June was a good month. One of my images got selected for the GPP "Day and Night" Community exhibition and another image got featured as GPP's Photo of the month. See attached snapshot of the GPP newsletter for June.
The image selected for the exhibition:
And this is the image that was featured for the month:
I went down to the Dubai Souk with a photography mate - Bernard and my new acquisition, the Fujifilm XT along with the kit lens (which is damn good in it's own right) and the 56 mm. I came across both Bernard and the XT during the Gulf Photo Plus Photography Festival in Dubai in March this year. Before I go further, I would like to caveat something. I am not writing a full blown review here. There are a number of websites who have done extensive technical reviews which the reader can easily research on the web.
From a shooting perspective, one of the best "not so techy" reviews out there so far, in my opinion, is the one posted by David Nightingale recently. So stop right here if you haven't read it. Read it and then come back to my post.
(Click here to read David's review)
A compelling and accurate write up. I don't think I can add any comments of substance to the review but what I can do is - vouch for the veracity of that review. Why? because first, I have the privilege of being very much acquainted with David and two, I pretty much went through the same shooting and conversion experience as David (albeit I was not included in the top ten list who were given a free kit (lol).
You have got to respect Fujifilm's marketing strategy. Not only have they improved their camera line over a short period of time, they take on board the suggestions given to them by serious photographers all over the world and they give photographer pros and wannabes (like myself) the opportunity to test the camera out, no holds barred, no conditions attached. How much better could that get? During the Gulf PHoto Plus Week this march, I discovered that Fujifilm had set up shop and was loaning it's various camera models and lens to all GPP participants for free. Of course, I wasn't going to forego that opportunity so I borrowed an XT with the Kit lens as a lark. I had just bought the Sony Alpha 7 with the 35 mm lens and I didn't' think that the XT shooting experience could be any better than the Sony.
I was wrong.
It's far, far better.
For all the reasons that David Nightingale has laid out in his review.
And because when I shoot with it, my heart fills with joy. Really.
And because they offer a much broader range of lens. More options than Sony. Much better glass. (What was I thinking when I bought that camera? Ah yes, I got lost in the full frame, lightest camera argument)
My only request right now is if Fuji can update their firmware to allow for better HDR shooting. I want to be able to shoot 5 exposures one EV apart.
But I digress - back to the photo walk on saturday. Both Bernard and I were shooting with the XT, I was using the 56 mm and he was using the 55-200 mm. Bernard was full of fantastic photo stories and information and the XT was doing it's thang. An all around amazing morning that I hope to repeat again.
We shared our images after the fact and both of us had images which were beautifully rendered, skin tones and all.
I want to be able to make a compelling portrait. Not just good but compelling. So the most important question then for me is what makes a compelling portrait. Clearly technique is important – location, lighting, framing etc. But then I have seen images that are technically well executed but fail to draw me as the viewer into that image. I appreciate the image but does it draw me into wanting to know about subject? Often times not.
So then there has to be something else that contributes to the making of an “iconic” image. An intangible quality that strikes the viewer and draws him into that image make him or her wanting to know more about the subject. Is it emotion or gesture or expression or all of them in some combination that resonates with the viewer and leaves them with wanting to know more?
Why not start with myself as a viewer and think about the portraits that were compelling to me and why?
There are three that come unaided to my mind:
- Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl
- Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother
- Yusuf Karsh’s Winston Churchill.
Take Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl for the purposes of this discussion.
A outstanding portrait in color, well executed and beautifully composed. All the visual elements – texture, light, color, and composition were there. The girl herself was beautiful. She took my breath away but it was her expression and her eyes that stayed with me. She looked at the camera with a strange mixture of trepidation and bravado; almost defiant, but also scared. I felt something stir inside when I saw that image. Something I cannot fully express. What I do know is that whatever it was, it stayed with me.
I was drawn in enough to want to know more about her. I remember thinking about her in the context of Afghanistan, one the harshest and most complex environments for women and I always used to wonder, will she make it? Will she be able to make her own life choices? What kind of compromises will she have to make. Here eyes haunted me and truly it goes back to that age old saying that the “eyes are windows to soul”.
I really connected with that image and even now years later, after knowing her story; I still get poignant when I see her portrait, the same as I did when I first saw it. The only difference for me is that from wondering where she has gone, I know and it has only resulted in increased sympathy for her. There is a bit of regret on how her life has been but her photograph still speaks to me. It still symbolizes hope for the future and the possibility of breaking free.
This is what I call an iconic image, a compelling portrait.
For a photographer’s perspective, I suppose there is an element of luck involved too. After all capturing that expression, that intangible quality is not something you can plan. It just happens and the trick is to be ready for it.
Back to my intent?
Well, like I said I want to make compelling portraits. The likelihood of doing for this brief specifically or for that matter in the future may be low but hope springs eternal. What’s the point of aspiring to make a “good” picture? A lot of studio photographers do that every day. I want to capture something more unique. Something where it’s not the technique that attracts viewers but that something intangible that draws them in and makes them think about that image for a bit.
I was really quite enthralled by this chapter; The idea being to reject the need to place a subject in the center of the frame and the rejection of the assumption that the subject should be at the center of the frame. The latter is attributed to “photographic folklore” and is actually based on the way the camera design. The book refers to the focusing rectangle using located in the center of the frame. Typically you would aim that focusing rectangle at some part of the subjects face, focus and then take the picture. Interestingly enough I think that modern DSLRs, with their capability to move focus points around the frame, have allowed contemporary photographers to do away with that stereotypical framing. Having said that, I have recently acquired a range finder and found myself framing shots within the center of the frame because I could not technically figure out how to focus lock on the subject face and then reframe the shot. It’s something that I am still trying to perfect so I can fully understand how the tendency to place subjects in the middle of frame came about. Having said that, the reason why I am having trouble moving the frame around while using the rangefinder is because I want to try and make sure that the subject is sharply focused. Imagine my surprise when this chapter then wenton to challenge the concept of portraits where the subject is tack sharp. I find myself really liking the idea of framing people at the edge of the frame. It feels more dynamic, much more compelling compositionally.
I found the Jacob Riss example quite interesting. Although the composition was not deliberate, more an accident since Jacob Riss did not have an optical viewfinder which would have allowed him to compose the image more thoughtfully, the accidental capture of his hand at the edge of the frame results in an image becoming more meaningful especially in light of the subject.
The chapter then went on to discuss Cartier-Bresson’s work and his view of the “decisive moment”; Every street photographer worth his salt knows about the decisive moments and prays for opportunities where they are able to capture that moment.
I really enjoyed reading how Angiers deconstructed one of the most famous images captured by Cartier Bresson “Behind the Gare St Lazare 1932” ; He pointed out elements behind the image that I hadn’t really noticed before. For example, I had not noticed how the poster in the background showed a ballerina jumping and that the motion almost mirrored the motion of the man jumping over the puddle. I found it equally fascinating when Angiers likened the viewer in the background as a witness similar to the photographer himself. Layers within layers that I had not noticed before.
Prior to this chapter, I had read some material on deconstructing images and the importance of being able to interpret images especially in the context of where and how they are used but to be honest it’s not a skill that comes naturally to me or for that matter one that I truly appreciated.
I understand the need for it. I am not sure if I have the ability to do it without help but something about the way Angiers deconstructed this image clicked in my head.
Maybe, it’s because I love documentary photography and in particular street photography. For me, it’s real and visceral. It speaks to me, fascinates me and keeps me engrossed for hours. Maybe that’s why deconstructing these images makes complete sense to me.
Another point that really resonated with me was Angier’s assertion that Cartier-Bresson composed all this street shots. I have been researching various street photography websites and reading some books on it and so far no where have I picked up the fact that street photography can comprise of carefully composed images. I always got the impression that street photography was akin to hunting or quick draw (wild wild west) where you had not only be alert but quick to shoot and capture the moment.
I am not thinking of trying this approach. Instead of walking around trying to document the world as it passes me by, maybe I should find a location or spot, compose the shot and then wait. Much more Cartier Bressan…I think :)
Right. I got it. The Leica M9 with a summicron 1:2/50 mm lens. Don't ask me how much it cost. Suffice to say, my bank account is empty. Do I care? Not really, I held the leica and completely lost my head. Now I know why car lovers love the Porche. The inside of the Porche is pretty basic but that doesn't matter. It's the style of the car and engine under it that matters. That's the leica M9. It's not an easy camera to use. I spent the week reading the manual and researching how to focus. I read up about zone focusing and tried it. A 100 hundred shots and all of them blurry. Yuck. I have no concept of distance really. I now have to learn and estimate with reasonable accuracy if my subject is 5 feet, 10 feet or 20 feet away. The Leica makes you more deliberative. You have think about what you are doing. No auto focus so it's hard work. I have read and seen the work of street photographers who use the Leica and I am in awe. How do they do it? Beautiful images taken so very fast. So far all my attempts at street photography with the camera suck. The LCD screen is basic. You can view the image but you can't tell if the image is sharp or not. One of the websites I reviewed advised that it was best if images are not deleted in camera. Pull them up in lightroom just to be sure.
White Balance is unpredictable sometimes. I tried all the settings but kept getting it wrong. Need to research more. In any case, they are all 18 MP dng files, I can fix WB in Lightroom.
Oh and let's not forget the prime lens. Beautiful amazing glass. But you can't zoom, you have zoom with your feet, back and forth. I am too much in the habit of using my zoom lens. I forget to move. Then I realize what I am doing and move. By then, sometime, the moment is gone. Very frustrating but I will get over it. I mean, c'mon, it' s a Leica. The pros so out weigh the cons.
The first day I chased my cat around the yard. Every single image was blurry. I tried zone focusing and was out of focus every single shot. Then for a brief moment, she stopped long enough for me to manually focus.
Straight out of the camera. Just look at the level of detail. I really didn't know what I could do more with it. It was an overcast day so the light wasn't good. Even then, just look at the level of detail. It just pops, feels almost 3 dimensional. I am not sure you can see clearly in the post but on my screen it's beautiful.
Then the same day just before sunset I went down to the local grocery store. Beautiful warm light was awash everywhere and I took this image.
Just lovely.
Day 2 and 3 continue to be an adventure in exploring. I shot everything I could indoors and outdoors. Low light was a pain, I haven't figured out the camera well enough to figure out how to manage that. Indoor lighting? Well as Zack Arias often says. Meh!
Florescent light was a pain; White balance going all crazy again. There's that strange green tinge that I can't get rid off.
But the image still pops..
What about outside in the light on a very overcast cloudy day??
Now that's beautiful. Absolutely minimal post processing, a bit on the exposure because I got over excited and forgot to open wide. But it still pops.
I am rambling I know. I feel delirious. I own a Leica. I don't how to use it well but I own a Leica and I'll get there.
"Mama's got a brand new toy and she sure is having fun with it."
Fahd (aka my son)
