New Work

Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images © 2013

It's always fun to start working on a new body of work. That is, until you actually pick up a camera and start shooting. That's when self-doubt tries to make a special guest appearance. It should have it's own theme music. Like Bob Hope strutting onto the Tonight Show stage to crush the dreams of the young comic who just saw his three minutes evaporate, never to return.

Fair warning, I'm going on about five minutes of sleep here (had to make a 30 second TV appearance early this morning). I'm trying to talk sense about these images, but really there's no telling where this piece will end up.

The idea behind this work was a challenge, but also practical in nature. I'm not known for my vertical work (just ask any photo editor who ever hired me to make a cover for them). I've always figured life was a mostly horizontal event, so my pictures should follow suit. To me, shooting vertical was also another variable, and when you're shooting real-life, which is nothing if not varied, eliminating the variables you have control over seemed like a plan.

At the same time, to avoid becoming stale or predictable, I've always worked to push the envelope (I love pushing envelopes as much as buttons).

Young photographers take note, pushing the envelope is probably not the wisest career move in an industry that considers stale and predictable a good thing.

JAR_fiveseries_blog_rockcreekKenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images © 2013

Staying on task...

Shooting vertical, as well as forcing me to see a little differently, also allowed me to do something fun with the printing of these images. The idea was to make big prints on my 17" wide Epson. Putting five separate images in a row allowed me to make a 54" print... roughly the length needed to fill the space over a photography collector's couch.

That'd be my entrepreneur side showing.

A big print, actually five biggish prints, from a smallish sized printer on one sheet of paper... genius. The added bonus is the quality of each image is roughly the resolution needed to turn Ansel Adams green with envy (there's a mathematical formula available to calculate this resolution, but I'm not able to find the link at this time).

There's the practical side.

JAR_fiveseries_blog_wireballKenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images © 2013

Finally, five images in a row give me the chance to tell a little story. The print equivlent of Vine. Sometimes the story is interesting, at other times the story is quite literally "barbwire art", which is how I refer to much of the artwork available here in Montana.

And that was the creative side.

Nailed it.

This new body of work will debut tonight at the Toucan Gallery in Billings, Montana. I cannot promise you that I'll make anymore sense when you see me in person this evening.

Now, speaking of horizontal life, I need to get in some nappy time.


Old Cowboy #5

© 2013 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images


Is this a cliché? It certainly feels like one. Not because of anything I did (or failed to do). The light was what it was. The cowboy is who he is. So, what do you want me to do, not shoot it? Still, at this point it has about as much freshness to it as those Twinkies I've got stored in the root cellar.

Like the zombies I'm waiting on before digging into those golden, cream filled beauties, there's just no life left in this picture. That's the problem with clichés. By showing it you're telling the world you've got nothing new to add to the conversation and you probably kill your chance of getting a new client. Or do you?

I looked through a ton of professional photographer's websites today and my eyes feel like they've been clichéd right out (not that there's anything wrong with that, we've all got bills to pay). These are busy, successful folks, shooting big jobs for big clients, so what gives?

Listen, I've got no answers to this one. I'm just starting the conversation. Do you show the expected stuff to prove you can do that kind of work? Do you show your favorite work and hope the art buyers can make the visual leap? Do you show the stuff you love and would like to get paid to make?

These are the type of questions that always come up when it's time to buff up the website. Personally, I like to show what I like, but I'm not sure that's the wisest business plan.

Then there's the actually editing part too. When it comes to editing my own work, I'm my own worst enemy. Not fun and I always show too much.

At the end of the day, I've got no place on my soon-to-be-updated website for this image. That's where I'm at.

For the record, I use aPhotoFolio for my website needs. The best design, admin, and support by far. They give me one less thing to worry about.

As far as the above image goes, it was made on a first generation EOS 5D with Canon's 85 f1.2. The metadata tells me a stopped down to f1.8 (at 1/80th of a second) and it shows in the bokeh. No need to do that again (live and learn), as I'm not sure the extra 1/16th of an inch of depth of field was worth it.

Now, I think I read that somebody was going to start making Twinkies again... I know, I promised. No zombies, no Twinkies, but now might be a good time to "rotate" the stock.




Just Make It Happen

Paolo Pellegrin is one of the most successful photographers working today. He works with the most high-profile magazines, he publishes books, is a member of the most prestigious photo agency (Magnum), contributes to interesting projects and regularly wins major contests. So natually, he’s easy enough to hate.

Still, until his work was called into question last week by BagNews Notes, it’s fair to say he was also widely respected.

Predictably, Pellegrin is catching most of this heat from people he doesn’t know, while receiving most of his support from people he does. Which makes me wonder, not knowing him, but having admired his work for a long time and owning at least one of his books (maybe more), what kind of advice I would have given him last Friday when the story first broke.

Here’s the original piece by BagNews Notes.

So if Paolo was a friend of mine, I would have first been upset that BagNews Notes didn’t contact him and get his side of the story before they published their piece. I know BagNews doesn’t consider themselves a journalistic operation, but in a story that has this much potential to destroy a person’s career, you should give them a call.

You do it for three reasons. One, to give the accused a chance to defend themselves (even the condemned get to say their last words, or at least given time for a smoke). Two, you want to appear to be fair. And three, you want your target to have a statement on record that isn’t a carefully crafted response written by a PR firm designed to pick apart your accusation. Basically, you want to help them hang themselves with a hasty and panic driven response. It’s journalism 101 folks, maybe that’s why BagNews screwed it up.

After I was done being upset with BagNews, I’d be upset with Paolo. I would have advised him to immediately contact BagNews and admit he had made a mistake with his captions. I would have told him to take all the blame upon himself. I would have encouraged him to make a full apology to the subject in his photo, the people of Rochester, the judges who rewarded him for this work, his fellow photojournalists and to disqualify himself from the competitions.

That said, Pellegrin is not a friend of mine, and it appears no one else offered him this kind of advice (or if it was offered he chose not to follow it).

Here’s Pellegrin’s response.

Instead, Paolo Pellegrin attacked... everybody. He took no responsibility for his own actions. He constructs straw-men to whack down while at the same time blaming everyone but himself.

My way, end of controversy. Paolo’s way, fuel on the fire.

Here’s BagNews’ response to Pellegrin’s response.

Caption mistakes are one thing. Anyone can make that kind of mistake. Personally, I’m not a big fan of captions. I want viewers to see the photograph and then go to the caption to enhance and add to their understanding of the image. This controversy is no longer about poor, misleading or “lifted” captions. This is now about a self-proclaimed “documentary” photographer who manipulates people and uses them as props to illustrate a story narrative he’s made up in his head.

I thought these issues had been worked out by now. You don’t use people for props. You don’t manipulate them into doing things they aren’t doing and you don’t ask them to pose for you and then pretend it’s a situation that you’ve happened upon. This is the 21st century and as journalists we’ve had these conversations countless times. Walker Evans shouldn’t have moved the furniture. Gene Smith shouldn’t have sandwiched negatives. The guy who’s name I don’t remember shouldn’t have removed the Coke can.

Were we not clear on this?

I thought we’d moved on to questions that are harder to answer, like how much can we tweak our color palette?

Photographs aren’t a clear representation of reality. A skilled photographer willing to shamelessly manipulate a person can make them appear to be whatever they want. That’s why it’s important to have an ethical code of standards. Not just for the industry as a whole, but as an individual also.

My code goes something like this;

I try to represent the person I’m photographing in the most truthful way possible. They should recognize themselves in the images I make of them. This doesn’t always result in the best image, but it’s an attempt to be truthful and “true” to the subject.

My second responsibility is to myself. I want to make images that I’m proud to hang on a wall or see published in a magazine. If the image doesn’t meet my standards I could careless if the publisher thinks it’s a great image or not.

The final responsibility is to the editor that hired me. I don’t want them to regret the fact they did. I want them to go into the layout meeting with an image that’s better than they or their bosses could have hoped for. That way nobody losses their job and I might even get hired again. However, I’m not going to construct an image that misrepresents my subject even if it means the image doesn’t meet my standards or the publishers.

Over the years I’ve taken a lot of heat and lost a few jobs (and probably a contest or two) because of this personal set of rules. To paraphrase Lite, Put your seatbelt on, boy. I don't ride with anybody 'less they wear their seatbelt. It's one of my rules.

To be honest, I do bend this rule when it comes to politicians (and sometimes people of power). I figure a politician on the campaign trail is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each day to manipulate me and my photos, so they’re fair game. It’s a more honest approach than the mock “behind the scenes” images so popular today. Where the magazines throws out any pretense of objectivity in exchange for not losing this prized “access” by publishing a photo that might be displeasing to the politician or his staff.

I guess this is what really upsets me about Paolo Pelligrin’s work and the caviler attitude towards objections and criticism people have made about it. He claims to be broaching subject matter that the “elites” wouldn’t dare touch when in reality he’s manipulating those without power to promote his own elitist agenda.

In a world where the press has abandoned its traditional watchdog role, and is only concerned with giving itself awards and cuddling up to the powerful he’s not an anomaly, he’s their ideal creation.

Magnum, the most prestigious photo agency of all time, doesn’t know what it is. Is it a place for artists, journalists or some type of combination of the two? Magnum’s most successful photographers are probably in the artist camp and are masters of the “found” image. While one of their most successful documentary photographers (not Paolo) is widely known to regularly set-up pictures. This is a problem.

Photo editors, who encourage photographers to “make it happen” (oh how many times I’ve heard those wretched words) and/or disappear for month long stretches to prepare their contest entries are also a major problem.

Contests... well, if World Press or POY doesn't demand to see the entire take... I’m talking Pellegrin’s entire hard drive from Rochester and scrutinize how he works from start to finish (are there fifty frames with different poses and lighting schemes of the “portrait” in the parking garage), their credibility is over. These are photojournalist contests after all.

The bottom line, is this photojournalism thing is broken. If you’ve ever seen a horde of Dutch photographers (home of World Press Photo) work a woman’s team of gold medal winning water-polo players, you’d agree. The people that should be working to fix this, the powerful editors and highly respected older statesmen, are (with some notable brave and bold exceptions) either making excuses, keeping their mouths shut or benefiting from the situation.

Sling your rocks and arrows below. Please don't hesitate to remind me that I'm old and outdated, and thus have no idea what I'm talking about.