Q & A with Don Dickey
I always look forward to photographing with Don, as I know it will be an energizing, challenging and an inspirational time. After our most recent trip (8 days in Northern New Mexico during September 2008), I had a chance to have an email conversation with Don, regarding his photographic techniques and philosophy:

Self-portrait with Philip

© 2008 Don Dickey
Philip: First I want to thank you for taking time to share your thoughts on photography in this format. One thing I know we both agree on is the fact that, as you said in an earlier email: “…we can place our tripods within 20 yards of each other and point generally in the same direction, only to obtain completely different interpretations of the same place and time.” So let’s start off with why do you think that is?
Don: It might seem logical or even obvious at first, in that we shoot different formats, different capture devices and different mediums. But I think there is more - we simply see the world differently. You create an image from one or two simple elements, while I often use many elements, sometime arguably near confusion – but hopefully organized.
PVA: I think you’re correct that we come at the photograph from two different directions.  My impulse is to simplify, simplify, simplify, while I often give you a hard time about including “everything” in your images!  What do you look for in a scene, and how do you manage to get everything in?
DD: If only I knew the answer to that one!

Everyone has a different style or manner of viewing their reality, and what excites them. And, I have decided that the reason I find photography interesting and enjoyable is because we select from what is there, rather than the way a painter decides what will exist and then creates it.  In my case, you could argue that I tend to see and select a larger numbers of things in relationship with each other.  Where some photographers see one or two things and it can be too much, I tend to see several things somehow as one.  It doesn’t always work of course (possibly for either of us), but that’s about the best as I can explain it.
PVA: You said your work is "...sometimes arguably near chaos - but hopefully organized."  How do you determine what works and what doesn't? 
DD: Well I guess you are asking if the tension comes from working on the border between chaos and organization. Maybe that is true for much of art.  But on the level of multiple elements in a shot, it is kind of like considering how many shots you need to get acceptable expressions on 12 people in a group portrait as opposed to 3 people.  I believe the percentages rise so much with the addition of another person that a graph of the odds line would be geometrical rather that arithmetical.  I think that may be what challenges me, to find objects which coexist, all in a meaningful visual relationship.
PVA: It’s really a different dynamic to photograph with another photographer. In an earlier email you said “as much as one’s art is a private endeavor, sometimes you can be more productive if you are not alone.” Could you perhaps elaborate on that?
DD: There can be a couple of levels to that.  First, there is the simple comfort regarding safety.  If you know you have a partner only a half mile away, you don’t worry so much about the possible results of a fall, or whether you might be pushing it a little to be in the desert a few miles from your vehicle and the sun has gone down.  Second, it can be fortuitous to have someone who will alternate in supplying energy, for example, near the end of the shooting day, when you would otherwise pick up and go home, and you keep looking, just because your friend is still working on something, and . . . you find something really special.
PVA: I whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment.  There are several images that I count as my favorites that I found because you were still working on something or pushing a little further at the end of the day. Personally I would also expand it to include the value of a kick in the seat of the pants to get out and get to work. It’s amazing how it can be easier to find an excuse rather than a photograph!
DD: I can’t say it better . . . (And, if I were there, I would kick you right now) . . .
PVA: For several years now, you have been photographing very interesting storefront windows, often at night. As I found out the hard way when I was tagging along in downtown Santa Fe after midnight, you have expanded to include much more of the cityscape at night to your repertoire. What prompted this new direction?
DD: Because of the rather great built-in exposure meters in digital cameras, a whole new set of ideas have opened up.  I really enjoy cityscapes, alleys and window shots at night.  At night, rather mundane things are lit with magical light . . . often in ways that are better on digital capture than on a well-exposed piece of film, or even ‘better’ than it appears to your eye.  With just a bit of trial and error, and a little imagination and luck, it really opens up new worlds . . . it’s the lights.
PVA: This opens up another of our differences - while I still don’t own a single digital camera, you’ve made that leap. How long have you been using digital?
DD: I started shooting digital about 6 years ago.  At the time, although I “sprung” for an SLR with multiple lenses, I didn’t really think it was anything but a temporary reprieve from shooting 4 x 5 Fuji Quick loads.
PVA: What caused you to switch to using digital almost exclusively? 
DD: Actually, September 11th had a lot to do with it.  I was in Boston with my Wisner 4 x 5 about three weeks before that fateful day, and it turned out to be the last time I took my wooden camera on an airplane.  The whole idea of packing the camera as a carry-on, and getting the film around the “zapping machines” became too much of a hassle. (Airlines’ security pretended they didn’t know what sheet film was). So, just as an unexpected event had caused me to switch to 4 x 5 in the first place (my Hasselblad lens froze up in Yellowstone Park on one of those post-storm days at -20 degrees), it was again the events of happenstance that at least partially caused me to switch to digital.
PVA: How has digital changed how you work?
DD: With the 4 x 5, I figured that a reasonably fast shot, from getting the camera out of the pack to the tripod, and then making the exposure, reasonably took about 5 minutes.  With digital, it was obviously faster, and I was not as concerned about composition on any one shot.  The overall process of looking, seeing, and exposing became a totally different experience. 

It seems that the shooter usually just adjusts to the advantages of the medium.  And, there are advantages to both. But, rather than careful consideration before exposing a large piece of film that then required processing and printing, I could shoot almost as if each shot was “free” (or at least paid for) and digital “film” is reusable.  Instead of considering various options before shooting (the traditional way you train yourself), you are able to experience various angles and perspectives as a part of shooting your way into your best shot.
PVA: So what do you see as advantages of the digital media?
DD: Well, I have touched on that, but the main difference is the ability to get immediate feedback.  With film, you need to get the image processed.  And sometimes it might be several days before you could consider how you could have improved it.  With digital, you review your shot immediately. You adjust at once.  What a difference in time and feedback.  For growth, it couldn’t be better, particularly as far as composition is concerned.  Also, because you are shooting more images with immediate feedback, you can expect a higher percentage of acceptable exposures/compositions.

Exposure can be a slightly different matter, as accurate feedback off the rather small viewing screen on digital is sometimes less than optimal. But, overall feedback is the thing.
PVA: Other than judging exposure, have you found a downside to using digital?
DD: Well, there is nothing more sharp and alive than a well-exposed 4 x 5 transparency on the light table.  And, just viewing the image on the ground glass blows you away. 
PVA: Can you give any insight into how you go about editing your images?  What makes you want to work on one image or another?
DD: Quite honestly, I don’t know…  Like most people, I think there is some sort of internal ranking that takes place, so that a week’s work can be gleaned down to a start of 5 – 10 images... and from there, to move on to add others and eliminate some.  They are all your best attempts, it’s just that some of them work on one level or another, and therefore deserve attention.  The interesting thing to me is that the images I had the greatest expectations about in the field, often fall short for one reason or another, judged by your post- shooting eye.
PVA: We’ve talked before about really being really excited about something at the time you’re photographing it, but not liking it when you look at it later – any further thoughts on that?
DD: Well, I'd like to try an analogy. Try to remember that time you were on a date at the beach, after that perfect afternoon.  A bottle of wine maybe, but anyway you were there when the sun went down.  At that time, the sunset couldn’t have been any more beautiful.  You even had your tripod and light meter and you didn’t miss the exposure. 

Later, beyond the benefit of that moment, including the back light on your sweetheart, the smell of the salt water, the sound of the powerful breakers and the gulls overhead, the image seemed… well, just a little flat… just a little less than significant.  Why is that? 

I think it is in the difference between the experience (including all the romantic notions of the moment), and the image itself.  One of the ways we can judge the quality of our images is whether the image imports some of the same emotions in the viewer as we felt at the time (or that we intended to express).  That is a difficult task for an artist. I might speak of other touchstones of quality, but for me, that is a difficult one, and also at the first level, is my answer to your question.  I call it the sunset (or Marilyn Monroe) phenomenon:  we get so caught up in the experience itself, that we do not properly respect and control the photographic side of it.
PVA: Interesting analogy, but I’ve got to say for the record that MY romantic dates on the beach don’t include camera gear! But I get your point. This is where most photographers early in their education miss the mark; they haven’t learned to sort out their emotional connection to an image. It’s very common in workshops to have a newer photographer show their images and have a whole spiel about what they were trying to capture in the image. If you’ve got to tell the viewer, you missed the image.
DD:  The concept reminds me of the line:  “Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are… you aren’t.”  (Margaret Thatcher).    Maybe another good question is whether the image pleases the viewer, even if it is on a different level than the emotion the shooter experienced.  So, if you have a somewhat ambiguous image for example, the question shouldn’t be ‘what is it?” or a direct response to that question, but rather simply:  “Does it please you?”
PVA: Thankfully the answer to that question, more often than not, tends to be yes - otherwise we would probably give up in frustration.

Thanks, Don.