Re-work of exercise 4.2

I wasn’t very happy with my first attempt at this (here). It did the job, in terms of showing how the light changed over a day, but it wasn’t successful aesthetically and there wasn’t enough of a narrative there for me.

So today I re-shot. I have probably gone more the other way now and sacrificed light for narrative. My washing machine broke down a few days ago. I’ve made the choice between repair and replace and now I’ll never know if repair would have been cheaper.

I decided to make a sequence of images documenting the machine in its broken state, a requiem to its nine years here. One image from every hour or two through the day. The changes in light are more or less incidental (ba dum tish) to the work rather than the subject of it. I used ISO100, F8 and a tripod/beanbag throughout; working in manual mode the required shutter speed is longer when there is less light and shorter when there is more light. Lens was my 100mm macro. I need to say that I detest these exercises where I have to talk about my settings. I’d rather let the images do the talking. I’ve taken out the sensor mark in Lightroom, cropped where needed, and applied auto levels in Photoshop. I’m still not wild about the work, but it is better than the last version. My utility room doesn’t have the broadest range of light, and the weather was mainly overcast. It does have plenty of light, plenty of shiny white surfaces and I thought it would be interesting to see if the changes in light were as minimal as I expected. I hadn’t realised that my camera clock hadn’t been changed to BST, and the half-past after sunset was just too dark to get a focussed image without faffing around in bulb mode, and I’d had enough by then. Anyway, in darker conditions the white has a purple cast to it. Even though the day was cloudy I could see the light getting brighter as time went on, the brightest light was mid afternoon.

Click to go large.

Contact of selects showing shutter speed, aperture and the hour (GMT) in which each image was taken. ISO was 100 throughout.

selects contact sheet

Self assessment

I’m still a bit stunned that A5 is finished. It seems to have been here for ages, we’d got used to each other’s company. It’s over, but I’m not finished.

What went well?

I feel as if my technical skills are improving, though this has not necessarily been the project to showcase them. Exercise 5.2 was a watershed moment, and I am happy with the jpgs of the Polaroid backs. I’m even reasonably happy with the picture side of the polaroids, they worked well in black and white and carry the mood of early photography. I’m happy with the work creatively too. I tried absolutely everything that occurred to me, some ideas worked, some didn’t, but I feel as if I explored it from the inside out, and extensively (not completely, there is always more). It feels like my work too.

What didn’t go so well?

Decisions! Well the easy ones were fine. This is going to sound like an ungrateful complaint but sometimes it felt like I could barely keep up with my ideas, which is probably a good thing as it took me to some interesting creative spaces, but I do wonder which bit of my brain is in charge sometimes. I’m aware of a lack of polish on the physical work too. One of the acrylic blocks didn’t clean up too well after I decided against the emulsion lift on it… I should have bought a spare. I could have done with more polaroids too, as I used quite a few testing out techniques and making test books. Contact sheets caught me out, I should have photographed them as I went.

What would I do differently?

Everything identified above. I want to continue developing this work, the next step is photographing emulsion lifts in water to show motion, both sides, and the light through the image.

review against assessment criteria

A5 submission

Photography is Simple is about curiosity, following up all those I wonders and what ifs. It’s about the origins of photography in the UK, via Fox Talbot, Lacock Abbey, and experimentation. It’s about the technical simplicity of the Polaroid.  It’s about inside-out and back-to-front, about the bits that we ignore – the backs, the guts, the negatives. It’s about exploring a single object and multiple possibilities, like Masterchef and coriander. It’s about tampering with prints and memories. It’s about windows – seeing from the inside out and the outside in; like how Barthes talked about how we don’t see the photograph, but only what it’s of (2000, p6), like how we see through/into a photo rather than looking at the object itself.  It’s about looking through the same windows as Fox Talbot, working with the same light, and the photographic window on the world that he gave us all. It’s about frames – both for windows and for images, and that Polaroid frame on every print. It’s about my creative journey – taking ideas from FiP, tending them and testing them. It’s about taking inspiration from the Revelations study visit two years ago and putting it, via Polaroid – onto watercolour paper bought at the Wolfgang Tillmans study visit,  or magnetic acrylic blocks as helpfully identified by an OCA Fine Arts student (Stefan). It’s about trusting that Walter Benjamin was right when he said “In artwork, subject matter is a ballast, jettisoned during contemplation” (Benjamin, 1979 p66-67 cited Campion in (Berg and Gronert, 2011)), and still wondering about aura. It’s about risk, each Polaroid is a one-off,  if the emulsion sticks or processing sucks, there’s no way of just running off another one. It’s about my friend Clare, who said there’s no point altering something that isn’t precious, that doesn’t carry a risk. It’s about chemicals, it’s about instability, it’s about change, it’s about time and it’s about me, my creative foundations and my creative future.

The book has been submitted for tutor critique, however you can see a 30 second video here:

In addition to the physical work, I have some jpgs of the backs of the Polaroids immediately after manipulation. With my tutor’s agreement, I am including eight of them here to seek guidance on the better set to develop for assessment. Please click to view a larger image.

Finally, the course notes requires me to direct my tutor to exercise 5.2. I chose to respond to Moyra Davey’s Copperhead and you can see the third iteration of the work here. Please note there will be a 4th iteration added, with sharper images of the coins, however this is how it is at the moment.

Barthes, R. and Howard, R. (2000). Camera Lucida. 1st ed. London: Vintage Books.

Berg, S. and Gronert, S. (2011). Through the looking brain. 1st ed. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.

A5 Research

eyv a5 vennOne of the areas that has changed the most for me during EYV has been research. I’ve learned to be braver about just starting the work, rather than researching extensively before even picking up the camera. Part of my learning is redefining exactly what research is. It’s not necessarily a search engine inquisition of the internet looking for similar work. It can be exploring tutor suggestions, or just starting the work and figuring out the influences later. I did wonder if I had done any research at all for this work, then remembered the hours spent reading, wondering, and trying things out. Research can be about your influences, but it can also be about testing out gossamer thin threads of logic between things that you think are relevant. Even if I choose not to follow up every artist who’s worked with Polaroid, every Fox Talbot image, every use of a die-cutting machine, I still need the ability and knowledge to place my work in the canon of work that is out there now. I came to the decision that my work is in large a tribute to Fox Talbot but through a vernacular lens – the architecture of his ancient home, captured with a camera typical of the 1970s, processed through a manual system used for die-cutting and embossing that is used as much as a diversion today as watercolours were for Fox Talbot’s family and friends.

Photographing modern day Lacock is by no means unusual and it’s a location that appears in the blogs of several local OCA students, including my own. What I hadn’t seen elsewhere though, was the location photographed with a simpler camera, or a focus on windows, which with their associated frames seem to me to be a very photographic concept and construct. One of the photographs that Fox Talbot is most famous for is the one he made of a window in the south corridor of Lacock Abbey.

Fox Talbot deserves more attention. He is essentially Chapter 1 in most books about the history of photography and it is easy to take him, and his work, for granted. Living just down the road from Lacock Abbey I am also guilty of viewing the ancestral home of British photography as a convenient excursion when the child needs wearing out. Photographing his home with a basic camera gave me some idea of how exciting it must have been for him. Part of this was down to the Polaroid too – for sure, thousands if not millions of photographs are taken at Lacock Abbey every year, but how many of these photographers get to hold their prints in hand, at Lacock, as William and I did? To stand in front of a photographed window, holding its likeness? I do somehow feel as if I understand him, and his legacy, better, as a result of the reading and visiting that I did. I spent some time looking at the Bodlean Library Fox Talbot before photographing, and that helped me to determine what I wanted my Polaroids to “be of”.

Similarly, die-cutting and embossing are very popular techniques with card-making crafters, but I hadn’t seen the techniques applied to photographs, and particularly not to Polaroids, where they allow the exploration of the print, and its integral mini dark-room – as an object. Finally – Polaroid emulsion lifts – again a well-used technique in the field of Polaroid manipulation, but I wanted to explore the link between this fragile, elastic translucent image and the window that it represented. Could I get a Polaroid of a window to actually be see through? Could I mount it in a transparent medium?

I did a fair bit of exploration. I think my key research was looking at the work of Fox Talbot on the Bodleian website, the Fox Talbot Photography Museum and in visits to the Abbey, repeatedly taking Polaroids in colour, in black and white, of everything, of the windows, with people and without people. I talked to the volunteers, taped over the flash on my Polaroid, talked to them again, and kept going. I looked at calotypes, I tried making some ( with the slightly discouraging result that the best ones were of my pants). I drew encouragement from everyone who looked at my Polaroids and said they looked like old photographs (rather than modern photographs of something old).

I read OCA DIC student Stephanie d’Hupert’s critical essay on images as objects. Her work embraces the print, the physical, the old, the cherished, the broken and the repaired. You can see the assignment that bewitched me here – https://stephaniedhlearninglog5.wordpress.com/category/assignment-2/assignment-2-si-tu-veux-que-je-taime/.  Her essay can be read here –  https://stephaniedhlearninglog5.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/assignment-3-critical-essay/ I also followed fellow EYV student Alan’s exploration with a found suitcase full of found images the suitcase.  Again, he was inspired to explore both fronts and backs of the prints, despite being completely unfamiliar with both the context and content of this case of prints. Finally, I looked at Anna Goodchild’s experiments with Polaroid print., where she manipulated them in her work about prisons. You can see some of her trial prints on the OCA discussion board here Despite us both working with Polaroid 600 prints and manipulating them, the results are very different.

I collected all the Polaroids that I was happy to sacrifice and tried out techniques on them, varying the film type, the colour, the age of the print, the shape, the pressure….

I discovered the heartbreaking story of the Polaroid collection – around 1200 images by esteemed artists that were auctioned following the conviction of Tom Petters with large-scale fraud. He had “rescued” Polaroid from an earlier bankruptcy but then used it as a front company for a £2.4billion Ponzi style fraud. He was jailed in 2010 for 50 years, Polaroid went bankrupt again, and the creditors moved in. Artists had often donated work to Polaroid in exchange for film, on the understanding that the works would be maintained as a collection but sadly this was not honoured and the works were sold, despite many believing that the works were not actually the collection’s to sell. You can read a summary here and there’s a detailed set of blog posts on A.D. Coleman’s blog here.

The physical side of the work took some research. The embossing work was all hands-on experimentation. I found various tutorials online on emulsion lifts and accordion spine books, but was still inexplicably nervous about trying out the spine (it was  still untried as I drafted this blog post, some seven days before the work was due to be with my tutor). Recommendations and suggestions were made on the OCA forum, which I followed up. I bought a discounted book on different things to do with Polaroid prints, which punched way above its not insignificant weight and got me thinking that experimenting with Polaroids really is nothing new. Somehow, that was comforting. Much of what I wanted to do didn’t seem to come up in my research, from embossing a Polaroid to using the film carton to make a book outer. It’s unlikely that I’m the first person doing these things, but it does seem to be the case that I’m the first person documenting the work on the searchable internet.

Other influences are still formative. My tutor has spoken twice to me about Walter Benjamin’s writings on the aura. This is the idea that mass production of a work somehow destroys its essence, its one-ness, it’s specialness. Perhaps Benjamin didn’t think this was a bad thing. I’m still undecided, if mass production destroyed the emotive wrench of an image then surely there would be no reason for charities, for campaign groups, for press to use photographers? I do however agree with his comment about how subject matter, in art, can be a ballast that you discard “during contemplation” (Benjamin, 1979 p66-67 cited Campion in (Berg and Gronert, 2011)). I wanted the use of Fox Talbot’s windows to be a simple jumping-off point for my work, something that provided a relevant and cohesive theme that viewers can use to access the work, then make their own explorations, circling back to the familiar if needed. Then there’s Barthes’ Camera Lucida, and his comments that you can’t deconstruct a photograph. “The Photograph belongs to that class of laminated objects whose two leaves cannot be separated without destroying them both: the windowpane and the landscape, and why not: Good and Evil, desire and its object: dualities we can conceive but not perceive….”  (2000, p6).  Clearly you can separate the leaves of a Polaroid, separating out to the negative, the emulsion, the transparent mylar and the strips that form the borders. Separating them does destroy the unit, but I think the component parts take on their own meanings even when separated. Similarly, I would disagree with him on his view of Polaroids. “Polaroid? Fun, but disappointing, except when a great photographer is involved.” (2000, p9).

Barthes, R. and Howard, R. (2000). Camera Lucida. 1st ed. London: Vintage Books.

Berg, S. and Gronert, S. (2011). Through the looking brain. 1st ed. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.

http://foxtalbot.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/

 

A5 contact sheets

Polaroid contact sheets are hard, especially if you forget to photograph the Polaroids after you take them and before you start altering them. Fortunately, most of the survivors are still in a biscuit tin so I photographed fronts and backs (where altered) today and cropped down to portrait rectangles.

Inkedearly attempts, trials, fails_LI

It took a while to get used to the idea of tampering with the prints. I couldn’t cut 7292 (Format) and 7315 (my desk) at all. I tried some with random prints on out of date film, but it felt as if they were just too random, and the work needed a subject, even if I then chose to ignore it. 7301/2 cut nicely though and I liked how it looked with the inverted cut-out. 7293 is an Instax instant print, which was a good size and cut well but bled black and crunchy when altered.

The last three are from exploring calotypes (on fabric). I was inspired by Fox Talbot’s Lace work, but although the results are engaging they were a bit too far from the concept I wanted to explore. The third was one of two that used a Polaroid emulsion lift as a negative. Sadly, it didn’t work.

Next up, I identified Lacock Abbey as a subject, and took some test shots in colour, still on expired film.

Inkedlacock colour expired film_LI

So next up was Lacock Abbey, with a twin pack of black and white film, with a black border. These delivered higher contrast for the indoor shots, the outdoor ones however were a bit washed out. I played around, again, and discovered that I preferred the results from embossing over cutting. The black and white didn’t cut as cleanly as the colour did, but I did lift a square of emulsion from one image that looked promising. I also photographed the backs of some images with my DSLR whilst the emulsion was drying, and this looked like an interesting path to follow too. By the time I was done I had a clearer idea of what I wanted to do, and ordered some more of the same film.

Inkedlacock bw black frames-1_LIInkedlacock bw black frames-2_LI

So rather later than expected, the film arrived and I found that I’d accidentally ordered the white bordered version. I was tight on time so decided to shoot anyway, at Lacock, of windows. The film turned out to be beautiful with perfect rich contrast and worked very well indoors, and the white border worked better than the black had done.  I was finally happy with the shots, and 16 exposures plus a few usable ones from the previous shoot gave me enough images and parts to make the work. Emulsion lifts were harder from this film, but did work nicely even so. It was near impossible to get the negative cleaned but I had a clean neg from the previous shoot. When I looked at these I could see that my idea of mounting an emulsion lift onto clear acrylic could work. I photographed the back of every altered shot with my dslr immediately it was altered and this let me photograph the blue colour of the emulsion which turns white after a few minutes. I like how a black and white picture bleeds blue, just for a few minutes.

Inkedlacock bw white frame_LI

Finally, the contact sheets from photographing the backs of these images. I couldn’t leave these images, I liked the abstraction of the pattern and colour, the way the backs of the images became landscapes and abstracts in their own right.

InkedPolaroid backs-1_LIInkedPolaroid backs-2_LI

 

 

 

Exercise 2.7 deep depth of field

Why yes, this exercise is rather late. I did try it at the time, and encountered every problem listed in the blurb. I started wondering if my camera was cleverly engineered to ignore the laws of optics and physics and be the only budget dslr to offer bokeh at f22. Now looking down the barrel of A5 and willing to do anything other than attempt making a handmade book (what if it doesn’t work?) it was time to try it again.

My first attempt was with the array of my daughter’s Disney Infinity figures. Tripod, remote shutter release, long exposures… results not bad in terms of front to back focus but not really a decent image. I put the camera in the back of the car along with my climbing gear, and took a few images of the traverse wall and lockers after a climbing session. It was busy, so I didn’t use the tripod but instead upped the ISO and braced myself against the wall.  I worked with my wide-angle lens and the narrowest apertures I could. I tried to remember what I’d learned about hyperfocal distances – basically if you focus in between the scene and you, the in focus distance will be greater than you expect.

My selects are the following two shots, though the focus is still nothing to write home about. I need to retry on a quieter day with a tripod.

ex2.7 dof-7218

ex2.7 dof-7226