Showing posts with label Training your gaze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Training your gaze. Show all posts

Saturday, 24 March 2012

Confronting

Continuing the theme of trying to engage the subjects I shoot without an acknowledgement or request from me. Testing how far I can go. These shots in London - Houses of Westminster & Tate Britain.



I like this one a lot, she could see I was taking photographs and kept an eye on me as she walked past, fits very well into Assignment 8 of Angier's Train your gaze

These schoolgirls were very boisterous, bad technique on my part lost me a potentially interesting shot.


He saw me standing and composing with the camera and he continued to stare as he walked right on by.


Standing on guard outside the Houses of Parliament - I suspect they get quite a few tourists taking pictures of them.



Leading up to Tate Britain - "safe" shot.


Outside the Houses of Parliament, I noticed that he saw me pointing and his expression is just an accident, I don't think he was posing.



One of "The Burghers of Calais" by Rodin seems to be offering a gesture to this lady who had been taking pictures of them.

Monday, 23 January 2012

Train your gaze - Assignment 2

Putting on a face.

The assignment calls for a self portrait without showing your face, but "face" has many meanings, many connotations and even many lives. We show different faces to different people and to differing versions of our lives - home, parent, work, friend, spouse, lover. Usually these "faces" are the outward expression of the various personalities expressed through our face - diligence, care, compassion and love. Our faces can change with emotion - "I love that look", "I almost didn't recognise you", "I hardly recognise you" - are expressions that work from the face and the "face" that the inner self wants to express.

Make-up, still largely the realm of the female especially in western society, seems to be as much about how to present oneself to the public, and therefore about self worth or lack of self-loathing. In the theatre, the use of make up has a double use. The reliance on lighting on stage has evolved, but essentially it is used to enable the audience to "see" the play (it has the added benefit for the players as it erects a "fourth wall"), but, especially as the strength of electric light has grown, the face needs to have help to find "colour" as the light washes the face with it's incandescent power. The actor also uses make-up to paint a mask, to change age, to become a baddie, to be a goodie, to change gender and so on. In other words the use of make-up as a mask to better become someone else.

It is with this in mind that I looked at how I could make a self portrait without showing my face. I thought about what it is that defines me....my wife, my family..., the books that I have read and am reading....my political thoughts....my lack of religion...my aspirations?? I thought about these and thought that with these metaphysical elements I would be the only one to recognise me from them - this type of portrait would be so personal, so introspective as to probably be impenetrable to anybody else. So I decided on a physical model and then I thought about a mask and how I could adopt a mask to present myself, faceless. Women often say I need to "put on a face" before going out and meeting with their public, are they really saying I need to "put my mask on"?

The theatre is again where I have gone to find a route into this assignment. An actors wears the metaphorical clothes of another person in the character that they are portraying. An actor can feel the personality of the part they are playing by a number of means, not least of which is the donning of a costume and the wearing of make-up. Make-up erodes the personal identity of the actor, decouples them from the audience and alleviates some of the pressure to create a character. Being "made-up" readily allows the actor to move to a character displacement, to allow this other character to inhabit their body. When the actor looks into the mirror they are likely to see the character they are playing - not themselves. More difficult is when the character/writing leaves the actor without modification in any way, other than a little dusting and everyday clothing to make that transition, they tend to feel "naked"; a term that is used quite often behind the 4th wall. The pantomime Dame is a role - with its own mask - that I have adopted every other year for a little over a quarter of a century. Interestingly my first role in a Panto' was as the beast in Beauty and the Beast where I had to wear a full head mask! But it is as a Panto' Dame that I have thought about for this assignment. I asked the same make up lady who normally prepares me to make me up, although I always apply my own lipstick, and asked our costume supplier if they would loan me some costumes. Both obliged and the following photographs are the result.


It is as well I think to start at the beginning, or at least in this case, with the foundation garment. It is curious to note the gender reactions to this adoption of a "cross-over" role. I hadn't ever thought that this role was about playing a woman; whilst the role is a Dame, it is about a male playing the role of a male who dresses up as a woman (albeit very badly). For me the role is definitely not camp, although the role is generally one or the other dependant on who is playing the role. Men, in the cast, tend to treat me just as they would normally. Whilst the women seem to try and appropriate me into their camp, they tend to compare figures (always favourably against me), they often want to physically gauge the texture of my "falsies", 44 FF's by the way and filled with old tights. The women tend to view me in a queer halfway place. Whereas again, the audience know very clearly what I am and dish out all sorts of banter they would never dream of saying to a female. One other incidental piece of trivia associated with this piece of costume is about buying them. Marks & Spencer advertise within their lingerie section a personal measuring service. The first time I tried it, some years ago - I had my wife with me at the time - the flushed female shop assistant pointed to the tape measure as if to suggest I do it myself, whilst she beat a hasty retreat in the opposite direction. Two years ago when I went back there was a different shop assistant who was altogether much more obliging, she measured me and proposed several items for me to consider - she didn't though suggest I try them on in the changing room. One step too far methinks.




Left, post original edit. Pre-wig, pre completion of make up and use of blur to "de-capitate". Blur added as a post process.

Back to the assignment and back to basics. Technically I decided that I would light this with a couple of 1 metre soft boxes both slightly to the rear and each side of me. I then placed a white reflector on each side slightly in front of me, I knew this would provide some facial modelling, but it was always going to be a bit hit and miss as I was photographing myself. I set up the camera, a Nikon D3 and a 95mm lens set at f8 1/125th sec - found the focal area and moved between the two places after pressing the time delay shutter release. I did have a change of dress provided but decided that other than changing the wig I would keep it simple.












So what did I feel about the results and was I able to discover about myself?

It is clear that my face is there in the photographs, but I feel it is buried. There are some devices I have used to take my face and remove it. Firstly some of the poses are from unusual viewpoints, secondly I have tried to hide my eyes, always for me the most interesting facet of a face and thirdly, through post processing. The first few shots - with the bra and the side view have very little of "me", the first fits the assignment perfectly - no face - and the second it is not my figure, not my hair, not my clothes, I don't wear make up; they are another entity. But together they are the establishing shots, they put the rest into perspective. These photographs provide the viewer with all the information needed to assimilate the information embedded in the following images. The shot left where the eyelashes cover the eyes; as the eyes are for me the critical feature of the face, I decided to try and keep them from normal view as much as possible. Whereas the shot on the right has been ostensibly taken from underneath, in fact I am leaning back after trying to keep my head in the focus "zone". This is not an angle that many people would ever have of me and with the make-up it adds an additional remove to the portrait.

The most contentious are these, firstly they are the same shot, firstly one (right) being post processed and secondly it is a conventional portrait i.e. nearly full frontal face. But I am only considering the second as part of the assignment, the other image (left) is there to show the model would look without the edit. Deliberately I have clumsily "photoshopped" the image to make it more "beautiful", thereby removing "me" from the image. This subversion of the image and the political issues surrounding this type of editing has long concerned me. I know it is a process that has it's roots from the very dawn of photography, but never more so than currently with its association with self loathing and body fascism.

Both of these photographs have been added after the original post. Left, a view as if from behind, as if from the players perspective, looking to the audience. I had some problems to get the "face" in focus and allowing the back to be slightly out of focus. The hands are important and are part of the expressive tool set of the player and this Dame. Another advantage of these two additions is the emphasis on gender. Neither of these shots are in the least feminine.



And the paraphernalia of the Dame, important to bear witness to the encumbrances associated with me as a Dame to complete a portrait of this Dame. The shoes were second hand in 1989 when they made their debit on the stage and have been in every Panto since - they have been augmented since with other shoes; but these pinks get a new lick of paint every few productions. The other stuff being weighed down by the 44 double F's.









When I first read the assignment brief and thought about how I would go about fulfilling the requirement, I had thought that this idea would have had more profound outcomes. I feel a bit deflated now, maybe I didn't consider things widely enough. It is a portrait of the Dame not a portrait of me, but a portrait of the physical embodiment of me whilst I am the Dame. These two are so intertwined that it is difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. I think I need to think this out all over again, but whether I get the chance (or the time) to recover this assignment I am not sure.

Sunday, 22 January 2012

Train your gaze - Assignment 8

Set texts must be a difficult thing to decide upon, course designers must have a lot of choice but finding a extant text that can even adequately match the aspirations of the course would be, I suspect, a taxing trial.

Suggested as a key text for people and Place: Train your Gaze. A Practical And Theoretical Introduction To Portrait Photography by Roswell Angier is one which has really caught my imagination. It comprises some 12 chapters and 11 of them have assignments . I shall revert to discussing the book as a whole at a later stage, but I thought I would attempt as many of the assignments as I can - given the time available - and this is the first (attempt).

Assignment 8 - Out of Focus: The Disappearing Subject.


This assignment starts with a set of specific requirements for a photograph. Think of the requirements as a mental model, or a template. You may photograph whoever you wish, in whatever circumstances, but your image must conform to the following specification:

I precis, but the essence is here in four statements:


1. Your subject must occupy at least 50 percent of the frame area. He or she must be in the foreground. ....


2. Your subject must be out of focus. Not just indistinct, but seriously blurry. Nebulous......


3. Something (or someone) in the background must be crisply focussed.....


4. ....ensure that blur from camera movement is kept to a minimum...

These are my first attempts. I have converted them to monochrome as I think for the most part, they work better that way - although there is one that I think doesn't.

The first 4 have subjects that don't measure up to the 50% rule (of course I could crop to meet the assignment requirements and may do so later).






This one definitely meets the 50% rule, but has a emptiness about it - maybe that is part of the serendipitous nature of this assignment, see later.



This "face-on" shot works the best so far - but still less than 50%.


Closest to the rule, but the background is a bit nebulous. There is a strong construction element diagonally - bottom right to top left - with the background subject taking the gaze "out of the frame".

















 This one works best for me - the "in-focus" angles harmonise with the shirt on the subject, probably less than 50%, and the face coming towards to camera. the echo of the arms to the ladders. It needs a crop and maybe that is part of this genre?




Last of the monochromes - head pointing to the floor, would be better looking up.


















I think this version (below) of the mono earlier works better utilising the colour contrast, it is still an abstract image of colour and shapes, with no apparent narrative.


I found this first attempt quite difficult. from a technical perspective, one needs to focus on a distant subject and then turn the auto focus off and then wait for a wandering individual to come into view. These photographs were taken at a rehearsal for the local Am Dram group. I suspect it might be even more difficult out there in the real world. but I am determined to give this a go. My expectation is the serendipitous nature of this genre will develop into a technique that could be exploited in time.
I feel the shot will work if there is a contextual link between the "blurry" subject and the "in-focus" piece and I have the strong feeling that the 50% rule is arbitrary. More work needed I think.

All photographs were taken on a Nikon D3 with an 85mm lens, f1.4, ISO 3200 and a min shutter speed of 1/400the sec and a fastest of 1/1250 sec