Tuesday, 17 November 2015

What is your approach to moving image?




So even though I completed this writing task on time and submitted it online, I forgot to post it here before deadline day like all the other writing tasks because I am a idiot. 

I am complete novice to moving image work. I haven’t ever shot film before, however since the lecture on the third of November I do believe there are several techniques I can take from photography and apply them to film. I have also tried to take on workshop advice such as story boarding your film piece beforehand.


Due to being new to moving image I have tried not to over-complicate my thirty second moving image piece. It only has one actor and diegetic sound. There is no talking so no script is needed. There are a series of no more than three to four second shots pieced together. Since watching these moving images pieces I have decided to cut some of the camera movement. A lot of the work here is with a stationary camera and I feel now some of my camera movement is unnecessary. That is not to say I will not have some camera movement in my film piece, but I feel like some of it was just added because I felt I had to have movement, not because it actually benefited my film piece in any way. 



Steffen Jahn - Back stage film pieces on shooting with car brands such a BMW. The second film I have seen where there is camera movement. I am starting to notice a trend, there is little to no camera movement in the film pieces shot for adverts, but a lot of back stage film pieces. This is making me re-think my own video piece and do I realistically need all those added camera movement shots for the sake of just adding them. 




Antti Vittala – His work is very simple. Generally stationary camera with the models and landscapes moving around him rather than using the camera. Works mainly in black and white. The first video is the only one to be shot in a studio. Moonrise, the third film, is a short time lapse. The camera is again stationary but the movement of the stars gives the illusion of movement in the camera. 



Ian Boddy – Stationary camera for a lot of his work. If you look at the video “Dress Up!” and “Gym Class Heroes”  the camera never moves at all, the kids run around it. Does several back stage films pieces. The work is all very colourful and shooting into some sort of light source. You really get a sense of fun from his videos. They are mainly adverts for Woolsworth and Boden.


J. Konrad Schmidt – Generally experimental videos on fabric or an item of clothing. Slow movement shots. Another stationary camera shot piece. “Black is the colour of my true loves hair” is the first video I have seen in these six photographers to actually have any camera movement. It was a back stage film piece. 


Steve Hoskins – Again more stationary camera work. Slow movement on dog licking their noses. Pro Purina cat food adverts as well as for dogs. These have camera movement in them, a lot of panning. These is also a film of the sea by Steve Hoskins based on the book by Melissa Bailey.


Mark Mawson -  Little to no camera movement in these film pieces either. Really love the first two colour films. It was very similar to what I was going to do for my film piece with my original idea. The third video is very interesting because it has digitally been done with the make-up cases. The only video to have any camera movement are the last two with the female models. 



Monday, 9 November 2015

So I found this book...



So after writing how uninspired I feel about uni and work in general I came across this book. What I thought was hilarious (due to the fact I was rambling about how uninspired I was ) is that the photography book is on Iceland. Iceland is a place I have wanted to go to for years. Like really, really want to go to. Like annoy the crap out of everyone who knows me because I mention so much about how much I want to go.  Not only that but the photographer, Tim Rudman, mainly uses a Mamiya 645. I fell head over heels in love with the Mamiya during the workshop today. To the point where I am genuinely considering selling my kidney to buy one.

I will definitely be going to the exhibition which will be held spring 2016!



I just don't feel like writing anything down.



I know that this is part of the course and we are graded on this blog, but I just haven't been able to find any motivation to write on here recently. Maybe it's all the essay writing. Maybe it's because I feel a little stressed about work, but every time I come on here to write something my mind draws a blank and I save a rambling post to my draft folder. I have a landscape shoot tomorrow and then a still life shoot on Wednesday. I am still sifting through AOP photographers trying to find ones who produce moving image work for the next essay. I bought some more props today for the shoot on Wednesday.

See, rambling. 




Friday, 6 November 2015

What does a still life mean to you?




Still life, to me, is somewhat ambiguous. If you look at old paintings the vast majority are all an arrangements of objects, mainly fruits and flowers. It is a work of art of an inanimate object, or objects. If you were to take a painting of a bowl of fruit, I would say that is a still life. If you were to show my photograph of a bowl of fruit I would say that is food photography. I still know the photograph is a still life, but my first thought is not to say it's a still life, but rather a genre of a photography that is encompassed by still life.


I feel that still life took a back seat when I first started my project. I knew straight away how I wanted to link it to my work, but in terms of design, layout and lighting amongst other things, it was the last of the three parts (landscape, portrait and still life) I shot. This is because I knew how I wanted to link it, therefore I felt concentrating on my other three subject areas was more pressing. I knew I wanted a very natural, organic feel to the images. I wanted to include as much of the props I was using in my portraits and objects from my landscapes in the still life. I have found working in the studio to be somewhat of a hindrance, I really don't want to use artificial light for my still life photographs. Both my landscapes, portraits and film piece are shot outside therefore I feel that shooting my still life in the studio does not match. That is not to say that I can't make them visually coherent in the studio. I would say I am very methodical with the layout. I will practice at home laying everything out, taking multiple shots, seeing what works and what doesn't. It will take me anywhere from an half an hour to an afternoon, sometimes a day to try out various styled settings before I am happy with how I want one image to look. I spent a large amount of time on my first still life shoot getting the lighting right due to the fact I wanted to look as though it had been shot with natural light from my window. 





I like the simplicity. Ariel view like my own still life work. Interesting use of colour for the lobster. The ice and metal tray give the photograph an interesting texture.




I really like the colour. Similar to what I wanted to do with flour and smoke for my first project idea. Reminded me of Scott Grommitt’s work with the drums and flour. Could be used to represent something like the Holi festival. Could also be used to advertise for tv. I like the use of negative space. 



I like the way the leaves have taken shape. The shadows make the simple object seem much more interesting. I personally do not like the image, however it does make you see the object in a different way and makes you think about it. 




Very simple in colour. It’s minimalistic and has an almost clinical feel to it. The tree really draws your attention due to the colour. Reminds me of Thomas Demands work. 


Much like Vera Kodajova's work. I like elements of the photograph, but overall do not like the photograph itself. I don’t like the lighting of the fruit, it does not look appealing. However I do like the sugar strands.


Similar to Richard Kolker, minimalistic, simple. Almost like an advert in a magazine before text is added on the page. Makes you question what the object is. Interesting gradient background. The object is slightly off putting, a little ominous.