This Summer I’ve visited Wakefield in Canada. I wrote this little story in my notebook after a walk with Ian Whyte, associate editor of The Ecological Citizen. He explained a lot about the area and it’s non-human inhabitants.
The sound of axes that hack and falling trees fills the sky. Thousands and thousands of logs are floating down the Gatineau river southbound to Ottawa. The newly clear cut land gives farmers the opportunity to make a living. During Winter, the men went out logging while the women stayed and took care of the kids in their log cabins. Life was hard: disease, cold, bad harvests, cabin fever… After some years the soil was depleted and there were no more trees left to log. The people took their possessions and moved elsewhere.
A screeching door is moving in the wind. A boy by the name of Ian is staring at the ruins of the abandoned farms. Weeds are growing on the fields and small trees are growing, thus reclaiming their territory.
Birds are singing, woodpeckers peck, a nature photographer from Europe is admiring the scene while swatting two mosquitoes on his leg. The forest is home to an enormous biodiversity: spruce, maple, oak, ironwood, wild orchids, mushrooms, hawks, deer, bear, beetles, bumblebees, reindeer moss and many more plants and animals.
Human artifacts are overgrown of have disintegrated. Some silent witnesses tell the story of the land: rusty barbed wire, the occasional apple tree blends in seamlessly with the forest. At the beginning of trail 53, Monsieur Therioux still has to collect his pickup truck that he left behind decades ago..
It took almost a lifetime for the forest to grow and the animals to come back. Over time, the forest will become richer and even more beautiful. Unless the history of logging and development will repeat itself.
The Gatineau area near Wakefield is a forest with a protected status. However it is the only federal park that’s not protected by the National Parks Act, thus it is not prohibited to log and even build in the forest. In my opinion Gatineau should receive a more protected status – like a national park or forest – and therefore be saved from logging and/or development. So we and future generations can enjoy its beauty.
As a landscape photographer, I want to find and photograph nature in (almost) pristine spots or places that have escaped urban or rural planning. When I return to a place that I’ve photographed before, it happens seldom that it has changed for the better. Many times, once beautiful places are gone forever due to greed of mankind.
WH Vliegenbos in Amsterdam used to be a small city forest with a wealth of biodiversity. After a brutal attempt to make the forest more attractive for visitors, it looks like a mutilated city park. The once rich undergrowth has been removed and the forest is ‘thinned’ of larger trees to give more light to smaller trees. This affects the bird population since smaller trees lack good nesting opportunities. With removing the undergrowth small animals – like hedgehogs – are disturbed during their hibernation and left homeless.
New cycling paths have been laid, which in itself is no that bad. As a base for the asphalt layer, toxic building waste is used containing plastic and other pollutants.
Why is this happening?
Why do people want to make a forest neat by cutting and growing it again? For millions of years nature could do very well without us. I suspect the city of Amsterdam is using park maintenance as an excuse to make money by selling wood as bio based fuel. To quote John Muir* “God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fool”. I hope that my favorite city forest will recover in the years to come.
* A Scottish-American naturalist, author, environmental philosopher and early advocate for the preservation of wilderness in the United States His activism has helped to preserve the Yosemite Valley, Sequoia National Park and many other wilderness areas.
Over the years I have used many cameras. Some were really good and some were absolute useless. Here are some models from my analog past.
My first camera ever: Kodak Instamatic 220. My mom used it for over 20 years before she handed it down to me when I was 12. The film advance was broken and I could fix it. Setting the aperture was done by means of a dial with a bright sun, sun with clouds, light clouds and dark clouds. Brilliant and simple design! It made some lovely square pictures before it finally broke :-(.
When I went on a school trip to Poland in 1991, I bought on the street in Warsaw a Soviet Zenit ET. My first SLR, yes! The lens was a 55 mm Helios with manual aperture. That means that with every picture you have to choose the aperture with one ring on the lens and with a second one you have to set the chosen value, before the diaphragm blades did what they were asked to do. The film advance was tricky too. This cam spoiled a lot of film. The lens produced great moody pictures. This style became later known as Lomography in the 2000’s.
After dropping my Hasselblad set on the road in 2010, I could not afford repairing it and found myself buying a Kiev 60 medium format SLR as a replacement. Shaped like a stable door, it also makes photographs and good ones too. I never had a camera with a distinct smell, but this one has. The vulcanite smells like a car from the seventies with faux leather seats. Fitted with an Arsat 80mm 2.8 lens it makes a great set with some quirks. Provided the people at the Arsenal factory in Kiev were in a good mood when they assembled your unit. I was lucky with this camera and I still have it.
East German workmanship
Praktica BX 20: my first GDR cam from 1989 and all el cheapo plastic. The 50m Pentacon lens was good enough. It could measure light as low as 30 whole seconds. The ‘genosse’ died because of sand in the shutter in Paris. I didn’t regret it.
Praktica MTL5: this was my last East German experiment. You need to be careful when you put the film in. Otherwise your film might not advance at all. In case you want one, check the shutter before buying, because this is the weak part. And never use it for important tasks like weddings.
Pentacon Six: this 1950’s East German design that was the grandfather of the USSR Kiev 60. Use this one only for decoration and not for important shots. The Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are nice. The body is hopeless. The viewfinder is dim, film advance is tricky.
Made in Japan
Yashica TL Electro X: this beast I bought in 1995 with a 50mm Yashinon lens. Great camera, I gave it some years later away to a happy student.
In 2000 I started with my Photography courses and I wanted to treat myself with new gear. It became a Nikon F2 Photomic with a 55 mm Micro Nikkor lens. Some people say that this is one of the best cameras Nikon ever made, I agree. The lens was allright but nothing special. Somehow I was stupid enough to sell this camera some years later when I switched to medium format.
In 2003 I discovered medium format and I borrowed a Yashica A TLR. The camera suffered from ghosting and lens flare. However, I treated myself with a Yashica 635. This was better, but also this one was suffering from ghosting and lens flare, frustrating because this ruined some potentially great shots. Away with the Yashicas!
Pentax 6×7: great but heavy. I took it on a trip to Finland in 2012. The shutter is electronic, and uses electricity when open and when the mirror is up. If in your camera bag something pushes the inconveniently placed mirror lock up button, your battery dies. And nobody can hear you scream in Lapland….
Pentax ME and ME super: nice compact SLR’s. Nothing wrong here, the 1.7 lenses that where supplied with them are also great. Unlike the big 6×7 they have a 1/125 shutter speed that is mechanic and can rescue you when the batteries die.
Rolleicord and Rolleiflex
Medium format was my new thing in 2003 and I found myself a heavily used Rolleicord 3. I was immediately in love with the Rollei. This Rolleicord 3 was great for street photography and I made pictures with this old lady from 1949 that I still like. The Rolleicord is still in the family. My sister in law has it. The Rolleicord 3 with replaced by a Rolleicord 5. The focusing screen was brighter and the camera produced great pictures. Sadly it died on the streets of Amsterdam in the rain when I was making a portrait of an addicted street musician at night.
After this, the Rolleiflex 2.8e came to town. The camera was sold to me before it had a decent CLA (clean, lubricated and adjustment), so it had al kinds troubles. After the CLA on the seller’s expense it worked like a dream. Always ask for a CLA when you buy a Rollei. During one night in a club in 2006 it was stolen. So anyone who is out there with a Rolleiflex 2.8e serial number 1646668, you know who is the rightful owner! Rolleiflex 2.8f and 3.5f are also great cameras.
Scandinavian design (not Ikea)
Hasselblad 500 c/m with 80mm Zeiss Planar lens. This worked really well and has a lot of street credibility. The only disadvantage is the foam in the A12 backs that starts to disintegrate thus causing light leaks. When you buy a used A12, always change the light seals! The end of my Hasselblad period came when I dropped my just serviced unit on the asphalt. I sold the damaged set as an expensive paperweight…
Some people call it trespassing, other call it urban exploring: making pictures in abandoned buildings. I’m always fascinated by the often erie appearance of empty houses. It makes you wonder why the people left, their stories and the past.
During my trip to Georgia I came across and abandoned Soviet era spa at the Black Sea coast. I couldn’t resist to take a peek together with my youngest daughter and we went past the rusty fence. The main building was a gloomy hotel. What used to be the lobby, was filled with rubble.
On the second floor was the former restaurant. From the outside you could still see the tables and chairs. When I walked up the round stairs, I was spotted by someone who might have been a caretaker and was asked to leave. Being shooed away by angry men is also part of urban exploring I guess.
I decided to check out the nearby pool. Back in the 1970’s the pool was probably luxurious. I could imagine Communist Party members swimming back and forth, while in the adjoining rooms people got their massages and other spa treatments. Nowadays the pool is filled with mess and instead of the typical chlorine smell of a pool, the odour of pee and dung is abundant.
In one of the rooms that could have been an office, there were scraps of destroyed files and one forgotten file (number 566) on a former employee that was still intact. A certain Irma from Kobuleti worked here in 1988 as a cleaner. From the pages ‘AHKETA’ (questionnaire in English) we learnt that she was a member of the Communist youth movement (Komsomol), that her mother was an agronomist and her father a kolchoznik. She and her family had never traveled abroad. Irma was 20 the she got the job, although she had an education as a nurse.
We left her file were we found it and left the crumbling pool before dark. The next day we went back and rescued Irma’s file from oblivion.
In the past photographers viewed their contact sheets and marked the images that were good enough to have a closer look at. From this point the selection was narrowed down to the desired iconic image and/or the lucky shot. Contact sheets always revealed that out of a roll of 36 exposures only a few photos worked out or sometimes not at all.
Now in the digital age, the first selection mechanism is the delete button. Mistakes are gone in the blink of an eye and will never be seen by another pair of eyes than yours. The exposures that pull through this carnage are not yet sure to survive the digital shredder. After another review round on a computer screen only a happy few remain. Well that is to say, there a ways more ‘keepers’ than in the age of contact sheets, since a gazillion more images fit on a memory card than on good old film.
When you are left with a smaller selection, tough choices have to be made. Which one has the ‘decisive moment’ to quote Henri Cartier-Bresson. Which ones have the best light, which ones have the right emotion, or which ones out of a bad batch are good enough to optimize (this also happens to you, don’t be afraid to admit it ;-).
After many conflicts with yourself, and sometimes bothering family members, you’ll end up with a few photos that will make it to the light of day. When you see the fruits of your work in printed form or on someone’s wall, you know that self-censorship pays off…
“The year is 2016 AD. Film is entirely replaced by digital. Well, not entirely.. One small village of film photographers still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the digital legionnaires who garrison the fortified camps of Nikonium, Canonum, Panasonicum and Pentaxum”.
So far my adaptation of Asterix and friends. A whole new generation of photographers is around grown up with digital photography. I consider myself a very late convert. My photograpy school was from 2000 to 2003. Back then, digital cameras where not a serious option for the quality conscious photographer. Until 2014, I only used medium format film for my non-commissioned work. The assignments were done with a Nikon D90 that I never liked. All of that changed when I bought in September 2014 an entry level Canon DSLR for family snaps. This small gem could deliver amazing results. Soon better glass was bought and a model with more features replaced the entry-level DSLR. This dramatically changed my workflow and opened a different world.
So here I am, working with the technology that I considered not the real thing until recently and loving it. So what am I going to do with my beloved Rolleiflex 3.5f, Kiev 60 and the other great analog equipment that I have? They look at me sadly and feel abandoned when I take out the new Canon instead of them for a photo session .
From a quality point of view, the film versus digital discussion is no longer relevant. We are at the point that a full frame sensor can deliver the same resolution as the 35 mm film counterpart. In theory, film has a higher resolution than the common prosumer digital sensors. However between lab figures and field results, there are differences.
From personal experience: when I scan my medium format black and white negatives on a 14,000 Euro Flextight scanner at the best possible resolution, the result is a very large file and a lot of grain. A digital file of the same scene taken with a 35mm sensor has more detail, less grain/noise and wins here quality wise.
So what’s the point of using film, apart from nostalgia? The answer is simple, use what ever suits your needs and mood. Like a painter uses different brushes, paint and techniques, photographers too can use the strengths of both the analog and digital medium.
I shoot digital, when colorful landscapes or wildlife with lots of detail are my aim. When I am after “the look” of the golden era of black and white photojournalism, I use Kodak Tri-X 400 film and D76 developer.
I return to the small village of film photographers occasionally…
When you are at a thrift store, you sometimes see abandoned photo albums, family portraits, and wedding pictures from long ago. The reasons why these images are found there can be multiple, like the previous owner doesn’t have family to look after these when these have passed away. So there it is, someone’s past without any context: vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.
I always feel a bit shy to go through these abandoned pictures, I feel myself looking into other peoples lives without their consent. Voyeurism you may call it. On the other hand, I consider it a good thing that these pictures end up at a thrift store and not in a landfill or incinerator so that the labor of taking and development them was not for nothing.
Some people go through these abandoned pictures to find a new and unknown Vivian Mayer. The story of a collection of negatives and prints owned by an elderly lady that was bought at an auction by a publisher is well known: the publisher made loads of money and the great photos where saved from oblivion. I’m not hunting to find an undiscovered Mayer, but occasionally I find a photograph interesting enough to take it home.
I found this picture of miners at a thrift store/crafts center in Denver, Colorado. On the picture are six miners. From the look of their clothes, the tools and the look and feel of the photographic paper, this picture was taken around the turn of the 20th century. At the back of the picture it is written: “Hard rock crew Probably Cripple Creek, David Owens Dainell, jr in foreground”.
In the Cripple Creek region were many gold mines. Working conditions where harsh. Mining accidents were very common and when you where not killed by falling rock, the dust from the mining gave you a lethal lung disease. The hydraulic drill was nick-named a widow maker because of the dust particles that where released while using it. Protective masks where not common at the time.
In 1890 gold was discovered in Cripple Creek and by 1900 there were over 500 mines operating in the district. The great wealth coming out of the mines turned Cripple Creek into a bustling and prosperous city of over 35,000 people. 75 Saloons and numerous brothels parted miners from their pay. Like most mining boomtowns, Cripple Creek’s mining days were over by World War Two and the population of Cripple Creek shrunk dramatically to ghost town proportions. Cripple Creek has been reborn as a tourist and gambling center in the 1990’s.
More than 100 years later a random person finds an abandoned picture, takes it home to Amsterdam and writes a blog about it. Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.
Sunlight shining through redwood trees at the Muir Woods National Monument. The coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), is earth’s tallest tree. When you look carefully in the middle of the picture, you see a tiny deer. This dear was about 4 feet (1.20 m) high, so you can imagine the size of these ancient trees. It felt like a trip to the dinosaur age.