James Comstock 1 of 3

20 Questions with James Comstock

Philip Stienman: This is an exciting time for your stereo photography. Particularly with your success at the NSA Riverside exhibitions. Your shows "Orchid and other Floral Wonders" and "10 Years of Burning Man" earned you best new presenter and put you in the award arena with stereo hall of famer Robert Bloomberg and his wonderful (movie epic of a) show "Lost Temple of Angkor". What did you take away with you from that experience?: James Comstock: Of anybody's work that I have seen over the years, as far as stereo shows go, Robert Bloomberg's has always impressed me immensely with its quality, variety, and humor. This year, I was quite blown away by 'Lost Temple of Angkor'. It was a great pleasure to see such a refined 3-D production; something one knows is a rare experience. One image from this show was entered in the Hollywood Exhibition this year. It certainly would have won a top award if I had been a judge. Oh wait, I think it did. Maybe 'Travel'. I already have a great affinity for the cultures of this area of the world. I love the architecture, art, music. For years, I have been planning a trip to Thailand and Bali. Angkor was on the list. Anyway, back to the question. Seeing Bloomberg's show and meeting him was the highlight of the conference for me. And finding him quite enjoyable, with a sense of humor I expected of him from his other work, plus a shared interest in music. It is always more rewarding to met someone whose work you admire when they have an opportunity to see your work as well (as long as they like it). It gives you the initial connections you need to get closer. Also at the show, I was impressed by the quality of the 3-D video projections. It has encouraged me to pursue some of my other projects. Coming long ago from a film background, I've always wanted to do 3-D in motion. But I was discouraged by the quality; at least, for someone who could not afford a 3-D Imax camera and theater. Or even one roll of its film.
You bring photographing flowers to a new level. How did you get interested in orchids?: I have always thought that the three main interests in my life have been art, science, and plants. I've never been able to limit myself to one or the other, especially to make a living. I have collected plants since I was probably 6 years old. I think I was doing photography by 12. I know I still have pictures of flowers I took while in junior high school. They have always been one of my loves, and one of my favorite photographic subjects. Over my lifetime, every interest, that I have had, has grown in scale. My interest in plants has grown to a large rare plant collection, a large plant breeding project of 17 years, and a landscape contracting business. My photography took me to film school, a film special effects business, still photography, and then 3-D photography. My plant breeding project (a plant called 'Clivia'), took me to UCI to meet Professor Harold Koopowitz, the founder of the arboretum there. He is one of the most respected names worldwide in horticultural circles, especially in orchids. He and I did a book together on Clivias, the plant I'm hybridizing. It came out in August from Timberpress. Harold has a huge greenhouse where he collects and hybridizes orchids. With his collection and his access to some of the finest collections in California, I have access to this incredible world of orchids, a plant family that comprises about 1/5 of all flowering plant species on the planet. Harold is editor of 'The Orchid Digest' for which I do much photography. Each issue now contains a 3-D page for free-viewing orchid pictures, just for fun. Not many of the readers can free-view, but those who can LOVE it. Duh! He and I are working on an orchid book for Timberpress, and we hope to do a 3-D orchid book someday. In the meantime, I have done some 3-D shows for a couple orchid conferences. When I started doing 3-D photography, one of my first shots was a flower close-up with a slide bar (actually I dragged my tripod across a piece of plywood with marks on it. I didn't know what a slide bar was). What delight to be able to capture the wonderful sculptural quality of a flower I had admired all my life, but whose beauty was only hinted at in a 2-D photo. I now shot many different kinds of flowers, including orchids. But orchids have evolved some of the most complex floral structures known. I find them fascinating, especially combined with the colors, textures, and patterns. Living art to my heart. But it is also fascinating to learn the ways the flower uses all these elements to succeed in getting pollinated, which is its goal, of course. In doing this photography, I get to combine these three interests of mine, science, art, and plants, together. It is very satisfying.
You have also done some fine nude photography as well and I was wondering if this experience helped you with photographing orchids? Was this just studio experience with lighting, or is there a Georgia O'Keefe influence here?: As soon as I could arrange it, I was doing my first nude photography in high school. All my early work with both flowers and nudes was done with natural light in natural settings. Depending on the type of photography you are doing, the human body or flowers can be considered the same subject (beauty of the natural world, is as good a label as any, if you need that). You get in close, see the curves, the textures, colors, flow, connections, space. Or I can do landscapes with human figures, or flowers. Then it can be something else. It's the relationship of all the elements. I like to doing lots of different kinds of photography. I've been doing it a long time. I don't like to be categorized as doing one type of photography. There is a lot of my work that I haven't done in 3-D. And a lot of my 3-D stuff that doesn't get shown at the club. As far as Georgia O'Keefe, I love her work. When I first saw it, I said, 'I'm there', in all humility, of course. Her work was a confirmation for me more than anything else.
With your orchids, what makes you focus on macro studio photography as opposed to seeing flowers in their natural habitat? Do you ever see a flower & want to take a picture of it where it is? Or do you always want to pick it, study it, light it, & put the Comstock signature on it?: Long ago, I realized that film does not photograph like my eye sees; nor does a lens see like my eye sees. Physically, it is not recording 'reality'. But then, the eye is limited too. It likewise does not see 'reality'. And then the brain interprets what info the eye delivers. And then the mind and heart(etc.) decide what they see. Or so, that's what I believe. When I decided this, I felt liberated. Why try to photograph 'reality' when you can't. So I decided to try to photograph these flowers the way my heart and spirit react to them. That's what one is doing when one shots a landscape; the way one frames and composes the image; waits for the right light or a car to pass or the wind to pause or a bird to enter the frame. Sure I will and do photograph flowers in a natural setting. But if I get close and inspired and transported, the flower is a world of its own. As a lover and student of natural light, I know how light can caress and entice the flower. This philosophy is important to me. But there are logistics involved here, too. Most of the flowers I photograph now are rare or exotic, meaning, in this case, not native to this area. An incredible orchid, grown in an ugly pot covered with algae, sitting on a galvanized wire bench, crammed together with a thousand other orchids in ugly pots, growing in a greenhouse that's designed for precise climate control and not the way light could be gently dappling the flower, whew, is not usually a very photogenic setting. I can't wait to get that plant out of there and home where I can lavish it with my lights. Also, my macro photography requires lighting for (usually) f22 lens settings. In other words, lots of light. If I was using natural light, f22 and macro settings would require very long exposures, which means wind would be a problem. There's always wind. And many orchids are like sails on long, thin stalks, swaying at the slightest breeze. And then, if you're using a slide bar, you have to get two shots exactly the same.
How do you light? How much time does it take?: Of course, this, to me, is the fun part. Anyway, technically, it's a studio lighting system with 3 or 4 strobe head units. Each head unit can be altered to give a very directional, point source of light, or a very soft, diffused light, or anything in between. Each flower shot can incorporate one or all the lights, with any combination of light diffusions, depending on the effect I want. Many photographers find a simple light set up and light everything the same way. I like to study each flower and light it to bring out what I see in it. I treat each flower or flower cluster individually. Some want soft lighting, some want directional lighting, some both with a little hot spot to light up the center. I move the lights; I move the flower; I move the camera; I do it all again. It's a meditation. It can take 1 to 3 hour to set up a shot. I also do light painting with the flowers. That can take days.
next>>>