Co-starring light

I wish I could remember the exact quote and who said it, but the idea is this:

No matter what we are taking pictures of, we are always taking pictures of light.

Seems obvious when you hear it, but I was looking at a contest on "The Poetry of Shadows" and it got me thinking about that idea. The fact is, most of my street photography isn't really about light. Or rather, light is far less important than the people and the geometry of the shot. I quick survey of some of my recent Paris photos made me realize that it wouldn't hurt to let light play a co-starring role if not the lead more often.

Now, if I happen upon some photos that are all about "the poetry of shadows" then maybe I'll submit something. Not the bike shot above (that I photographed one day walking home in Paris), however, because the judge takes photos of garbage smashed in parking lots (I'm not criticizing, I actually think they look really cool) so I don't think the pretty bike shot would be her cup of tea.

In any case, it might be a good exercise to look through some of your own photos and pretend you are going to submit some to a show about light or shadows. What kind of role do you give light? Cameo appearance? star? supporting actor?

Blue Eiffel...

Before I left Paris, I had to go to Trocadéro to retake some early morning shots from last year (when there was an ugly net on the bottom). This is actually a sort of mistake photo because the blur was unintentional. Late last night I decided to crop it like this and then mess around in Photoshop. Mainly, I experimented by adding blank layers, using the paint bucket tool to dump a color (blue and then white) and then with the color layer on top, I started changing blending modes just for fun.

On the default "normal" blending mode, it will just be a solid color and your photo will be hidden underneath, but when you start changing modes, magical things happen. After that, you can lower the opacity to taste and then merge the layers. Repeat until satisfied or bored. I may have done a curves adjustment layer as well. In the age of all these "hipstamatic" photo apps, I tend to shy away from the trendy effects, but I just like the moody quality of this one anyway.

Thumbnail aesthetics: does online display change how you take photos?

screenshot of sample Flickr galleries

Recently I've been thinking about how the size of most photos I view (and post) online ranges from postage stamp to postcard. On most photo sharing sites, you start with a thumbnail view and if the mini-sized photo has enough appeal, you click to see a larger size. It's the digital version of a contact sheet. In the analog version, a photographer prints the negatives on a sheet and then inspects them with a magnifying glass or loupe in order to decide which photos are worth the investment of time and money required to do a larger print.

example of a contact sheet via Wikipedia

If you are printing in a darkroom rather than taking film to Walmart, you can see why it makes sense to make little previews of your photos first.

Now, think about what you do with digital photos. If you take them to a big store like Costco, you put in your memory card (or CD or whatever) and you get a bunch of little thumbnails from which you will order. On your computer, you can also view photos in some form reminiscent of a contact sheet. And then there are all of those online galleries. But why bother if it's no longer about saving paper? A few answers:

1. You are saving time because you can see a lot more at once
2. Your computer is saving processing time because it doesn't have to produce a large version of the thumbnail image until you click on it
3. Your online galleries are saving you time, saving your computer and internet connection time, and saving themselves money

If you submit photos to contests, you will also notice restrictions like "the longest side should be no more than 1000 pixels." All of this downsizing changes how we assess photos.

Take this thumbnail image:

If you were looking at galleries on Flickr or JPG would you click on it? Here's the same image in a size that fits the dimensions of my blog:

Unfortunately, I can't show you what this photo looks like on a big flat screen TV, but here a few quick screenshots on my laptop of details you might notice:

Even if I were to make a print at 20x30 inches, it would still be on the small side. In practical terms, this means that photos like this one are bad choices for online contests. If I were to make some hasty generalizations based on what I see getting noticed on JPG, I would have to conclude that simplicity, clear geometry, saturated colors, and whatever else can grab your attention in a split second is what will get you noticed. 

I uploaded the following photo just last night, knowing that it better suits (no pun intended) the online viewing experience:

Of course, I really like the photo. I like the colors, the contrast, and the fact that there is a "survival of the fittest" story going on as the younger businessman walks to overtake the older one. I like the chaos of a riot and the symmetry of the decisive moment. In art, I like baroque and classicism. But the internet seems to have more definite preferences. You know that saying about how the person who sets the terms for the debate has already won? (yeah, either do I or I would have just quoted it) Well, I think that what I will call "thumbnail aesthetics" has set the terms.

What does this mean for visual culture? How much does the typical viewing size affect what we produce and consume visually? Think about how "thumbnail aesthetics"might influence your taste. Does it affect how you crop? what you photograph? what you choose to post? Is it something you have already considered, and if so, did thinking about it lead to any conclusions?

A quick word about copyright law

I'm typing this on my iPad from Cincinnati. I'll be back to real posts next week. For now, can I just point you to this article about that irritating French guy featured in "Exit through the giftshop" known as Mr Brainwash...

As much as I hate to be on his side, I think the judge's ruling against him in a copyright infringement lawsuit is another disturbing sign of how copyright law is going in the wrong direction.

The judge examines the four factors of the fair use test, including (1) the purpose and character of use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work, and determines that Guetta can't satisfy his burden in establishing this defense.

(read the whole article and see if you think it was the right decision)

Here's the thing: the guy was not simply selling posters or photos of the original, and if anything, his installation (made with 1,000 records) might have renewed a potential market for the original work. It seems to me that there are a lot of corporate wolves clothed in the "protection of the artist" sheepskin.

The article asks if Andy Warhol would have survived the current legal ruling. Probably not, but things are even worse for street photographers. Between all of the people, the businesses, the car license plates, the advertising, etc ,etc--- we are always walking in a legal minefield. Pretty soon we will just stay inside taking photos of flowers or bowls of fruit instead. But not without carefully removing the "Dole" stickers first.