Greetings from the Pacific Northwest!

[GrantCee]

Hi! My name is Grant, and I’m a photographic artist living in (and a proud native of) Oregon.

I’ve been making photographs seriously since the late 1970s, initially focusing on commercial work (product illustration). I discovered I didn’t like working to illustrate other people’s ideas, and left that end of the field to make art for myself.

In the mid-1980s I had several small, local shows (group and solo), but my last show was in 1985 or so. Since then, I’ve been making art just for myself (occasionally selling prints to friends and others who know my work.)

In the last couple of years I’ve decided to get back into the public art world and, hopefully, find venues and opportunities to once again show my work to a wider audience. To that end I just built a website (link in sig), which is now being (slowly) populated with my work — starting with the most recent.

I’m here to get to know like-minded artists with whom I can share successes, failures, and ways to have more of the former and less of the latter!

 

[Terri]

Welcome to Creative Spark, Grant! We're glad you decided to join us.

Your photography sounds interesting. Best of luck to you, getting back into the public art world as you put it. I look forward to seeing your work! Enjoy the forum.

 

[Hermes2020]

Welcome, Grant. I looked at your impressive site. I liked the photos where you used camera movement creatively. A question about the San Xavier del Bac ones: were they shot on B&W film, or are they digital? I like the dark sky in the first one, which looks like you used a red filter.

 

[MaryKnos]

Hello Grant and welcome!

 

[GrantCee]

Welcome, Grant. I looked at your impressive site. I liked the photos where you used camera movement creatively. A question about the San Xavier del Bac ones: were they shot on B&W film, or are they digital? I like the dark sky in the first one, which looks like you used a red filter.

Thanks for the compliment.

That series, like everything I've done since 2000, is digital; I've had little problem adapting to the new technology. As a result, there isn't much qualitative difference between my earlier work in film and my current work in digital. In fact, my digital might be better. It certainly makes for greater correlation between my visualization and the finished print.

 

[Artyczar]

Hi Grant. Welcome to the site. Please make yourself comfortable here. I really look forward to getting to know more of your work.

I looked at your website and was fascinated with your color photography. I wish I knew more about it. Maybe you'll eventually post more about what it is when you get the site finished, like what kind of prints they are, or what kind of camera you used. They are really beautiful.

Again, welcome aboard!

EDIT: I just reread you answer to Wayne above. I didn't catch when you created the color photos. Were they since 2000? If so, that means they were done with a digital camera. May I ask what camera you used? They are so compelling.

Also, I found I had to click twice on the thumbnails in order to open the images into the larger lightbox view, FYI. Maybe it's my browser? I was using IE.

 

[Lazarus]

Hello and welcome.

 

[Queen Bee]

Welcome. Glad to have you join us.

 

[GrantCee]

Hi Grant. Welcome to the site. Please make yourself comfortable here. I really look forward to getting to know more of your work.

Thanks!

I looked at your website and was fascinated with your color photography. I wish I knew more about it. Maybe you'll eventually post more about what it is when you get the site finished, like what kind of prints they are, or what kind of camera you used. They are really beautiful.

Thanks for the compliment. At the risk of sounding arrogant or flippant, I usually don’t answer questions about cameras, for a couple of reasons.

For a few years in the early 1980s I taught photography (which is how I met my wife of 36 years!) Students found out what camera I used and would want to get the same one, sometimes selling off perfectly good equipment at a loss only to discover that their results didn’t change. I spent a lot of time doing “remedial” education to disabuse people of the notion that if they bought a “professional” camera, they’d get “professional” pictures.

Secondly, I’ve found that people make subconscious decisions about the work — and the artist — when they know the equipment used. I used to do a little experiment with said students where I’d put captions on the photos indicating the camera used. Over a large number of participants, I noted that they rated photographs higher when they believed they were made with certain cameras, and lower when they were made with “lesser” equipment. Of course, they were the same photographs!

From that experience I adopted the habit of taping over the brand name of the camera — I mean literally taking a piece of black or silver tape, and putting it on the camera over the brand name! I even challenged my students to do the same thing. (Very few took me up on the challenge.) I’ve done this since 1981 or so and continue to this day, regardless of how expensive or inexpensive the camera is.

The only time I talk about cameras is when there is a unique feature of the equipment which is important to the final result. However, virtually any decent camera made in the last 10 years is capable of the work you saw.

EDIT: I just reread you answer to Wayne above. I didn't catch when you created the color photos. Were they since 2000? If so, that means they were done with a digital camera.

Yes, everything currently on the site is recent work; the abstracts have been done over the last 2 years, with the most recent probably 6 months ago. I have more recent pieces in the series that I haven't finished or uploaded yet. I'll edit the pages to give a bit more feeling about chronology.

Also, I found I had to click twice on the thumbnails in order to open the images into the larger lightbox view, FYI. Maybe it's my browser? I was using IE.

Well, that's odd. I'd only tested it in Safari, where it takes one click, but when I tried it just now in Firefox (they only other browser I have) it definitely takes two. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll see what I can do to fix that!

 

[Artyczar]

Yes, same goes for Chrome, which is mostly what people use.

 

[Artyczar]

I understand you wanting to keep trade secrets. You don't need to give anyone an explanation as to "why." Just say you don't give out your secrets. And who cares what people think? I mean, I have a ton of issues about caring what people think, so I'm one to talk, but I know I shouldn't care. No one should, especially when it comes to their art.

That being said, I sometimes use toy cameras and Holgas. I don't care. They all give various different qualities. Some people exclusively use their iPhones, which have a pretty good lens on them. Who cares? But you still don't have to reveal anything you don't want to. No problem.

 

[GrantCee]

I understand you wanting to keep trade secrets. You don't need to give anyone an explanation as to "why." Just say you don't give out your secrets. And who cares what people think? I mean, I have a ton of issues about caring what people think, so I'm one to talk, but I know I shouldn't care. No one should, especially when it comes to their art.

That being said, I sometimes use toy cameras and Holgas. I don't care. They all give various different qualities. Some people exclusively use their iPhones, which have a pretty good lens on them. Who cares? But you still don't have to reveal anything you don't want to. No problem.

I'm afraid I didn't explain myself terribly well. There are no "trade secrets" in those pictures, and in a future post I'll show/tell how they were made. My point, as I said, is that darned near any camera will do what you see; the camera I used has zero bearing on the end result.

I have no problem telling people how I do what I do. It's just that the camera brand or model isn't an important part of it. I could walk into a camera store, pick any 5 digital cameras at random, and produce the same results (within the limits of repeatability of my technique, you understand.)

In your example, the Holga is a good illustration of what I said: "when there is a unique feature of the equipment which is important to the final result." In some cases we're looking for a specific feature or attribute, such as the lens of the Holga, that will deliver a particular result.

 

[Terri]

My point, as I said, is that darned near any camera will do what you see; the camera I used has zero bearing on the end result.

I have no problem telling people how I do what I do. It's just that the camera brand or model isn't an important part of it. I could walk into a camera store, pick any 5 digital cameras at random, and produce the same results (within the limits of repeatability of my technique, you understand.)

I understood what you were trying to get at - and as an instructor, you were actually trying to do your students a favor! Too bad they didn't appreciate it. It's along the lines of the old saw photographers hear: "That's a great shot! .....what camera did you use?" As if it were the camera that was in charge.

I've seen others use the technique you are doing with varying levels of success. You seem to have this method down pat!

 

[Hermes2020]

I agree with you. Although I am only an amateur photographer, I don't think the type or make of camera will determine the artistic quality of a photo.

I checked, and in my Vivaldi browser I only need one click to view a photo on your site.

 

[GrantCee]

I understood what you were trying to get at - and as an instructor, you were actually trying to do your students a favor! Too bad they didn't appreciate it. It's along the lines of the old saw photographers hear: "That's a great shot! .....what camera did you use?" As if it were the camera that was in charge.

Yeah, in days past I’d usually just slap my forehead, mutter obscenely, and walk away. I hope I’ve evolved a little since then!

I've seen others use the technique you are doing with varying levels of success. You seem to have this method down pat!

Thanks! I actually started experimenting with this in the 1980s. In theory, it’s possible to do it with film, but I quickly discovered it’s almost impossible to LEARN how to do it using film.

The physical control of the camera is the key to making those pictures, with small make huge differences — and you can't see what's happening until after the fact. The results are non-intuitive and difficult to control.

Even taking extensive voice notes, the time lag with film between exposure and viewing (even with a complete lab at my immediate disposal, which I was fortunate enough to have) meant that I couldn’t associate a particular set of movements with a particular result, let alone duplicate them. When you factor in the interaction of movements, it becomes impossible. And that’s before factoring in the high monetary cost of experimentation. So I forgot about my experiments for several decades.

That’s where digital imaging really made the difference (although it took me a while to realize it). I was able to work out, with the instantaneous feedback of the digital camera, which muscle movements produced what result. That enabled me to recreate the look I wanted, to communicate the feeling I had at that time, within certain limitations (there is still an amount of serendipity at work, but I think that’s true for all art.)

 

[Artyczar]

Hi Grant. Sorry I misunderstood what you were getting at, but just so you know, I wasn't after the brand of camera you used. Only if it was digital or not. I get that they are not secrets though. Got it. I am not a photographer, so I'm pretty dumb when it comes to this stuff.

Anyway, welcome again.

 

[GrantCee]

Hi Grant. Sorry I misunderstood what you were getting at, but just so you know, I wasn't after the brand of camera you used. Only if it was digital or not. I get that they are not secrets though. Got it. I am not a photographer, so I'm pretty dumb when it comes to this stuff.

Anyway, welcome again.

Gotcha! Sometimes my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be!

(And yes, everything you saw on the site was done in digital.)

 

[GrantCee]

Thanks to everyone who reported the problems with the galleries on my site. If you wouldn't mind visiting again, I'd like to know if there are any other problems!

(I'm not sure how I fixed it, but everything is currently working in Firefox on my iMac.)

 

[Jo Castillo]

Welcome, have fun here.

 

[rodhlann]

Welcome! I'm excited to see your photography