjects themselves as well as her skill.
I think she had a gift, so you won't see too many people with that!
You could try buying a 1950-60's Rolleiflex slap in some Tri-x/HP5 and spend all your time on the street-you still may never have her eye.

That is what counts, not the film not the Rollei- she made the pictures !
 
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.
 
I believe what you're seeing is a combination of elements: medium format film exposed well, shot with good optics, processed correctly, scanned properly, and edited by someone with good skills to bring out the long tones of MF film.

It's no magic, just every step done with a good amount of skill. We get so caught up in the nitpik qualities of 2.8f vs. 3.5e, 6 element vs. 5 element, that I think we tend to lose sight of the big picture and putting all the steps together cohesively.
 
Takkun said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think she printed much. What your seeing is other peoples prints that they made using her negatives.
 
I think what is required is to shoot a lot and almost every day. From what I understand a lot of undeveloped film was discovered that only got processed when acquired by the person who bought the contents of the storage bin. In this regard Vivian was like Garry Winnogran except she shot 120 instead of 135.

I also agree with the above post that all the technically correct steps had to be performed to make superior images.

How many of us try to shoot as much as possible? How many of us concentrate our skill on developing each step to achieve good prints. I say it is mastery of fundamental skills. If anything it should otherwise be easier today to achieve like results with higher performance film, more advanced developers, and higher performance optics.

Cal
 
It's the old "How do I get to Carnegie Hall" joke. Practice. Get out there and shoot. Then print. Oh: and be intensely interested in your subject matter. No-one cares whether you used an M2, 3, 4, 5 or any other Leica, with or without a second or third generation Summicron, or a Rollei TLR, or a Hasselblad SWC/M.

Cheers,

R.
 
In fairness to the OP, the responses make it sound like the original question was "how can I be as good as Vivian Maier?" when in fact the question was "why don't I see images with that character being produced today?"

And yes, some of you DID respond to the question... ;-)

Randy
 
zauhar said:
In fairness to the OP, the responses make it sound like the original question was "how can I be as good as Vivian Maier?" when in fact the question was "why don't I see images with that character being produced today?"
Click to expand...
Dear Randy,

In which case the answer might be, "You're looking in the wrong places". First. there are damn' few photographers who are interested in their subject matter rather than in being Photographers-with-a-capital-P. No change there, of course. Second, there are damn' few photographers who are technically competent. No change there either. But there are photographers with both superb vision and great technical skill. One of the best I know personally is Raphael Schott, but unfortunately he doesn't have a web-site and all the usual self-promotional crap either. He earns (or earned -- I've not seen him for 18 months) a living as a newspaper photographer and does the good stuff for himself.

Cheers,

R.
 
zauhar said:
In fairness to the OP, the responses make it sound like the original question was "how can I be as good as Vivian Maier?" when in fact the question was "why don't I see images with that character being produced today?"

And yes, some of you DID respond to the question... ;-)

Randy
Click to expand...

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
 
To answer the question in a basic manner, make sure you are developing and exposing your negatives properly and printing gets a lot easier.
 
If I understand what Cal is trying to say, making good photographs, being a good developer and being a good printer are three different things, each skill takes a lot of time to develop properly and for one to become reasonably proficient in anything the idea is not to scatter your time around.
 
Not holding my work up to hers from a composition standpoint but here are a few with a Rollei in New York this year. I only shot a few rolls with the camera while there so this represents perhaps 1/4th of the frames - very lose editing. I'd also spend a lot more time scanning and processing if I were going to print them or put them in a book.

Now - not comparing the quality of the work based on subject or composition - I'm really curious how you would describe the difference between these photos and the 'intense film look' of her work.

Don't worry about my feelings or being harsh about what you see here - I'm putting these up as a straw man for discussion.







 
Lauffray said:
If I understand what Cal is trying to say, making good photographs, being a good developer and being a good printer are three different things, each skill takes a lot of time to develop properly and for one to become reasonably proficient in anything the idea is not to scatter your time around.
Click to expand...

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
 
zauhar said:
In fairness to the OP, the responses make it sound like the original question was "how can I be as good as Vivian Maier?" when in fact the question was "why don't I see images with that character being produced today?"

And yes, some of you DID respond to the question... ;-)

Randy
Click to expand...

To answer we'd need to know what 'an intense film look' is I think most of the intensity (if you can call it that) is down to the directness she used in her method, some is down to the WLF on the Rollei and a little to the film.

Like Brian above I'm not sure about intense, or film look is really. Brians street shots are good, I like people shots more.


Sultry by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Not sure if it has a film look or is intense; but it is HP5 film in a 1961 Rolleiflex! One thing's for sure I'm no VM although I advise everyone to buy a Brand new Rolleiflex TLR and 2000 rolls of Ilford HP5+ right now!

You'll never know until you try...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom