|
Interview: BILL FRAKES Bill Frakes is a Sports Illustrated Staff Photographer based in Florida. He has traveled to all 50 states and worked in more than 75 countries for a wide variety of editorial and advertising clients like Nike, CocaCola, Champion, Isleworth, Stryker, IBM, Nikon, Kodak, and Reebok. He has covered half a dozen Olympic games, at least twice that many Super Bowls and three times that many Kentucky Derbies. Always on the go, I've heard him say before that the 21 or 22 days he spent in Salt Lake City at the Olympics was by far the most consecutive days he'd slept in the same bed since the Olympics in Australia two years earlier. Bill was the 1983 Newspaper Photographer of the Year in the prestigious Pictures of the Year competition. He was a member of the Miami Herald staff that won the Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of Hurricane Andrew . He has also been honored by the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for reporting on the disadvantaged and by the Overseas Press club for distinguished foreign reporting. He was awarded the Gold Medal by World Press Photo. He has received hundreds of national and international awards for his work. When I was a college student, on the sidelines shooting my first big Gator football game, I remember watching Bill work. I'm convinced he had a 600, 500, 400, 300, 80-200, 20-35 and used them all effortlessly and simultaneously -- along with an assistant who was carrying that gear, fanning him, feeding him grapes and wiping the sweat out of his eyes. It was equal parts intimidating and inspiring. He's hard working and demands high quality of himself and others. These were good lessons to learn early in my career... so, thanks Bill.
Here's the Unofficial First-Person Bio: My mother is a very practical, hard working, straightforward woman with a keen eye, and a great but very quiet sense of humor. We walked everywhere. She would constantly be showing me shapes, shadows, colors, visual ironies. The message wasn't about art per se but about appreciating what was there, finding the incongruities and the subtleties presented by every day things. My parents were both teachers. Our home was filled with books, music and love. My childhood had a complete absence of fear. Not a lot of money. That brings to me to the second, third and fourth parts of my education. I get so much inspiration from books and music. They are my constant companions. I think the most important thing a photo journalist needs is the ability to fall in love every day. If you can do, you call always make pictures. Growing up without fear allows me to have an open mind about every situation I go into. Deal with what is there. On my eighth birthday we had moved into a new house. It was a Sunday. I know it's hard to imagine but in that time and place stores weren't open on Sundays. Mom didn't have the things she needed to make a cake--no easy way to transport the cold ingredients like butter, milk, eggs during the move. That's a tough thing to deal with for a Mom, an 8 year old's birthday and no cake. She knew that my favorite thing was caramel popcorn. She had the stuff to make that. So she made a popcorn cake spelling out my name in cursive writing. I absolutely loved it. Best cake ever. Ten years later she explained how the popcorn cake came to be. She was in a tough spot (didn't want to be a BAD mom), and not only did she fix the problem she used the resources she had to make what I considered the coolest cake ever. That's a huge lesson, I try to use it on every assignment. I have worked and studied with some of the best minds and talents in the industry. They have had a huge effect on my professional development. I make photographs because I want to communicate and this is the best medium for me to use to do that. ----------------------------------
Is it the gear or the photographer that makes the shot? Because even though the vision is the photographers, I'd think the odds of getting "the shot" are definitely increased with 60 remote cameras and assistants tripping the shutters. This is a question that alternately confuses and amuses me. How many photographs can you make without using a camera at all? When done properly of course it increases the opportunities to make images. That's the point of the exercise. Somehow "purists" have confused photography with some sort of a bizarre competition that comes with an undefined set of rules that mandates that photographs be produced by a photographer looking through the lens and tripping the shutter, when in fact intellect, logic and service to viewers demands that ultimately the only thing that matters is producing the image you want to represent your vision. I'm using the remotes to make those images I can't make with a camera in my hand, usually because it is simply not possible for a person to be where the remote is. Sometimes I'll do it for redundancy, or because I can only hold one camera in my hand. But trust me, I can and do see through all of the cameras in my mind while the action is taking place, and that's the trick. The remote cameras didn't get into position by themselves. They aren't responsible for composition, exposure, or content. They are where they are working the way they do capturing the images they are because I directed that they do those things. There are no tricks or secrets. It's all about thinking, preparing and hard work. I study the situation I am going to photograph and maximize my opportunities, to do less when I am capable of doing the type of work that I do would be irresponsible and lazy. Using the remotes can be a complex production. But understanding that I am very much in control of the production of the photographs that result from the use of remotes should be quite simple. I've heard you say that you felt the controversy surrounding Patrick Schneider in 2003 was unwarranted. Could you talk more about this? What are your feelings surrounding the aesthetics and ethics of post-production manipulation? I think the conversation that was generated by Patrick's manipulation was valuable. Journalists need to be very aware that their actions will be heavily scrutinized and appropriately so. The pontificating that followed was outrageous, egregious and preposterous. By definition creating a photograph involves manipulation. Lens selection, composition, exposure, content choice are all things that absolutely intrinsically affect the message that a photograph conveys. I thought Patrick made a poor aesthetic choice, and I've told him that. He didn't need to burn the background down as heavily as he did. But that was a style choice; it had nothing to do with integrity. Good of heart, poor of vision. I am absolutely confident that he wasn't trying to lie; he was just trying to force the readers to look at the photograph a certain way. He couldn't make the image as "clean" as he wanted to in the viewfinder and so he did it in the computer using a technique that a decade before not only was accepted but also praised. In the 1960's, 70's and well into the 80's burning, dodging, bleaching, toning was standard practice. The better you did it, the more respect you garnered. Historical perspective is valuable. Look at the NPPA magazines from when Patrick was in his formative years as a photojournalist. There were ads, and articles talking about darkroom practice -- which included bleaching, and using small, snooted flashlights to burn parts of prints completely black. How arrogant and shortsighted is it to presume that a contemporary way of looking at things is the only, correct way? There was a point in time when the world's best photographers would argue to the point of almost coming to blows over the issue of artificial light. There was a very strong, potent argument that introducing any kind of light into a photograph irreparably altered the CONTENT of the image because it changed the apparent position or appearance of the natural light thereby causing the viewers to have a false impression of what was going on in the photograph. Who on this board is opposed to the use of strobe in a news or feature situation? Some incredibly powerful, well respected, ground breaking photographers would have told you loudly that if you used a strobe, or constant flow light source that you were a heretic and would destroy all public confidence in photographs as records. Honesty is the only policy for journalists. I do think that readers are more sophisticated now than they are often given credit for. I believe that they understand that most images are not made candidly and that the subjects react to being photographed in a way that changes what's going on in some fashion almost every time.
Who or what inspires you? Three women provide most of the inspiration -- okay, two women and a little girl. My wife Paige, my muse. My mother Agnes, my teacher and counselor, and my daughter Havana, who is just simply the best. What were the factors that led you to leave the world of Newspaper photography and go to world of Editorial magazine work and advertising? Why did you do it? A different group of viewers. People I wanted to reach. Resources to expand my vision and way of working. Do you miss working on some of the more hard core documentary work you did at the Miami Herald? Absolutely. My first love was and is photojournalism. My favorite thing to shoot is daily life, the world around me. Just watch and wait.
What advice to you have for photographers today wanting to leave a newspaper job/or newspaper work and head into freelancing for magazines full time? How much of succeeding in that field has to do with great pictures verses great business and networking skills? How should one go about that transition? Be prepared to deal with tough budgets and shrinking editorial space. There isn't a magic formula. There are no secrets. You have to make the images, and then manage to get them in front of the people making the assignments. That hasn't changed for as long as I've been looking to get published. It's all about hard work. What suggestions would you have for an experienced newspaper photographer entering the freelance market on getting new clients? You need to find someone that understands the market to walk you through it. On the aphotoaday list, we've been discussing the use of video cameras to produce still images, in the vein of David Leeson. As someone who has been on the forefront of technological advances in the photo industry, do you see yourself using video cameras soon/ever? Do you feel this has any special implications to the photography industry, or is it just another tool? Read Magnum, Fifty years at the front lines by Russell Miller. Great book, the Magnum guys were worried in 1946, very worried that newsreels were going to end their world. It's 60 years later and here we are. There have been a few memorable photographs taken in the interceding years. It's always going to be something. What matters is that you use the technology to express yourself. You make pictures with your heart, soul, mind and eye. The box is just a capture device. I do use video cameras. To shoot video. Although I prefer working with film, which still has a better feel to me. In fairness that may be because everything I am involved with producing is done in great light because I am controlling it. If I was dealing with documentary projects I would probably be much more interested in high def video. But I digress. Your question is about the production of still images using video cameras. I don't see it in my immediate future. The quality isn't good enough yet for my clients. Additionally for the most part the things that make each medium great are in conflict. The moment is captured differently and necessarily so. I don't think that many people have the concentration or the talent to create both things simultaneously; at least not at the level I want to work at. The mediums are complimentary, not competitive, and definitely not effectively co joined. David Leeson has tremendous vision. It works for him. He has defined his boundaries and produces work that fits within them perfectly. It doesn't work for most. I see a lot of mediocre photographs and bad video on websites. My rule for success is pretty simple. Do one thing at a time, and do it very, very well. When Kubrick and Parks were directing do you think they used frames pulled from the film, or did they arrange independent photography? Very few achieve the levels those two did in both still and motion pictures. If you make an honest list of your ten favorite photographs -- or better yet make two lists of ten favorites. Ten of your own images and your favorite ten images from all time I'm willing to bet that most of the images on the lists won't reflect the technology they were produced with but the heart, eye, soul, intellect and passion of the photographer.
How do you stay passionate/have a fresh eye when you are shooting the same subject matter day in and day out? I think it is extremely easy to get complacent when you shoot football, baseball, etc. all the time. And you seem to be able to look at that subject and see it in a different way every single time. The most important part of being a photojournalist is to have an open mind and heart. If you can fall in love every day you can make evocative photographs wherever you are, with whatever you have to work with. I read a tremendous amount, stay as fit as I can and listen to a lot of good music. I'm pretty social and my friends keep me plugged in and grounded simultaneously. Who are some of your favorite photographers (not necessarily photojournalists)? Jean Loup Sieff for the sheer genius of his vision. W. Eugene Smith for his commitment to craft, perseverance and skill. James Nachtwey for his intellect and commitment to the world at large. Heinz Kluetmeier for his technical brilliance, work ethic and generosity. Horst P. Horst for style. Ruth Bernhardt for a lifetime of consistent images that always make me smile. Don McCullin for going where others couldn't or wouldn't, keep grounding and making the world see. The Turnley brothers -- I won't list one name in front of the other -- for their hustle, savvy, compassion, positive attitude and open mindedness. Howard Schatz for having more ideas, energy and organization to make things happen quickly, constantly, differently and perfectly. Joel Sartore for having a great sense of humor and wanting to the make the world a better place, one endangered animal at a time. Trent Parke for the way he sees. Wow. Eddie Adams for changing the world through his lens and giving thousands of others the opportunity through Barnstorm to continue his legacy. Ami Vitale. She's young, but never fails to amaze me. There are so many I enjoy and respect. Mark Seliger. Dan Winters. Damon Winter. Robert Clark. Don Doll. Doug Mills. Vincent Laforet. Tyler Hicks. Sarah Friedman. Matt Mahurin. Robert Clark. There a number of younger photographers who I really enjoy. That list starts with you, Melissa. Matt Mallams. Matt Eich. Peter Yang. Adam Pretty. Edmund Fountain. Bob Croslin. Chris Detrick. Samantha Appleton. I try to look at the St Pete, Eugene and Lexington newspapers. Blueeyes is terrific. I get a lot from APAD -- I find several things a week worth spending time with on the blog. I get a lot of inspiration from conversations with my friends Todd Korol, Ted Kirk, David Callow, David Bergman and Jason Burfield. Joe Elbert. The original. Incredible mind. Great shooter before he became an editor, and probably will be one again. My library has at 1100 photography books. I spend a lot of time looking at, learning from and just flat out enjoying them.
When it comes to sports photography you've done it all from Superbowls to Olympics to the Kentucky Derby? You've photographed everything and everyone... what's next for Bill Frakes? If you weren't shooting sports, what would you shoot? I'm not done with sports just yet. I work at one of the world's great magazines with a talented group of people. I really like to shoot. Pretty much everything interests me on some level. Advertising and portraiture will probably occupy a lot of my time in the future. Black and white daily life is a passion. I don't differentiate between personal and professional work. Everything I do is personal. Journalism and art blend for me too. Why wouldn't I want my work to be considered artistic? I have a lot of images left in me. I love this life. I'll be doing this for a long, long time. [Special thanks to APhotoADay members Josh Ritchie, Armando Solares and Joshua Prezant for contributing questions to this interview.] 
|
|
