*ooof*: Armitage, Informal

Your wish  is always my command, ladies, and I am more than pleased to present you with an *ooof* that is up-to-the-minute. Ok, well, it’s up-to-the-weekend, because today’s *ooof* surfaced over the weekend. I didn’t catch it on tumblr myself but on Snickers’ Mom’s blog via me+richard. Blame Easter…

Bum-down but not a bum – Richard Armitage in another shot by Robert Ascroft.
Image via RAnet.com

Any picture that has RA in it is *ooof* by definition. Well, give and take a few *spooof*s, maybe, and even if I have to dampen the mood here by prefacing today’s instalment with saying that I am not as enamoured with this shot by Robert Ascroft as much as with the other ones from the same series, I still get a bit hot under my undies collar looking at it. Technically, this is as brilliant as all the other shots we have seen by Ascroft so far: Armitage is pictured sitting on the floor, relaxed and informal. He is lit from above front left. I think this has been quite cleverly lit in the sense that the light looks very much like natural light (which I doubt it is) – which always looks much better, subjectively, to the human eye, than any artificial light. I am pretty sure this is done with a flash light through a softbox – soft shadows indicate the use of the latter, while it is otherwise impossible to light up an indoors location with natural light streaming in from a window.

The use of the location is pretty interesting. Contrary to what someone wrote in the comments on Snicker’s Mom’s blog (haha, no naming and shaming here, you know who you are… just kidding), I do not think this is a shot “without any background” at all. I would consider a “background-less shot” what we saw in last week’s *ooof* – the blown-out white nothing-ness. This, on the contrary, is quite clearly a backdrop against a wall. And interestingly, we are getting to *really* see this background: It consists of a grey backdrop. I have scrutinized this but the resolution of the image is not quite high enough for me to determine with certainty what exactly it is. It is unusual, though: When you look at the bit visible on the left, it looks like several layers of paper, rolled or scrunched up slightly. However, it also shows signs of paint strokes on it, particularly if you look at the edge of it on the right. The backdrop is sort of mottled, rather than pristinely and consistently grey in all places. You can see lighter and darker patches behind Armitage, which leads me to think that this is actually roughly painted  or deliberately patchy.

In a lot of ways, a pristine grey backdrop would make much more sense. While backdrops come in all colours, the use of grey is actually very common from a photographer’s point of view. It kind of kills two birds with one stone: Not only does it provide a background colour, it also gives a neutral reference point: Before shooting, those of us who have *properly* learned our craft actually take a test shot with a “grey card” in place. The grey card is literally a grey cardboard card. The colour consists of 18 percent grey. This is particularly important when shooting on film: By taking a light reading of the grey card, photographers can make sure that anything in the frame is exposed evenly. And exposure is something that cannot be corrected easily in post-processing when shooting film – hence it has to be right before the film is actually exposed. Digital photographers also place grey cards in a test shot in order to get a suitably neutral colour pictured within the shot which they can later place their calibrations on when doing white balance (White balance refers to the adjusting of the various colour intensities in the picture, and is done in Photoshop).

This, however, is not a consistently 18 percent grey backdrop. It is mottled and patchy. And this is where I come back to my opening statement that the image is not background-less. Apart from the fact that we can see the edge where the backdrop meets the floor, we can also make out the patches on the background. This is actually a good idea in a shot that must have been taken with a reasonably small aperture. The depth of field is rather large – that means that not only the subject is in focus, but also other parts of the image that are in front of or behind the sitter. It is most likely that Ascroft deliberately decided to shoot with a small aperture because he had placed his sitter at an angle. While the photographer would’ve focussed on the sitter’s eyes, shooting with a large aperture would’ve rendered anything unsharp that was *not* on the same physical plane of the eyes. With the subject sitting an angle, we have his left foot jutting out furthest to the front and his right elbow furthest to the back. Taken at say f2.8, these parts of the image would’ve appeared fuzzy and out of focus. Ergo Ascroft uses a smaller aperture of something like f9 or f11 and gets all of his subject in focus.  – That, of course, also brings the other parts of the image into focus. The background is not quite sharp, but still defined enough. And the patchiness and unevenness of it thus adds a bit of texture.

Personally I find the background quite fitting: Armitage is dressed informally. He is wearing jeans and boots. While the shirt is formal, he wears no tie and the sleeves of the black shirt are rolled up, exposing his yummy, manly, muscular, altogether delicious… Guylty, staaaawp… hairy underarms, giving him a casual look that also befits his casual stance. He is sitting on the floor with his left underarm resting on his left knee. This is a man at leisure – not a business man about to make a speech. Hence he fits into a setting that is informal – the floor is scratched and battered and marked, and the background is irregularly painted and patchy. In interior design terms it could be called “shabby chic”. And in that sense it all fits together very well (even though Armitage can only be considered “chic” but certainly not shabby!!!). The grey background complements the black shirt and the dark blue jeans in terms of colour while not distracting from the subject. The whole set-up has a slightly edgy feel with the scratched concrete floor and the dirty background. There is an industrial feel to this – the location could be a studio in a converted warehouse, or it could be a chic loft.

And that is actually something we have seen before! I am thinking of the magnificent photoshoot of RA at the time of Spooks by Joe McGorty . Those images have long been among my favourites. (So much so, that I actually sneaked them into part of my degree thesis… I wonder what my lecturers thought of me… ) And what I wrote then so much applies to the Ascroft image with its industrial setting that I copy it here verbatim: Industrial sites are not conventionally known as scenic or beautiful environments that would merit a photograph or would be worth-while locations for photo-shoots. By placing the sitter in this environment, the photographer communicates a number of subtle messages. This man, the image tells us, is not a romantic hero but he is a hard worker. He is not afraid to roll up his sleeve and get his fingers dirty. He is a “worker”, not a luxury creature.

In recent years, there has been a fashion of converting industrial buildings into dwellings – the “loft”. These are usually seen as rather “cool” places to live in. With that in mind, the image communicates to us that the sitter is a fashionable, young(ish) person with enough money to dwell in a sought-after location/dwelling. Lofts have also an association with art in the sense that they were often used by artists as their studios. Again, this association rubs off onto the sitter and could possibly give him the air of an avantgarde artist. The denotative meaning of the location as a possibly stylish, fashionable, artistic loft brings with it the connotative meanings. Lofts are seen as slightly quirky, unusual dwellings, often used by creative people such as artists for combined work and living spaces. Therefore they are connected to progressive thinking and avantgarde art. At the same time they also suggest pared-down, minimal living and a lifestyle that is focussing on essentials rather than ostentatious and opulent displays of wealth (such as a mansion or a country house or indeed a palace).

Is the sitter an artist? A fashionable person? In any case, he must have a sense of art and creativity if he is placing himself in this kind of environment. And thus we are given an interpretation of the sitter without necessarily knowing who he is and why he is in this environment. That is how sneaky modern portraiture works… Before you know it you have been sold your worst enemy as your saviour. Maid Marian and Sir Guy anyone???

Alright, I may be pushing it a bit by claiming this is a loft setting. Nonetheless – nothing is ever unintentional in a photo, and you can be sure that there is something that Ascroft wants to communicate by placing Armitage bum-down on a dirty floor in front of a shabby chic wall. Is this another incident of trying to make Armitage look edgy and cool, rather than “old-fashioned action man”? It almost looks as if Ascroft had been given the brief to interpret Armitage in a few different ways, casually and slightly more formally, as a distinguished middle-aged man (cf. the LF shot) and an ageless more artistic or “cool” guy. It would be interesting to know who the client for this shoot was. Was it Armitage’s agents, or a particular magazine/photo agency or was the shoot organised by Ascroft alone? Was there art direction on the shoot? If so, what was their intention and which purposes to these shots have? Which audience have they been designed for? For casting directors looking at Armitage’s actor’s portfolio? For female readers of up-market fashion magazines? For the readers of men’s magazines? For TV guide readers? All the answers would help us determine what the connotations of the image are.

Or we can just simply close our minds to all the connotations and denotations and simply enjoy the sight of an informal Armitage, lounging about on the floor. Let’s just admire the exposed underarms and marvel at the nicely defined thighs in those tight jeans. It is simply nice to imagine Mr Armitage relaxed and carefree – is this how he would spend a Saturday afternoon in his own home, sitting on the floor in front of his stereo, playing his favourite CDs or sorting through a stack of DVDs before settling back to watch The Fellowship of the Ring with a good bottle of red? I am intrigued.

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 April 2, 2013.