DT 27.1 - Editing Portraits

Hybrid Photography

We were assigned a roll of colour film to shoot. I picked 'looking down with 100mm' as my theme. We then scanned the negatives and post-processed them. It was a horizon-expanding experience!

Movie Week Reviews

By this point, the Olympics have mostly taken over my life, so writing a review about anything other than what's going down in Vancouver is going to take some vicious nail-biting concentration.

Manufactured Landscapes

Ever since I learned about him, Edward Burtynsky has held a place as one of my favourite photographers. His work is masterful, with a purpose, and his visual style is innovative, and sharp. To be able to watch the creation of his work, the process and the scale of what goes on 'behind' and around the camera, was unbelievable. The opening sequence set the mood for the film, as the camera rolled past 23,000 employees constructing a mysterious subject (which turned out to be Irons. 23,000 people making Irons. Every day. They allegedly produce 20 million irons a year.), and reveals the true depth behind each image that Burtynsky creates. From here, the film continued to explore 'exotic' areas of waste, hazardous working situations, and seemingly heartless scenes of China's Industrial Revolution. All of which appear beautifully horrific in the eyes and lens of Edward Burtynsky. The way the film concluded, without offering real closure to any of the individual situations it covered, implied, yet again, the scale of the issues which are covered by Edward. It is as if a conclusion is not necessary, once you have seen the destruction of our natural world already, heavily, in action.

One Hour Photo

I'll start this off by professing that I really am not 'into' Hollywood movies. Something about them always seems a bit 'off'. The writing is cliche, predictable, and is rarely cohesive to reality. The plot usually follows along the same lines. Also, I rarely find Robin Williams impressive, as he isn't as versatile as such a 'renowned' actor should be. I didn't buy it. I couldn't get behind him as a 'creep', . Did I mention that Sy is short for Seymour? A photo-guy named Seymour? Hollywood? Really?? (Seymour also made me question if Yorkin was a terrible play on 'Your Kin'... something I would rather have not had to think about.)Also, did they really have to end the movie by having the 'creep' spill his guts and admit that he was only being creepy because his father was a creep to him as a child? Really? Have we not moved past basic psychology in our plot lines? Could there not possibly be a more complex idea behind this story? I know, for a fact, that there couldn't be a simpler one. Ah, and the differences between lens-choices and colour-temperatures to change the mood between scenes in the film? It was a great idea. Unfortunately the extremely implausible paper-thin plot line did nothing to thicken the mood, or enhance the separation between Sy's different 'worlds'. All that aside, I enjoyed the film. It would have been great, if it had been the season finale of something on TV. However, as a film, it lacked legs to stand on. It lacked depth, backstory, it lacked artistic direction... That being said, the Director's history is mostly in Music Videos (Red Hot Chili Peppers, Madonna, Weezer. Feel free to judge now), so I shouldn't really have expected too much more.

Born into Brothels

I was introduced to this film in my High School English class, a few years ago. I remembered it having a strong impact on me, so I was excited to see it again. I wasn't surprised to still feel the same way toward the film, which celebrated education, liberation, the intelligence and purpose of youth, and roused, in reality, outreach towards those featured in the film. Watching kids, who had never seen a camera, run amok with creative freedom and capture honest life, was refreshing to see. Not only was the philanthropy shown in the film inspiring, but the idea of being encouraged, opinionated, and explorative in photography was inspiring as well. As heartbreaking as it is to know that there are many young children stuck in the situations featured in the movie, it brings awareness to us, about another section of our world that needs hope, and help, and hopefully wills us forward to making changes, where we are able, in the world around us. I feel empowered, knowing that photography is one more tool we can use to make those changes.

But is it Art?

I figured some of you would like to hear a few more opinions on the subject. I certainly didn't have much of an essay format, but it's been a while since I've been in school, and I hope that some of the links make up for it. Check it out! And, if you don't feel like reading, simply visit Carl Warners website and feel inspired.

Photographic Art vs Digital Art.

When does Photography cease to be Photography?

The term Photography, to me, describes the documentation of one's personal reality. A photograph is a tool, as well as a piece of art, used as a demonstration of one's perspective. That being said, not all photography is art, and not every photographer is aware of their perspective(s). Some are not even aware of what a photograph may become, represent, or portray. As Ansel Adams is quoted to have said, "There are two people in every photograph: the photographer and the viewer". Each individual brings their own opinion, knowledge, and interpretation to the image. This principle alone brings a great difficulty to the subject of Photographic Art vs Digital Art, as the difference in realities between one man and another may differ like night and day. To state one of the most over-discussed questions in Philosophy, how do we, as humans, know that our perception of colours remains constant? How do I know that what I see as red, is red to you as well? As humans, we are thus-far incapable of defining and describing our individual realities to the point of understanding. What is reality to one man, may be complete surrealism to another.

Keeping all this in mind, I would define Digital Art as the following:

When the image (photograph) takes on the characteristics of a(n) (complex) imagination, and becomes a personalized version of an image stretched beyond reality.

Or, as Webster's defines surrealism, it would be the production of "fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects... by means of using unnatural, irrational juxtapositions and combinations".

For a few examples of Digital Art, please browse the following links.

My absolute personal favourite, Carl Warner: http://www.carlwarner.com/ ...Once you're on his website, click 'Stills', and then click the first box, 'Foodscapes'. (no direct link available)

A fairly simple photograph with a simple (but obvious) edit, as described for clarification: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sally-jane/2244145147/

A photographer who prefers the 'Vintage Feel', but still shoots and edits digitally, presumably to maintain creative control: http://www.kellypetersenphotography.blogspot.com/

And, two photographs displaying the degree to which Digital Art can be taken:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elfinity/3539539507/in/set-72157594575297472/ (drastically enlarged subject)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dadavid/3468033516/in/pool-utterlysurreal (drastically altered subject)

Where Optimization is an enhancement of the image to produce more attractive, memorable results than a RAW file is able to portray, editing to produce Digital Art is a creative process which stretches the version or reality captured by the original image. When it is no longer a congruent or plausible replication of 'the real world', I would place the image in the category of Digital Art.

For a few examples of Optimization (which occasionally pushed up against the boundaries of Digital Art), please view the following links.

A couple of believable version of reality, although noticeably digitally altered:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zulphadawson/91957795/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/manganite/2404401317/

A self-quoted 'honest' portrait, likely with minimal optimization: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlililly/4239398433/

And, from the same photostream, yet another optimized image that could possibly bump past the buffers of reality, but would not be considered Digital Art (for lack of out-of-ordinary aspects): http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlililly/4265628736/in/photostream/

As I explained earlier, however, it is sometimes difficult to separate reality from memory of the scene, and oftentimes the camera will capture far more detail than what the human eye perceives. Therefore, the lines of clarity between Art Forms and Reality and blurred, and we are left to decipher, and edit, the remains. To be clear, each image produced, be it a Lithograph, a Digital Photograph, a Film Photograph, or a Video... they're all art forms, if the people involved in their creation and interpretation will them to be art forms. All of this brings about the common discussions such as "What is reality?", "What is art?", "Intention vs Interpretation", and other classics. As photographers, it is our responsibility to define our own styles, to create our own intentions, to explore our own creativity, and to document moments of existence. We are here to create aesthetics. We are here to develop our Art Form. I believe there is such a thing as 'Bad Art', just as there is such a thing as 'Bad HDR', 'Bad Film', and 'Bad Representation'. However, I believe as long as we keep our awareness, aesthetics, intentions, and others perceptions in 'check', photographers should be free to create images in whichever style they choose. Whether or not it can be placed under a proper title is slightly irrelevant. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about digital editing becoming the norm, and human beings forget what 'normal' really looks like, in which case we should time-warp back to the 1920's and stop surrealism at it's roots. I bet when folks were used to seeing only factual drawings, this stuff shocked them a bit. Oh, and how about when Surrealists infiltrated photography. The rebellious Claude Cahun brings a good example to the table.)

To View what I find to be the boundaries dividing Optimization and Digital Art in my personal work, please check out my Picassa Album.

Cheers!

DT 13.2 Blogging Non-School Related Photos

I spent a week of the holidays at home with my mum, and family 'extra's, and wanted to keep most of the 'personal' photos Personal, but here's a few goodies to share with you.

My mom has a tendency to complain about never having any good photos of herself, and since she usually wrinkles her nose and talks whenever anyone picks up a camera around her, I'm not surprised. We started some photo-therapy together this month, and this might be one of my favourites, shot with HP5.

And, while we're on the subject of film, here's a candid of the lovely Becca, on a random hang-out and shoot day.

And, on the subject of random hang-outs, I did some random antique store trolling with a friend one afternoon... peacock feathers were only four bucks a piece!

Tish, my adorable dog-friend who resides in the country with my family. I could take a million photos of her and never truly capture her many moods.

I switched up my shooting style for some random New Years stuff... this couple came to the bar clad in leather pants, and set off my desire to find a pair. There is something horrendously cool about leather pants. Oh, and.... I really like this shot.

The dance floor was dead. Zoom-bursts saved the day.

With all the spare time I had, I found time to shoot some self-portraits. It's a great way for me to honestly explore different techniques and compositions, and it usually helps me relax, but this one drove me crazy. I'd had an original, but knew it could use some work... and when Aaron gave me a few suggestions I leapt to the chance to try something new. This was the closest I could get to a perfect shot, before the shoes drove me mad.

I usually get lost in the smaller details of objects, and while this isn't a Macro (you'll notice that there ARE none?!), I was definitely 'hung up' on this chandelier. Ha...

Food, food, and more food. My mom baked about a billion cookies. Literally.

And, in closing, I love my mum.

-Sierra

A little inspiration

...to carry you through the holidays!

Analogue Techniques - Karsh - Hemingway

Ernest Heminway's portrait was one of the images in the Yousuf Karsh exhibit which struck me. It's uncomplicated, strong in light and detail, and has a great feeling of solidity about it. It's incredibly sharp throughout, and looks like it didn't go through a lot of change in the darkroom. The dark background was likely burned in, the contrast is set at a nice medium level, and the rest of the work looks to be lighting and exposure (both of which are done just perfectly).

The composition is strong, stark, and very complimentary to the macho-image that Hemingway often strove to promote for himself. It's a classic pose, a bit boring in style, but obviously plain, as to not distract from the personality of the subject. Every time I see this photo, I can't help but think of Hemingway's turtleneck as a submarine, with the port-hole as the neck of the sweater, with Ernest's head emerging. It's always been a good reminder of who this portrait is of, as his Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Award winning book was titled 'The Old Man and the Sea'.