- This topic is empty.
Victoria’s Gem
-
From a series of upward pointing building shots taken on an’Olga recently in London-
Hy Jb7,
Did you use film? The noise it?s very characteristic and particularly pleasant!! With a graphic and bw image it end ups great!! :wink:
Hi Paticia-
yes film,
not content with using a plastic camera,
I also used an 8 year old roll of Tri-X I had lying about-
I’ve got one left that I’m saving for a special occasion-Here’s another from the same roll
Quite like the first. The more I look the more I like.
To me, it seems to have a lot of ingredients for a ‘poor’ shot, which together make a good one. The reflections, white spots in the top right corner, darkness, blurriness in places, noise… lines everywhere… I can’t decide what it is about it that I like.
Maybe it’s because it’s black and white and looks totally spontaneous? Or the number and variety of lines converging on the bottom left corner….!?
What made you take it, if I might ask? Just curious as to how it came about. Was it planned, did you take a while to frame it? Snap it off the cuff…?
D.
You are asking the difficult questions today Dave-
:)Why did I take it?
I had set myself a project to take some pictures to hang on a wall at Johnny McMillan’s exhibition,
and the only qualification for selection was that they be taken on a toy camera.
I allowed myself one roll of film,
and with the words of an XTC song ringing in my head,
shot half a roll in Victoria,
before taking the tube to Euston,
where I used up the other half.This all stems from a conversation which took place around Christmas,
about ‘Instant Art’ from plastic cameras,
https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=3362
at least it does for me.So I had to try for myself,
and learned a thing or two.The first was that film has a lovely quality,
that I have been missing in the few years that I’ve been shooting digital,
The second is that similar pictures of the same subjects taken on the D200
seem remarkably soulless by comparison,
at least straight out of the camera, without any processing, in colour, they are.Maybe its just that grey days suit Tri-X more.
Anyway, these are the pictures (or at least the locations) I had set out to take.
As you noticed, its mostly about the lines,
and the reflections.I’m glad you like them,
though they’re not really likeable as such,
but the are at least a little bit interesting.at least to me-
Here’s another one;
this one actually made it to the exhibition-
Though there’s more detail in this than the one you saw hanging-
due to the limitations of printing on watercolour paper-thanks for the comment,
sorry the reply is a bit long-winded-
I’ll abswer your other question in a bit-Interesting that you say they’re “not really likeable as such.”
Often such shots are presented without narrative, maybe in a gallery, and they give the impression of “there’s a reason I’m here, and if you don’t see that reason for yourself, you’re clearly not intelligent enough to be looking at me… so move along!”
It can be quite intimidating, or confusing.
They’re the sort of pictures that most people would bypass (fair comment?) …until recently, myself included. But I forced myself to take some time and look at these for a while, ask myself why I might not like them, and conversely why others might. Came up with a few answers in my own head, as noted above.
I think you’re right about b&w being more suited to grey days. Also, because we see the world in colour, a shot in black and white forces us to look at a scene differently, perhaps imagine the colour for ourselves, or think about shape, form, perspective, contrast and so on, which we may not otherwise do.
A clear, clinical colour shot lays it all out there in front of you – but sometimes, as with women, that’s not the best way to appreciate photography.
Sometimes ;-)
D.Well I can’t explain it myself,
although i do like a good print-I’m not sure thai it sets out to intimidate,
though there is a quite opressive feel to some of them-
I think-Anyway,
thanks for joining in the conversation-
I didn’t think it’d go this far-
and it gives me the chance to post the last one in the series-
This is the other one you saw-These shouldn’t really be in the Architecture section,
I suppose Street would be closer to what they are-
If I had included the street, that isThanks again for all the comments and thoughts,
appreciate it-j
I hate to take your conversation back to basics :) so go ahead and ignore me and continue oif u like :)
But for me I just like what I like … and I really like these – I’ve seen two before (I think) and the other two complete the set for me… all four printed and famed would look very very class to my eye .. I like the lines,reflections, grain and vignetting .. maybe there are deeper reasons why they appeal.. but they just do
L
^^^ Agreed. And I have to disagree and say they are more ‘architecture’ than ‘street’.
Appealing either way :-)
D.
Thanks again you two,
Its been an interesting discussion,
I’m glad you like them,
I kinda like them too,
but it looks like we’re in a minority here-Maybe you have to see them in the flesh,
so to speak.
If you hadn’t seen the prints,
maybe they wouldn’t have the same resonance now-
Maybe-j
’nuff said-
Nobody picked up on my odd titles-
They came from an XTC song from the early eighties-
called ‘Towers of London’I must admit, the words did flavour the pictures-
http://www.lyricstime.com/xtc-towers-of-london-lyrics.html
I obviously gave you credit for being cleverer than you are :lol:
I guessed that being taken in London, the “Victoria” reference was to the lcation and that the “Gem” part related to the fact that with all the lines and reflections it could look a little like a cut gem stone..
LMAO
L
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
