Assignment 2 - The last conversation. The submission

These photographs were taken over 2 nights at an amateur theatre production of The Reunion, a comedy by Peter Gordon. I have followed the production from it’s first rehearsal, through the set building, the technical set-up and dress rehearsals leading up the opening 2 nights of performance, from where these photographers were taken.

I had a number of shots that I wanted to capture to describe the event, as if to a relative outsider to the process of a production of a performance. I was successful in some areas and less than successful in other areas. Where I failed was in obtaining a more than just competent “make-up” shot, those that I did obtain are included in my learning log and I think I could have done better with the “final bow”.

I was very pleased with some of the other shots, especially those that deal with the stress of an opening night, how actors cope with adoption of their roles as well as some of the “moments” in and around these people on a common cause. Some of these “moments” are personal, some are social, but the motif I have used to assemble this series is that of conversation. Theatre and acting are, in their simplest form, a means of communicating through visual and verbal means. Communicating to an audience and, at its limit, it is about communicating to “a” person, an individual member of the audience, in such a way as to engage that person and their fellow audience members to convey a story. It is a conversation, it relies, especially in comedy, on two way communication as the actors strive to engage their viewers. I did take some shots of the audience during the performance, but decided not to put them up here; rather this set is about the conversations prior to the performance, whether intensely personal or public.

Titles are for ease of recognition, though the photographs should be in the order as written about. I don’t normally title photographs.

Karen.

Opening night. Tense. More than half an hour to go as this shot was taken before the players move into the “green room” (so called because it is green). I think the composition works on this shot, right of frame with the rhythmic struts moving away from her. The focus is strong, centred on her eyes, her whole frame, exposed in this frame is in sharp focus, with the underlying thought that all of her is tense. Clutching her single prop, the handbag and holding her head as if to stop it exploding and staring as if to maintain focus on her entrance (third, after Verity and Ken) there appears to be an internal conversation with Karen and herself. I like this shot a lot – it seems to say a lot about the angst a player goes through before show time. I’m not sure how I would improve it. I felt instinctively that a portrait version would have been too static, although looking at it now, cropping at the first strut to Karen’s right would pictorially hem her in and maybe add to the tension. I have included a cropped version for comparison.

The “Lucky Programme” Prize

I suspect most amateur groups struggle for funds, this one is better off than most – due mainly to having members who write original work and don’t charge royalties (the second biggest cost of any production). So, apart from ticket sales, a raffle and a bar there is the “lucky programme prize”. Each charged for programme is numbered and the winner is drawn, as a lottery during the interval. This shot has Emma handing the winners prize to a member of the audience. The triangular construct (Emma, winner, bottle of wine) works well and is nicely balanced in the frame. However what amplifies its effect is another audience member looking up at the winner with a clear thought in his mind. Emma, is focused on the winner, who reciprocates, there is a clear conversation going on, both verbally and visually; but those other eyes add a complication to the conversation, as if they want to enter the conversation. It could be a challenge, it could be a need to congratulate – they certainly don’t look ill-willed toward the winner. Again I can’t think of a different crop, maybe a slight vignetting would help close the focus in on the area between Emma and the winner, though I think the reveal works better a little slower.

Kevin.

Opening night. I wasn’t aware that he wanted to speak to me. I was convinced he was in a moments pause, I also didn’t notice the bottle of wine in his hand. It was his gaze, his focus which seemed to detach him from the rest of the people in the Hall. The light was very strong, the west facing windows in the Hall can play havoc with stage lighting in late spring and summer shows and whilst most of the curtains had been drawn one had been left open providing a very strong contrast for Kevin, the soft “barn door effect” of the window edge cuts Emma off in a natural “toning down” of the left hand side and it’s effect can been seen coming into play on the right hand side. So, other than converting to monochrome, I didn’t need to do anything to separate Kevin from the world. There is a nice link between the two Directors and that is the “show-board” of photographs that almost connects them directly. The sharp focus of Kevin works very well. I have looked at a portrait crop and don’t think that it would improve the underlying sub text.

In fact Kevin was about to pay me for a commission he had given me after I had delivered some prints to him two days earlier, the wine was an additional gift. I had not noticed that the conversation was with me, not the viewer as I had imagined when I took the photograph.

Mugsy and Dave.

Mugsy (played by Jeff) and Dave who plays Mal’ (Malcolm). I phrased it this way as Mugsy is in role (costume) here, whilst Dave hasn’t donned the garb of Mal’ yet. I composed this shot through the mirror. The characters in the mirror are in focus, whilst out of the mirror the characters are out of focus. Mirrors have long been used in photography to develop narrative and this is no exception. There are three conversations going on here if we count the one of the three ladies reflected in the mirror. I shall focus on the two other ones. The real life conversation i.e. outside of the mirror is out of focus, could it be that they are role-playing? The in-focus is the reflected image, almost as if the surface of the mirror is the fourth wall that exists between actor and audience. There is a stage set in the mirror, a proscenium arch and tabs framing the action extremely well. Which life is real – the imaginary or the one in our zone? There are two expressions that we can see, neither is benign, Mugsy in the real world looks concerned, worried about what might be happening next, whilst Dave’s reflection looks almost angry, looking down on Mugsy. Mugsy is looked down on through most of the play, an army veteran with many references to Wesker’s character Smiler in “Chips with Everything” which is another play on class and pretension, though with a very different ending. I could have straightened the shot, but decided to leave with the edge of the imaginary proscenium arch anchoring the image, most everything else is “out of kilter”

Jeff.

I had taken a few of Jeff as he struggled to adopt the role on opening night. Where this shot worked better than the previous shots is the internal struggle is mirrored in the lighting of the shot. In the “green-room” there is only one light on – an angle poise lamp pointing generally into the room captures the left hand side of Jeff’s face (his right); when I looked at the image later it seemed to sum up that internal conversation Jeff was having with his fear, struggling to compose himself, to adopt the role. It is interesting that he always had his costume on long before anyone else, perhaps this also helped him to adopt the role. The very shallow depth of focus (which starts to run out just below his mouth) helps to isolate the “thinking” of Jeff. Monochrome is also a help I this shot. Not really sure how I would better this particular photograph with a different approach.

Three boys.

The Stage Manager sharing a moment with two customers at the bar; It could be a perfectly innocent moment or it could be a ribald remark. The centre of the image has the two men laughing heartedly at something. A moment in time, caught after a moment caused them to laugh. A moment later they would disperse. I saw the moment and took the image, I didn’t consider the leveling of the image at the time of taking and in this case I don’t think it detracts from the image, but I could try and shift the horizontal woodwork to level the image, but I think this crop helps in this case.

Emma.

In focus. Opening night. Less than an hour before curtain up. This is a shot about focus, Emma appears to be concentrating as if mentally reviewing a check list of the things that should be done and seeing if they have the green light. Off centre and to the left, other shots around this time had included Kevin, who, in clear concentration also, tended to be looking in another direction and visually confusing the “tightness” these two had generated in the preparation of their first production. I have thought about a portrait crop, but this looked very static, allowing this “off-centre” crop (as it was composed in camera) adds a bite of tension I feel. The eyes are very intense, much as Kevin’s were, albeit for different reasons.

Mal’ getting dressed.

This is the costume changing shot, in fact adopting the robes before curtain up (there are no costume changes to speak of in this show). The conversation between Mal’(Dave) and Lorraine (Alex) some time before curtain–up on opening night. Alex has already gotten into costume as Lorraine. I took a couple of this costume moment and this one has the most of Alex in shot which helps the viewer resolve Dave’s gaze and the focus of his conversation. There is a strong diagonal in the composition, helped by the fact that Dave was actually leaning to his right when I took the shot. Whilst the shirt is part of his costume, it isn’t necessarily strong enough as a costume shot, but it is a nice moment between the protagonists of the on-stage kiss before they assume their roles completely and adopt the personae of Mal’ and Lorraine.

The Laugh.

I anguished about this shot for the longest out of all the shots for the assignment. The reason for the hesitation is that there is another shot, taken just before this one where Karen – who we see out of focus here, is in sharp focus and is telling the story that now we see Sharon bursting out laughing about. I chose this because there is a line of travel in the image. The viewer naturally starts with Karen’s face, which is out of focus, but sees it is inclined to her right, the viewers left and this takes us to Sharon who is in sharp focusing and who is laughing like a drain. It is this effect of capturing this event, which, whilst it is a moment carries with it it’s own narrative. The laugh as a result of something that has happened (in this case a story of some sort) between these two people. The bodies are leaning in apparent opposition though strangely seem in sync; with each other. I’m not sure again, whether another crop would help this, though the bright “blob” top right is a bit of a visual encumbrance.

Mirror four, a nightmare.

This shot is one of my favourites. Shot into a set of wall mirrors, this picture has a rich set of metaphors that I noticed as I took it. The two characters that have lost some of their head are players due to go on stage shortly. The two characters in the foreground, whilst out of focus are back stage support who are relied upon to be absolutely reliable. And Emma, a director, who is central to the picture is only slightly visually aberrated – almost as if she has nearly got it all together. Verity, whose face has left her, seems almost as if she is waiting for her mask to be put on before going on stage, Ken’s head, his memory, his lines seem to have deserted him, both recurring nightmares for actors. The stage is back to front, another recurring incubus for actors is where the set changes overnight and the visual props reappear somewhere else destroying some of the continuity of repetition – and the support staff gaily carry on, not realising anything is untoward.

I appreciate that some of these metaphors may be lost outside of the world of stage and I also have to say that this dystopian view of the play didn’t materialise and not only were both Verity and Kevin very good the whole cast performed brilliantly.

The final bow.

Well not quite, as the show continued after this for another night. But I wanted to have a closing shot and what better way than to have the entire cast receive their plaudits from an enthusiastic audience. There is an audible conversation when the cast receives an ovation from an appreciative audience. The cast communing as one as they bow in unison, the hands from the audience as one, applauding the performers. I think these players deserved their accolades and the audience appreciated their investment in the evening’s entertainment. I could have composed this shot better; there isn’t enough of the audience clapping. The viewer can see the hands but I don’t think nearly enough, though the framing of the players on stage is about right – the play is set in the back room of a pub and they are framed by the twin tables full of bottles and empty glasses.

Karen, alternate crop. Not considered as part of the assignment entry

Ellen's Eyes II

A short preamble regarding film.

For photographers of my tender years film was what we grew up with; Ilford FP4, Pan F and HP5, Kodak’s Tri-X, T-Max and Technical Pan are names that came, and, in today’s terms seemingly stayed around forever, much in the same way as photographic papers such Agfa Portriga and Brovira, Oriental Seagull and Sterling still evoke some nostalgia. I don’t miss those days, maybe the stability (or the perception of it) in comparison to todays perpetual rush for more, for growth and the “bigger/better/brighter” next generation model.

There is something though, about film, that has stayed fast to the anchor of it's technological age  and which is defined by the limitations of it’s modus operandi; which is image creation time. Today’s photographer can take a picture on one side of the globe and have it in print within a second or two in most cities in any country on the planet. In the decades leading up to the noughties the best that could be hoped for was several hours, assuming a local need and base, overseas though could be days.

Ilford Delta 100, ISO 100, Prescysol developer , 30 secs

Fuji Neopan 1600, Prescysol developer, 90mm

I have largely switched over to the digital domain, but I still hold onto a couple of film cameras, a 35mm and a zone-plate wooden box camera (cost £25, second hand). I have used both of these cameras for exercises on this course already. Serendipity, for whatever reason, allowed me to find a single roll of 120 Technical Pan and five unused bottles of Technidol liquid developer (Technical Pan had it’s concomitant single shot developer that it recommended).  I decided to experiment with it in this session with Ellen.

These three shots (and others) were taken during a single exposure of the ZP camera i.e. within 30 seconds.

Fuji Neopan 1600, Prescysol developer, 90mm

The film was eight years out of date (according to the packaging) and, more importantly, hadn’t been in a cold/dry environment – rather it was in my home office/light room cupboard, which has a wide variation of temperature being west facing. Technical Pan is a very slow film, rated at ISO 25 although I preferred to rate it at ISO 12.5 (that was certainly the speed that worked best on my medium format camera before I sold it). It has almost no discernible grain, especially if developed with Technidol. This film and Lith’ printing are what I most miss about the analogue world of photography that and time; time and space which is an incumbent with film photography and which needs to be added by purpose within the digital domain.  

In the previous “Ellen’s Eyes” post I talked about the use of the various cameras and in this post I would like to discuss two disparate eventualities of using film cameras coupled with a very wide aperture camera – f48 and a very slow film ISO 12.5. The most significant difference was time. The slowing of the process of taking the image allowed me to consider more of what I wanted from the session. I also found that I could take multiple images with different cameras at the same time, and what this allowed me to do from a creative perspective. I used two film types in this session the single roll of Technical Pan and a roll of Ilford Delta 100; due to the length of exposure another issue had to be factored in, that of reciprocity failure. In order to combat that, in the Ilford film I doubled the exposure time as determined by the exposure meter, but as the meter read 4 mins for the Technical Pan I decided to go with that - more out of kindness to Ellen than of any photographic masterplan! Both decisions seemed to pay off in terms of recorded detail. I exposed the Ilford film first and only took three of Ellen at the extended exposure times with the Technical Pan. I finished the roll with some self portraits at the full extended eight minutes which may be part of a future post.

 The Zone Plate camera has no viewfinder, no exposure control other than a piece of wood that slides over the pin-hole aperture. The (first) shot above is a four minute exposure and it was during this time that I started to consider what else I could do through the extended exposure and I decided to record Ellen being recorded by the long exposure camera using the other two cameras on hand. This process allowed different aspects of both the sitter/viewer relationship to be explored and the rest of the images juxtapose the camera that holds the viewer position i.e. the zone plate camera, and the other shots explore the relationship between Ellen and the viewer from a third person perspective, a voyeur on the process.

Ilford Delta 100, ISO 100, Prescysol developer , 30 secs

Ilford Delta 100, ISO 100, Prescysol developer , 30 secs

I tried a few experiments as we progressed, the shot on the left has Ellen talking continuously for 30 seconds, not easy when there is no feedback. This exercise was to bring some animation into an otherwise static shot, it is difficult to discern that from the image. Whereas the image to the right is a reaction to the former shot, by covering her mouth, in a static pose, she is deliberately preventing that event record to occur again. I also introduced focus into the images. Ellen is out of focus, her mouth is active (just about visible in this shot but the zp camera would be better represented with a clearer focus, I think there needs to be "a" reference in the image to "hold" the image - see later shots.

Fuji Neopan 1600, Prescysol dev', 90mm

Next series:

Ilford Delta 100, ISO 100, Prescysol developer , 30 secs

The accompanying "parallel" shots come with varying degrees of focus. I feel that the metaphor of focus can deliver different narratives. The shot left has Ellen in "bright, sharp" focus - in control not only of the zp camera but, by connotation, the viewer as well - whereas the shot on the right has the viewer through the medium of the zp camera firmly in control and Ellen diminishing in the frame. The image below takes full control of the "Ellen" in the frame where she appears almost as a vestige of herself.

These next shots are from the Technical Pan set of three, these allowed me to roam around more freely, but I was also aware that Ellen might need some encouragement, as sitting still for 4 mins is very difficult (I did it for 8 mins the day after and can attest to that!).

Next series:

Technical Pan, ISO 12.5 Technidol developer, 4 mins

 Two shots with the Nikon D3, close in with a macro lens at f2.5 (details as per previous post). I had originally thought this whole session would be about eyes, and to a certain extent I still do - albeit it has moved on a little - so these shots had the camera focussing on her eyes. The shots below are all with the 35mm camera and a 90mm lens loaded with Fuji Neopan. I particularly like the strength of the first and last shot - they seem to express power/control at both extremes. The middle shots invoke some vulnerability especially the shot taken from above, in a voyeuristic viewpoint - knowing that Ellen is compelled to stay transfixed in the pose for the duration and to only come out of it on my say so. Lots to ponder there.

 Next series

A couple of variant shots, Ellen, above in another long pose and the Nikon taking a picture of the camera taking a picture of Ellen. The focus is so "way out" that we can only "know" it is Ellen by the narrative that has been developed prior to this point.

A number of inspirational factors drove me to this line of exploration. Hockney's current exhibition at the RA with his use of multiple cameras exploring different perspectives and viewpoints and this which also reminds a little of Hockney's multiples http://driftingcamera.blogspot.com/p/woodland.html. I shall explore this further; the use of time, perspective.

I feel that there were too many variables - the Technical Pan was an experiment that I won't be able to repeat, but I have plenty of Ilford and can vary the lights to provide me the exposure bandwidth that with a little more planning I should be able to develop this concept.

Ellen's Eyes

Ellen has sat for me before, and when she agreed to again I had high hopes that I could begin a new series that could explore some ideas that I have been researching; however her workload has about doubled and she doesn’t feel able to commit. Whilst I fully understand I am disappointed, though we both know that if she had of committed and then had to let me down it would have been a lot worse. We therefore decided that would use this session as a one-off and I decided to do a couple of things, more later, and Ellen did say that if time became freer again she would get in contact.

f11, 1/100th sec, ISO 200, 200mm

The eye is a principle means of contact between people and animals and whilst one of the exercises is about holding the lens/eye connection I decided to focus my attention on Ellen’s eye(s) as one part of the sitting. The other will be written up later as it is based on film and I have yet to develop/scan and edit the results – it will be very much different to this set!


The shot above used flash, a couple of 1mtr soft boxes. I used this set up at the beginning to "soften" the blow by taking a few shots in relatively quick succession. All the rest in this post and using film were tungsten. I prefer continuous lighting as I'm able to control the light fall more easily and experiment.

All of these shots have a short, or very narrow depth of field; isolating Ellen's eyes, in an attempt to draw the viewers focus to make a decision about connection with Ellen. The first edit here shows that I chosen mainly shots that deflect attention away from Ellen to whatever Ellen is focussing on, she is distracted by something else. In fact this is the case. I was using two cameras at the time. One was a zone - plate camera, which was taking up to four minutes an exposure and Ellen was asked to keep still and "focus" on the wooden box, whilst I used one of three other cameras to take other shots - of which this is a selection - (which will form a later post (I hope)). However I think the "lack" of perceived engagement puts another twist on these very "focussed" images becoming almost intimate/voyeuristic shots. Additionally these last few (four?) shots amplify this intimacy/vulnerability with no reference to clothing - especially the horizontal shot. I also feel the abstraction from any other visual references in the frame, other than Ellen, tends to amplify any vulnerability, and maybe the very shallow depth of field exaggerates the perception of that fragility? Not sure and will think about that more. What is missing is a set of shots that have Ellen engaging with the viewer via the lens, this would require another as these viewpoints were taken with the ZP camera - albeit with a significantly deeper depth of focus with an aperture of f48!

Technical details top left to right (all shots 1/100th sec):1 - f2.5, ISO 450, 60mm (90mm equiv'). 2 - f1.4, ISO 200, 85mm. 3 - f1.4, ISO 640, 85mm. 4 - f2.2, ISO 400, 60mm (90mm equiv'), 5 - f2.5, ISO 500, 60mm (90mm equiv'), 6 - f2.2, ISO 2500, 60mm (90mm equiv'). 7 - f2.4, ISO 1800, 60mm (90mm equiv').

Eye contact

A couple of weeks ago  had a commission to photograph two sisters partly as a record of their growing up, one off to university soon, the other in a year or so. The session went very badly soon after I had set up as one of the lamp units decided not to play anymore and after trying a few things I decided to give up and reschedule.
Here are some shots from yesterday's session and some inclusions from the previous session. On the whole the parents seemed happy with the original set - apart from maybe being a little too serious and a tad too contrasty. In order to get the best range of results I tried two lighting set ups. The first which had two soft boxes behind the sitters at about 45 degrees together with a couple of reflectors to bounce some fill back in. The second set up had a larger soft box and another 1metre box out front to give a much softer look, this second set up was all I used when I modelled them for their shots together - I didn't get that far the first time.

The original shots first, both at f10, 1/125th sec, ISO 200, 85mm

And now some shots from yesterday - the styling is something they have seen before and have expressed a liking for - these (apart from the laughing shot) are ones that won't be shown to the parents - I may post the final selection. All at f11, 1/125th sec, ISO 200. Left shot is 200mm whereas the second two are at 85mm

102mm

122mm

I think (hope) the parents will be happy with these, the sitters are both more at ease than last time (though my frustration at the failing system couldn't have helped). The fourth (laughing pair) shot captures a moment between the girls, which is contrasted by the last shot which has them very much at ease with themselves and me. The parents were a bit concerned in the first (albeit limited) set that the eyes were a bit "starey" which I have tried to control by lowering the contrast with reflectors in one lighting set up and with the frontal soft boxes in the other.

Eryl, a portrait

Eryl died last year. September 4^th. The cancer that was thought/hoped to have been eradicated in 2007 came back and mercilessly took her in what was an unseemly and unwarranted haste.

Kierkegaard said “It is perfectly true, as philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards. And if one thinks over that proposition it becomes more and more evident that life can never be really understood in time simply because at no particular moment can I find the necessary resting-place from which to understand it – backwards.”

Well Soren, someone else can! This is a portrait of Eryl using photographs that I have taken over years (all except one photograph); starting with the last photograph that I had taken of her, that she expressed she really liked.

I have discussed this many times before, about the "air" the "essence" of the sitter and whether a single photograph can deliver same. Whether this has achieved it or not is not for me to say, but the fact that Eryl said it captured her and that Maurice therefore wanted it at her funeral service and he wanted it hung in their house as a permanent reminder of a few months (six) before that light was extinguished is good enough for me. The portrait was one of a set I did for a "cast" shot to be used in a programme; I did these regularly for over twenty years and they were also used to decorate the Hall where we stage the group's productions and so I have a few of these to draw from.

Moving back in time I asked Eryl's daughter Carys, to supply her "Facebook" avatar that she currently uses as another reference. These two images "bookend" the portrait and the primary image introduces a central figure in Eryl's life, her daughter.

Here they are sitting for their portraits many years ago (I can't remember, this is film and I never thought about cataloguing my negatives in those days!). Like many children of the group Carys was often involved in the Pantomime which the group stages every two years. Carys is the same age as my son Mark and they went to the same school for all their schooling. Carys is an Occupational Therapist, which came in very handy when Eryl was in hospital.









A few years later the same couple, both seem more relaxed about the photograph, Carys perhaps a little more so!  Central is the role that Eryl made her own over the two and half decades, that of "The Good Fairy". Eryl and I shared a love of singing, but unfortunately we also shared the lack of a singing voice although we never let that condemn us to silence. One of my favourite stage moments is singing a duet with Carys about always looking on the bright side of life - on a similar vein to the Eric Idle song. We shall sing it together again soon at a commemorative evening celebrating Eryl's life.

There have been many events through the years we have known Eryl, and of course this portrait is my personal portrait, there must be many more as she revolved in a number of different circles. These two have her with her husband Maurice, the left at a friends 50th birthday party, long before the cancer was to strike for the first time and below at Alison's 50th party a year after it had struck. The treatment of course plays havoc with weight issues and Eryl fought that as well. And right at my half century.

Right is another aspect of Eryl. On stage during a production I made of Priestley's "When we are Married". I incorporated here surrounded by photographs of her with Maurice. Her character's marriage vows weren't under question, nor were they in life either.

And here she is lining up with hundreds of others in a "Race for Life, again about 18 moths after her first diagnosis. A tremendous "giver" she was very active in various charities and organisations. On the right giving a helping shoulder for Carys. Below celebrating with Carys and two friends. The left half of this photograph had both been touched by breast cancer at this stage, Alison some years before and so its recurrence in Eryl has sent shivers down our spines.

Eryl went to university in Keale and trained as a teacher, she moved to our village soon after Carys was born. After the cancer struck the first time there were changes and difficulties at the school where she worked and so she decided to have a change. Cancer seems to do this people, it changes their perspective of life and whilst Eryl remained as Supply teacher she retrained as a registrar. Left shows Carys at the centre of their life.
Thessa, the daughter of one of our closest friends wanted Eryl to perform the service at her wedding to Jim. Eryl was naturally quite proud and I wanted to get a shot of her performing the act of betrothal, capturing Thessa, her father to her left, Jim and the best man at an open air ceremony. The next shot is at the next day party playing croquet on the bride's parents lawn. It was late June, within 10 weeks of these last two pictures being taken Eryl had passed away.

Eryl had a faith, she belonged to the Woodstock Methodist chapel, but when the funeral arrangements were being made it was clear that this wasn't ever going to be big enough. St Mary's was then commandeered and even this large old church was filled to the brim with well wishers. She is missed. To conclude this tribute with photographs to Eryl I thought I would append the piece with a poem written by the author of all the Panto's that Eryl was a Fairy in. The photographs were all by me. There were five verse's and there were five of us who stood and orated. I delivered the last one.