Home > Culture > Mentor Showcase > Jay Maisel Interview
Jay Maisel: Legendary photographer speaks from experience
New York photographer Jay Maisel has been a freelance photographer since 1954. During that period of almost 50 years, he has become one of the most acclaimed and respected figures in international photography. His name is synonymous with vibrant color photography that uses light and gesture to create countless unforgettable images for advertising, editorial and corporate communications.
Maisel joined ASMP in 1955 and served for many years on the national board of directors. Among the many honors he has garnered was the ASMP Lifetime Achievement Award in 1996. His accomplishments are too many to list here, but they, along with his work, can be seen at www.jaymaisel.com.
Maisel spoke with ASMP executive director Richard Weisgrau on the topic of digital photography, a technology Maisel has embraced wholeheartedly. Never one to rest on proverbial laurels, Maisel is harnessing the potential of digital photography to produce images in his own inimitable style. Following is an excerpt of that interview, which opened with Maisel agreeing that more than 50 years ago he changed his plans of being a painter to become a photographer, lured by the immediacy of the results. This factor also attracted him to digital photography.
Also, Maisel has some words of wisdom for the aspiring photographer. And he speaks from experience. (Note: This interview with Jay Maisel was published in the October 2002 issue of the ASMP Bulletin.)
Richard Weisgrau (Q): What did you feel about digital the first time you used it? Was the immediacy a large influence in your deciding to use digital technology instead of film?
Jay Maisel (A): I think it was, but it wasn't just from the satisfaction of seeing the image immediately. Regardless of how long you have been in business, there is one thing you are always worried about: exposure. Digital photography won't tell you exactly where you are, but you can certainly see if you are not there at all. So one of the attractions was to see that I had the right exposure. Because I am not usually shooting conventional kind of exposures, I am interested in light that's pretty whacko. It's very hard to know where you are going with that, so now I don't shoot half as much as I used to, to get what I want. And I don't have to shoot five rolls to make sure I've got an exposure. Insecurity has been mitigated somewhat by the fact that I have an idea when I am in the ballpark, and I can go from there.
Q: Would it be reasonable to say the single most appealing feature of digital to you is the security that the immediate result brings?
A: Probably. It would be the top one but there are others that are close, such as the reality of not having to try to get 600 rolls of film onto a plane. X-rays at airports is a major factor. I get into arguments with these people about film. Basically I am on their side and I want to make it as easy as I can for them. I can understand their trepidation about letting people on with a lot of film but, at the same time, you had to travel with the film. Also appealing is that I now can make my own prints — and very easily because the printer is here — which I couldn't do before. Another advantage is that I never get any scratched film anymore. Also, I never have to wait around at a lab at midnight to take a look at clip tests. And I haven't paid thousands of dollars, up to $20,000 a year, for film processing in the last two years.
Q: What do you think is the most significant drawback of digital capture technology?
A: Everything is an "either-or" proposition. You can now buy a compact flashcard that is guaranteed for one million exposures. It's also a little smaller than a pack of matches so it's always getting lost. All you hear around here is, "Are you sure you don't have any of my cards? I can't find them." So that's one of its drawbacks. Another drawback is the tendency to judge too much on that little picture on the camera display. Also, when you first start using digital, you tend to try to get that perfect picture, which means you're wasting time when you should be shooting. If you're in a studio it's quite all right to use time to get what you want, because you are going to go with that final result. But if you are working outdoors and you get wrapped up in dealing with the picture or deleting the image, you are going to lose sight of what is going on.
Q: You shoot with a Nikon D1X and that means that you have a lens multiplier of 1.5. For many years, you shot with 35mm format and obviously you knew instinctively what lens was needed for a particular situation. Do you have any difficulty making the same choices with digital equipment?
A: No, it comes pretty quickly. If you're shooting with a 100mm lens, it's 150mm; if you are using a 200mm, it's 300mm. That's very easy. To do anything with a wide angle lens is difficult because you are losing what you don't want to lose. What you gain with a medium or telephoto lens is wonderful, because I always tend to use a telephoto lens a lot more. Wide angle is not the way I see. The other day I forced myself to take out a 17mm-35mm lens — it is a terrific lens, but it is difficult for me to use. But at one point I was walking around with the 80mm-200mm lens and I realized, "My God, I am walking around with a hand held 120mm-300mm lens." It's great, it's fantastic; I couldn't do that before. For the guys who do architectural photography, or people who just really like wide angle, it's a bit of a worry because a 17mm becomes a 24mm; the 35mm becomes a 50-something, and they lose. The widest angle lens I own is 14mm so it's a 21mm. The only time I've used film in the last 2½ years was when there was an insane rainbow coming from the Williamsburg Bridge all the way over to the Empire State Building. I put the 14mm on the D1X and it didn't cover the scene. I put it on a 35mm film camera and it covered, so I shot that. You can see that I haven't been shooting a lot of film.
Q: Do you use Photoshop or do a lot of manipulation?
A: In the field, we have a laptop to view images. In the studio, the images will go into Photoshop, and usually we do some kind of cleaning up. We don't do any manipulation — not because it's impure, but because it's not what I am interested in. What we have to do sometimes is change levels, decrease or increase contrast — mostly a function of the inability of digital to catch the range we wanted. Obviously you can change colors, but I can't think of any time we have. We are trying to keep to the vision that I have.
Q: You are making large, I believe 40x60, prints on an Epson wide-carriage printer. For years your prints were made from transparencies through the dye-transfer process. Comparing the prints made on the Epson printer from scanned images with the dye transfers, which ones do you like better?
A: The Epson prints. I think they are more beautiful; I think they will last longer. And I just like the control that we have over the process. I do not have to explain to somebody who does not work for me that this is a gray and this is a blue and you're mixing up the contrast of the picture, and all those kinds of things.
Q: How has digital technology changed your artistic expression?
A: There are certain dangers. Because you look at this tiny picture on the back of the camera, there is a danger of trying to do too much of a poster rather than something with details because you can't see the details there. So, if you can't see the details, you have a tendency to want to make it big enough so you can see the details.
Q: What's your digital editing process?
A: In the past, I always edited on a projector, something I did well and quickly. Now I have a completely different problem and it is very difficult for me: I don't like sitting at a computer. I have shot maybe 50, 60 thousand images and I have looked at very few of them, the tip of the iceberg. It's a difficult thing. The beauty of the transparency was that it was there, you had it, it was available, you could sell it, you could show it, you could do what you want without any further ado. With digital you do have the image, it's in the computer, you can get it out, but then you have to start putting it in context of other images you want. You can make slideshows, you can do anything, you can make prints. But you've got to do it. And the doing it is the part that is very tough for me because I have to deal with the computer.
Q: What advice do you have on digital photography for other photographers?
A: I would probably tell them "don't be afraid of it." Without a doubt, the digital image can be as good as film, if not better. The reluctance to do digital is not based on technical reality. I think people have not yet realized that digital is better than film, that it is sharper than film, that you get better prints on digital than you could get from dye transfers in terms of sharpness. I think if I had any desire to reassure them, I would reassure them that you can shoot just as well digitally as you could with film. It's just a matter of reassigning a few priorities, that there are a lot of advantages as well as disadvantages. But that overall this is where it's gonna go.
Q: Is this a good time to be entering professional photography given the competition, the changing market place, and the all the new technologies? Perhaps it could be a "confusing" time? On the other hand, it might be an exciting time?
A: It's not a good time, but the usual advice holds — talent and hard work will bring you to the top. However, entrepreneurial skills and ability become more and more important.
Q: You've been in the business for going on 50 years. In brief, how different is the business now from when you started?
A: The business is now more business than art or craft. Where I was formerly sent out to investigate something visually, now it's more a polemic approach, based on a pre-sold concept or visual.
Q: What would be the three or four most important pieces of advice you would give an aspiring young photographer?
A: 1) Perseverance trumps talent. 2) Do what you want to do, otherwise why bother? 3) Be ethical, it may rub off on others. 4) Don't give up.
Q: How valuable do you think workshops are as a stimulus for all photographers?
A: Invaluable, with the right teachers.
Q: And do you still encourage all photographers to do those "visual pushups" to train their eye?
A: Absolutely. Without a doubt.
Q: Should photographers study the old masters, such as Monet and Rembrandt and others?
A: It is more important to study the visual heritage of our past than it is to do workshops.
Q: How important are trade organizations such as ASMP, and should photographers add their weight to the cause by joining them?
A: Yes, because although the ASMP and others are far from perfect, they are the only help you have available. The organizations reflect those who join. If you are not a member, you cannot improve them.
Q: Is there still a place for the creative individual to carve their own niche? Is this harder than being more conventional and meeting consumer/client demands?
A: If you're just going to meet consumer' or clients' demands, you might as well be a plumber — the work will be more frequently available.
Q: After all these years in photography, do you wish you'd chosen another career?
A: No.
Q: Finally, how would you like to be remembered as a photographer?
A: He was the best!