Tom's coffee stained image below got me thinking.

Last night I saw a special on the Travel channel (direct TV) about Phil Borges photography in Ecuador. He takes a Hassie and a mini studio lighting system into the jungle and get photo of witch doctors...now, that a real gutsie pro! He uses some sort of selective toning process which I find quite unique to my eye. I like warm toned prints and his method is particularly striking. See his fine website for many samples and commentary:

http://www.philborges.com/index.html

Does anyone know how he does that toning process?

BTW, Tom, did you use real coffee for the toning!?

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 20, 2000

Answers

This question has been answered plenty of times on a variety of forums. Try clicking here for just one place in which this is answered.

Not that you asked, but I really don't like his work. I wrote this several years ago on a mailing list:

I don't share your enthusiasm for his work. His approach is simplistic and as a result makes its subjects seem simplistic. There is a lot of photography of indigenous cultures that is much more connected to those cultures, and as a result, has more empathy as opposed to Borges' sympathy.

And a response from Tina Manley (http://main.nc.us/openstudio/tinamanley/) who photographs quite a bit in indigenous cultures:

I agree with Jeff here. Phil Borges' photographs are technically beautiful but seem emotionally dead. The people are viewed as curiousities and their differences are emphasized rather than their humanity. They are beautifully exposed and printed still lifes.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 20, 2000.

It's a standard fashion catalog trick of scrimming the model and using the sun as a fill while supplying an electronic main light. See any J Crew catalog for the same effect. I personally don't care for the hand coloring, it makes it too kitschy. I am embroiled in the commercial world too much to object to a lighting technique moving from commerce to art. They usually migrate the other way, with no objection from the commercial shooters, but us artists really sneer at the ring flash, Octabank, etc. intruding into the realm of art photography. Perhaps we should consider that his pictures make these indigenous people more accessible to white bread westerners when shown in "fashion" lighting. Although I think my hero Mr. Penn did a much better job of it.

Yep it's really coffee, left over from breakfast. You can see some uneven staining on the left edge.

I liked Phil's work much better when it was in "Lenswork" mag and I couldn't see the selective coloring. The Tibetan work is really beautiful, that little girl holding the shell looks emotionally present and capable as well, and the father/son shepards is a very memorable image, and I think a genuine document. I didn't get the same empathy from the Somalian work, perhaps it had become more formulaic by then, or maybe he was worried about the militias and getting his ass killed in the process. Actually I think the Tibetans themselves (and my personal empathy for them) were the main reason for the success of those images, but Phil really had to put himself out there. I can't criticise him from where I sit... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.

Actually, I'm going to use this technique at a wedding in South Georgia this weekend. Using the Live Oaks as a background and Polaroid 665 with a big softbox. Yikes! I just rented a 4x6 ft Chimera! 15$ a day! Cool!... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.

The outrageous arrogance of these comments are only exceeded by their lack of self-awareness.

Apparently the only appropriate way to shoot members of other cultures or subcultures (whether in the third world, in the projects, or in suburbia) is either in stark black-and-white (so that we can see how oppressed and miserable they "really" are) or in equally stark yet saturated color (so that we can see how childlike and innocent they really are). All I see in those kinds of pictures is a condescending neo-colonialism masquerading as concern. (The "white-man's burden" renewed.)

Borges takes serious, artistic portraits of individuals, using some of the best techniques of his (our) culture. (He, in fact, calls them portraits and doesn't try to pass them off as ethnography.) When Lauren Greenfield is mentioned, everyone is thrilled that she managed to penetrate "deepest, darkest" California for her book Fast Forward and amazed at how she was accepted by the indigenous peoples there - but Borges is treated like he's taking snapshots of cigar-store Indians. (Does anyone ever read the text accompanying his shots?)

However, the real problem is the "art" versus "artifice" opposition. Heaven forbid you should bring a flash with you to a foreign land - much less manipulate your print after the fact (dodging, burning, and sepia toning of course excepted). Let's only have pictures that mask the photographer's involvement (and bias) through the use of techniques which are (unfortunately) almost transparent to our jaded eyes.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.

John, are you feeling alright? You seem to be responding to things no-one said.

Apparently the only appropriate way to shoot members of other cultures or subcultures (whether in the third world, in the projects, or in suburbia) is either in stark black-and-white (so that we can see how oppressed and miserable they "really" are)

No-one said this.

or in equally stark yet saturated color (so that we can see how childlike and innocent they really are).

No-one said this.

All I see in those kinds of pictures is a condescending neo- colonialism masquerading as concern. (The "white-man's burden" renewed.)

What photographs are you talking about? No-one mentioned anyone else's photographs.

Borges takes serious, artistic portraits of individuals, using some of the best techniques of his (our) culture.

They're boring. They're numbing after you get through the whole exhibition. They invoke sympathy, as I said above, which isn't necessary or enjoyable.

(He, in fact, calls them portraits and doesn't try to pass them off as ethnography.)

Does he exhibit photos of people at home?

(Does anyone ever read the text accompanying his shots?)

Yes. So what?

Heaven forbid you should bring a flash with you to a foreign land - much less manipulate your print after the fact (dodging, burning, and sepia toning of course excepted).

Who said not to bring flash? Or not to manipulate?

Let's only have pictures that mask the photographer's involvement (and bias) through the use of techniques which are (unfortunately) almost transparent to our jaded eyes.

Who said anything about this? Who?

I think Luis Gonzalez Palma is one of the most affecting (and effective) photographers of indigenous people (and there are real issues around this). It's all done in the studio, and with plenty of post-shooting manipulation. In fact, many of them are barely photographic when he is done. But they are much more striking, much more interesting, much more empathetic, much deeper culturally and photographically than Borges simplistic (yes, simplistic) work.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 21, 2000.

Bad day John?

as I said, I can't criticize him, from where I sit. But since you insist, the technique does get a little formulaic. But that's my criticism as a photographer. Perhaps Mr. Borges doesn't take these pictures to please other photographers. More power to him. Especially if he can help to preserve their cultural integrity, as he said in the "Lenswork" article I mentioned. By the way, I don't buy that magazine just to look at the pictures, it's to read the articles (oh, wait... that's "Playboy")... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.

What impressed me with Phil Burges' photography is that he doesn't go into an alien culture and invade other people's privacy. His work can't be described as photojournalistic or documentary, in the strict use of those terms; nor is it pure "art" (whatever that means), but is, up front, portraiture. When I watched the documentary it was obvious that he was there for a purpose...to photograph people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, in a formal portrait style, with a processing twist (selective toning...art?). Although his site includes a snapshot section, he is not loaded down with cameras, bags, and gadgets...not a camera to be seen except when he's "at work." Of course it's formalistic...that's what it's supposed to be. The same can be said about Newman, Karsh, and others who are portrait photographers...except that Burges' studio is in the jungle. It was obvious to me that the people he photographed wanted to be photographed and had full trust with Phil in this process. It was also obvious that he was not photographing "poor depressed" people who should be living in great affluent America, and who we should feel sorry for, but, instead, he was photographing people who are proud to be what they are. These people took pride in the paint and dress they wore...they were in their "Sunday best" and proud of it and took delight in the polaroids he gave them. Of course his style is formalistic and simplistic (in the positive sense of those terms), and is intended to be that way...that's his style! Style is ok! Whether we like his work, or don't like it, is our own personal business. He makes no apologies for what he does or the way he does it, and I doubt if he cries on the way to the bank. I like what he's doing and hope to see more.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 21, 2000.

My error...a mental typo...but I ment to write Borges, not Burges.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 21, 2000.

Have you photographed in the so-called Third World, Todd?

What impressed me with Phil Burges' photography is that he doesn't go into an alien culture and invade other people's privacy.

Most photographers that succeed don't do that (although tourists do.) In Latin America and Africa, I have photographed in homes. Every time, it has been an invitation to visit and sometimes to eat. It was never to invade. I never lead with the camera, nor do I take it out until we have spent some time together. In some homes, especially with more religious families, I end up never taking out the camera. Many other people work the same way.

These people took pride in the paint and dress they wore...they were in their "Sunday best" and proud of it

I have found that most boys and men are proud of Nike-logo'd items. Most would rather be photographed wearing that clothing.

Whether we like his work, or don't like it, is our own personal business.

Are you saying we shouldn't discuss it?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 21, 2000.

I have photographed in Egypt, Jordan, rural Mexico, and downtown San Jose (CA, that is).

Of course we should discuss it...isn't that what we're doing. Your thoughts, my thoughts, everybody's thoughts...keep 'em coming...this is getting good, even though we're not on the topic of selective toning! So what!

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 21, 2000.

(Sorry to shock you, but that was just the academic me - the "real" me as a matter of fact - which you can see, by the way, in previous posts of mine in the Philosophy of Photography forum. In an academic setting, "spirited discussion" is the name of the day!)

However, I am outraged at those kinds of simplistic value judgements, particularly since they were made with no apparent desire to examine the actual ground of the argument (the unexamined assumptions underlying those statements). Who said it? You did; it's the subtext on which those blanket judgements are based. I'm trying to get you to wake up and take a look at those assumptions.

I've seen Borges' work before, but had not really taken the time to examine it or form an opinion, but I don't like the fact that he is being judged arbitrarily. Whether critiquing art, film, politics, - whatever - I don't like these kinds of value "judgements" at all. They serve no purpose except to exclude new ideas and to reinforce old dogmas. What I much prefer are interpretations that create some value from the process.

In this case, the choice of Palma as a rebuttal just serves to validate my argument. You're allowed to be either a serious "artist," embuing your work with some timeless "essence" (which really just means manipulating the hell out of it) or to be that supposedly impartial observer who is welcomed into an alien culture to record pure unmediated reality (though usually with a touch of condescension). Borges, rather obviously (and as Todd points out nicely), doesn't map on to either pole. While there's something to be learned from traditional photo-ethnography (a la Greenfield) or art like that of Palma's, there's a big problem if you think that either (or both) represent "truth."

Borges' work arouses animosity in those versed in traditional photographic techniques precisely because it transgresses - using commercial techniques for "serious" cultural ends (regardless of the fact that Borges doesn't ever seem to claim such seriousness). Rather than just dismiss him, it would be far better to examine what he is doing and how it both gives a different perspective on the subjects than traditional approaches do, and - equally importantly - provides a new awareness of the limitations and manipulations inherent in those traditional approaches - and of the unspoken agendas of those who use them.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.

I'm never quite sure what questions are going to stimulate debate, and my toning question was the last on my list to arouse such a lively response. However, it is interesting and intellectually stimulating to be sure.

On the other hand, whenever I get involved in these exchanges I like to this back on an incident in Edward Weston's life a number of years after he created Pepper #30: the intellectual world was embroiled in a debate over the sexual connotation of this print or if it was actually a spiritual rendition of the Virgin and child. When asked, Weston said it was only a pepper and he ate it for dinner, with the apology for cannibalistically devouring his subjects.

I sometimes think that formalism and simplicity are good traits to develop in anyone's creative work...it builds discipline.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 21, 2000.

Well, on the whole appropriation thing I don't really have an opinion about it as I like his photos yet I can see the down side. I stumbled across this site: http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/keita/1.html I can't do the wizardry of a link. But it seems this guy was doing portraits in Mali for years isolated from European norms. Maybe some images of cultures made by themselves would even things out?

More than that though, I just love these pictures. I wish I could do that. I want to appropriate Keita's technique.

Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), June 22, 2000.

Seydou Keita is a wonderful portrait photographer. A book of his photographs came out a few years ago and it's definitely worth picking up.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 22, 2000.

I just glanced at the Keita site. Never heard of him; have now...and like what I saw! Bookmarked for later serious study.

I think I'm beginning to see what I enjoy in certain portraits...can't put a label on it, except to say it's a type of "sytlized formalism"...give me a better name if you can...help me here. Walker Evans did some of this when he photographed country folk, Mary Ellen Mark did some in her circus portraits and others (the family in the car comes to mind), Diane Arbus always used this style, Avedon did it all in his America portraits.

This kind of portraiture is posed and planned and directly confronts the viewer and each image has a thematic purpose, like Avedon's "Bee Man," or Arbus' "Twins." Whether or not we like Borges' style, or his toning techniques, he uses this kind of formalism...to me it's the antithesis of the kind of street photography we see in Winogrand, which I dislike greatly. Any thoughts on this?

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 22, 2000.

The word I was using is "Forumulaic" very fifferent from formalistic.

After thinking about it, this is what I don't care for about his technique: It's indiginous people in imported light. The light in Tibet is different than the light in Somalia. They look like they were shot in the studio and comped into a stock landscape shot for the background. When the selective toning and coloring is added, I expect to see a boxed set in the airport titled "Indigenous Folk in Their Sunday Best".

Try the portraits that Irving Penn did it Paris, Peru, New Guniea, Scotland, and Manhatten (the art tribe). These are all shot in daylight studios, either rented or manufactured on location. The light is indigenous to the subject. Even the fashion models juxaposed with these location portraits (in the book "Passages") are shot with light indigenous to the fashion world (electronic).

Mr.Borges has made some beautiful portraits as I stated (and was ignored) above. But after veiwing 30 or 40 of them, the technique (equipment and finishing) becomes the overwhelming characteristic of the portfolio...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 22, 2000.

I think it's rather difficult trying to justify the concept of "indigenous light," but at least it's an explicit ground from which to discuss the subject. That's the kind of self-examination I was trying to get you to do - as a first step.

However, as I touched on above, I like the fact that Borges techniques draw attention to themselves. His shots serve to remind us that any observation is neither objective nor free of manipulation. But more than that, when viewed next to traditional photo-ethnography, they serve to highlight techniques that we too often take to be transparent and without bias. His work doesn't supplant traditional styles, but enhances them by raising our awareness.

Most importantly, this kind of self-conscious critical awareness is a hallmark of Postmodern thinking.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 22, 2000.

John, can you expand upon:

"self-conscious critical awareness"

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I am genuinely interested.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 22, 2000.

Borges

I just looked at the portraits from Keita and I feel they are no different than what Borges is trying to do which is to present his subjects in a particular light. Present them in the manner which he wants you to see them. I would like someone to tell me what the difference is between the two. I wish I had picked up a few Borges portraits years ago. They are nearly out of sight now. I especially like his portrait of the two (Somali sisters)? with their backs to the camera out in the scrub lands. Nice Acacia tree and the old Somali woman looking out the near side of the frame. He had the artistic vision to put her there even though it is not the "normal" placement of someone looking out of the frame. And I really like the toning technique too. When he started doing it there was an added dimension to the images. Few were doing it. Yes and there are those purists who disdain the "formula" that he employs but there ain't too many images by anyone that don't use some previously used schtick anyway so what's the beef? And I did hear the disdain which was cleverly concealed but readable nonetheless. There are people who dislike or at least don't care for Borges' work as there are those not liking other artists' work. That's ok too. Just because they don't know good work from a hole in the ground. Lumberjack.

-- james er lumberjack (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.

Mr.Borges has made some beautiful portraits as I stated (and was ignored) above. But after veiwing 30 or 40 of them, the technique (equipment and finishing) becomes the overwhelming characteristic of the portfolio

And this is one of two fundamental problems with Borges. Someone called it a "style," but it's not; it's a technique. And when it sticks out all over as technique, everything loses its value. The subjects are subjugated by the technique. Which is my second point. And his stuff is supposedly about the subjects, but it isn't. It's about the techqnique. And that's what I find offensive about it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 22, 2000.

I won't waste my sensability by finding his work offensive, there's much more offensive fish to dispose of...

This comment is the reason I am loath to engage in acedemic discourse (discourse for it's own sake, to justify ones own existence by confounding oneself and then teaching a class about self confoundment for the good of your own whatever...) "I like the fact that Borges techniques draw attention to themselves" .... it sounds sort of neurotic, and I have less even affinity for postmodernism than I have for academia, it (PMism) sucks all the fun out of discovery, grace and self awareness and forces self-conciousness upon us. "Some are born self-concious, some learn self-conciousness and others have self- conciousness thrust upon (or thrown up on) them.

Did you hear Shak quoting Shakespeare? I almost wrecked my car it was so cool. He took a major leap up in my esteem... t

sorry if this pisses you off John, I really like you and this point of contention is not worth any animosity between us... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 22, 2000.

Tom said:

> Mr.Borges has made some beautiful portraits as I stated (and was > ignored) above. But after veiwing 30 or 40 of them, the technique > (equipment and finishing) becomes the overwhelming characteristic > of the portfolio...

Good point, Tom, but...for one to think that Phil Borges can only do pictures using that technique is not accurate. To say that looking at 30 or 40 pictures within a series makes the technique stand out more than the photos is stating the obvious.

The greatest artists have spent years perfecting a "technique". It's what makes them rich and/or famous. To talk down about Borges' ability because of his fairly monotonous technique is like deriding Picasso for his relentless use of Cubism. Like saying Seurat is mundane because of his torturous use of Pointilism. Like saying Monet is just plain boring because of his dependence on French Impressionism.

It's fairly obvious that the greatest minds are driven into a perfection of discipline that may seem myopic to those who value their "freedom". However, to simply decrease the value of their work because, "it all just looks the same" doesn't sound right to me.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), June 23, 2000.

There's a lot of confusion going on here about technique and style. Technique is something that others, with enough skill and/or practice, can easily master. Style, on the other hand, is when a set of techniques is incorporated in such a way that when combined with the photographer's vision, it becomes invisible. Technique without style is obvious, and this is the problem with Borges' work. A good example of very unusual technique that disappears completely in the final work can be seen in the photographs of Ortiz-Echague. It's also very much a component of the work of great painters. After 30 of Picasso's paintings (I went to a Picasso museum in the south of France a few years ago where this is a possibility), one doesn't think at all about what we think of as Picasso's technique - it isn't even relevant.

I'm convinced that Tom Meyer could go out and recreate Borges' work with no problem. I'm also convinced that Tom could do better, as evidenced in some of Tom's photos, such as his Halloween series, which have an obvious technique yet transcend the technique.

Borges is obviously a talented photographer, and tremendous respect for his motives, as anyone familiar with my politics would know, but I think the two books (I got review copies) and the exhibit just don't make it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 23, 2000.

Techniques that "disappear" are called ideology.

One hallmark of Postmodern art is the self-concious use (and "misuse") of technique in order to both draw attention to its own limitations as well as those of other, supposedly more natural or transparent ones.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 24, 2000.

Jeff, your comment about Picasso's work actually transcending technique is really interesting. Never really thought about it that way.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), June 24, 2000.

And neither did any of Picasso's early critics.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

I can only comment on the pictures by Mr. Borges that I have seen. I'm sure his life's work is evolutionary and probably will continue to evolve. I'll be daring and suppose this is just a period during which this particular style suits the conditions and his requirements/concepts.

If Picasso did nothing with cubism but paint portraits, I'd criticise that too. How many paintings did Monet produce? I don't know but I'll bet it's less that Borges is able to make on a single field trip. It's absurd to apply the same criteria.

And Monet's (and Picaso's and Seurat's) style evolved and was not formulaic. See any chronologically organized collection of these artist's work and you'll see great variation as the technique developed and the artists aged. Borges refined a technique and applied it universally to subjects of great diversity. That's the difference. Hopefully he has many more years to think up more worth while projects like these, and we'll get to see how he develops as an artist.

Edward says, "To say that looking at 30 or 40 pictures within a series makes the technique stand out more than the photos is stating the obvious" I would reply, precisely my point and it's a legitimate criticism. John, your definition of "ideology" needs clarification, help me out.

"I'm convinced that Tom Meyer could go out and recreate Borges' work with no problem". Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jeff. Anyone can recreate that lighting technique, but making those pictures was no simple feat. I think you would find it easier than I, since the travel and cross cultural/ interpersonal capability is the more difficult art involved. I have more thoughts, but time intrudes. See ya'll later... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), June 26, 2000.

I'm going to skip all the flap about whether or not Borges is exploiting native peoples and attempt to address the original question -- re: toning technique.

Having seen the Borges prints in person about a year ago I have to say that AS PRINTS they are astounding feats of technique. Selective parts of the print are toned--how this is done, I don't know but suspect that a brush is involved. The effect is much more subtle than they appear in the scans on my monitor, leading me to think that the scans have been "juiced up" so even people with the dingiest, uncalibrated monitor will see that these aren't just straight prints.

I'm not going to mention what I think about what he photographs and how he photographs it, however.

-- alan (adale66@excite.com), June 26, 2000.

I think your last point is the important one. Most photographic techniques are fairly easy to master (compared to, say, classical painting or sculpture). Just as much of a landscape photographer's work consists of patience, perseverence, and serendipity, a portrait photographer's results depend on his rapport with the subjects. Borges could have used any number of techniques to record the picture, but the opportunity to take it in the first place is the real achievement here.

To oversimplify my position, I see little point in seeing only the limitations in a certain perspective. Why not concentrate on the possibilities? (The glass "half-full" versus "half-empty" school of criticism if you must.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 26, 2000.

Alan and others...thank you for commenting on the original question (selective toning techniques), although I am finding this dialog to be fascinating regarding technique, style, and subject matter.

Borges' website does indicate that he uses masking with friskit like materials, but no other information.

Regarding style, subject matter, technique, etc., I think this is a lot like religion, politics, and sexual preferences...there is a place in this world for many different approaches, and no one should be forcing anyone else to like it or dislike it.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 26, 2000.