united we stand, divided we fall

after talking to and observing the work of two of my instructors, it appeared to me that they happen to have an interest in very scientific, documentary style photographs. the type of photographs i'm referring to are the type of photographs that appear with blank background with something centered in the middle of the composition. to me these photographs seem as if they could be some type of scientific slides, meant to document something in particular. because of this, one single print of these types of photographs can't really hold my attention. once i look at one of these prints, i observe and study whatever the photograph is documenting, then move on, and feel no need to go back and reinvestigate these prints. this is how i view these prints when they are giving to me in a book, on a computer screen, or just one by. when these images are displayed to me in gallery or in anyone room, all together as one body of work, i view them in a different way, and their strength is increased greatly.

a good example of this type of work and change in strength from single images to a group, is the work of narelle autio documenting australian coastal life. when first viewing her images one by one my interest and curiosity is not held and i move from one to the other...

however when i saw how she laid out her work in galleries i became interested in her images and in the difference that size and layout of prints can make...

with all the spacing, arrangement, and size differences between the images all of her work takes on new life and effects the viewer in a different way, than simply displaying single framed images, all of the same size, in a line on the wall. then after becoming interested in her work, due to her presentation, i also became interested in her idea of documenting a place by signaling out and shooting one item at a time, as opposed to shooting large -scape scenes or people. this goes to show how it is important to capture your audience visually, and then keep them there with an idea.

Unreal

one thing i try to do with my work is put the viewer in my world, which is slightly different and stranger than this one, yet still logical, familiar, and believable. i believe that the work of taiyo onorato and nico krebs has these same goals. the images from onorato and krebs book, "The Great Unreal", do a really good job of bringing the viewer into another world. the fact that all the images seem familiar and real, yet you really can't seem to put the them in a specific place, make me really enjoy this body of work.

creepy, sleazy, and beautiful, captured, not just conveyed

the work of anotine d'agata is creepy, sleazy, and beautiful...i like that. another thing i enjoy about d'agata's work is his use of motion blur and focus. these two things are basically specific to photography, so it's nice to see them taken advantage of. photography is the only medium, besides video, that can employ these elements, so they should be taken advantage of.

it seems that with painting or drawing, light can be captured in a way similar to photography. i don't think the same can be said for motion blur and focus. unlike light, motion blur and focus can not really be drawn or painted from observation. the blur of motion can not be seen and frozen by the eye, so it would be hard to record it onto canvas from observation, and i think its hard to recreate the exact appearance of something being out of focus because it is...well...out of focus. how can you truly capture what something looks like out of focus when you're not sure because it is in fact out of focus. even if artist do get a likeness of these motion blurs and out focus images onto their canvas, it's not the same as a photograph. the motion blurs and unfocused images often just become wild marks, strokes, or shapes made up by the artist. photography doesn't do this, it's not really created, it is captured as it actually is. this isn't to say that the photographer didn't do somethings to create this out of focus image with the motion blurs, they did create these things in real life, and they managed to capture them, and show them. in other mediums they are only conveyed... not captured.

Glenn Sloggett

there is a simplicity to slogett's work that i really appreciate. in most of his photographs there is something that is really evident as the main subject of the picture or something that really becomes overwhelming in the composition, causing it to become the focal point. i find going out into the world and creating an image that is so obviously about one thing can sometimes be difficult. this is because you have to take into account all the other shapes and objects that fall into your frame. slogget does a good job of getting a just the right distance so that no other shapes or objects in the composition become distracting or overwhelming, the simply become part of the background. slogett's choice of distance also helps to make one object the focal point of his pictures without making it troublesomely abstract. this object is usually close to the center of the frame, if not directly in the center of the frame, which definitely helps it to become the focal point and also helps out with the simplicity of the photograph.

another thing that contributes to the simplicity of slogett's photographs is the square format. the square format is very conducive to slogett's placing of the subject in the center of the frame, it becomes simple, direct, and allows the main subject to dominate the frame. another thing the square format does is it makes it very apparent that slogett has placed his subject in the center of the frame, which really helps his work function as a series.

The End of Ideas due to a Communication Breakdown. Plus Dash Snow

after a recent portfolio review, where the idea of a series i have been working on did not really come across, i started to question the importance of an idea. i thought the idea that i had presented in my series was effectively communicated and identifiable, and this was based on the responses of critiques i had in school. in these critiques i had presented the concept of my series and everyone seemed to comprehend it, at no point did anyone say that my presented concept wasn't conveyed through my photographs. (the effectiveness of critiques is another thing i'm beginning to question) the fact that i was forced to reveal what my concept was in these critiques may have been the reason that the communication of my concept was never called into question. that is why, when i went to this portfolio review i made sure not to present the central idea behind my series right away, and as i said my concept did not seem to come across.

the concept behind a series or a photograph can change it completely. if a concept is not perceived it can even change the successfulness of a composition. the concept behind my series was animating the inanimate. my goal was to frame these non-living things, with living characteristics, in a certain way so my pictures would appear as freeze frames that would not exist moment after the picture was taken. i wanted to make it look as if they could possibly be living, this was my intention, however the way in which i believe they were perceived was to basically be a documentation of these non-living things. this communication breakdown resulted in my pictures becoming photos that did a poor job of documenting a certain subject. the way in which i placed these non-living things in the composition to create the appearance and possibility of these things being alive became troublesome. this is because they did not really document what was perceived to be the main subject and point of my series.

it was this whole experience which caused me to question the importance of an idea in your work. if everyone involved in my critiques really did fully understand the concept in my series, then hypothetically there is probably a room full of people (including the person who reviewed my portfolio) somewhere who wouldn't understand my concept. so this brings up a couple questions...

is there a really a point in having an idea behind your series? the chances of your idea coming across to everyone is unlikely, due to the fact every person has their own individual experiences they will draw upon when viewing your work. so do you take this into account and accept it? what if there's is only one way you want your work to be perceived and when it is perceived this way it's extremely successful, but when perceived any other way it's unsuccessful? is it still worth doing? what if the only way you can properly convey your important message is through cliche imagery? is this the way to go about it then? i certainly hope not...

the alternative to struggling with all these questions about conveying your idea is simply to create images that look "cool" and/or are exciting. ideally you want your work to look cool, exciting, and have an idea behind it, but depending on your idea, you might not be able to get a really cool stylized image. this is not to say you can end up with an image that is aesthetically pleasing, but aesthetically pleasing image does not necessarily equal a cool image. this is why i am suggesting the possibility that the way to go about photography is to just photograph things that look good and exciting without an idea in your head. this idea brings me to the photographic work of dash snow.

snow's name was recently brought up to me by someone who saw my post about ryan mcginley. this is because snow and mcginley were good friends and mcginley encouraged snow's work. i had run into snow's work a couple years ago and was unable to decide how i exactly felt about it. his work can be funny, strange, exciting, sleazy, dangerous, shocking, and vulgar, which are great qualities to for a body of work to have. (they are also good qualities for a person) the problem i had with snow's photos, was that there were no real ideas or purpose behind them, he was simply just taking pictures of his incredibly exciting, and dangerous life. but maybe this is enough? his pictures look exciting, interesting, and "cool", so who needs an idea, a picture is just a picture, and pictures are just meant to be viewed. so as long it looks good what's the problem? and is it really possible for any photo to not carry an idea? most images will provoke some type of thought when you view them? who cares if its a well thought out intentional idea? so is dash snow's work successful? i have no idea about that or any of the other questions presented above. but i do know that i can appreciate snow's photographs for what they are...photographs.

ACTION SHOTS WITH A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA!?!

after reading article on atiba jefferson, a sports/portrait/skateboarding photographer i was surprised to learn he uses a medium format camera, but after reading the article and looking at his high quality pictures it made perfect sense. the detail photographs medium format cameras create are not the only smart reason for using these cameras for action shots, but the flash sync and digital backs also make medium format a great idea for action shots.

the flash sync for the medium format cameras atiba uses are 1/500 of a second, versus the 1/250 of a second flash sync some 35 mm cameras have. although this is only one stop, i'm sure it is very helpful in obtaining that decisive moment stop action shot that is very important in action photography. another feature of the medium format cameras that is helpful ensuring you get that perfect stop action shot, is their digital backs. (which are extremely necessary if you want to take action shots with your medium format camera) the digital back atiba uses is a leaf aptus 75, a back which can cost between $15,000 and $30,000, this back can shoot 25 frames in 60 seconds, which would work for sequences and would supply you with plenty of frames t choose from when looking for that perfect moment.

after looking at atiba's photos i'm curious to see how much longer 35 mm cameras will hold up for sports/action photography

(click on photos to enlarge them)

Alex Prager is a FOX!!!

there's something i really enjoy about alex prager's work, and it's not just her beautiful models dressed in retro clothing ( i do really enjoy that though). all of her photos seem to be a still from some movie you've never seen, i always enjoy photos that appear to be yanked right out of a film. there is also something very simple about all of prager's photos, take all these for example...

all of prager's photos seem so obtainable because of their simplicity. when broken down this photograph is simply a figure, a bird, the ocean, and the sky. even the distant horizon line doesn't complicate things because there's nothing really out there, just simplicity.

another simple picture just of a girl laying on patterned rug. i also enjoy how prager only seems to use 3 or maybe 5 colors at most in her photographs.

pragner includes very few elements in her photographs, there are very little objects or props involved.

even with the inclusion of buildings in the background, the photos do not become complicated. this is because the building and background just seem to become simplified into shapes and colors

another simple setting, with few colors, and the colors that are there are used perfectly to bring your eye to the subject

once again, you can see here simplicity, the use of color as emphasis, and the simplification of a background into shapes.

even as prager moves further away from her subjects, nothing becomes complicated

prager often seems to use the sky as a back drop which helps keep things simple, and once again makes her photographs seem obtainable

black empty backgrounds and simple lighting also work similarly to the use if sky, to create a simple background and simple photograph, with emphasis on the subject

oh yea, and on top of all this, ALEX PRAGER IS A FOX!!!

look at her! and look how big her prints are!!