Prompt #9

 According to Ansel Adams, you do not "take a photograph, you make it".
This statement can be interpreted in several ways, I think. But the way that Ansel Adams means it is that the photographer is in control of the situation and not the scene in front of you. As a photographer, you manipulate the scene to do what you want it to do within the camera.

Although I do believe this is what he means, I'm not entirely sure it's true. I think there are plenty of photographs you just "take". Ones you don't think about about. Quick shots you take when you want to remember something really special, but you don't have time to make a presentable image, so you simply snap 10 images every minute until your memory card is undoubtedly and regrettably filled up. These days one can take a picture from his or her computer monitor and phone. My phone, for instance, simply takes pictures on it's own an then three months later I have to delete 20 black pictures.

Of course, these are probably not considered photographs as Adams intended them, but I'm sure plenty of photographs were taken accidentally and by non-professionals that these types of images are not a new concept, even if they are created differently. I think Adams makes all his photographs, but not everybody does.

Prompt #8 - Portrait Antics

 Richard Avedon once said, "My portraits are more about me than they are about the people I photograph." This statement is very true, in my opinion, because if you look at Richard Avedon's portraits, there is a dramatic playfulness to each one. Annie Leibovitz's portraits, however, are magical and majestic. Even though the people Avedon photographs are different then the people Leibovitz photographs, each artist has a very specific style. The only difference between their portraits is the photographer. Portraiture may be a recording of the subjects soul, but it is interpreted by the photographer and carries that artists essence as well.

Prompt #7 Portraits

Photos of people are literally everywhere. With the invention of photography, people could know what someone looked like before they ever met them. Before that they could look from prints of drawings or paintings, but I'm sure most of the people one met were not drawn or painted. Therefore, to know what someone looked like, one had to meet them. Now we know what people look like all across the world. I know what a person in Finland looks like. I met her five years ago, but I know exactly what she looked like two weeks ago hanging out with her friends. Although nobody ever told me, I know her hair is no longer red. Everyone knows what Barack Obama looks like, though many of us have never met or seen him. We know that at the end of his campaign, his hair had a slightly more grayish tint than when he started.

Today I've seen so many portraits. Just looking through a magazine, there are so so sooo many portraits. Even a food magazine has several scattered throughout its pages. Those portraits are usually very colorful, inviting us to either desire to make the food, buy the clothes, or read the articles. In my bedroom there are so many posters covering the walls (and the floor...). Not one poster has an image without a person in it. And most have several people. And then on social networking sites there are pictures everywhere of people we know (and ones we don't). These pictures are posted by the people in them and usually because they think they look attractive in it. Or else the picture expresses who they are and what type of person they are. Some people have several profile pictures on Facebook (meaning they change their picture often). For some reason these pictures always look roughly the same. On the other hand, people who don't change their profile picture generally have pictures that look very different.

Although portraits are everywhere, the portraits on facebook ten to be snapshots of people at events, photos taken to capture a moment or just for fun. The portraits in a magazine are trying to sell something and the people are always attractive. Posters tend to vary a lot. If it's a movie poster, it is trying to make the movie look appealing while letting the viewer know what the movie is going to be like simply from the image. These portraits can be anything from dramatic to humorous.

Portraits may be everywhere, but somehow people never get tired of them. I know I love portraits, and when I have to photograph anything but a person, I get lost. That's how I end up photographing stuffed animals, I guess. I can humanize them.

Prompt #6 Ethics

Q: In your opinion, when is it beneficial, ethical, or appropriate to digitally alter photographic portraits? When do you think it is inappropriate or ethically wrong?

A: I love Photoshop. It is my preferred medium. I love sitting and editing pictures and cutting out selections (the hair!) and putting the people in new locations and adding things and subtracting things (not in the traditional mathematical sense, but technically on Photoshop, it's all math). It's what I've been doing for years. I started long before I considered myself an artist.

But there are several types of altering photographs. The image to the left has been edited. Faith Hill's arm is made to look much skinnier than her actual arm. It almost looks like just her bones. And her face has of course been made to looks as though it is glowing from within. Her eyes are made larger (and her smile no longer reaches them), wrinkles gone. The only retouching I have ever done in this vein is make teeth look whiter and blue eyes bluer. I also would probably edit hair to make it look more flowy, but I've never done that so far. But retouching a photo I've taken to make the model look skinnier? I can't imagine myself doing that, and I hope that I never get put in a position where I will have to.
People looking at these photos think they're real and they judge themselves more harshly because they can't attain that perfection. When in reality, any one of us put through the same retouching would look just as beautiful as the women on the cover.  And also just as fake. I believe magazine editors and fashion industries should rely on other methods of catching peoples attention. It's actually amazing how far some people will go, if you look at the Ralph Lauren ads. I'm actually still deciding whether I think this is a joke or not. She looks like she belongs in The Sims.

But never editing portraits at all? I would never suggest that. Sometimes there is very good reason to alter and edit a portrait. If nobody ever altered a portrait because they considered it immoral, then we would never have portrait like this:

Or this:

Or my own:

 These are example where editing the photo has MADE the photo. There is simply no way to get these photos without digital editing. I don't think any of you would say that these three examples display unethical values.
But there is also a gray area. And for this I'll have to use some of my own examples. There are artists out there (i.e. my roommate) who use Photoshop as little as possible in his or her photography, which I respect very much. I thought of my own photo below, Jumping and Juggling, where I rearranged the juggling balls and the flower. But just before I started feeling bad about my own Photoshop habits, I realized the type of art I aspire to make is stuff like this:

 and this

So I never had a chance to feel bad. I can't just magically have the talent to create images like this, and I don't want to magically have that talent either, I just want to keep using Photoshop and making fantastic art.

Jumping and Juggling

 Here is my photograph I took inspired by Jan von Holleben's series Dreams of Flying. I absolutely love his series. The kids looks as though the day these pictures were taken was the best day of their lives. The happiness and playfulness is a great escape from the seriousness a lot of artists work in. I tried to capture that same feeling with the vibrant colors and fun  subject matter.
I had two sessions, and my sister was in a hurry, so the sessions were rushed. The first was was just her without the hat, scarf, and flower. But I wasn't pleased, so my sister was nice enough to oblige to another shoot. This time we grabbed a few more things, which I think improved the image immensely.
However, I did use Photoshop to move the flower and re-arrange the juggling balls, but if I had had more time during the shoot, I would have done it the old-fashioned way. But as it was, I was in a hurry. Plus, I love Photoshop, so I didn't really mind. I also enhanced the colors slightly, and added a vignette, which my roommate would not hesitate to tell me is tacky. It probably is.
I'm happy with the way the image turned out. I think it looks realistically like she is jumping, but it's also obvious that it takes place on the ground.

Prompt #5 Horcrux Photography

Here is another prompt for my Color Photography class, my response is below.

“I just think it's important to be direct and honest with people about why you're photographing them and what you're doing. After all, you are taking some of their soul.” ~Mary Ellen Mark




I do agree that it is important to talk to the people one is photographing out of respect for them. I also think a person who has been spoken to will be less uncomfortable in front of the camera, depending on the circumstance. Letting the subjects know why you are photographing them may make them act more like what you want, or less like what you want, and in some cases it might not be a good idea to tell them everything beforehand. Of course you should always be polite, and in the end explain to them your project.
As for taking their souls? If she means photographing a person is recoding some of his or her soul, then I agree that that is what photography does. Perhaps this reads negatively about my morals, but I don't think it is always important to explain to a person why you are taking their photograph. Perhaps I am letting my imagination run wild, but I'm coming up with many circumstances where it would be unnecessary or too difficult. For example, large riots, photographing people in the distance, etc.

The Final Four! -Er, I mean three...

For the first assignment in my Color Photography class, I had to shoot several different "sets" with several different "prompts". I ended up taking almost three hundred pictures! That's a lot of RAW images....

.................

Anyway, I have selected three of my favorite. I don't think they're amazing or anything. I definitely think there is room for improvement, but I'm okay with that. With some things I want to be immediately good, but photography isn't one of them. I'm excited to experience the learning process and improve.

The concept for the first image, the bowl with the morning light coming in through the window, I tried several different framing ideas. This one I liked the best because I really like the edge of the table and the perpendicular edge of the tray. And then the bowl sitting nicely underneath. I think my image almost looks like it belongs in a cook book, but the actual food is too dark, like it's a rejected recipe. I didn't have a concept, but in writing this I kind of let my mind wander and I started to personify the reject cereal. I'm imagining that it is watching the successful recipes over yonder while they get nice bright lights and proper attention.

Erm... oookay, anyway, so, I did not plan this scene beforehand. I had used the cereal bowl in a constructed scene and shot several photos of that, then I moved the cereal bowl here, and it turned out I liked this a lot better. My goal was to capture a peaceful image of a bowl of cereal. I think all of my images were inspired by Uta Barth's peaceful images, at least the first two. The dull muted tones create a mood that's kind of sad, but kind of happy.

The second images composition I really like. It is very simple while being very asymmetrical. I think this image has a very peaceful, unmoving mood. I was lying on the floor and I thought this would make a nice image.  I took several shots, some in focus, others completely out of focus, and I turned the camera to get different compositions. I wanted to have a very very calm, high-key image. This one is 100% most definitely inspired by Uta Barth; completely.


The last image I set up this way because I felt it followed the rule of thirds, and generally, the rule of thirds produces some pretty nice images. I think this image is kind of sad, as if this elephant has just been found dead at night and the authorities have just arrived with a huge flood-light. But also, it's kind of funny, because it's a stuffed animal. And I set up the photo, so I know it's not real, and I'm almost laughing at the doll as if it's making a fool of itself. I took lots of shots, but I only moved around the doll once or twice, so mostly the changes were moving the camera and lighting around. My intention for this image was actually just to relate the texture of the doll to the pattern of the sheets, I felt they went really nice together. Any other meaning came about accidentally. This image reminds me of cartoons and comics that have a darker humor that adults enjoy and kids don't notice.