This week Chris Williams and I have taken tons of photos for his forthcoming book “The Life & Work of John Brown” and things took an interesting turn, visually. As we’ve recorded the construction process of his chair for the book, I’ve put away my tripod and recorded the process with a handheld camera and natural light, journalism style.
It’s what I did for most of my early career as a writer and photojournalist for newspapers and small magazines before I landed at Popular Woodworking magazine. I shot full manual for many years and processed my own negatives and prints. The tradition at Popular Woodworking and F&W Media, Inc., however, was to shoot transparencies and do it with a tripod and strobes. Which I embraced.
But if you have a little skill with a camera, you can capture some nice moments. The only problem is that you have to make sure you are capturing usable how-to information and not just emotion or a nice composition.
Today I started reviewing the 941 photos I took this week and kept (I trashed several hundred images that were obvious garbage). I have to admit, I’m a little excited by the frames I kept. They are unlike the photography you see in approximately 100 percent of woodworking books and magazines these days.
I love what I see on my screen, but I hope it’s good enough.
I’m sure you will let me know when the book comes out.
— Christopher Schwarz
I think you can do some of both. There is a time and reason for both. It is what I did for years. The immediacy of handheld and candid does not preclude images that are both instructive and pleasing, in fact the less formal approach most people will identify with to a surprising degree.
Nothing beats candid photography with a 35mm lens in my opinion. There’s just something raw and gritty about that format that you just can’t get with anything else. Looking forward to the photos.
Wait, 35mm on what format? For the benefit of those who aren’t aware, on APS-C, that’s a normal lens (most DSLRs), on 135 format (35mm film and expensive DSLRs), a mild wide-angle.
I hadn’t thought about it before, but if we’re talking 135 format, I can see how you associate the look from a 35mm lens with gritty. I’m going to have to do some experimenting.
I shot 35mm for journalism and medium format for portraiture. These days I use a DSLR. I’ve never been a gearhead (I would glady write “The Anarchist’s Photo Bag”).
There is something right about 28-45mm focal length on “35mm” format (135) it’s “normal” enough that you don’t get unrealistic wide angle perspective distortion, but in order to get the action, the camera (eye) must physically be placed in a position that it is uncomfortable for a typical “distant observer” space and instead is in the “intimate” zone of the action. It’s pretty subtle, and I suppose everyone has there own comfort zone circle where this transition happpens (28mm, 31mm, 35mm, 40mm, 43mm, 45mm..), but a large number of the beloved cult classic lenses though out history have been in this range, perhaps that’s why, it forces us to get closer, and that comes through to the viewer.
ugh… *their
Nice! You have a nice, clean photo style that suits your design. But I’m excited to see what these photos look like, just as your furniture designs are growing more personal
I would buy this book even if it only had drawings done by a drunk sailor and his donkey. That’s how much I look forward to it.
Is the donkey drunk too?
Donkeys only like weed, I’ve heard?
If it’s Chris’s donkey, we all know what it likes.
Yes, Roman nails and Welsh sticks.
Chris, perhaps you could post a couple photos to wet out whistle ?? Ralph
Don’t be silly. This is the internet; we don’t need to wait until the book comes out to tell you whether it’s good enough.
Ever tried using vintage lenses on a digital camera (typically mirrorless work best)? They’re coming back into vogue now, and often produce the kind of character that digital lenses just can’t. Depending on what lens is used, they can produce a bunch of aberrations, and sometimes awesome bokeh. All from lenses 40-60 years old.