History of Editing

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17gRI-YangiblIsWFyRJ4A9M8mB_GpLpcttROtC9NEkc/edit

In Solitude Set

In Solitude Set, a set on Flickr.

These photographs were taken as part of the In Solitude photography task.
I took these pictures in the Crawley Memorial Gardens on the 24th November, 2011.
The task was relatively simple in nature, we were supposed to capture the nature of "Solitude" in our photographs, picking out key details on whatever we wished in order to replicate the feeling. In practice though, it is much harder than one would first imagine. Taking a photograph of a lone animal isn't always going to give the sense of solitude/loneliness, a huge amount of the quality of the picture relies on context and setting.

For example, the photograph of the pigeon, seen above, was taken in a fairly small area of grass. The pigeon was alone, and the paths were no more than 5 metres from it in all directions. In order to give the feeling of solitude, ommiting the surroundings was key in order to give the sense of a continuous expanse of dead leaves and grass, making the pigeon seem isolated and alone.
The photograph below shows how context and setting can ruin a solitude piece:



If you look at the photo, the pigeon is still alone, so it works as an in solitude piece. Is it actually a good solitude photograph though? That is somewhat subjective, but in my opinion, no, it is not. Why is this? Namely, the context is wrong. For a start, the location is very visible, detracting from the focal point of the photo which in this case is the pigeon. The pigeon is sat alone, but it is not alone in a sense, as there are people around, the location is bright and visible and clean, it just doesn't look right. Changing the angle even slightly, gives us a much better idea of what emotions the picture is trying to capture, primarily the feeling of isolation and detachment.



The effect is much better. Now we have context, the pigeon is the focal point of the photograph, and to the viewer, he is stuck in an endless sea of dead leaves and grass. There is nothing around to distract the viewer from the message of the photograph and the isolation the pigeon is subjected to. The viewer has more attachment to the pigeon, they relate to it a bit better. The photograph was taken with a specific aperture as well, giving a nice depth of field. The expanse of leaves blurs as it gets further away from the pigeon, increasing the size of the expanse of grassland he is hunkered himself down into, the feeling of solitude is heightened.

However, the scene could do with something more. The location looks a bit too bright. I wanted this pigeon to look very cold and alone, but the location doesn't go as far as I want. This is where editing comes in. I added the photograph to photoshop and decided I wanted the colour tone to reflect how "indifferent" I wanted the pigeon to look. During times if despondency, many people do not feel "colour" from an emotional perspective. Colour and tone often reflect how we feel. Bright colours espouse a sense of happiness, whereas dull ones blur and we do not respond to them in the same way, the colours become almost monochrome to us. Beautiful reds and greens, pinks and oranges don't catch out eye any more. We are indifferent to them, ignorant. This pigeon, as I watched him watch the world go by, seemed to have a similar view of his surroundings. I decided to make the photo colourless, but also have some colour in order not to make the photo look "dead".

With some editing, mainly by removind greens and yellows from the colour gamut, and also slightly enhancing the reds, I got this result:



Perfect. This was exactly the effect I was looking for, a cold, grey day; a cold, grey pigeon; and a cold, grey expanse of nothingness. The leaves were deliberately left with some colour in order to deepen the tone a bit. The dead leaves reflect the emotionless aura of the pigeon, he views his world as nothing more than an expanse of dead leaves.

Photo Project: In Solitude

Treatment Photography

1. Type of production and brief details on Subject/Concept:

Solitude;
1
: the quality or state of being alone or remote from society : seclusion
2
: a lonely place (as a desert)

"In Solitude" is an emotional and moving artistic within the photographic world. The photos themselves are designed to incite an emotional connection with the subject of the photograph and the viewer. The power of such photography is such that, even a completely mundane object such as a raft, a can of drink or a person sitting alone in a wide open field can be manipulated in such a way that the viewer of said photograph feels deep emotions relating to their own experiences and views of solitude.



2. Facilities: What facilities do you need for this project list all including software and hardware for the whole project
Facilities vary wildly depending on the subject of the photograph. Primarily, in solitude photography is undertaken outside in situations where lighting rigs and studio like conditions are unrealistic. It appears in most in solitude photographs are manipulated afterwards in an editing software suite in order to incite the emtional response that the photographer is seeking.

3. Finance: If you produced this project outside of the college you need to show how much would it cost to hire the equipment that you intend to use.

To finance an in solitude photo shoot, all that is really needed is a camera and a pair of legs to take you to a location. Locations are not always the focal point of the picture, though sometimes they are. It depends on what the in solitude photograph is trying to "espouse". Solitude does not necessarily mean lonely in the dismal sense, solitude can mean a peaceful quiet feeling, the feeling of wanting to "get away". With in solitude photography, like most other photographical genres, relies on the archetype of the person observing the picture.

For example, a photograph of a single leaf in the middle of a grassy field can bring forth feelings of isolation in the viewer, they feel out in the open and completely alone and lost. It might inspire great feelings of peace through solitude in others, that they feel relaxed just thinking about some alone time.

Sometimes human subjects are used in in solitude, so a model's fee may be charged. Models can range from free (asking a friend to help you), up to hundreds of pounds.

For me, I find it much easier to wander around in any area I wish, if I spot something that looks out of place, or suitable solitary, I will photograph it. I find that is a much truer representation of solitude, it is random and fleeting, rather than a very planned process. I find the planning makes true solitude arbitrary and deliberate.

4. Contributors: Who do you need to help this for you project? This includes talent and crew.

I think solitude in nature is a more spontaneous way to inspire a whole range of solitary feelings in the viewer of the photograph. I feel that using human models tends to prescribe deliberately dismal and sadder emotional responses, as a solitary human observing the world tends to give off the impression of isolation and loneliness, even if the actual message is that, if you just take a moment to pause and relax on your own, the world is beautiful. I feel the message of solitude of often lost when using human models, it is very hard to manipulate the viewer without using very planned body language and facial expressions, also, the location the person is being photographed in has a huge bearing on the end viewers opinion and response to the photograph.

Singling out certain aspects of solitude in nature is, in my opinion, better in order to widen the emotional responses of the people viewing the piece.

For this reason, I will not be using any models for this shoot.


5. Codes of practice and regulation: What regulations to you need to be aware of. Think about college policy as well as regulatory bodies that you looked at in assignment 2, Worksheet 1.6 Regulation and Safety notes

College policy, in relation to this project, is not an issue. I will not be taking photographs of people or minors, and, as such I will not need their permission.

The regulations regarding photography on the streets, I am able to take a photograph of whatever I wish without placing a tripod in a busy area or on a path. If I wish to do so, I must have a pass and also signage warning people of the tripod setup. I will also not be using lighting rigs or backdrops and will not need local government permission to set these up either. Also, because I will not be setting any tripods or rigs up, I will not need liability insurance.


6. Presentation: How will you present the pictures? Will you include a soundtrack, think about copy write issues etc.
I have decided against present the pictures with music, instead presenting them on a blog post that is silent. The reason for this is due to the fact I think Solutide pieces are emotional yet music may inspire emotions that contradict the photographs, they may invoke emotions that would not be the true emotions felt by the viewer. For example, while a particular photograph may be sad to one person, another may not feel the same way, yet the music will force them to feel those emotions anyway. Since in solitude photographs may or may not be sad, morose, or depressing, findinf a piece of music that is very neutral will be extremely difficult. I also think I will have difficulty finding a piece that has fair use or creative commons licensing rules attached. For these reasons I have decided to present the pictures on their own.

Portraiture

"A true portrait should, today and a hundred years from today, be the Testimony of how this person looked and what kind of human being he was." - Philippe Halsman

Portraiture is a type of photography that arose almost as soon as the invention, and popularisation, of the camera. It is simple in nature, a camera is placed in a specific way to capture a still image of a person and/or people to preserve their existence and who they "were". A simple portrait photograph could be much like the one below, a self portrait of Edward S. Curtis, one of the first portraiture photographers.



Since inception portraiture has kept to its simple roots, but it has mutated beyond recognition as well. Lets look at two portraiture photographers and how their portrait photographs have changed the world of photography as we know it.

Diane Arbus

"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." - Diane Arbus



Diane Arbus was a photographer who focused on portraiture that includes subjects of people who are considered unusual or weird. Her word has drawn huge opposition and praise, proponents of her work consider her a daring photographer who captured people that would normally be shunned by society and challenged the viewer on their morals and views of society and people. Critics consider her work self indulgent and exploitative.




Diane Arbus's work primarily focuses on portraiture and the art of capturing of ordinary life. More specifically, Diane evokes the capturing of the ordinary lives of the extraordinary people who live them. These people are viewed, subjectively of course, as people who lived in the fringe of society. In informal terms, these types people were considered weird by others who consider themselves as "normal".

Diane Arubus's work is fascinating as it generally captured a lot of surreal imagery of people with strange tastes in fashion bordering on the macabre. Bear in mind her photographic work was taken in the 1970's, an era which, although slightly more embraceful of unusual tastes due to the social changed brought on largely during the 60's, an era that still had strong bigoted views and one which people openly shunned those who were considered unusual.

Diane Arbus liked to photograph homosexuals, disabled people, people with unusual tastes and styles, people who gathered at unusual places, and simply plain and untoward people that were normal. One notable trait of her pictures is that her subjects are often captured as if the camera wasn't there. Rarely do her subjects look into the camera, unless this adds to the artistic quality of the picture. Her subjects often look through the camera or past it, almost as if her photos were a fly on the wall insight into their lives, a mundane event of less than mundane people captured for eternity for our pleasure. This is also known as a Candid portrait

Diane always took her pictures on silver plate emulsion, so her photographs were a rich black and silver colour. In my opinion this made her pictures even more unusual, you look at the subjects with an almost dim view of your own. You would expect these people to have colourful lives and attire, and the fact that you cannot the blast of colour you would be expected to be assaulted by if you met one of these people, your attitude towards them is somewhat more relaxed. You feel as though, without the colour that would be associated with unusual people, that they are simply just like you, but they just have unusual tastes. You then realise, despite the normality you think your life is based around, might be just as unusual to these people. You almost start to picture yourself in a Diane Arbus photograph, how would people view you if you were in a Diane Arbus portrait photograph?

Here are a few examples:






Cindy Sherman

"I didn't have any interest in traditional art. -
Cindy Sherman



Another famous portraiture photographer is Cindy Sherman. Much like Diane Arbus, Sherman's photographs are extremely unusual and bizarre, however her photographs are stylistically much more sexualised and tend to portray women in risque situations as though she has stumbled them by chance. Often her photographs include mannequins and models with sexual organs either sculpted onto them or (deliberately) missing parts that would imply sexuality in the model:

Originally Sherman, as a photographer, only took self portraits. These images, once released, launched her into fame and her pictures were titled "Film Stills" and they began a whole new form of photography. Her photographs were stylish, artsy and showed every day life almost like it was a movie.

"The still must tease with the promise of a story the viewer of it itches to be told" - Cindy Sherman




If you look at the images, they do tease you with an almost unfolding story that, if you had further images or even a video, would reveal to you a narrative and a plot. Since there are no other images, you start to draw your own conclusions from the "story" the pictures are trying to tell you, leaving you to spend hours making up your own creative and interesting anecdote from one picture. This shows the power of photography at its finest, not only does a simply image provoke so many different subtexts and ideas that are left open to you to interpret, they make you want more so you are not left hanging. You want the full story, you want the image to turn into a movie so you know just what has happened before and after the still was taken. Hence the term "Movie Stills".

Since her rise to fame, Sherman has raised questions about the sexualisation of women in the media and artistic world. The pictures she has taken of mannequins with sexual organs shows her cynical attitude that women are often treated no better than objects by photographers and media producers. She places the mannequins in realistic and human like poses and makes them seem "indifferent" to their exploitation. It's almost if Sherman views the women who are perfectly happy to be exploited in this way as no better than these mannequins, a plastic model to be posed and exploited in any way chosen. However, a non-feminist or a man would perhaps miss the message of these photographs and view then ass simply being odd. The message the photographs contain rely completely on the open mindedness of the viewer, a closed minded person would completely overlook the message contained and see nothing but sexually abhorrent imagery.





Cindy also took historical portraiture photographs. They are intended to replicate the portrait oil-paintings that were largely replaced by portraiture photographs when the camera gained wide-spread adoption.




Conclusions

In my opinion, portraiture is as interesting as it is diverse. Portraiture can be a simple photograph of family members trying to preserve a moment, they could be photographs intended to show the difference in culture, ideology, and personal taste while at the same time proving we are all still human (shown in Diane Arbus' work), and they can be used to create a narrative or communicate a message. Just like any other form of photography, the message of the photograph, or its content, relies on the individual viewing them. This is the beauty of photography, the photograph is as much your own as it is the photographers, because only you and your own unique personality can really dictate what the photograph contains and what it really says to you through the imagery it contains.

Fashion Photography: The Polarising Effect of a Photograph

Fashion photography is a polarising subject to a lot of people. For many, it eschews the "dream" of beauty and stunning couture, something to aspire to, something to dream for. For many others, it is about the false image of beauty and the great lie contained within the images. Very few fashion publications escape the harsh opinions of those that see beauty as from within and not from without, especially when the magazines and publications are famous, no, infamous for greatly editing the models and images so much that the original image and the model are completely beyond recognition.

Where did this all come from? Why is it so hotly and viciously debated?

A Brief History

Photography began around the mid 1830's after the invention of the first camera. Though true fashion photography did not begin in earnet until the early 1900's when huge advances in halftone printing were achieved. The onset of this technology allowed fasion photographs to be published in magazines and newspapers.

However, the first true fashion model appeared in around 1860. Her name Virginia Oldoini, the Countess of Castiglione. She was a prominent noblewoman in Tuscany, and was the subject of the earliest examples of fashion photography

The View on and from Photojournalism

Photojournalism is a very interesting concept.

While normal photography is generally interpreted as the "Window to the World", it is not always an honest window at all. While the photo has captured a moment as it happened, or captured a person doing something, is that photo a true representation of what actually occured? Has it been manipulated in a subtle way to convey a message that contrasts with the actual content of the photo?

Such is the minefield of photography, as while the photo can be manipulated by the photographer to tell a completely different or even biased tale, the viewer can interpret it in their own way, too. This means, as hard as it may be to accept, that photography can be the biggest liar of them all, you just have to look past the image and see for yourself, if you look hard enough.

Take this image, for example, taken by Guy Tillim:



Outwardly, we see a large crowd of Congolese people at a gathering. The situation seems aggresive and suggests a protest that may turn violent. The man to the right is pointing to the left and shouting at someone off camera, and a dancer stands above the crowd, seemingly rousing them into fervour. Other subjects in the photograph seem equally aggresive and the overall aura suggests an undercurrent of unrest. But is that the actual truth?

The image is scarcely colourful, in fact the colours are very subdued and bordering on monochromatic, apart from a few select reds that "pop", ie your eye is drawn to them and they contrast massivelly from the rest of the colour pallette. Red, in the natural world and indeed psycholigically is seen as an aggressive and harmful colour, a colour that warns us, a colour that makes us feel uneasy, especially if presented in certain situations. The fact these colours are emphasised while others are subdued shows that the photographer may be trying to convince us the crowd is a seething mass of voilent and angry people, and this is shown nicely with the dancer wearing red also (again "rousing" the crowd into action).

The sky is overcast, which conveys a greater sense of foreboding, that something is about to happen and it wont turn out well. This deepens the subdued and monochrome colours.

If you look closely though, you can see no weapons, no metaphorical torches and pitchforks, as would typically be associated with a voilent crowd of protesters. Indeed, some of the people are raising their hands as if the crowd is a dance of celebration, not of violence. The face of the dancer seems happy, though her face seems very out of focus compared to some of the faces which, while further away and lost in the morass of people, seem clearer and sharper. What is interesting about this is while the dancers face (upon closer inspection) seems cheerful, the sharper and clearer faces seem emotionless.

What I can see in this photo is that there is far more than meets the eye. Select colours are emphasised to convey a different message than the actual reality of the situation unfolding before the photographers eyes. Although there isn't a lot of backstory to this photograph, it is hard to see why he would do this. Perhaps the protesters are sympathisers to the current (and oppressive) regime and the photographer does not want these people coming across as good people, despite their happy mood. It could also mean that, after a prolonged and bloody battle the winners are celebrating victory, but the photographer is trying to subdue the mood, as while it is a happy one, it rose from bloodshed which is not something ever to be celebrated.

However, the juxtaposition of photojournalism is that the photo is interpreted by the viewer as much as it is by the photographer. While Tillim may have been trying to make a certain statement about the content of his photograph, the end viewer is ultimately the one who makes the final decision about what they are seeing, and this can lead to a mixed message or even an altered message altogether. The person who sees the photograph will have different opinions based entirely on their personality, political views, maturity, opinions, and their personal outlook on life.

The above picture to an optimist may speak volumes of the human struggle of the people photographed at the rally, that their life of oppression and their commitment to changing this for the better is a wonderful thing. A pacifist may see the expressions on the faces of the crowd as aggresive and shameful, that violence to solve violence will and in a simple sidestep rather than a step forward. The subdued colours of the photograph may cry out to the pessimist and the ignorant. They would view the picture cynically and see it as just another pointless rally that will end in bloodshed and with no change at all. Someone who has viewed the picture fleetingly wouldn't see anything other than the bright flames of the fire and the red shirt of the protester mixed in with the monochrome colours and pick out these traits as a message of violence, the picture needs more deep viewing to really see that there is more to it than violence.

This is just one facet of photography and how it can be manipulated to bend the truth to the photographer's own views on the reality they have captured. But the other crucial facet is how, while the photographer may have been trying to communicate a certain emotion in the photo he has taken, may be lost completely to the person sitting at home viewing it in a newspaper or looking at it in a museum.

"I am not an Artist. I am an Image Maker." - Thomas Hoepker

Imagine the first day you held a camera in your youth. Remember the first time you heard the camera click, saw the light flash and the felt the servos whirr in your palms, the fact that you had captured that moment for eternity? In that very second you had taken your first steps into the beautiful, surreal and sometimes terrifying world of photography. You could look back on that moment fondly. Such memories are to be treasured.

But, did you ever stop and think? Did you realise that the moment you started your travels in the realm of taking photographs, that perhaps your photos could change the world? You'd be shocked deeply, and perhaps you'd be too scared to lift a camera again if you knew the true power of what you held in your fingertips. Perhaps you didn't think that, at some point, a photo you took could divide opinion, raise anger in the calmest of people, turn friends into enemies, and cause bitterness in a whole generation of people.

Did the now world famous photographer, Thomas Hoepker, think about this When he was 16 and his grandfather gifted him his first camera? Did he ever stop and think of the potential his photos could have? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm sure he would never have realised back then, that on the fateful day of the September the 11th 2001 atrocities he would capture a single moment that would spark a decade of anger, shock, sadness, and vicious debate among not just a few people, not just an entire country, but the whole world.

The Image Maker

Thomas Hoepker is a native German, born in 1936 in Munich. After World War 2, on his 16th birthday, his grandfather bought him a 9x12 glass plate camera. As an industrious and savvy young fellow, Hoepker took pictures of anything and everything, and developed the photos in his kitchen and bathroom and made some money by selling the pictures to friends and peddling them on the streets to strangers.

He eventually moved on to marry his first wife, Eva Windmoller, and together they moved to Berlin. Eva was a journalist, and together with his wife Hoepker took photographs for articles detailing life in East Germany during Socialist rule that helped the West understand what it was like, as very little was known.



In 1964 Hoepker joined the world renowned photographic agency "Magnum", and became fully accredited by them in 1989. He was also the first German to become president of Magnum, from 2003 to 2006.

Thomas Hoepker's Magnum Page

Hoepker is well known for his photographic style, using a wide palette of colours. He was one of the favourite photographers of multi world title winning boxer Muhammad Ali.