The purpose
of this section is to (1) explain how the images in the inventory
were
shot and scanned, and (2) provide tips for others who are interested
in photographing old buildings. The bulk of the text is an extended
explanation of how and why I have approached photographing old churches
in the manner I have. If you are not interested in understanding
some
of the reasons for the choices I've made, but simply want to point
and click at old buildings, scroll down to the section on tips,
where you
may find a couple of things that could be helpful. If you are truly
serious about photography, please check our new site at this address:
http://thinklikeaphotographer.com
Photographs
on this site
As of December
2005 I have photographed more than 1100 old churches over the
last eight years
and have amassed something on the order of 12,000 negatives, about
half of them shot with a large format (4x5) view camera. In the last
six months I have increasing used a 35mm digital camera (Nikon D70)
because of the convenience. Until the last year,
most
images were taken with the idea that I would, at some point, make a
silver print of the best of the images, stuff them in a box and forget
about
them. I have created a portfolio of 8-10 prints each year as gifts
for my daughter and son and for a few friends, but I gave little thought,
until recently, about wider dissemination, and most of the prints are
unique.
After
I had photographed 60-70 of the old churches in Hunterdon county,
I beg
an
to think about making those images of the county's churchscape available
to local historical groups, and, indeed, I created a CD-ROM which
I
gave to the county's Planning Board. The idea of a book on Hunterdon's
early churches occurred to me, and I prepared several dummies in
an
attempt to fix the concept a little more firmly in my eye. I proposed
the book to Rutgers University Press and they countered with a suggestion
that the book include churches and synagogues from at least half
the
counties in the state. The result is The New Jersey Churchscape,
which you can read about elsewhere on this website.
In February
2000, I outlined the plan for a website that would document all
the
18th and 19th century churches of the state, displaying low resolution
images that have been scanned in from exhibition-quality prints.
But
my primary orientation remained a "fine art photographer"
rather than an architectural historian who displays his images on the
web. The distinction is crucial, for if I were to take the latter approach,
I would likely switch to a digital camera and skip several time-consuming
steps that usually add little to the image quality that the user sees
on his\her screen. To the genealogist or the casual reader, the intermediate
step of a quality print makes little sense; a basic, straightforward
image of the church is all that is needed, together with the location
and phone number of the congregation. But an aggregation of snapshots
is not what motivates me, so although I am increasingly making use
of a digital camera, I'm likely to continue to use the 4 x 5 camera
when the light is right and I like the building; where
a church is clad in aluminum and I have little wish to make a fine
image, I'd almost like to use a throwaway camera with a plastic
lens.
One
major concession I have made in the last year is to shoot more 35mm
and to place more
emphasis on getting a reasonably good image of a church in a reasonable
period of time. In the past I have revisited some sites half a dozen
times, in different light and at different seasons before I got an
image I was satisfied with. Obviously, one who is intent on photographing
all of the state's 1350 or so old churches must make some compromises
if the task is to be finished in one lifetime. Moreover, I have
gone
more than a year before making prints of many of my 4x5 negatives,
and that delay is not congruent with my intention to populate the
photographic
inventory as quickly as possible. Many of the initial images on the
website were made from scanning a Polaroid print, and most of the
recent
ones were scanned directly from the negatives or are digital images
to begin with (usually shot in Raw mode). Polaroid images have an
astonishingly good tonal range, and more importantly,
they
are
available
immediately.
I will eventually (probably) make a good silver print from a standard
negative,
but in the meantime, I doubt the web reader will know, or care, that
I took a shortcut.
About
half of the sites I have photographed have not yet made it to the
web; the
impediment is time, and making a print that can be scanned. Feature
articles take priority so I often outline the article or theme, then
find
images
to illustrate it; if I am missing an image, I hold the article until
I have a chance to photograph the church I need. The issue
on the
state's remaining synagogues was held for many weeks until I could
photograph synagogues in Atlantic City and Woodbine. A previous
issue on the
wooden Quaker meeting houses could not be completed until I had printed
the meeting house in Dover; I still do not have all the images I
want
for the article on Akron plan churches. So to those who have
sent me a friendly e-mail asking when I was going to get to a favorite
church of theirs, I can only say I will get to it eventually. I do
attempt to photograph the really old churches, the very interesting
or the especially
endangered ones as I learn of them, but I also now work an area
systematically, rather than jump from county to county, taking a
few shots here and
a few there.
How
the photographs were made (mostly)
Urban landscapes impose more constraints on the photographer than churches
situated in small towns or at a rural crossroads there are signs,
traffic, parked cars and adjacent buildings that often limit the
photographer
from choosing the perspective he would prefer. That's part of the challenge.
Even in a tight situation (a narrow street and a church with a tall
steeple) the photographer usually has a couple of choices, depending
on the time of day and the available lenses (my widest angle lens
for the 4 x 5 camera is 90mm,
equivalent to about a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera); for the Nikon I
have a 10-18mm zoom, which is a really, really wide angle lens. My
first step is to take my time, walking around the subject. Although
I try
to park close to the church, I often walk back a half block or more
to see if I can improve the view, minimize the distortion, or include
more scape in the churchscape.
When
I have made my initial choice, it's simply a matter of setting up
the
tripod, selecting the appropriate lens and then making adjustments
in the camera position to include an interesting feature or exclude
distracting
elements. One of the reasons I moved to a large format camera years
ago was to avoid the point and shoot approach that is too easy when
you have a 35mm camera and lots of film. With the digital camera the
tendency is even greater—even shooting at the highest resolution
I have the capability of making 155 images on a single memory card
. . . and I always have a spare memory card with me. Most of the
time I spend is on composing the photograph; I hope that shows.
My
purpose is not to document the site for preservation efforts or as an
architectural historian, so I make little effort to shoot the full range:
front elevation, side, 3/4 front, 3/4 rear, and rear. I simply look
for an image which features any distinctive element in the church itself
or in its setting. Sometimes a dramatic sky or the markings on the pavement
is the real subject and the church simply the excuse. My prejudice against
aluminum siding is so strong (because of the elimination of the texture
of the clapboards, the cornice, dentils, etc.), that I rarely take more
than a single image of a church that has been so desecrated. On the
other hand, a building like the Mt. Salem Methodist church in
Alexandria
Township (Hunterdon), St. Mary's in Burlington, and the Seventh Day
Baptist church in Plainfield have been photographed from multiple angles,
with close-ups of details and broad scape images.
I
usually avoid shooting when the sky is clear, unless it is very early
in the morning or late in the afternoon, but if I have traveled some
distance, I try to get the important churches when the light is best
and use the middle of the day for library research, interior shots or
just scouting the territory. I have made many excellent images during
midday, but the building generally fills the frame and I shoot from
an angle that takes advantage of the overhead light.
I
prefer to shoot in the early spring or
late
fall, when leaves are off the trees and the limbs and boughs impart
their own architectural quality to the image. But obviously I don't
hide indoors during the summer months; I will shoot a church and plan
on returning later, noting that it would be measurably better if the
view were not obstructed by leaves, although in many cases, one can
take advantage of the framing afforded by the foliage.
Although
I generally abhor parked cars (especially white ones), I usually don't
mind power lines and traffic signals, and I welcome the opportunity
to photograph when a scaffolding has been erected and the church is
undergoing some renovation. If you are not going to manipulate the image
in PhotoShop (I don't), look for ways to include the detritus of the
times, as a means of fixing a date or simply documenting the scene as
it existed on a certain date at the opening of the 21st century. I don't
try to exclude elements that reveal when the photograph was made or
to portray the church as it might have looked in the 1840s. Be honest
with your viewers. If you want good examples, look at Atget, Walker
Evans, David Plowden and George Tice. I love the work of Frederick Evans
and Charles Marville, but their approach seems less suitable today for
the kind of subjects I am doing.
Very
few of my photographs include people, generally because I don't
shoot
Sunday at midmorning, but also because people are usually a distracting
element. An exposure of a half second (common for me) means that
most
people will be blurred. But some images are helped by the presence
of a person.
For
this image of a barred side door to the Clinton Avenue Reformed
church
in Newark, which was shot about 7:am, I used a 150mm lens with a yellow
filter. I shot at an aperture of f32 and exposed it for 1/5 second.
There is some detail in the shadows and texture even in the lightest
area of the print. The film is TMAX 100, which I use for both 4x5
and
35 mm. That exposure gives me a fairly dense negative. I have noticed
that dense negatives often do not scan as well as those that are
a bit thin, so I generally now make two negatives—one about one
stop
larger
than my standard. I use SilverFast as my scanning software.
Almost
70% of my images were made with a wide angle lens, about 25% with
a
normal (150mm lens) and the remainder with a 250mm or (rarely) a 400mm
lens. Except in very low light or indoors, I almost always use a
yellow
filter, even
on an overcast day. I rarely use an orange filter and never a red one,
which makes the sky artificially black even at midday. Ansel could
do
it, but I don't care for my results. With the digital camera the only
filter I use (sparingly) is a polarizing filter; I can generally
get most of the effects I want from manipulating the curves and/or
color balance in Photoshop.
Tips for the
casual (black & white) photographer: