Ana’s Blog

Hola a todos y feliz año!

Después de unas semanas un poco ausente (mi macbook se rompió y estuve en época de exámenes…), intento retomar el blog de nuevo!

Hoy quería dedicarle mi entrada a Dusdin, que desde que lo conocí por Flickr ha sido uno de mis favoritos, al que admiro muchísimo. Así que decidí hacerle una entrevista por chat, porque lo del mail es demasiado frío y no permitía una conversación real…y, por suerte, él amablemente aceptó.

La verdad es que nos costo ponernos, así que después de varios días hablando de todo menos de fotografía, le pregunté si tenía tiempo en ese momento, y empezamos:

yo: mmmmm one of the questions i had for you was, why analogic?
dusdin: ok. let me think of a good answer.
yo: i mean, is it only because of the awesome esthetic analog gives…or more a fetish or something?
dusdin: i think it is from a few things — it reminds me of my childhood more and the first photos that i took as well as the first photos taken of me. i like the fact that there is more of a risk, more of a margin for errors and mistakes and surprises. and to be honest, i don’t think i’m very good at digital photography. at least i haven’t figured out yet what it is that would make me, in particular, a good digital photographer. but i’m getting closer and i’m using my dslr more and more all the time.
yo: it’s weird, because i recognize it has a magic component because you have to wait for the result, but i think with digital photography it’s easier to improve because you don’t spend either time or money with each shot…!
dusdin: that’s true. and i think maybe i would be better at digital if i had been trying harder to be better at it these last couple years. but for a long time i think i’ve felt like there was something more ‘authentic’ or ‘true’ about analog formats. but now i’m starting to re-examine that idea and it seems kind of silly. there’s an awful lot of artifice in using polaroid cameras — especially now that it’s a dead and dying format.
yo: artifice? what do you mean?
dusdin: well just that there’s all sorts of meaning attached to the format itself — because, for me, polaroid especially has so many requirements and concerns particular to itself that when you think about the amount of work you put into a picture, the risk, the cost, the possible lack of payoff, etc. it certainly doesn’t seem very “pure” or “instant” and least of all “direct”.
dusdin: and people see a polaroid and they think “ah, nostalgia!” or “instant fun!” and that’s really never been what it’s about for me. but i understand that that’s part of the little package of signifiers that comes along with using the format. to be honest i don’t really like all the fandom around polaroid. perhaps it’s good it’s dying.

yo: oh, i get it, something hypocritical behind the purity of the format itself…the spontaneity and naturalness supposed to be attached to a format such as polaroid is lately passing to a second plane in front of the thought of making a picture that will be worth the money it costs.
dusdin: i think i understand. yeah something like that. there’s just a lot of thinking that gets in the way. like “oh, a polaroid.” and only secondarily “what’s it of?” but ultimately, it’s all sort of silly. a good picture is a good picture no matter what format it is done in, no matter how much post-processing there is. yours and salva’s are good examples of very well done digital photos. they’re inspiring for me.
dusdin: so i guess my best answer is that i use analog because that’s what i started with and that’s what i feel comfortable with. i get a lot of pleasure out of certain polaroid stocks, 669 and 690 for example. but i also have the goal to get better with digital.
yo: oh thanks, but the truth is that at least for me, I’m still trying to achieve the awesome analog effect with the post-processing, and finally, as you know, i had to buy a mamiya because i think it’s quite impossible to reach that in a perfect way.
dusdin: you’re right of course. i think there’s only so far you can go with digital to make it simulate analog. at some point you have to stop and say “this is digital. what in particular makes it beautiful?” otherwise you’re ignoring the particularities of the medium. if you really want the analog feel, you’re smart to buy a mamiya and figure out which film you like to shoot with and how you like to process it. and there ought to be endless possibilities (which i am very far from discovering) with digital that are unique to digital.
yo: so you just answered to another of the questions i had for you; what do you think about post-processing, but as i can see, i guess you don’t have any problems with it, do you?
dusdin: well, with my polaroids especially, i try to only use post-processing to make the scan correspond as much as possible to the original. that’s an impossible task though since a polaroid has a certain amount of depth to it, and reflectiveness that you’ll never be able to simulate on a computer monitor. but yes, i just mess with levels and curves and stuff to correct the color errors of the scanner, and then clean up all the dirt and scratches and stuff.
dusdin: for my film scans, of course there’s more room to direct how the scan will turn out, to emphasize colors and saturation and so on. and if the picture is being used for a certain thing, like for a model’s portfolio or something, then i’ll keep in mind that if there’s some sort of imperfection in the picture that could be easily corrected and in the process make her look better, then i don’t see anything wrong ethically with changing that. but it’s not like i’m making anyone’s noses smaller or thighs slimmer.

yo: i understand, but your models are so beautiful that i don’t believe you need to make any changes with them, how have you come to work with so many beautiful girls? and why are most of your pictures taken of women?
dusdin: good question…well, i have shot tests for a couple different NYC modeling agencies, and that has something to do with how beautiful the girls are. i’ve gotten in touch with other non-agency models over the internet or through friends. i guess that most of my pictures are of women because there are more women who want to be photographed and because i think i’m good at it. and of course, i like taking photos of women, there’s undeniably a kind of tension, sexual or otherwise, that happens between the model and the photographer that produces really interesting things. then there’s an entirely different dynamic taking a photograph of a man, but that’s something i hope to get better at, exploring that tension with male subjects in the future.
dusdin: and i think it’s true that i’ve found much more of an audience with my photos of women. although my dad tells me that he thinks i should start shooting more men because they have more character!

yo: uhm…i’m not with your dad, your women portraits have a lot of character behind them
dusdin: ha
thanks
yeah i think he might be in the minority.
yo: but the ones of the black guys are awesome as well
dusdin: oh thanks.
yeah, that was a really good experience.
yo: in my case, i love the most the ones that have some intimacy, sex… and those are from girls
dusdin: isn’t that what appeals to everybody?
dusdin: i hope i can produce a similar thing with photos of men too. but maybe that’s asking too much of my small means.
yo: the truth is i like women’s portraits more in general, i see them as…more beautiful i suppose.
dusdin: yeah, i think that’s the most common attitude for both men and women. there’s so much of art history that we’ve all soaked up to make us think that way. so much of 20th/21st century media and advertising as well….. but i’m certainly not complaining.
yo: mmmmh yeah
dusdin: in your case, you can say that as a participant — your photos of yourself and the ones salva takes of you are very intimate, very sexy. as a male photographer though i guess it always makes me somewhat of a voyeur.
yo: voyeurism is in, i think, every photographer’s thinking, but you don’t usually do completely nude portraits…it that models’ requirements or you prefer to left something for the imagination?
dusdin: no, i don’t usually. i have done them, but again, i don’t think i’m particularly good them.
i have some that i’ll be putting up on flickr before too long.
of course, i do tend to like the dark, the shadow, the imagination. but only so much.
BUT, i’m also shy and worry that my mom will see them or something!
ha.
no, only kind of.

yo: i bet you don’t look as a pervert with your delicate style!
dusdin: i think nudes can be great and it’s definitely on the list of things i want to be good at. and yeah, i think my style would suit it well.
yo: mmmm then, typic questions to end…: are you involved in something interesting lately? and what are your projects for this new year?
dusdin: well– i’ve started shooting musicians for a music magazine, which to me is very interesting — something that i haven’t gotten much of a chance to do yet. i’m a big music fan, so it’s an interesting challenge, how to fit my aesthetic into the “band photography” genre. i hope to do a lot of that this year.
dusdin: my projects for this year, photography-wise mainly have to do with making money, shooting as much as possible, conquering (as much as i can) my digital camera, and thanks to this interview — shooting more men and shooting more nudes…
yo: hahha
dusdin: there are also a few competitions, grants, and submissions that i’m interested in as well.
dusdin: really i’m trying to follow what seems to be the best advice that i’ve gotten, and i’ve gotten it from a few different photographers that i really admire, which is just to shoot as much as possible. to keep shooting and sharpening my style and the work will come. and that’s what i’m trying to do.