*ooof*: Large Format Armitage

Was it really a coincidence that the latest photos of Richard Armitage appeared during FanstRA 4 week? Sometimes I really wonder whether it is all coincidence – or whether someone decided to surreptitiously participate in the RA fan week on the net by throwing the images by Robert Ascroft our way??? We will never know, but let me tell you, the moment I saw those (initial) four images, I got extremely excited – and I could not wait to get my teeth into the analyses of these masterful and yet so extremely different shots that were all taken by the same photographer. But finally the day is here…

In full length glory.
Richard Armitage photographed by Robert Ascroft, 2012.
Image via RAnet

You might be surprised that my chosen image for my first *ooof* of the new images is this one – after all I have proven time and again that I want Mr A’s beautiful face as big as possible in any frame. And this image certainly does not give me that pleasure. But let me tell you, I gasped out loud when I saw this. And this time it was not because of Armitage’s pleasing bone structure, but because for entirely photo-nerdy reasons. The format of this image. I didn’t even have to look at a high-res version of the image to get excited – I knew straight away that this is something special. And it really is, because it is somewhat rare nowadays. And it brings me back to my college days and to my own photographic projects for my recently finished degree in photography. As a warning to readers I have to tell you at this point that what follows is largely a discussion about film and processing techniques. If you are not interested in that, skip the next three five paragraphs (ooops, this got longer as I started writing about it… got excited and carried away.)

What we have here is a large format film photograph of Richard Armitage. While the photo nerd Guylty gets terribly excited, I can see a big question mark rising over your heads, dear readers. “So what???” I hear you. Sit back, Auntie Guylty is going to take you onto a little voyage back into the history technology of photography. – Large format photography is exactly what it says on the tin: The format of the negatives that are produced by large format photography are huge. Well, that is in photographic terms. If you are old enough to remember, you will know that conventional film that was used by us oldies before the advent of digital photography, was a roll of 24 or 36 individual 35mm negatives. These negatives were then used to print images which ideally should not be larger than A4, possibly A3. Anything larger and the image became fuzzy.

The large format film, on the other hand, comes in either 4×5 inches (roughly 10×13 cm) or 8×10 inches (roughly 20x25cm). It is MASSIVE. The implication of that is that any image taken on such a large negative will be able to be blown up hugely. Simply speaking, a large format negative is 16 (56 times for 8×10″)  times bigger than a 35mm negative. Thus, you can blow up a LF negative the size of a house – and you still have a crystal clear print. In fact, a LF negative, or ideally a positive (=slide/transparency) is big enough to look at without any enlargement!

LF photography was (and still is) used particularly for advertising purposes – for billboard images, for instance. Now, while I am one of those females who believe that size *does* matter (*smirks*), that is not the only thing that excites (…) me about the use of LF photography. As a former historian I also love it because it is much closer to the practice of pioneer photography than what we did with 35mm photography. The reason for that is that LF film – also called “sheet film” – does not come in rolls but in individual sheets. That means you have to load your camera with so-called film holders into which you have placed the sheets. And that process has not changed from the days when Ansel Adams drove around Yosemite to take those beautiful b/w landscapes (or even before him). Interestingly, this can only be done in absolute darkness, as the sheets are individually slotted into the light-tight film holder. Retrieving the exposed negatives, likewise, has to be done individually and blindly in the darkroom. A time-consuming process. Moreover, the use of a conventional LF camera is slow and very deliberate. (I could go on and on about this, but I won’t go into it in detail here – it probably is a bit too much photo-tech for you already – if anyone is interested, pipe up and I’ll explain more about it.) It is truly contemplative! It is true photography. There is nothing more satisfying than this. And it usually gets the results in a fraction of the number of shots that you need when shooting 35mm digitally. *sighs*

Now, how could I tell that this image of Armitage has originated on LF film? The black frame around the image is the give-away. The black frame is basically the part of the sheet that was covered by the sides of the film holder that holds it in place. Do you see those two funny, little dents at the top left corner? These are on all LF negatives. They serve a very important function: When you are loading your sheet into the holder, you are in total darkness. As the sheet is only coated on one side with the photo chemicals, the photographer needs to know which side needs to be placed upside in the holder for exposure. Hence it is industry standard to have the dents in the top left corner of the sheet. Moreover, when processing the sheets after exposing, the photographer needs to know which make the film is. Processing times and chemicals are different from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji etc. all have a unique dent design that the photographer can feel with her fingertips when extracting the sheets from the holders – and can mix her chemicals and adjust her processing times accordingly.

In recent years LF photography has had somewhat of a renaissance. Emerging photographers have become fascinated with the old processes again, and have learnt to appreciate the deliberate nature of LF photography, as well as the artistic possibilities afforded by working with LF cameras. Aesthetically, the little black frame has become a bit of an “edgy edge” – it adds a certain coolness factor to the image. Hence you find “frames” like this one as an option in digital photo enhancement tools or popular filter apps such as instagram etc. You could theoretically take a picture digitally and then add this little frame to it in post-production to pass it off as an LF image. I am pretty sure, however, that this is the real deal. Not only because Ascroft is an established photographer who would risk ridicule if he “enhanced” his picture in post-production with a fake frame. But there is also a tiny give-away that convinces me that the image originated on LF film – and that’s what made me gasp as it became apparent to me that this was indeed a genuine LF image: If you zoom in on the long sides of the frame, you will notice a row of little dots on either side of the image. These are the marks of the clips/tongs with which the negative was handled during processing and drying. (They are at the edge of the negative because you cannot touch the image part of the negative during processing without leaving fingerprints, stains or imperfections that would ruin the image.)

Ok, shut up, Guylty, about all that technical crap and NOW TO THE IMAGE ITSELF. What also made me squee about the image is the obvious reference to one of the greats of portrait photography, Richard Avedon. One of fashion photography’s most distinguished practicioners, Avedon moved into portrait photography in the 1970s. His portfolio contains some of the most iconic artists and public figures of the latter half of the 20th century. Just put his name into Google Image Search and you will immediately see what I mean: Avedon produced b/w LF portraits, photographing many of his subjects in front of a blown-out white backdrop – and often left the frame of the negative in the print.

The same in our shot of Armitage: Our man is pictured in front of a blown out white backdrop. He is pictured mid-stride (as if walking). While his body is in profile, he has turned his head to look towards the camera, giving us a half profile of his face. The camera has been set up about rib-cage/belly height. This effectively emphasises Armitage’s height, as the perspective makes us look up to Armitage’s face. While the background has been completely drained of colour and is brilliant white, the photographer has left hints of shadow underneath and behind the sitter’s left foot. This is no oversight – the shadow is needed in the shot in order to literally ground the sitter in the picture. If the shadow had been cut out in post-production, the figure would be “floating” on the white background.

Dressed in a formal suit with a crisp white shirt and shiny black leather shoes, Armitage cuts a dashing and distinguished figure in this shot. This is also reflected in his facial expression that is on the friendly side of neutral. There is a hint of a smile around his mouth and a benign glint in his eyes. This is a fantastic shot, technically and aesthetically. It could pass easily as a classy fashion shot, but will also work well as an illustration for an article in an up-market magazine. It would probably also sit very well in Armitage’s own actor’s portfolio, showcasing himself as a sophisticated (-looking) man – well-proportioned, slim, handsome, middle-aged.

However, other than that the image does not give away much about the sitter. Unfamiliar viewers will find it hard to find a particular facet of the sitter’s personality in the shot. As fans who are familiar with Armitage, that does not matter much to us. We can of course impose our own interpretations on him – in that sense the lack of context is what enables the image as a foil. We can interpret the lack of a tie as a sign of Armitage’s preference for a casual look, corroborated by his unshaven cheeks and jaw. We might also infer from the mid-stride pose that he is an energetic, dynamic man.

Both familiar and unfamiliar viewers will hopefully agree that this is an image that represents classic masculinity – a tall, handsome specimen, upright, proud, confident. And there we have it – the swoon factor. Perfectly captured in perfect photography. It fills me with pleasure to think that Armitage is finally getting the photographic representation that he deserves. Thank you, Mr Ascroft.

All text © Guylty at me + richard armitage, 2013. Please credit when using excerpts and links. Images and video copyrights accrue to their owners.

~ by Guylty on March 26, 2013.