Fred Picker, and being a serious photographer . . .

A

Anthony

Guest
Here's something he wrote in 1979.

Can you load and develop film better, cleaner, faster than anyone? Is your darkroom as neat and well organized as, say, mine? Are your negatives meticulously filed and are your proofs as elegant as most people's fine prints? Gan you set up a tripod, mount, level, and focus a camera in 30-60 seconds? Does each negative jacket contain the date of the last printing and the materials, exposure, and procedure used? Do you own a dry mount press? Do you use only equipment and materials that will make the best possible pictures of what you want to photograph regardless of any consideration of cost, weight,
convenience, etc?

That's sounds good, I guess . . . In Amadeus, Salieri burned with rage that Mozart could compose so brilliantly - "a lustful, boastful, infantile boy"; while Salieri, being humble, generous, chaste, respectful, and modest - paled in comparison.

In college, the best photographer there - Alex - slept until noon quite often, hand-held a 6x6 Bronica,, his darkroom habits were somewhat sloppy, he'd roll his eyes when I'd technically advise him, and he thought Fred Picker's ideas were consummately silly. Alex was a good guy, not boastful or obnoxious, he just had couldn't be bothered with dogma. And he made stunning pictures - everything he photographed possessed that wonderful, strange, otherworldly quality we're all after. He'd photograph the most pedestrian things and turn them into a metaphor somehow . . . he was a natural, with brilliant insight. It took me years to understand how this could be possible.

Maybe I still don't know.

Comments?
 
Anthony said:
Here's something he wrote in 1979.

Can you load and develop film better, cleaner, faster than anyone? Is your darkroom as neat and well organized as, say, mine? Are your negatives meticulously filed and are your proofs as elegant as most people's fine prints? Gan you set up a tripod, mount, level, and focus a camera in 30-60 seconds? Does each negative jacket contain the date of the last printing and the materials, exposure, and procedure used? Do you own a dry mount press? Do you use only equipment and materials that will make the best possible pictures of what you want to photograph regardless of any consideration of cost, weight,
convenience, etc?

It seems to me that a person who can do all these things would make an excellent photographer's assistant....
As for the attributes needed to make great photographs, they can't be listed. Photography, like painting and writing music is a creative act and can't be done well by following a check list of requirements or a set of rules.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
I knew Fred pretty well and, IMO I think what he's trying to say there is to lock down all the mundane tasks of photography so that it frees you to get on with the hard part. What's the hard part? Exposing film such that the image made expresses something and/or tells a story.
 
It’s very good advice, of course. Perhaps, with rather different words, it’s even better advice for a baker. Every day, a baker turns out exactly the same loaves.
Have you seen a picture of Francis Baker’s studio or Eugene Smith’s darkroom?
 
Some might say that this absolutely rigid way of thinking can seep into areas where it isn't useful - creative areas. David Vestal told me he thought Fred Picker was "too rigid in the mind" for creative thinking. And my friend Alex never cared for Fred's creative work at all, called it dull.

Let me say also that I knew Fred, and he was about the most polite and courteous gentleman I've ever met. That dogmatic figure of the newsletters was more a marketing idea than a true reflection of him. His personality wasn't dogmatic in the least - at least to me. He also gave us all a roadmap of how a photographer lives and works. As a person he was very special. That's what's important - to me.

But let's continue, yeah? A baker makes the same loaves of bread every day, day after day. A photographer isn't a production line - each picture out there is different. How you print each one is different too. Rigid thinking can infect that needed flexibility.

Art skills - for example, etching and lithography, are very arduous; many technical facets go into it. Even oil painting requires great technique - create vibrant color instead of mud, "wet" water; hard and rough stone, etc. Very hard to do. These don't embody fewer technical considerations than photography, merely different ones. Our painting teacher said, "Wear an old shirt in class. Neatness doesn't count here, only the finished painting. However you do it, don't bore me."

I'm not advocating being sloppy. Alex's work habits used to drive me batty. But - you can have the most spotless darkroom on earth and never make a picture worth a damn.
 
There is disorganized and there is dirty. The photographer I PAed for was - to my mind - very disorganized. One day, I couldn't stand it any and I tidied up the studio, the office, and darkroom to suit my sense of order. He railed for weeks that he couldn't find anything. His "disorder" had a kind of order in his mind's eye and I had disturbed his workflow and process. So "orderliness" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

But a dirty darkroom, camera bag, or other part of your process has no place if you're serious about this. Chemical spills crystalize and go into the air as chemical dust that lands in your film holders and on your drying negatives. Dirt and dust of any kind is the enemy of film and paper processing.

So, yeah, my darkroom and camera bags are kept pristine no matter how much I lay them to waste during working sessions. When I am done, everything is rinsed off including tile walls, sinks, and washing devices. They are then patted dry. Towels are regularly washed, dried, and then hung back for use. The dry side is periodically wiped down with a damp cloth. Any observed chemical spills, wet or dry are immediately removed and damp cleaned.

I want to make pictures, not spot prints.
 
There’s organised and then there’s “tidy”.
Organised is when you can find what you want, when you want it, to do what you want to do. Tidy is when it looks nice. They are not mutually exclusive, but they shouldn’t be confused. If you put something down after you’ve used it, it will be waiting for you when you need it next. Eventually, everything will migrate to exactly the right place. Darwinian tidiness. That’s what I tell myself.

Dirty is just dirty, except in dark rooms. Over-zealous cleaning simply pushes dust into the air.

I came across a parallel case, where butcher was accused of selling short measure. He used an old-fashioned balance and every day, he proudly polished his brass weights, until eventually, they were too light.
 
I've worked with 'sloppy' photographers and with 'competent' ones too. Give me the competent ones any day. They get 'the' shot far more effectively and quickly and don't mess about and waste time either. Technical competence and efficient working are IMO pre-requisites, and the idea that these somehow reduce 'creativity' may sound possible but in reality this is, in my experience, incorrect.
 
Fred's basic philosophy in his teaching was that the Zone System didn't have to be all that complicated or an "end unto itself", rather that a photographer could do some simple testing, nail down the mundane tasks of photography, then got on with the hard part. Fred was a very neat and orderly person in all aspects of his life. His home, for example, was meticulously clean and orderly (and, he heated with wood!) So, that he kept his darkroom orderly and opined his opinions, such as above, would not surprise anyone who knew him.

I clearly remember a comment he made during his Zone VI Workshop I attended in 1979. He said, "Wes Disney needs to make his bed before he can print. Well, that's silly, but I have to shave." :D
 
Nobody can seriously suggest that sloppiness promotes creativity. On the other hand, excessive attention to process can certainly hinder it. I like the idea of getting the details “out of the way” so that the proper work can be done.

It seems to me it’s a pity that most of us know Mr Picker only from his Newsletters. In those, he does seem to be excessively attached to his own opinions. I’m pleased to hear that in real life, he was different.
 
In a previous life I was an occasional musician. I once was chatting with one of the band members of the Ramsey Lewis jazz ensemble that happened to be playing in town. He was a wise, and very accomplished musician in his own right. He told something I've never forgotten, Play your scales. You have to visit speed once so it is at your disposal when you need it.

Over the years I learned that technique has to be learned to be forgotten. Only when it is second nature are you actually free to exploit your full range of aesthetic vision. For example, in the past two months I have been doing extensive testing with Stand, Semistand, and EMA and Pyrocat-HD. It's not yet fully dialed in but - when it is - I will never have to think about it again. When I want the benefit of these techniques, that "speed" will just be there at my disposal.
 
Last edited:
thronobulax said:
When I want the benefit of these techniques, that "speed" will just be there at my disposal.
Click to expand...

And, the knowledge you've gained along the way. I know Fred put this in one of his newsletters, but he quipped one day that he wanted to get a large stamp made that said "TRY IT!" which he could then stamp on all the letters and notes he got with questions from other photographers.
 
thronobulax said:
Over the years I learned that technique has to be learned to be forgotten. Only when it is second nature are you actually free to exploit your full range of aesthetic vision.
Click to expand...
Well put. Exactly my point. Having vision and being unable to fulfil it due to lack of understanding helps nobody. Being hung up on the detail obscures the overview. Not having to think about technique because it is thoroghly ingrained leaves you free to concentrate on the aesthetics.
 
I have no truck with Fred Picker.

Now that's not a critiscm but he's was in the US and this is a UK Forum and Minor White's approachs took hold here through Minor White himself,, Paul Caponigro, and Thomas Joshua Cooper.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I have no truck with Fred Picker.

Now that's not a critiscm but he's was in the US and this is a UK Forum and Minor White's approachs took hold here through Minor White himself,, Paul Caponigro, and Thomas Joshua Cooper.

Ian
Click to expand...

Yes but ... didn't ALL of them - From Aget, to White, to Weston, to Brassai, to Adams to ... - influence us? I rather think that learning transcends geographic boundaries. I am citizen of several countries, have lived in 3, and have worked and traveled extensively in probably a dozen or so total. I find that most things that matter are invariant across culture and language - far more so, anyway, than the things that do vary.

Picker simplified Zone system exposure control as to make it far more accessible to a larger audience. Notwithstanding his curmudgeonly pontifications, his role in simplifying exposure control for a great many people is noteworthy. I am quite comfortable with maths, graphing and numerical analysis. I have read - cover to cover - the relevant works of White, Adams, Davis, and Picker. Irrespective of how you view their artistic output, Picker was far and away the most approachable, especially for those not all that comfortable with mathematics. I wouldn't be shocked if a good many of those were, in fact, UK residents ;)

P.S. My one and only conversation with him confirms that he was a pleasant and thoughtful man.
 
Ian Grant said:
I have no truck with Fred Picker.

Now that's not a critiscm but he's was in the US and this is a UK Forum and Minor White's approachs took hold here through Minor White himself,, Paul Caponigro, and Thomas Joshua Cooper.

Ian
Click to expand...

I really like much of Minor's work, but his approach was much to metaphysical for me. Fine for him...just not my cup-o-tea. Based on what I've read and heard from other photographers who knew him, Paul Cap leaned toward the technical side, ala Adams. HIs son, albeit a digital photographer, is very technical. Isn't Mr. Cooper a US boy? So, you were influenced maybe a little from these shores? ;)
 
Mr Picker did simplify the Zone System System, in my own view a step too far. He was following a US tradition in both subject matter and printing style.
In my view again, he was a competent photographer in that tradition, but not outstandingly creative. My only transaction with him (apart from the Newsletters) showed him to be honest, helpful and prompt.
Although we on this forum seem to be mostly involved in landscape, the UK mainstream of photography is more concerned with social documentary work.
And yes, we are all influenced by everybody else. Which of us would be photographers at all, without the genius of William Henry Fox Talbot?
 
David M said:
Mr Picker did simplify the Zone System System, in my own view a step too far. He was following a US tradition in both subject matter and printing style.
In my view again, he was a competent photographer in that tradition, but not outstandingly creative. My only transaction with him (apart from the Newsletters) showed him to be honest, helpful and prompt.
Although we on this forum seem to be mostly involved in landscape, the UK mainstream of photography is more concerned with social documentary work.
And yes, we are all influenced by everybody else. Which of us would be photographers at all, without the genius of William Henry Fox Talbot?
Click to expand...

Thinking a bit more about this thread's commentary ... Pretty much everything I've ever learned required onion peeling. The first layer was only an approximation of what I would learn and know as I got to the inner layers of any discipline.

Picker didn't write the definitive Zone System manual. He unwrapped the first layer of that onion to make the work of people like White, Adams, and, later, Davis more approachable. In truth, none of them fully peeled the exposure control onion. I've gone through these phases so far:

  • Little understanding, follow Kodak's recipe, shoot box speed. Thin negs. Bad prints.
  • Comprehend the gestalt of Adams. Spend many hours using a densitometer. Try to understand actual speed.
  • Absorb Picker. A few more densitometer tests. Almost everything is 20% less development, and half box speed for N.
  • Learn how to split print VC. Fail to take that into account when exposing film. The singing print remains illusive.
  • Read Sherman, Kachel, and King. Discover my life yearns for better midtones.
  • Discover that all my exposure and development dogma are questionable when we add long duration and intermittent (or no) agitation to the equation. Back to using box speed.
  • More testing - but this time with real subjects but controlling all variables: time, temp, dilution, agitation. A densitometer can only get you into the ballpark, why not look at actual subjects for hints as to what is working.
The last steps would have been impossible without doing the prior work. You can't peel an onion from the middle. So, 'yay' for all those who came before and gave us the tooling to improve our peeling skills .... and get us back to ... box speed.
 
Alan9940 said:
I really like much of Minor's work, but his approach was much to metaphysical for me. Fine for him...just not my cup-o-tea. Based on what I've read and heard from other photographers who knew him, Paul Cap leaned toward the technical side, ala Adams. HIs son, albeit a digital photographer, is very technical. Isn't Mr. Cooper a US boy? So, you were influenced maybe a little from these shores? ;)
Click to expand...

British traditions largely died out because of WWII and then a shortage of materials and few new cameras after the war and heavy import restrictions, until the early 1950's. It's the 1960's and particularly the 1970's when photography revived as an art. Many date the start of the revival to the 1955 MOMA "The Family of Man" exhibition, being shown in London (a few years later).

It was the 1970's before Richard Sadler, Paul Hill, John Blakemore and others sset up the first Art Photography courses at Trent Polytechic in Nottingham and Derbt College of Art. There were excellent commercial photography courses but they weren't art orienred.

Yes there was US influence and Thomas Joshua Cooper a Minor White disciple moved from the US and joined the Derby college, but Paul Hill and others will tell you that a UK style evolved based or emulated on printed reproductions of the works of people like AA, Weston, Minor White, as almost no-one here had seen original prints. However British photographers evolved theit own styles.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top