It's hard to take photography "seriously" any longer. There is so much of it. Some of it is "good." But, by and large, it is insipidly ubiquitous.
No matter. I think I like it all. I like the images that "use" photography in manipulated forms or big, created things that take a very long time to make. But I like snapshots and vernacular images, too. As much. Maybe more.
What matters, really, is not whether it is art or not. Who cares, and whose to say? What matters on a personal level is that it is fun. Photography is fun. Making graven images of the extant world. It is fascinating. The camera "sees" things that we don't. It is surprising.
The worst photos I ever make is (are?) when I am trying to hard. Later, though, after I have the image, I spend a lot of time "fixing" and manipulating what I have. But that is just aesthetics. In post, I want to make the image look the way I want it. That is not photography. That is something else.
The ubiquity of photography, of course, comes from the ease with which we can now make a picture. Digital. I don't mind. I like phone photography fine. And any video from any camera now beats the hell out of VHS. That was photography's equivalent of polyester.
My deep dive into Saul Leiter's work has been instructive. The old days, the old ways. I was first attracted to his color work. From the moment I saw it, I was a fan. Then came the release of his black and white work, and I was. . . not so much. Hardly at all, really. The books that came out were largely about his nudes. I didn't think them very good. Writers and critics talked about their intimacy. OK. I have troves of "intimate" photos.
Now, however, I recognize something more. I took one of his photos and colorized it.
Voila! See the Rothko? See the Mondrian? Even in his "intimate" photos, he was concerned about something else. There is the Bonnard influence, as is so often repeated, too.
These weren't snapshots. Leiter wasn't just taking pictures. He was making them.
Sometimes. Often. Not always. There are plenty of photos that simply record the scene, too, I think.
I had plans when I left my mother's house late yesterday morning. The Saturday long walk, some "sightseeing." But when I got home, I had a question that was bugging me concerning what I am trying to uncover about Leiter, so I went to the computer. It was maybe noon-ish. When I came to, it was two-thirty. Cloudy. If I was going to get in that walk. . . .
But I wanted to see something. So many cameras and lenses, I "lose" them which terrifies me. I wanted to put the 135mm Summilux lens on my Leica R5 SLR. The camera has been sitting for maybe years now. Not sure. The lens has been adapted for my Fuji GFX and was in the carry bag. Where the hell was the bag? Moments of panic. It was in the camera bag, alright, just not the one I thought. I pulled things apart and put them together, and I looked through the viewfinder. Oh, wow. Cool. There was film in the Leica, so I made a few photos around the house. How old was that film? I had taken twenty photos sometime. It was Tri-X bw film. I wanted to shoot color, so I went looking here and there. It took a while, but I found some. I'd finish up the black and white and put in the color. I looked at the clock. Three. There was no way I was going to take the long walk and still make photos, so I decided to combine the two. I would take my camera and walk in Gotham. I'd take the Xterra. I still hadn't driven it more than a few miles. This would be the test to see if it was truly fixed now. I grabbed the camera. I grabbed my phone. I would need it if my car broke down.
On my way to Gotham, the car not overheating, I stopped along a stretch of road that caught my eye. I don't get around town much anymore, and so things I once passed through now look "strange." I parked the car, grabbed my camera--and oh shit. I didn't bring the film. I had only a few shots left on the roll of Tri-X. Piss. . . you know the drill. Still, I walked around and looked through the viewfinder. I saw things I'd never seen before, and I was excited. Within a few minutes, I'd shot through the roll. That was it. What now?
I decided to stop at the grocers to pick up the makings of the dinner I would cook for mother and myself. It was O.K. It was almost time to get back and I still had to shower. I took a different way to the grocers just to "see." Everything did look stunningly new. I wanted to photograph everything. In one of those triplex rental units, a group of young tatted kids, two girls in terribly short cut offs, and a shirtless boy, all "drug skinny," were walking across the small sand and weed yard in front of their door. I wanted to yell, "Hey, kids. . . ," but I didn't have any film. Good thing because I would not have done it anyway.
When I got the store, a second revelation hit me. I hadn't brought my wallet, either. Piss, shit. . . you know the drill.
Back home, I unloaded the Tri-X. I would develop it tomorrow. But maybe I had another camera with black and white film that I could shoot up and develop with it. So I went looking. I had bought an old Canon EOS 1 film camera some years ago on eBay, with the kit lens, for $35. I'd used it some, not a lot, but it was a real pip. And it was terriboly loud. It was definitely not a stealth camera. After each loud shutter click, the camera gears auto-advanced the film with an incredible whirr. I'd used it a few times, as I say, but not for quite awhile. I went to the closet to look. Yup. There was film in it, so I grabbed it up and looked for the Canon 85mm lens. It, too, was adapted for the GFX, so I knew where it was. I put it on the EOS. Hell yea. I'd finish up the roll tomorrow and develop the two together. No telling what was already on the roll.
Oops. It wasn't Tri-X. Different films. Different developing times. It's always something. By now it was really time to head back to mother's. And I still had to grocery shop. I didn't have time for a shower.
It is nice not looking at the photos I made right away. Digital cameras can be nerve wracking. Take a picture and peep. Take a picture and peep. I'm going to stick with film for a bit. Probably until I develop the film and realize that I shot 36 frames without anything that is good. Or after I decide to scan the film which takes a long time, especially now that, for reasons unknown to me, the software/scanner will quit after two frames. I can't figure out why. Is it the scanner, the software, or the very, very old Mac computer needed to run the software?
You know the drill.
I did a lot of wonderful pictures in the days before digital. That is when I fell in love with photography. It was fairly technical. Most people would take a few pictures a year with a snapshot camera and have the film developed at a drugstore or a Photomat. They were printed poorly on shitty photo paper. The resolution was awful. Us photographers, though, with our expensive cameras and darkrooms. . . oo-la-la. Nobody complained about you taking pictures back then. Nope.
Leiter's work has inspired me again. I'll go out a-walking in a little while with the film cameras. No worries. I won't know what the pictures look like for awhile. Neither will you. But eventually, maybe, magic.
Or not. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of pictures. The thing is to remember--photography should just be fun.





















