Sal Moriarty: Contact sheets of answers

Development of photography as an art form has given us a bunch of professionals whom we admire and look up to. To the large audience seeing a picture framed on a wall or scanned and published on the web is enough. However, I consider myself to belong to a kind of people who do not stay within limits of mere observation. My curiosity pushes me to investigate a story behind every shot I find special: circumstances a shot was taken at, what was the lighting, what camera/film/lens was used...

The Internet is full of good-looking, fantastic shots and it is so easy for a beginners to get discouraged by the perfection they see. Authority we ourselves endow our idols with can at times be disarming and somewhat suppressing. Let's also not forget that many beginners expect fast advance in the field. Unfulfilled hopes can hurt really bad... However, I think it is part of a natural process of becoming better at any field, be it boxing, web-design, cooking etc.

I started with digital photography and gradually arrived at the present point when I mostly work with film. I clearly remember pondering about switching to analog photography (because that is where the Holy Grail is, right?) and going through portfolios of established photographers like Maltet, Cartier-Bresson, Smith, Ritz, Adams etc and visualizing my future works. Though my first experience with film was not a complete disaster and I got correct exposure on most of the frames, the result what was not quite what I expected. The same happened with my next films: I was lucky if I had one good shot from one film. Gradually my steaming expectations got cooler, but still at times it was very annoying. I thought that switching from my Kiev 88 to Bronica SQ-Ai will definitely solve the problem.

Though there was a positive dynamics in the quality of my pictures, I was not satisfied: my lenses not wide enough/ not bright enough/ my camera did not allow me to lock up a mirror (I already forgot what did I need that feature for) etc. My attitude towards analog photography has changed when I saw a contact sheet of A. Newman from his session with I. Stravinsky. In order for you to feel exactly what I felt I want to first present the final shot, followed by the contact sheet:

Portrait of I. Stravinsky by A. Newman, New York City, 1946

This photo deeply impressed me. It is a really powerful portrait, no doubt about that. I think I even convinced myself that I'd never do anything remotely close to that. But, as I have already said, all the pieces of puzzle have fallen into places when I saw the contact sheet below:

Contact sheet of A. Newman's shoot of I. Stravinsky, New York City, 1946

The contact sheet did not show the flaws of the photographer I looked up to, but rather served as a confirmation that he was not flawless. A. Newman ceased being as unreachable as he used to be. For myself, as someone who gets obsessed with reaching perfection, seeing it was of the greatest importance. For me it was a revelation of some sorts. I haven't changed my Kiev for Bronica after all.

"it doesn't take gods to make pots"

The message I try to convey here is to encourage you to enjoy great photography, admire and appreciate it, but not to get intimidated by it. The final work you see is a result of hard work and tremendous dedication and persistence. And good editing too, don't forget about that. I made a mistake of foolishly believing that what I saw on a print was the exact reproduction of what was on film. It was not. It hardly ever is. Contact sheets let you have a sneak-peak into workflow of a great artist, makes you a fly on his wall. You should see it as a great learning opportunity and use it for your own benefit.

To completely calm your nerves down I attach contact sheets of the pictures I used for this post's header. I hope you see the same thing as I do - a normal workflow with a couple of good frames and shots that many of you could take yourself.