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

Gaia theory of set design

I approached this from my experience of previous productions I have produced and directed (these roles  are usually combined into person in a lot of Drama groups). I have found that the "space" starts in a state of chaos and from the bedlam on the floor emerges a set; the players and members combine together to construct a piece of fiction. Someone needs to develop their thoughts into a three dimensional construct that from the auditorium will allow the viewers to suspend belief.
I had the use of colour in mind from the outset, I thought that monochrome would remove a level of complication and deliver a "simpler" view; I thought that colour would present confusion better. I looked for moments of clarity in the confusion, I looked to isolate thoughts, individual moments of inspiration - simple stages, even box sets,  are often designed on the fly. I searched symbols of the transience of the set; I remember once going back stage at the Queen Elizabeth Hall and seeing the reverse side of the scenery and marvelling at the symbology from the likes of Kellogg's on the cardboard set. The set uses good size lumps of wood, hardboard, cardboard, screws, nails and string. These shots demonstrate the collective chaos; people team-up for a few moments then move to different things, it's a real cooperative effort. Coming from the outside it might appear anarchic and unsteady, Kevin the director has to have an eye and a view on all aspects - he will be seen looking, watching, agreeing, helping to create this thing that will appear in a few weeks as a working set.

 These shots are depicting moments - they may be ideas, they may be comments on the production, they maybe the minor nirvana moments (that are often discussed and then discarded). The scene gets built in this way, iteratively.

And work - these photographs are about the toil, about getting down to the straightforward graft of building flats, bringing them together, creating illusion.

And these shots are about the people, I have tried to isolate them in moments, times of thought and in conversation

And these are about shapes:

And a few others that I saw. the first showing the ephemeral nature of set construction; Ken being totally prepared for tea break and then "something for the weekend?" 

3rd Rehearsal

I had two ideas for yesterday's rehearsal:

1 - to see and hopefully depict a continuation of steady progress with the cast and the developing directors

2 - to use blur (out of focus) as an allegory to the development of the production development both in terms of the actors and the directors.

As it happened only one of the joint directors attended last night, which whilst a disappointment in terms of capturing their developing relationship, made it easier for me to compose!

Viewing these photographs in this post might be done best by "clicking" on an image and seeing them in series as a manual slide show

The general move in an upward direction of the heads of both players and the director is a good sign, I was impressed by the level of line learning that has been achieved and the growing confidence of the players in all aspects of their on-stage time. With words "going-in" they are starting to deliver some of the "physicals" that will help them deliver their performances. Moving and talking at the same time is a good sign, moving and talking without a script is an excellent sign. Moving and talking without a script and asking the director for guidance shows a demonstrable confidence; and if the director is able to answer then the team is starting to show real promise. I saw signs of all this last night and we are only at the 3rd rehearsal. Ken has his script is his back pocket, it is usual to have the script with you in the transition to word confidence and even when you are "word perfect" - it's a comforter! This shot shows that Ken has transitioned, whilst Jeff is probably reading his script, when he delivers he is not using his script and the solidity of the pose emphasises his confidence.
Left Nikon D3 18-300mm set at 52mm (78 equivalent),  f4.8, 1/10th sec, ISO 3200. Right Nikon D3 85mm f4.0, 1/80th sec, ISO 3200










The next section is an experiment. I had used depth of focus as a metaphor in the first rehearsal post and I wanted to return to it. These initial two shots were meant to portray a solid base in the auditorium whilst the stage was unsteady. These two Nikon D200 85mm (127mm equivalent), f1.4, 1/125th sec ISO 1600

 Whereas now I have moved to a completely abstract depiction. These two don't offer much in the way of narrative description, being too far out of focus to "deliver" any meaningful value. After reviewing in camera I decided to swap camera body and try different levels of "out of focus" to see if there was any value in the exercise. These two Nikon D200 85mm (127mm equivalent), f1.4, 1/250th sec ISO 1600

These two have interesting opatterns and shapes but are "too disconnected" to carry any narrative. These twoNikon D3 85mm, f1.4, 1/200th sec, ISO 3200

 I then decided, with these three to work the "focus" further and tried to get a series with varying degrees of de-focus. I think the context , which is reasonably discernible in the third feeds back into the earlier two? First shot Nikon D3, 85mm , f1.4, 1/320th sec, ISO 3200. Second two shots Nikon D3, 85mm , f1.4, 1/250th sec, ISO 3200

These next four are from the "other way around" as compared to the set of three above i.e. clearest first

These last two of the four have a high degree of abstraction, but I am starting to enjoy the level of visual chaos. The reason I left this post in colour as I am sure the additional level of monochrome abstraction would be one step too many. Maybe I'll check that sometime.
All five shots Nikon D3, 85mm, f4.0, 1/50th sec, ISO 3200

 These last five are a set - with a consistent level of "de-focus" through a piece of dialogue of all three characters at a table. The three actors all engage with the script physically and I tried to depict that as they engage with the plot and interact with eachother

A couple of additional photographs to depict progress. Kevin, authoritatively taking charge. Dave and Ken discussing their roles and finally Karen stage left where I tried to depict the isolation of the player, when the action is elsewhere on stage. Our stage isn't very large and so it is difficult to isolate, but getting the audience to suspend belief is part of the job of the players and director. Left Nikon D3, 85mm, f1.4, 1/400th sec, ISO 3200. Shot right Nikon D3, 85mm, f2.5, 1/160th sec, ISO 3200. Shot below Nikon D200, 18 - 2--mm set at 48mm (72mm equivalent), f5.0, 1/50th sec, ISO 2500.