photocopy me
its not been a very posty day really, not compared to yesterday anyway. ive been too busy really, i have realised that i was a little unsure about my up and coming (monday) photography exam.
In this exam we get 15 hours in the dark room printing, now printing aint much cop and neither is 15 hours in a dark room , not if you dont have a film or any negatives. Most people in my subjects generally base the quality of theyre work on the way it looks, me i always look for what i call the Art of the peice by which i mean, any saught of third dimension, for example if it is in a style and if it REALLY conforms to the morals if you like of that style, especially if its a famous one or one which was invented by famous artists. Or it could be a concept behind it, maybe the peice is an illustration, of a feeling, a film, a story music whatever, thats what i look for, and the fact that i look for it in other art makes me want it to be found in mine, therefor every project ive done has had one until now. My fine art hasnt and its worked well for the short time it was a good project to pick, now i should have done the same with photography swallowed my pride and let the messege slide. but i didnt and thus im one of a few who hasnt got theyre photos yet, that makes this weekend crucial.
tomorow im going to peterborough to get meterials and tomorow evening when the sun is low im gonna go to deeping and take some achitecture shots as im doing the subject of shadows. shadows aare pretty much at theyre greatest level of natural distortion at this time, and natural shadows are the largest, the larger, the longer, the more interesting right. Ive also been thinking, as i look through books and websites of past and prest phtographers of architecture im constantly remind in a tiny whisper that noe of it is possible without the light that fuels it, and i thought if you dont look at the picture, dont look at the object and you look at the light in stead, you notice that theres really an infinately intermate relationship going on there, between the light and the buildings. Light and shadow do their upmost to distort the way an object or building is concieved, you may think this was obvious but what isnt obvious is that mass, would be mass no matter how much light was thrown upon it, maybe somewhere there is an 'eye' that can see mass without light, you might say it was saught of a pleasurable weakness for humans that we cant. Anyway this means that the mass to must be distorting the light, architects build with light, and light allows them to build. I find it rather facinating and cant help but want to get it across some way. This is when i stumblled upon a wonderfull little tecnique, its effective for sure and may well feature as part of this exam for me. Basically it involves a photocopier, which is used to copy one of my achitectural images, however the effect comes into play when the photo its self is moved. This of course makes the image blur, but it dosent stop there, you cant just go round make pictures blurry itd be shit, but I noticed that the photocopier dosent do the whole image in one go it dose it from side to side, with the light. This means I know, or can workout exactly when its scanner which bit. I can do this easyer by sticking two of the images back to back, full creative control. The point is it distorts things in a really awsome way.
In this exam we get 15 hours in the dark room printing, now printing aint much cop and neither is 15 hours in a dark room , not if you dont have a film or any negatives. Most people in my subjects generally base the quality of theyre work on the way it looks, me i always look for what i call the Art of the peice by which i mean, any saught of third dimension, for example if it is in a style and if it REALLY conforms to the morals if you like of that style, especially if its a famous one or one which was invented by famous artists. Or it could be a concept behind it, maybe the peice is an illustration, of a feeling, a film, a story music whatever, thats what i look for, and the fact that i look for it in other art makes me want it to be found in mine, therefor every project ive done has had one until now. My fine art hasnt and its worked well for the short time it was a good project to pick, now i should have done the same with photography swallowed my pride and let the messege slide. but i didnt and thus im one of a few who hasnt got theyre photos yet, that makes this weekend crucial.
tomorow im going to peterborough to get meterials and tomorow evening when the sun is low im gonna go to deeping and take some achitecture shots as im doing the subject of shadows. shadows aare pretty much at theyre greatest level of natural distortion at this time, and natural shadows are the largest, the larger, the longer, the more interesting right. Ive also been thinking, as i look through books and websites of past and prest phtographers of architecture im constantly remind in a tiny whisper that noe of it is possible without the light that fuels it, and i thought if you dont look at the picture, dont look at the object and you look at the light in stead, you notice that theres really an infinately intermate relationship going on there, between the light and the buildings. Light and shadow do their upmost to distort the way an object or building is concieved, you may think this was obvious but what isnt obvious is that mass, would be mass no matter how much light was thrown upon it, maybe somewhere there is an 'eye' that can see mass without light, you might say it was saught of a pleasurable weakness for humans that we cant. Anyway this means that the mass to must be distorting the light, architects build with light, and light allows them to build. I find it rather facinating and cant help but want to get it across some way. This is when i stumblled upon a wonderfull little tecnique, its effective for sure and may well feature as part of this exam for me. Basically it involves a photocopier, which is used to copy one of my achitectural images, however the effect comes into play when the photo its self is moved. This of course makes the image blur, but it dosent stop there, you cant just go round make pictures blurry itd be shit, but I noticed that the photocopier dosent do the whole image in one go it dose it from side to side, with the light. This means I know, or can workout exactly when its scanner which bit. I can do this easyer by sticking two of the images back to back, full creative control. The point is it distorts things in a really awsome way.