*ooof*: Armitage is Good for You

Extraordinary times need extraordinary measures. In the age of slow torture release of new photogRAphic material, Guylty’s First Response Unit is at the Ready with a special edition of your weekly *ooof*. A caveat at the beginning: This *ooof* will be a little different in that I am looking at two pictures instead of one. That is due to me being utterly unable to decide which one to analyse. They affected appeal to me both equally – and from your response I could see that a lot of you felt the same. Plus: The two of them together work interestingly well.

Over the weekend, two more images were released from the seemingly never-ending stream of photos from the Ascroft session. I am as baffled as you are when it comes to the slow release of these images. It leaves the question who is responsible for publishing them, who owns them and what the strategy behind the trickling release is. I have no answer to that, as the photos seem to appear on a Russian fan-site, from where they make their way onto Tumblr and then spread through the fandom within hours, if not minutes.  The fact that there are so many photos in Ascroft’s stash does not surprise me at all. A photo shoot will produce hundreds, if not thousands of images, and with a sitter as photogenic professional as RA, there are bound to be hundreds of useable images within that stash. Ascroft’s portfolio page, however, still only shows six images from his shoot with RA – a representative selection of the images, showing all different set-ups except for the armchair series.

Generally, the rights to a photograph always belong to the creator of the image, i.e. the photographer, regardless of who the initial remitter of the shoot was. That right remains with her even when she sells individual images to other people. By buying the image, however, the client also acquires certain, clearly defined rights to the image – i.e. the agreement for sale stipulates where and how the images may be used (for instance “for publication on web media” or “for publication in print”) and for how long or how often. The fees differ accordingly. In that sense, the subject of a photo shoot sometimes has no rights to their image at all. Photographers have to make their sitters aware of that by having them sign what is called a “model release form” – and usually models are remunerated with a once-off fee for their participation. In the case of the RA photos that is unlikely – Armitage did not really act as a “model”, and the pictures are clearly not fashion images but portraits shot for illustrating editorials. A couple of them have washed up in magazines (one window sill image and one of the steel wall background).

Before I delve into the individual analyses, a word on the course of the photo shoot (with a nod to Obscura who asked how long this may have taken).  Ballpark: four to five hours. But very difficult to tell because it depends on many factors, most of which I have no way of knowing about. I know nothing about Ascroft’s habits when shooting – does he shoot hundreds of pictures or is he so confident that he calls it quits after 50 shutter releases? Does he have a large studio at his disposal where all his (recurring) set-ups are already in situ and don’t need individual assembly? How many assistants has he got on set to help him with technical set-up, and with the actual shooting? Does he get side-tracked into chatting?

I am basing my estimation on the fact that there are eight distinct set-ups in the whole RARA shoot: 1) window sill Armitage, 2) blue steel (-door) Armitage, 3) white blown out background Armitage 4) armchair Armitage, 5) seated Armitage on box, 6) peeling paint-job Armitage, 7) shadowplay Armitage and 8) outdoor Armitage. Ascroft is an experienced photographer and he knows how to set-up his individual scenes. Judging by the recurring style of his images, he probably has all the technicalities already down to a tee, knows where the lights are placed, which aperture to shoot at and how he wants to compose the images.  That makes the whole process much quicker. A quick light-reading, and off he goes. For the costume changes and make-up adjustment I would factor in a generous 15 minutes per set-up – including a cup of tea every once in a while. With tethered shooting (where the images are sent straight from the camera to the computer at which an assistant literally “calls the shots”) he could have his images in the bag within 15 minutes. So, 30 minutes per set-up = four hours. That would also fit into the busy schedule of a capricious celebrity who may not want to pose for a whole day. – Mind you, it could easily be double that time. There’s always something that goes wrong when shooting, or maybe Ascroft has the habit of shooting 250 images per set-up, regularly puts the camera down to continue a conversation with his extraordinarly interesting sitter and/or to give out to his slaves assistants. Or his diva sitter wants to censor check every single photo that has been taken, is uncooperative and needs constant ego-massaging coaxing and frequent potty breaks.

Can you imagine being in front of the camera for four hours at a stretch? Always the single subject, literally always in focus, always concentrated, always reacting to the directions of the photographer, contorting yourself, while appearing to look your personal best? It is hard work. And in Armitage’s case also different to the work of an actor because it involves being still, communicating with pose and poise alone. A photo shoot is incredibly intense for all those participating in it, the photographer included. Whether I am shooting myself or working as an assistant – even after a photo session that only lasts an hour, I usually feel exhausted to the point of longing for a nap. And that is not due to the physical labour that is involved (carrying sandbags for stabilising flash stands, moving lights, readjusting backdrops, holding reflectors, assembling props) but the mental exertion of being 100 percent focussed on the creating of an image. It’s a multi-tasking job for all concerned – constant action-reaction, adjusting, moving, holding…

And yet the two newly emerged images make it look so good. Well, with Armitage in the shot, what can go wrong? Let’s look at Blue Steel, first.

Evasive and fashionable – Richard Armitage in a shot by Robert Ascroft
Image Sourced via RAnet.com

This is the latest in a series of shots that were taken in front of what looks like a steel/metal wall. The background is grey-blueish in colour, and the whole colour cast of the image has a blue tint. I find it difficult to determine what colour Armitage’s outfit is – is this charcoal grey or black? In order to make his sitter stand out from the similarly coloured background, Ascroft has to use strong light in this image. You can see that he is not using a softbox – or if he does, he has a honeycomb grid that directs the light stongly – by the dark shadow that appears to the left of Armitage on the background. Otherwise the light has been directed in such a way, that very little shadow is visible on RA himself. A low-contrast image such as this is always intended to stay in colour format. (In order to have an evocative b/w image, the photographer would create strong contrasts between light and dark in his frame. That is not the case here.)

Although I have often professed my preference for b/w images, this particular portrait of Armitage loudly speaks to me, nonetheless – despite something in the pose that I would call a “fashion mood”. Armitage is photographed straight-on while he is leaning against the background. He has his left hand in his trouser pocket and crosses his left leg over his right. By placing his hand in the pocket, his jacket is pushed aside, exposing the waistband and crotch area of his trousers to the view. It is as if the clothes are more important than the face. This impression for me is exacerbated by the fact that the sitter has turned his face away from the camera. Armitage is looking to the right and down. The portrait takes on an air of evasiveness – the sitter is not looking into our eyes. Does he have something to hide? Is he a mystery man? While our mind is set in motion, the evasiveness suddenly becomes intriguing. As he defies our searching gaze, we stare all the more intensely. And the details all of a sudden take on more emphasis: We notice the pleasing curve of the jawline, the delicate fan of the eyelashes caught in the light, the exposed skin of the neck and the evidence of the major turn-on chest hair.

For me this is a particularly evocative image, because evasiveness by its nature leaves the questions open. And isn’t that something that equally intrigues and frustrates us? We strive to know more about the man. But he eludes us – deliberately. He gives little away. He turns away his face so that we cannot search his eyes for answers. His facial expression is hard to read – is that a little frown on his forehead, or is he merely concentrating? But the evasiveness is a challenge that amplifies our curiosity. And possibly our imagination. The less interpretative hints we are given in an image, the faster the wheels of our imagination turn. I leave the details up to you, ladies.

The Return of the UNF – RARA roaaaarrrrr.
Richard Armitage by Robert Ascroft (2012)
Image via RAnet.com

The second image, seems to be diametrically opposite to that – in many ways. Where Blue Steel Armitage was almost cerebral, Seated Armitage becomes animal. Here, Armitage faces us directly. He does not avoid our gaze but stares right back. His styling is informal, with the skimpiness of his t-shirt and tightness of his jeans leaving much less to imagination than the lose fitting clothes of Blue Steel. This (for me) is UNF personified – as I so extraordinarily eloquently already expressed in my previous *ooof*: Richard Alphatage . [Lighting, set-up and general photographic effects are all identical to the previously analysed image, so I’ll skip that here.] Only that I actually like this image even better than the Alphatage one: It’s the friendlier look on his face. I am amazed, actually, by the fact that Armitage does not smile – and yet to me he *does*. It could be the catchlight in his left eye, that gives it a twinkle – a sign of amusement.

Where Blue Steel hit me in the cerebrum with all the questions unanswered, this hits me in the ovaries because of all the answers. The exposed forearms, the bulging biceps, the broad shoulders and chest, the narrow waist and hips, the lean legs. And most deliciously of all – the pose, leaning in to the viewer. The possibilities of Blue Steel become a fact in Seated Armitage. What I imagined beneath the sitter’s formal wear is now corroborated in the appearance of the second image’s casual wear. This interpretation, of course, relies solely on the presentation of the two images together in a certain order.

But this is what good imagery does: It gets your juices flowing. Possibly in a rather tangible way, if you pardon me this little excursion below the waistline. Images such as these are not just aesthetically pleasing but they speak to left and right side of your brain. They pose questions, tease us with a few supplied answers, but they still provide room for interpretation. They mirror life to a certain extent, but they also withhold information in order to uphold some mystique. They require the reaction of the viewer and make us an active participant in this interaction. We do not simply consume, but we bring our own thoughts to the table. Viewing images, thus, is never a passive pastime, but an active process. So next time your significant other teases you for ogling an image of your favourite eye-candy, you can lean back and smugly inform them, that you are engaged in an interactive brain exercise. This is not drooling. This is working out the grey muscle. Looking at RARA images should be made compulsory. ‘Cos Armitage is good for you!

~ by Guylty on May 26, 2013.