*ooof*: A is for Armitage

Ladies and gents, we have successfully returned to normal scheduling. *phew* Nothing new these last couple of weeks, and so Guylty can catch up on a few requests that have come in during the controversial RARA vs press imagery phase. Catching my breath, I thought I’d give you a little insight into how I work on these picture analyses. I hope that is not too egocentric for your taste. I promise that there is some *ooof*y stuff for you to swoon over, later… But there is the usual insight into the working life of a photographer in this, too.

You see, even in the digital age, (some) photographers still hang on to good old practices from analog times. Like many others, I have the habit of carrying a little notebook around with me at all times. The notebooks used to serve a good purpose: Back in the day, photographers used to jot down the coordinates of their photographs in their little black book – number of image on the roll of film, exposure, shutter speed, ISO, focal length. Shooting digital, it is not necessary to do that anymore, as this so called “metadata” automatically gets recorded in the image file in-camera. The reason for recording this was to be able to reconstruct how an image  had been technically produced – for later reference or in case one needed to re-shoot. Nonetheless, even today it is practical to have a little notebook at hand when shooting – for instance for recording the coordinates that are not automatically documented by the camera, such as lighting set-up, props that were used, actual location used, name of sitter etc. I was recently gifted a couple of personalised mini Moleskine books when the Tumblr RArmy organised a RA Valentine’s swap. The lovely richards-smile craftily embellished the notebooks with pictures of my beloved Guy – as you can see in the pictures – and they have been accompanying me ever since.

When I get ready to *ooof* I lock the door and dim the light print the image in question and start brainstorming in my little notebook. I look at the picture in-depth, first on the screen of my computer, because the digitally displayed image is always clearest and has the added advantage of being resizable. And as we all know: Size matters. I jot down in my book anything that I want to cover – such as his neck with kisses… ooops… wrong context the composition of the photo, the lighting, the framing, the colours, the styling and finally the associations that come to me when I am looking at the image, i.e. mainly that he is the most handsome man I have ever seen and… *ahem*. Sometimes I also draw on the print-out of the image itself, in order to visualise sight-lines, make a note of contrasts or simply marking down points of interest. Only then do I sit down at the computer and actually write the analysis on the blog. The notes help me to remember all that I want to say, and to structure how I am going to say it. But even then, oftentimes the *ooof* changes half way through my notes, I suddenly see something new or different, and I rewrite my structure as I go along.

All of this takes between three and four hours to put together. Occasionally I have to research technical details, look up the photographers’ other work, or reference other theoretical writing. It is a process that I enjoy immensely. Even though it is slightly academic in its procedure, and sometimes a challenge to find something to write about and to explain it coherently, it is a relaxing, enjoyable exercise for me. I learn something new every time I do it, it gives me ideas for my own portrait photography and has actually grown my confidence in my own photographic and analytical abilities over time. – And after I have written my *ooof*s, the little notebooks are a record of my photographic journey.

This week I had to start a new notebook. This time ’round it is a bigger format classic Moleskine notebook. It is actually part of a wider art project organised by an arts council in Ireland and asks artists of all media to keep a notebook and then to donate it after a few months. I’ll be handing this in. Richard Armitage as a work of art. Well, it’s kind of fitting, I suppose, but my plan is to enhance my analytical work with some own images that will be made on the basis of the images that I am analysing.  But enough of my own insignificant self, let’s have a look at today’s image.

“Here’s looking at you” says Richard…
Richard Armitage in two images by Tracey Nearmy, 2013.
Sourced via RAnet.com

You are no doubt all familiar with these shots as I have discussed Tracey Nearmy’s imagery before. These two were suggested to me by tumblr friend Yungarnet. I happily oblige, beard and all ;-), because this is interesting as we have two almost identical images to look at in which the set-up is always the same. The only difference, really is, that in one version the subject looks at the camera, in the other, he looks away. And identical they really are: If you look closely, you will see that nothing has changed between the two shots. Armitage has not shifted his position at all, his hands remain in exactly the same position. However, there is a tiny change which the gif makes visible: One version has been straightened and lightened a bit. Presumably this was done in post-production – there could not have been an adjustment to the lighting during the shoot without Armitage moving his pose. I nonetheless conclude that Nearmy was shooting hand-held, without a tripod, but in quick succession. This is, of course, typical for a photo call scenario where there is no time (and space) for a deliberate tripod set-up, but the emphasis is on the quick shooting of images.

As in her other images, Nearmy has to work with what she is given. The lighting here seems to consist of the ambient light from above and behind, touching Armitage’s right shoulder. Another “light from the heavens above“? It should really leave the sitter’s face in shadow, but Nearmy uses fill flash to light her subject from the front. Her off-camera flash illuminates Armitage from above front, as can be deduced from the shadows under his forearms.

The composition of Nearmy’s photograph is characterised by the straight lines of the location. There is a wall with a ledge against which Armitage is leaning, as well as a straight-cut green box hedge behind him. The subject has been placed in the middle of the composition, making the image a lesson in symmetry. Although I have often derided symmetry as “boring”, it can work very well, as in this example. Symmetry is expectable, and therefore largely unchallenging, but it has a calming effect.

People/portrait photography is usually done in the eponymously named portrait format (i.e. the short side of the image up). This is fairly logical, considering that the human shape favours that kind of format – it applies both to the head alone, as well as full- or half-length portraits. We simply get more detail of the subject into an image if we shoot at portrait orientation. Therefore it is interesting that Nearmy decides otherwise and shoots this in landscape format where parts to the left and right of the sitter depict only background. She is obviously interested in creating a visually pleasing overall composition. Well, she doesn’t have to worry much about a visually pleasing subject. That’s a given. And in a way, shooting landscape orientation is a safe option, because it still leaves the option to crop the image to portrait format in post-production. (The high number of ppi in today’s pro-cameras easily allows for that.) This can even be done by the picture editor/graphic designer of the  newspaper that buys the image for publication.

The colour composition of the image is equally calming. There is nothing too loudly colourful in this image, it is quite pleasing with its shades of grey and green, and only adds a few speckles of colour thanks to the Birds of Paradise flowers dotted in the shrubbery of the background. However, with a subject dressed in dark colours, this image is clearly meant to be reproduced in colour. It would not work in b/w because there is not enough contrast between the hedge and the dark top/jacket of the subject.

Our eyes, in this calming exercise in symmetry are, of course, drawn to the subject in the middle.  Armitage is leisurely leaning back against the wall behind him. He has placed his elbows on the ledge and matches the calm that the symmetrical composition implies. The pose could have been assumed naturally by Armitage, without any prompting by the photographer. It seems logical to place oneself in that position while being subjected to the (tedious) procedure of a photo call. But this particular pose works very well in the setting: By drawing his elbows up onto the ledge, the subject takes up more space in the frame than with his arms hanging loosely down. The pose breaks up a predictable and rigid vertical vs horizontal arrangement by adding diagonals (the angled upper and forearms) into the composition. You could also argue that it highlights the contrast of the rigid horizontal lines with the soft, round human shape. But more importantly, it brings the subject’s hands into the frame – which otherwise would have been cut off in this particular composition. And that would have been a pity unsightly.

If you have looked a bit closer at the nasty iPhone pictures of my notebooks above, you may have noticed my notes on the lines in the image. The above mentioned horizontals are obvious to anyone. Interestingly, they run pretty much exactly along the “rule of thirds”-lines. Very pleasing! But what I found more compelling was another little detail: The metallic zipper edges of Armitage’s leather jacket turn out to be sight lines that guide our eyes exactly to the eyes of the subject. That is, no doubt, coincidental, but an interesting little detail. And now add the horizontal lines to the zipper diagonals and what do we come up with? The letter A. Yes, A as in Armitage. Sweet. And completely incidental, but any detail counts when obsessively *ooof*ing…

Could you say which of these two images is your favourite? They are identical but in the end everything comes down to the difference between the direct and the averted gaze. In one version Armitage looks directly at the camera. His eyes indicate a smile (I find it difficult to tell exactly as his beard obscures his mouth to some extent) and by gazing at us as an extension of the camera, he establishes a parasocial relationship with the audience. We feel directly addressed by the sitter, he is communicating with us by allowing us to look into his eyes. The direct gaze leaves us feeling connected to him, we are bound to each other through the shared activity of (seemingly) gazing at each other. Version 2, on the other hand, has Armitage averting his gaze. He looks off-camera to his left. With his mouth ever so slightly open, it feels as if he is about to say something. The communication in this image is one-sided – the viewer tries to establish communication with him by looking at him. He is deliberately breaking the communication by looking away (although the act of looking away can be interpreted as a message in itself, I guess). Personally, I prefer the version where Armitage gazes off-camera. In this instance, it could be caused by the facial expression that looks slightly more attractive to me than version 1 or by the slightly less static feel of version 2 where Armitage seems to be caught in motion, just about to say something.

But thank you, Ms Nearmy or Mr Armitage – whoever may have been responsible for the pose. By drawing the elbows up on the ledge, the body posture also causes the jacket to open at the front. Thus, we are allowed an unrestricted view of the abdomen and a bit more chest. Do you also feel the motherly urge to step up to the boy in the picture, to tuttut at him and to wedge his bunched up t-shirt back into his trousers? “Really, Richard, you must look after your appearance a bit more. What are those lovely ladies going to think of you? A sloppy dresser?” Ah, never mind, that’s actually one of the attractions of the Armitage – the normal-guy-next-door attitude that still occasionally shines through in the little details. And never more so than in the slice-of-life imagery of a photo call. There. I may have convinced myself that photo call images are actually more “Richard” than the artificial products of studio photography. If you keep suggesting these to me, I may become a fan.

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 June 18, 2013.