*ooof*: Alienated Richard, Part ii

Last week’s *ooof* on Richard’s cover for Fault Magazine was only the first half of what I have to say on the matter. Veering off into critical theory, I did not have time to discuss some of the practicalities of this shoot by Paula Parrish – and I think that was what Servetus had really thought about when she suggested I analyse this particular shoot. Because the great thing is – we have a little “Behind the Scenes” video of the shoot that I will draw on to give you a little insight into a pro (fashion) shoot. I urge all interested readers to refresh their memory and have a drool  look at the video here   (the hardship…) For your delectation and the purely aesthetic illustration of this text, I am giving you the other finished Fault shot from the same series that has so far been seen.

Another image of Richard Armitage by Paula Parrish for Fault:
Not quite himself, in Guylty’s opinion.
Source: richardarmitagenet.com

Let’s talk a bit about the reality of a photoshoot. No doubt you have seen fashion photos being produced on shows like America’s Next Top-Model and such like. It looks all very glamorous with fancy locations or brilliant white-walled massive studios, loud music blaring, 15 assistants on stand-by, no expenses spared on props (helicopters hovering in the background, anyone?), models stretching in poses that would send a Romanian gymnast into spasms, and a hyperactive photographer pornographically moaning “yes, baby, yes, hold that look, I liiike it, ahhh, that’s gorgeous!” Well, none of those shenanigans here. We know from the credits that besides Parrish there was also a stylist involved, two fashion assistants and the male equivalent to a make- up artist for the grooming. In keeping with the casual clothing that is being upstaged by Richard, a pared down location has been chosen. This appears to be the courtyard/backyard/enclosed outside space of a bar (The Diamond  in Brooklyn, NYC, by the way). A beer garden actually. Not much to look at really, when you see it in the video. Brick walls, faded wood panelling, industrial lighting, some ivy clad walls. But that does not matter much. A pristine location is not really needed as it only serves as a partially seen backdrop. Only bits of it are visible in the finished images, and with her usual aesthetics at the back of her mind, Parrish can neglect that. Her final edits will show the rough texture of her projection surface and thus soften the details. Moreover, she appears to be shooting with a largish aperture, creating a moderately shallow depth of field, maybe an f-stop of about 5.6 or 6.7? This means, only the parts of the intended image she has focussed on will be seen in sharp focus while everything else falls off. Who cares then, what is in the background, especially if the resulting images will also be edited as a monochrome (sepia? b/w?) picture.

Note, however, how she carefully takes the graphically, abstractly represented background into consideration when she frames the shot. This is something that sets the snapshot apart from the intentional shot – or the amateur from the pro: backgrounds play an important part despite being, well, not in the foreground. A busy, overly colourful or confusing backdrop can be distracting. For viewers not used to closely looking at, never mind analysing, an image, this is an effect that is sometimes hard to put a finger on. And yet your brain will register it, and form a dislike to an image. In the example above, Parrish has very cleverly composed the image so that the top of the wooden panelling is exactly horizontal. This is particularly pleasing as this line also happens to lead directly to the subject’s eyes. It is one of those guiding lines in an image that serves to draw the viewer’s attention to the main focus (which most commonly is the eye of the sitter). The strong white line also serves to cut the background in two parts: a “stripy” lower three quarters and a blotchy, different quarter above. This adds visual interest without distracting the viewer. Compositionally, Parrish has also put on a little twist by “pushing” her subject in the right hand half of the image. This kind of composition sort of deviates from the rule. (Logically, we would expect the subject to occupy the centre of an image. That has conventionally always been the case in pre-impressionist painting and early photography. With the growing awareness of visual conventions, this deviation from the convention has become a much-used and yet still effectful way of creating added visual interest.) The space on the left, although here picturing “something”, serves as so-called negative space, i.e.  unused space in an image that does not contain any information. It both gives the eye a spot to relax on, and with its emptiness also contrasts heavily with the onslaught of beauty information on the right. It therefore serves to divert the attention to the “positive space” on the right. The use of negative space always adds a certain edginess to the image. It screams “I break the rule (of thirds), I am unconventional”, both of which fits nicely with the subject matter (casually dressed man with casually stubbly face who is defying the rules of photography by refusing to smile ;-)) as well as the photographic aesthetic (dirty, gritty b/w with stains and smudges).

I must add here, that many compositional choices can actually be made in post-production. With the cameras that are being used today, photographers take images that have enough pixels to be easily blown up to  A0 size (bus shelter ad size, in laymen’s terms, or 70”x42″) despite mimicking the 35mm film format.  In order to receive a final image that is big enough to fit on a magazine page (roughly A4 size), the photographer can crop quite a bit before she loses definition, as you can imagine. There is no knowing whether Parrish has cropped much, here. It is also possible that she has straightened the image in post-production in order to receive the horizontal line, easily possible here as the subject is leaning forward and will not look out of place if not pictured sitting straight. (This would be not as easy to achieve if the subject was standing.) In all honesty, it could all be fluke, as much of photography is (see this *ooof*). In the heat of the moment the photographer may not notice all the elements of the shot in the viewfinder’s frame. The more experienced the photographer, the less likely the fluke, though. Mind you, I’d be flustered out of my brains if I had Richard in front of my lens, and I would mindlessly click away without being able to take much in aside that handsome face and hot body.

Parrish, however, does not look flustered in the video. As far as we can make out, she takes her time in setting up the shots and then carefully choosing her angles and framing the shot. The above jokingly mentioned gymnastics frequently do come into photo shoots – but for the photographer rather than the model. Observe how Parrish is balancing on benches and tables, bending down and forward to get to the exact spot from where she wants to take the picture. Much of this is trial and error. She just shoots away, creating as many variations on the one theme as she thinks necessary. She will only see on the computer screen later which of the experimental angles have worked out best. – As visible in the vid, she does prefer an angle that is slightly higher than her sitter’s eyes (hence the gymnastics). Some of that may be incidental as she has perched herself higher than her subject. It might also have to do with the fact that shooting from slightly higher than the subject’s eyes is usually more flattering to the sitter’s face. If looking into the camera, the subject has to move his face upwards – which will stretch unsightly, possible double chins out of sight and accentuate a pleasing chin line. Well, Paula, none of THAT was necessary with Mr Armitage!!! Not a trace of extra chin-material in sight. You can actually photograph Armitage from way below and still catch a chinline that you can cut diamonds on! (cf. kissing scene in N&S)

This *ooof* has positively turned into a medium sized thesis at this stage. Sorry, but one more point to raise and bring this picture analysis back to where I started last week, namely the comparison to Victoria Will’s black-on-black portrait shoot . And that concerns what I would call “capturing the essence” of the sitter. If you remember, I talked in *ooof*: Guylty appr*ooof*s how the images belied that Will had put her subject at ease and thus captured his personality in his varying facial expressions. In my opinion she did that by engaging him in conversation. His facial expressions are lively and varied, from amused to entertained to intent to thoughtful. In that respect, I argued, Will succeeded in representing images of the “real” Richard Armitage. This is not the case here. As is apparent from the video, Parrish does not seem to be conversing with her sitter. She probably will have given him direction on posing, but other than that there does not seem to be banter or conversation. In consequence, the shots of Armitage seem more artificial and consciously acted. This is not “Richard Armitage” but “Richard Armitage modelling”! Some of this could be the effect of Parrish’s style of working – she may prefer to give sparse direction only and otherwise concentrate on the task at hand rather than talk. And it is most probably also caused by the brief, which, I assume, was to create a fashion spread with the emphasis on the clothes (which happen to be modelled by Armitage), not on the sitter – even if the resulting images will also be accompanied by an interview with the actor. (The editing of the video may also have something to do with it, omitting all evidence of photographer and sitter communicating verbally.)

I don’t know if you have noticed it, but hence in this post I have also avoided the word “portrait” and used the words “shot”, “image” and “picture” instead. Because these are not portraits, imho, but fashion shots! I hope you can see how the two shoots differ in their portrayal of Armitage: Victoria Will creating a personal portrait of the actor and Parrish staging him in the role of a model. Neither is better or worse – they serve different purposes and are both splendidly executed. Which one you prefer is very much up to your own aesthetics and preferences. It’s a hard choice, though, when the subject in both is so strikingly gorgeous that he makes your mouth water and your eyes drool. Or the other way ’round.

~ by Guylty on January 9, 2013.