Research: Presentation

Like all the other units so far, unit 107 requires us to provide research posts. These posts are not only supposed to back up our own work (showing that we understand the various methods available), but also to provide an insight in to the whole process. For the other units this was all fairly easy. We just had to research various photographers whose research was relevant to our own area, and write about their working methods and how this compared to our own. For the presentation section however, it's slightly different. I've got to admit I was a little worried about trying to find photographers whose methods of presentation were sufficiently interesting to warrant an entire post. I'm sure you'll have noticed this by now, but I have a tendency to use ten words to describe something, when one would suffice. Even a master of piffle such as my self though, would struggle to drag out most photographers presentation methods to my previous word count. Luckily though, all we actually have to do is write about the various methods of presentation, rather than how specific people use them. So, lets get started shall we?

Printing

This is the obvious place to start, but even this can be a complicated process to explain. When we talk about printing, we tend to just assume it's just the process of producing a photograph on paper, there are all sorts of methods and materials to do this though:

1. Silver Gelatin
2. Chromogenic Dye
3. Colour Inks

Silver Gelatin Prints

This is the standard method of producing Black And White Images. This process has gone through a number of different evolutions since it's discovery, from early attempts like the Daguerreotype, to Fox Talbot's calotype, and then the development of film rolls by George Eastman. But whatever method was used to produce the final image, the chemical reaction is essentially the same.

You start by producing a light sensitive medium. Whether it's, film, paper, glass plates, or copper plates, you coat your chosen material in a silver based emulsion. The modern method uses silver salts contained in a gelatin, which is applied to the material then allowed to dry. When exposed to light, some of the silver particles separate and this forms what is known as a latent image. The latent image is virtually invisible to the naked eye, so the picture needs to be placed in a developing fluid, this causes the silver to separate further and turn black, which creates the black parts of the image. In order to stop the remaining silver salts from developing when exposed to light again, you then use a fixing chemical, which removes any unused salts, and stabilises the image.

Chromogenic Dye, or C Type Printing

The Chromogenic process is used to produce colour photographs. Chromogenic films and papers are made up of a number of different layers, a silver based layer, like the traditional method of developing, and what are known as dye couplers. When developing the picture the silver based layer produces the latent image, but rather than being developed to turn black, the layer is used as a guide for the dye couplers to add colour to. There are usually many different layers of dye couplers (all either red, green, and blue), each of which creates a certain colour depending on which wavelength of light it is designed to detect. When the different colours are developed and layered on top of each other, they interact and produce a full colour photograph.

Film is designed to be used, and developed in a specific way (usually known as C-41 processing for standard colour film), but if you break the rules, you can actually create really interesting effects. By loading film in to a camera the wrong way round, the red layer will be exposed first, and so all your images will have a red/yellow hue to them when processed. This is known as Redscale photography. Another method is deliberately developing a film using the wrong chemicals, to create a cross-processed look.

Colour Inks

This is what we tend think of when producing photographs today. Running them off on our printers at home, or at work. Although you can buy professional printers that use multiple ink cartridges, most of them will use two, black and colour. Most colour ink printing uses the CMYK method. This system is based on the four colours you need to produce any other shade:

• Cyan
• Magenta
• Yellow
• Key: Black.

By combining any of the first three colours either in blocks, or using half-toning, you can produce any secondary colour you need. Though you could also produce black by combining the three colours, it doesn't produce a sufficiently accurate representation, so a separate cartridge is used.

Although this system is good enough for most photographic printing, when people want to produce fine art prints, they usually go for a giclee print. Essentially still an inkjet print, the giclee process uses two additional colours to help accurately capture the tonal range of a photograph. CcMmYK as it's known, adds two lighter cyan and magenta inks. Apparently this helps with half-toning, as the lighter inks make the spots less visible.


What To Do With Printed Photographs

Once you've selected the printing method you want to use, you need to decide what to do with the prints. Again you have a number of options:

• Presentation Wallets
• Window Mounting
• Card Mounting
• Foam board
• Framing

Presentation Wallets

This is a simple method of showing your photographs. They're usually plastic wallets available in a number of different sizes, which allow you to insert the photograph, therefore protecting it from damage. The better quality wallets come with a stiff insert at the back of each section to help keep the picture rigid.

Window Mounting

Window mounts are usually made from card and have a section cut out of the middle to display the photograph. More usually associated as an insert for a proper frame, they can also be used to sandwich the picture between the window mount and a piece of card. You can have them professionally made for you, or if you buy the right equipment you can create them yourself. Window mount cutting tools can be purchased at a relatively low price, and will often allow you to bevel the edges of the mount to provide a more professional appearance.

Card Mounting

Card mounting...is mounting on to Card! All you have to do is decide which method you're going to use to mount the picture.

If you want to permanently affix the print , you can use some sort of adhesive. Although you could use a standard glue like PVA, this could damage the paper, and cause unsightly creases and folds. You're better off using a spray adhesive specifically designed for the purpose. This will ensure a smooth application of the glue and minimise the risk of damage. The only danger is inhalation of the glue, so you need to do it in a well ventilated area. You could also use double sided tape to fix the print, but again you're best bet is to use a proper mounting tape, as unlike normal tape, the chemicals present won't leech out over time, potentially damaging the paper.

If you don't want the mounting to be permanent, you can purchase small transparent mounting corners, which can be applied and removed at anytime.

Foam board

Foam board is made up of three layers, A polystyrene centre with paper, or card on either side. Incredibly rigid, it's a great material for mounting prints to.

All the same methods as mounting on card can be used with foam board, but with the added bonus of greater structural integrity.

Framing

Framing is the best option in my view. Not only does it offer the maximum protection for your pictures, but by choosing the right frame to match your picture, you greatly enhance the impact it has.

Projecting

There are two methods of projection: Printing on to a transparency/Slide, or using digital files.

Printing on to a transparency, or slide is the more traditional method, but is a very limited option. All it allows you to do is show your photograph on a larger scale.

Projecting your images using digital files offers you a greater number of options. Like the more traditional method, you can choose to load and show your images one at a time, but if you combine the digital files with a slide show, you can add all sorts of effects, to help improve the viewing experience.

Slide show

Again you could create a slide show using the traditional method of creating slides, and using a slide projector, but a better option, is to create a digital slide show. You can either create a slide show using a desktop based programme: windows movie maker, apple iphoto, microsoft photo story, picasa, or photoshop. Or, you can use a web based programme Like: smilebox, or slide.

The benefits of producing a digital slide show, are that the software allows you to integrate, transition effects, music, create collages. All sorts of things are possible.

You can also view a digital slide show on multiple formats: projector, computer, embed it in to a website.

I'll post this now, but add more soon.

Research: Steve McCurry

Steve McCurry needs little in the way of introduction. The afghan girl is probably the most famous photograph of the past 30 years. Obviously I'll be including it in this post, but, I'm mainly going to focus on McCurry's use of colour. In October I went to see a retrospective of McCurry's work at the waterhall gallery in Birmingham. As I was wandering round the exhibition hall, pausing occasionally to listen to the string quartet playing in the corner (I know..I know, I'm sophisticated), the one thing I couldn't help but notice was the sheer amount of colour present in every photo.

Kodachrome

McCurry has an innate ability with colour. In my opinion, his use of colour is better than any photographer I've ever seen (though I haven't seen everyone.) Luckily for him, there was a medium available that would not only allow those colours to be seen, but also to remain vibrant..Kodachrome! Produced in 1935 by Eastman Kodak, Kodachrome was the first commercially successful colour film. Though there had been others before, none of them had really perfected the process. Available in a variety of formats, from 8mm movie film, to large format slide film for cameras, and sold in multiple speeds (starting at ASA/ISO 6 and continuing up past 200.) It lasted for 74years, before being discontinued in 2009. Although he has since moved on to other films and digital media, McCurry became the poster boy for Kodachrome, so much so, that when they announced the discontinuation, he shot the last roll of film to ever be developed. I'm not saying the film has anything to do with how good the photographs are, clearly this is just a development process and would be useless without McCurry's talent, but it's almost impossible to mention one, without talking about the other.

Afghan Girl

 Afghan Girl, 1984,
Copyright Steve McCurry

I couldn't possibly do a research post about Steve McCurry without including this picture. That doesn't mean it's here just for the sake of it though. Whilst I can't claim to have been influenced by the picture the first time it was published. I'd have been three at the time, so was probably more concerned with all the interesting things I could stick up my nose, rather than the geopolitical ramifications of an iconic photograph! Later in life, this is exactly the sort of picture that inspired me to learn photography, and who knows, maybe one day someone will be writing a research post about me (stop laughing!) Given that it's become one of the most famous photographs ever taken, it's strange to think it was almost never seen. The picture editor of national geographic thought that the picture was too disturbing to be used. Luckily for everyone, he changed his mind.

Taken to accompany Debra Denker's story about the suffering of the afghan people under soviet occupation, this portrait appeared on the cover of the June 1985 issue of national geographic magazine. McCurry himself says that when he took it, he had no idea just what an impact it would have on the photographic world. At the time, Sharbat Gula (that's her actual name) was just another young refugee who he thought would make an interesting subject. It was shot on a Nikon FM2 35mm SLR, with a Nikkor 105mm F/2.5 lens and using Kodachrome film (of course!) 

Although it's a relatively simple photo, no fancy lighting rigs, no digital manipulation, there are a number of things that make it stand out. The first is the defining characteristic of the photo...her eyes. I'm reliably informed by the national geographic website they're sea green, but, amazing as the colour might be, it's the depth of meaning they convey which has made them famous.You can see every hardship she's had to endure, every mile she's trekked to get to the safety of the refugee camp in Pakistan. Her struggles are also reflected in the remnants of her headscarf. The colourful scarf offers you a glimpse of better times, a time when clothes could be chosen for their aesthetic value, rather than practicality. The juxtaposition of the bright scarf and the more recent holes, not only represents the hard journey she's made, but also allow her green clothes to peek through and add hints of colour to the picture. Colour that's perfectly complemented by the green background. A background which McCurry's thrown out of focus with a narrow depth of field, thereby adding further definition to the main subject.

Well there you have it, a picture often copied, but never bettered.

However...it would be remiss of me to leave the story there, so, just for you, I've included the next photograph.

Sharbat Gula, 2002, Copyright Steve McCurry

Until 2002, Sharbat was simply "The Afghan Girl." Because of strict rules governing interaction with men, Steve McCurry never had an opportunity to learn her real name. So in 2002, along with national geographic, he decide to start a search for her. After a number of false leads, they were finally able to identify her using biometrics to match her iris patterns. When McCurry finally met her again he produced the above picture, though by this time he had moved away from Kodachrome and used Kodak E100VS film instead.

Although I think this picture offers an interesting contrast to the original. I don't actually like it that much. I appreciate she's gotten older, and her hard life has obviously taken it's toll, but she seems to have lost the passion she had in the original. In the first picture she'd suffered, but she remained defiant. In this one she seems somehow hollow, as if she's finally given up. As far as the composition goes. McCurry has clearly tried to emulate the set-up of the 1984 photograph, though I don't think it works nearly as well. The background in the original perfectly complimented Sharbat's clothes. Whereas the background in the new picture looks like the sort of thing you'd find in a cheap high street studio. It adds nothing to the whole.

India

The Afghan Girl might be the most famous of McCurry's photographs, but it's not the only great picture he's captured. Many of my favourites actually come from his trips to India.

Jodphur India, 2005, Copyright Steve McCurry

I love this picture! As well as seeming to contain it's own natural narrative, it forces you to ask so many questions. Who is the boy? Why is he running? Is he desperate to get some where, or, is he running away from something he's just done? Who put the hand prints on the wall? Are they merely decoration, or were they put there as part of a festival? Is this a simple shortcut, or is it part of some labyrinthine set of alleyways? These are just a few of the ones I can think off.

McCurry uses a number of clever compositional techniques to give the viewer a real sense of movement. The obvious one is the use of a fast shutter speed to catch the boy in mid-air, just as he's about to disappear around the corner. He's also captured the high walls and narrow nature of the alley, allowing them to lead the eye straight to the boy. Combined with the drastic changes of angle, they all help to add to the sense of speed. Another element I think McCurry manages to illustrate well, is the dichotomy of having gaily painted walls, but then letting them become covered with mud and giving free rein to the general decay of the area.

Rajasthan, India, 1983, Copyright Steve McCurry

This is another of my favourites and a good example of being in the right place at the right time. McCurry was actually travelling to another town when his taxi was forced to stop by a dust storm. As he was waiting he noticed some women who had been working on the road. The weather had also forced them to stop work and they had gathered together for shelter and to pray. 

I like the way that as the storm batters them, they form an island of serenity, each caught up in their own little world, but each relying on the others to keep them safe. Their faith in their friends and religion, helping to insulate them from the outside world. The colourful sari's further unify the group, the richness of the red in complete contrast to the earthy tones of their surroundings. All adding to the sense of separation from the rest of the picture. McCurry says that they were so busy praying that none of them actually noticed him taking the picture. Thus enabling him to capture this natural moment between friends. Never one to focus on the obvious, my favourite part of the picture is the trees. Apparently there had been a drought for the previous thirteen years and this has virtually denuded them of their foliage. Coupled with the dust in the atmosphere, this makes them appear almost ephemeral, like phantoms looming out of the storm, ready to pounce, or, to disappear again moments later.

I've tried to focus on the photos a bit more in this post. Including more about how they were created and how they make me feel. As I said before, hopefully this is more of the sort of information we're supposed to include.

Thank you to Hillary Rose for allowing me to use the photographs.

http://www.stevemccurry.com

Main Assignment: Test Shots

Serendipity can be a cruel and fickle mistress! One moment she'll hold you in her soft embrace, gently caressing your face as she whispers sweet words of reassurance and inspiration. The next, she'll cast you aside, pausing only briefly to deliver a swift kick to the unmentionables, before running off in to the night giggling like a school girl! Would you care to hazard a guess which of these happened to me this week? That's right, the unmentionables.

Having made special arrangements with Marie to use the studio, and for Chris to come in and model, I then proceeded to be late (there were extenuating circumstances, but that's no excuse, so sorry again!) Having had a monster of a week, and arriving at college flustered. Any brilliant ideas I might have had, swiftly evaporated. And it was made worse when I realised not only would Marie and Chris be there, but so would Steve and Vinnie!  Now, having gotten to know Marie a bit, I can be fairly sure she's not going to laugh at my bumbling attempts to take a photo, but Steve and Vinnie were unknown quantities. As it turned out Steve would quickly disappear to carry out some tours, and Vinnie's knowledge of the studio was incredibly useful, so in the end I could relax a little.

We were finally able to start setting up the studio ready for the shoot. I looked through my selection of fabrics for the backdrops and I decided to use the 140cm x 3metre length of purple cloth. Knowing I needed to drape these backdrops for my photo's, Marie had arranged for a rail to be placed at the back of the studio space. But which way to orientate it? At first, we taped it so that the long edge ran along the top, but Steve suggested it might be better to have it upright, so that if I wanted to do some full length shots, we wouldn't have to rearrange the whole set-up. This made sense (he is a photographer after all), so Marie broke out the gaffer tape and secured the cloth to the rail. Problem! Not having looked at the cloth since I bought it, I didn't realise just how wrinkled it was. Unfortunately, I don't tend to carry an iron around with me (foolish I know, but that's just not the way I roll!) Knowing I was surrounded by people who actually knew what they were doing, inspired a somewhat devil may care attitude, so, we threw caution to the wind and carried on regardless. Plus I could probably get rid of the worst of the wrinkles in photoshop.

The next decision that had to be made was the lighting. When we arrived, the studio had been set-up with just the beauty dish (Vinnie said it's always better to start with the minimum, then work your way up from there.) We then took a couple of test shots:

 Shutter Speed 1/60, F/8, ISO:100

As you can see it's not too bad, but I'm trying to go for a more high key, clean shot, so the shadows were a bit too strong. I've also used the photoshop spot healing tool to remove the worst of the wrinkles, but as this is just a test shot it's not that neat.

For the next shot, we added a softbox on the left hand side, to try and even out the lighting:

Shutter Speed: 1/60, F/8, ISO: 100

Rather than getting rid of the shadow this has actually moved it further away and made it more obvious! Plan C? I've also stopped photoshopping out the wrinkles and other blemishes. These are test shots after all. so should probably illustrate the problems as well as the solutions.

At this point Vinnie said I should take a minute and try and think about exactly what I wanted to achieve with the lighting. Not being able to articulate it properly, I decided to show him the Rankin picture of the girl with pigment all over her face on my blog. Whilst I'm not trying to copy that picture, it's similar to the kind of clean look I'm hoping to achieve, if with coloured, not white backgrounds. Looking at the picture, he said to achieve such an even light, Rankin probably used a ringflash. Not having one of those handy, he suggested removing the beauty dish and replacing it with a second softbox. We could then position them both right in front of Chris to simulate the effect as closely as possible. So that's what we did. Chris also moved closer to the background to try and minimise the level of shadow:

Shutter Speed: 1/60, F/8, ISO: 100

Whilst there's still a long way to go before this is a good photograph, this is much closer to what I was trying to achieve. With the shadows and lighting evenly spread across the whole picture, it looks a lot better.

I've been thinking of some other ways to get the shot I'm after, so I'll talk to Marie, and on Wednesday I'm going to give it another go, both with Chris and hopefully Lucy.

Through one thing or another I'm falling really behind with my posting. You've probably noticed a distinct decline in the quality of the posts I've been writing (not that they were great to begin with, but you know what I mean!) At the minute, I'm just trying to get as many done as possible, so that I've got something for Marie to look at, and I'll worry about polishing them up later.

Marie told me in class that once you've achieved the appropriate grade, you are then at that level, so I've included the distinction labels, but I'm not sure I really deserve them for this post.

Thanks to everybody who helped on Wednesday. I'll try to make the next studio session a bit more productive:)

Research: David Hockney

David Hockney, 1976, By Robert Mapplethorpe

This won't come as any surprise to those who regularly read my blog, or who know me, or just happened to have bumped in to me in the street, but I'm an idiot! Now hopefully, you're not all sitting there nodding your heads in agreement (at least not too strongly.) Because I'm exaggerating a little to make my point, never the less, I've definitely made a blunder. You see, I was under the impression that we only had to provide four pieces of research to support our work. As it turns out, it's actually ten! Having managed to retain the contents of my stomach (I could have said something else, but this isn't that kind of blog), I realised my previous lackadaisical approach wasn't going to cut it. The upside of this, is that I'll be posting things for you to read more regularly. The downside of this, is that I'll be posting things for you to read more regularly. Still, you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

As we've started the manipulation section of the course, I thought I'd post a research blog about someone who does just that. Although he only started to dabble with the production of art using digital mediums late in his career, Hockney has been experimenting  with what's considered the conventional photographic production process since the 1980's.

Born in Bradford in 1937, Hockney attended a number of art schools and colleges before he became well known as an artist. In the early 1960's he moved to Los Angeles, where his colourful paintings, combined with an ability to make seemingly simple things interesting (usually swimming pools), ensured he became inextricably linked with the now firmly established pop art scene, though Hockney himself has always denied the connection. Through the 60's and 70's, his paintings guaranteed he was a permanent fixture on the radar of most art critics, but it wasn't until the 80's that he decided to branch out and seriously try his hand at photography.

David Graves Pembroke Studios London Tuesday 27th April,

By David Hockney

Hockney has always had a somewhat unconventional approach to producing his work, so it wasn't too much of a surprise that his method of creating photographs was just as strange. Made in 1982 and measuring 513/4  inches x 261/4 inches, the above image is actually a montage of Polaroid photographs. Like a lot of developments in both art and other fields, Hockney apparently discovered this technique by accident. He needed some reference photos of a house he was painting, but didn't like the way 35mm photos taken with a wide angle lens created distortions at the edges (I assume this was barrel distortion). He decided a better method would be to take a series of Polaroid pictures and glue them together. After completing the process, he noticed that due to the slight variations in angle and location, the pictures contained a sort of narrative, they told the story of the interactions between the location, the photographer and their subject. Deciding to explore this phenomenon further, Hockney coined the term "joiners" to describe the process and the resulting photographs.

Running the risk that I might be revealing myself as a philistine who can't understand the subtleties of fine art. I think Hockney's early attempts, such as the David Graves picture, are often more about refining the process, rather than creating an  interesting picture. The subjects are usually simple set-ups, with a seated person in the centre of the picture and often just a room as the backdrop. You can already see the elements that would become a hallmark of Hockney's collages though. The odd frame is deliberately set more out of sync than it's neighbours and in some he has allowed more time to pass, therefore changing the lighting conditions. Taking all of that in to account, I actually find these early pictures a little dull (sorry!) I can appreciate the technical aspects of the pictures, and I like the idea of using Polaroids to make something greater than the constituent parts, but the subject matter doesn't inspire me. His later work on the other hand, is a whole different kettle of fish.

Place Furstenberg, Paris, August, 7,8,9, 1985, #1, By David Hockney

After perfecting the process with Polaroid pictures, Hockney moved on to using photos from a standard 35mm camera. Often taking several days, these shoots were not only technically more difficult, but frequently much grander in their scale and choice of subject. Having said that, Measuring 35 inches x 311/2 inches, the Furstenberg picture is actually smaller than the first image. Freed from the constraints of the Polaroid layout, He's now able to add some more traditional compositional ideas, such as the road leading the eye in to the distance.

Pearblossom Highway, 11th-18th April 1986 #2, By David Hockney

In many ways, this picture is the culmination of Hockney's exploration of the "joiners" concept. Measuring 78inches x 111 inches, and consisting of over 750 individual photographs. It was produced after three days of travelling, in which Hockney alternated between being the driver and the passenger. When he wasn't driving he noticed just how many more things you see compared to the driver. Split down the middle, the collage is supposed to represent this concept. As this is America and they drive on the wrong side, the right hand part of the collage, represents the drivers view. It's sparse in detail and is predominantly constructed with roadsigns. Whereas the left hand side is the passengers view. The ability to look wherever you want, means there are lots of tiny details like the litter and the extra plants. The most striking part of the picture is the sky. I don't know if it's deliberate, or not, but it reminds me of Hockney's favourite subject: swimming pools. The rich blue and the lighter edges, creates an almost prismatic texture, as if sunshine was reflecting off the water.

Apparently one of Hockney's ambitions for these pictures, was to create a modern twist on cubism. You can clearly see this in all the works, but the thing I find interesting is, although there were elements present in the Polaroid picture collages (obviously the frames create clearly delineated edges), by removing that demarcation, these later pictures are actually far more reminiscent of the cubist paintings. I know there's not a lot to really separate the two's work (or is it just me), but for some reason, they remind me more of Georges Braque's work than Picasso's. Maybe it's just because I've seen more portraits of Picasso's than landscapes, so have different mental associations.

Les Usines de Rio Tinto a l'Estaque, By Georges Braque

I don't know if it's as obvious to you reading this, as it is to me writing it, but I'm suffering from a bit of writers block. The sentences don't seem to want to flow properly today and the syntax is all over the place. I'm chalking it down to tiredness (I had a late night last night), so when I'm feeling a little more awake I'll go back and fix it.

On a better note, Marie told me on Wednesday, she thinks these ramblings are actually at distinction level, so if you'll permit me a moment...Whoop! Did I make the noise as I typed? Yes..yes I did!