Cabinette

[thronobulax]

What can you tell me about your shot titled "pecking order" with the legs and pigeons in front of the Bodleian Library, Oxford? Were you living in Oxford or visiting? Any other shots from Oxford you want to share? Thanks.

In August of 1993 I needed to be in England on some business matters. I took some down time to explore a few places, Oxford among them.

This image was shot handheld with a Hasselblad 500CM and an 80mm f/2.8 CF T* Planar. It was taken on Agfapan APX 100 and processed conventionally in HC-110 dilution B. It was printed on Adox Vario Classic G using a Zone VI VC Cold Light, fixed and then toned in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner before final wash. The print was scanned and then post processed with GIMP.

When I printed it large, it was interesting (and it's hard to see in this old, rather blurry scan) that there is someone looking down on the courtyard from the second floor window on the left, apparently watching me capture the scene. It was a kind of "easter egg" discovery that showed up only in the printing process.

Sadly, I have no other Oxford pictures of any merit from that trip.

 

[thronobulax]

The procedure generalizes for pretty much any film.

Lucky was actually the last of many films I've processed this way.

I should clarify - it generalizes for any monochrome silver film.

 

[Nas]

Thanks for your info on the Oxford picture. I know that spot well and photographed there numerous times. It looks very different now and is the entrance to the Weston Library.

 

[thronobulax]

Indeed you're right, but on-screen it's rather hard to tell the brightness of the paper base. The small difference between the white paint and the Ice sign remains.
Nevertheless, this print seems to recall the sensation of looking at something in bright sunlight. One almost screws up one's eyes.
The same tone on a different subject - let's say a piece of paper on a desk - wouldn't arouse the same reaction even if the print's tonal range was similar.

@David M You gave me cause to think about this more deeply (and thanks for that!).

I think you are onto something substantive here. There is the artefact as rendered that causes one level of response. But there are likely other psychological triggers and atavisms - neural memory from personal history or something instinctual from our respective cultural roots - that causes us to see an artefeact through the filter of those memories. We are both seeing through our eyes but also through our memories.

As another example of this consider this image:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20250825-1-19-Lightly_Faded.jpg

Now the image is the image, is the image. It does, in some degree, evoke that sense of blazing sun on the wall. (I had to print this way down with a soft VC light to get it where I wanted.)

But what draws me to this image as well it the surrounding story. I had just shot that image, finishing the afternoon shooting a roll for testing purposes (details below). It was beautiful out and very peaceful in the country. As I left, I saw a pull-out area across the road with a utility service vehicle parked there. A young man was laying on the ground in obvious medical distress. He likely had appendicitis and was in a lot of pain. His pain began to subside but I stayed with him until his wife could get there some time later to get him to hospital.

I remember taking the picture. I remember seeing him on the ground. But what really connects to this day is the conversation we had about his life. A life that had gone from significant drug abuse, to a Christian faith, to marriage, to a good job with the utilities company. His energy to do right and make a proper life was inspirational even as he sat there in pain. I never learned his full name or where here lived exactly, but I'll never forget him or that day.

No one could get any of that from this picture. None of it is in evidence. But it is deeply wired into my psyche. The picture is far more than just "the picture" for me. It is this gentle reminder of how good can triumph over abject destruction ... and it is echoed, quite unintentionally on my part, by the beauty found in the decaying wood. That is what this picture means to me and why it is in the workbook.

Only I could have known that story or its significance. And that is why I say that art isn't primarily for the audience but for the artist.

Technical Details

[August 2025] Lightly Faded

Leica M4, 50mm f/2 Summicron, Kodak TMX, semistand developed in Pyrocat-HDC 1+1+200, scan of selenium toned print

In short, a "test" image became a memorable moment and something from my own autobiography.

 

[David M]

Thank you for that. I shall have to give it some thought.

 

[Barney]

@David M You gave me cause to think about this more deeply (and thanks for that!).

I think you are onto something substantive here. There is the artefact as rendered that causes one level of response. But there are likely other psychological triggers and atavisms - neural memory from personal history or something instinctual from our respective cultural roots - that causes us to see an artefeact through the filter of those memories. We are both seeing through our eyes but also through our memories.

As another example of this consider this image:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20250825-1-19-Lightly_Faded.jpg

Now the image is the image, is the image. It does, in some degree, evoke that sense of blazing sun on the wall. (I had to print this way down with a soft VC light to get it where I wanted.)

But what draws me to this image as well it the surrounding story. I had just shot that image, finishing the afternoon shooting a roll for testing purposes (details below). It was beautiful out and very peaceful in the country. As I left, I saw a pull-out area across the road with a utility service vehicle parked there. A young man was laying on the ground in obvious medical distress. He likely had appendicitis and was in a lot of pain. His pain began to subside but I stayed with him until his wife could get there some time later to get him to hospital.

I remember taking the picture. I remember seeing him on the ground. But what really connects to this day is the conversation we had about his life. A life that had gone from significant drug abuse, to a Christian faith, to marriage, to a good job with the utilities company. His energy to do right and make a proper life was inspirational even as he sat there in pain. I never learned his full name or where here lived exactly, but I'll never forget him or that day.

No one could get any of that from this picture. None of it is in evidence. But it is deeply wired into my psyche. The picture is far more than just "the picture" for me. It is this gentle reminder of how good can triumph over abject destruction ... and it is echoed, quite unintentionally on my part, by the beauty found in the decaying wood. That is what this picture means to me and why it is in the workbook.

Only I could have known that story or its significance. And that is why I say that art isn't primarily for the audience but for the artist.

Technical Details

[August 2025] Lightly Faded

Leica M4, 50mm f/2 Summicron, Kodak TMX, semistand developed in Pyrocat-HDC 1+1+200, scan of selenium toned print

In short, a "test" image became a memorable moment and something from my own autobiography.

That image, to me, still conveys the sense of intense brightness, it is just that colour is not white as previously shown in the Ice shot

 

[David M]

We seem to have come upon two kinds of internal drivers of our reactions to an image. There are common experiences, such as being in bright light, or in cold snow, or crowded places, for example and then there are individual and private ones. Although you describe the moving incident of the young man by the roadside very well, and we can all sympathise with that, none of us can carry away the same intensity of feeling.
In fact, to a third party’s eye, the image looks just as you describe; a subject chosen specifically for testing a development procedure.

 

[thronobulax]

We seem to have come upon two kinds of internal drivers of our reactions to an image. There are common experiences, such as being in bright light, or in cold snow, or crowded places, for example and then there are individual and private ones. Although you describe the moving incident of the young man by the roadside very well, and we can all sympathise with that, none of us can carry away the same intensity of feeling.
In fact, to a third party’s eye, the image looks just as you describe; a subject chosen specifically for testing a development procedure.

Yes, and I think this is why we can have constructive conversations about mechanism (materials, equipment, processing, travel ...), but meaning is pretty much constrained to the maker of the artefact.

I see a lot of these "Artist's Statements" in which the maker tries very hard to convey said meaning or importance of the work. But beyond a simple recitation of the facts of the work and an explanation of general worldview, I think such statements are largely not that useful.

As you say, there is an external understanding of the work which can be generally shared, and and internal one which largely cannot.

Again, thanks for the stimulus to think about all this a bit more.

And now, back to the 5x4 conversations already in progress ...

(Sadly, the weapons of choice this week will only cover 3x2 film, not 5x4

 

[thronobulax]

That image, to me, still conveys the sense of intense brightness, it is just that colour is not white as previously shown in the Ice shot

This has a lot to do with how I printed the negative. As captured, the negative is as bright (or possibly even brighter) than the ice house wall. But I wanted to print it down a bit to emphasize the shadows and make the peeling wall more pronounced.