New Topographics

[BenFromMT]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi. my name is ben and i am writing from Montana in the US. i am a graphic designer with a love for photography. I am doing a project documenting the old adverts painted on the sides of brick buildings. I am shooting a Digilux 3 which i love. i am a huge fan of the "New Topographics" crew. (who isn't) Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, Henry Wessel, Jr. and Bernd and Hilla Becher. anyhow, wondering if you wise folks here in the forum have any tips, advice or secrets about capturing, processing, production or settings on the camera to shoot and produce in the spirits of the great topographers. thanks in advance. ben

[DavidStone]

hi. my name is ben and i am writing from Montana in the US. i am a graphic designer with a love for photography. I am doing a project documenting the old adverts painted on the sides of brick buildings. I am shooting a Digilux 3 which i love. i am a huge fan of the "New Topographics" crew. (who isn't) Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, Henry Wessel, Jr. and Bernd and Hilla Becher. anyhow, wondering if you wise folks here in the forum have any tips, advice or secrets about capturing, processing, production or settings on the camera to shoot and produce in the spirits of the great topographers. thanks in advance. ben

 

Most of what these people produced was, intentionally, straight recording. No tricks, no fancy angles. The Bechers in particular took this philosophy to its logical conclusion, with their grids of industrial buildings. I think that if you read what's been written by and about the people you mention, it's clear that if you want to emulate the Bechers, then a view camera with at least a rising front would be useful - and the skills to make use of it. Otherwise almost any hand-held camera could have been used for the majority of Lewis Baltz' work, for instance. I don't think that there are any secrets in terms of technique or equipment, it's more a question of the right approach to the subject, and an appreciation of what they were trying to do - which obviously you have.

 

David

[BenFromMT]

super. thanks david

[j. white]

I too am a fan of Robert Adams' photos as well as his writing. I was surprised and delighted during a recent visit to MoMa in New York to find a sampling of his work shot in square format, and assume a medium format camera was used. The photos had the same clarity of vision (perhaps acuity is a better word) as seen in his large format work, but were printed on a smaller scale that allowed for a more personal relationship to the subjects (for me at least).

 

I agree with David that their results have much to do with how each of these artists approached their subjects. I would hazard a guess that for many of them, the choice of camera and technique was primarily a question of how best to realize their intentions.

 

Best,

 

 

-J.

[DaveSee]

Hiya, neat topic... and many years since that "New Topos" exhibit, required too. As posted, the gear(or processing, Gursky?) is less the concern, lest that's what's on show.

 

From a couple other POV, try a topo without a brand presented, including the locale(street signs, and other linguistic traits/signs included) while subject is "New Topo". "Water Towers" have a cultural lineage the Becher's couldn't mask(that's correct, there's a trick to even the most "plain" description). Then, there's the "distance" varieties of Chinese(sic) painting, "deep", "level" and "high"... and to see them as "ARAT" is simply not seeing, but that's the fundamental problem with ARAT: elements seen only.

 

You may have all the gear you need, but renting some other gear(and later move to) will always offer support towards ends... somehow, however, I get the impression you're seeking more "precision". If so, I'll leave that alone... far too subjective a topic.

 

rgds,

Dave