The images are simple. Apple eating. Segments. Chopping. Remains. I added a few details of thought. Combine image and word. They relate to each other. I enjoy laying things out, although not all areas are as successful as I would have liked. I laid the images out as three pages. In that lay out the last pages didn’t seem as dynamic. However as laid out here on the blog the images have more interplay. It works better. Laying things out on the computer there is a lack of sense of scale. To actually feel the page as A4 or A3. To realise the size of the images in relation to the physical. To see at as relationships, not as a screen based structure.
I was looking at Flickr. Trying to find some information on some lens I read about. Its a strange environment. There are nice images on there. Some not my thing. There’s such a mixture of approaches. A morass. No space between things. What does it say? Intent and purpose? Sharing things yes. Things missing too. The idea. The concentration. The seriousness. Does it sell an image short?
Good for sharing but a poor setting.
All these images. They are not presented as ideas or as bodies of work. Visual noise? A few tunes in there someplace.
It reminds me of the importance of the idea, of the overview. That’s what makes the difference. The vision/the intent that’s what you have to make and trust. The idea & the image need to come together.
Light/Light+diffuser/Light + white reflector/
Light + white reflector close/Light + silver reflector/Light + black reflector/
Light + gold reflector/ Light+ diffuser+white reflector/Light+diffuser+white reflector close/
Light + diffuser+silver/Light+diffuser + black reflector/Light + diffuser + gold reflector/
David Bailey week on the BBC. This was the documentary part. I guess fashion photography doesn’t interest me so much. Still interesting to hearing him talk and to watch him work. The reduction to the important elements. The energy. The divisions he makes. The document and the other. The image that was there in the world, that anybody could take (unsure if this is true) and the image made. The creation of things. Something invented, built, seen. Something new. From outside?
Myths and parts of reality.
The album in the age of photography.
A frustrating book. A peek at some great archives. Collections you won’t get to see. Also not enough. More to explore. The personal. I would like to see more personal albums. The unknowns. An examination of the forgotten. How they work outside the art world. This is what an album kind of means to me. Aren’t the others something else? Archives for those we’ve read about. Preparations for books. And so the ones I love are the personal or not yet seen. A moleskin with army portraits. Goldberg’s Guest Register. For its flow, for his development and movement. Freedom. Wanting to be in touch. Close/personal/human. The space of Duane Michals pages. The W. Eugene Smith pages. Cause I want to explore all those pages. The Family Album of Daniel Joseph Lyon. All the colour. The life. Personal & strong. The Locust Album. For its strange colours and atmosphere.
What about the culture of the album?Their progress through history? The changes it has gone through. Fashions.
Ok the opening chapter covers some of these areas but somehow it doesn’t extend through the book. Well for me anyway.
Ideas of display and production. And fading and discolouration. Inspiring. The physical. The object. The life of objects. Brought into existence and progressing through life on their own.
Perhaps this is all a reminder.
The electronic is not enough.
I did as requested. Circling the subject at one level and then from above…….. Different degrees on angle. New relationships between light and subject and camera…..
Second four above by 45% (approx): front/side/behind and side.
Last three above: behind/direct/forward.
The most 3D seems to be 45% above behind and side. Here the clues that allow us to register the depth are most present. The highlights and the shadows.
I should have continued this exercise around the object. To navigate it with light. To see the changes along the whole figure.
My favourite? I like them as a whole. The light changes the atmosphere of the object. Things are erased and underscored. The mood of the object changes. The atmosphere. The eyes coming and going. The belly, the hips, the head, the breasts, the arm, the whole. What is this shot about? What do I want it to be about? Intention……..
These images were taken with light and camera the same. The only difference is that in the second a translucent screen has been introduced between the object and the light. The first has a greater range of light. Dense and solid. Hard lines. The second is softer. Not as harsh. With this the highlights and shadows have more detail. The shadow in the first is quite intense and becomes almost another subject. This creates a different dynamic. The eye moves between the two points. The second is less dynamic??? A single point??? Which do I prefere? They both have a different feeling. Drama vs Deadpan? Crunch vs Soft? Right now I think soft and deadpan is my favourite of the two. i am sure this will change…………………