Experiments In Light
Note to readers: Sincerest apologies but this post is strictly off-limits to anyone called Dave. Go on, shoo! It's for your own good, you know. Please do return to this quality internet publication on Thursday, when the normal Adoradaves Service will be restored. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
Stephen Haynes once asked me why Rich never photographed nudes in our garden. As some of you will already know, we have a woodland garden which has been beautifully landscaped by yours truly and looks pretty bloody marvellous, even if I do say so myself. Photographers who have visited here in the past have often declared they would gladly kill to have such a beautiful natural habitat in which to shoot nudes, and they often try to encourage Rich to go forth into the woods and make art. They’re wasting their time of course. I think he’s only ever photographed me in the garden twice, and even then he took his studio lights. Truth be told, Rich doesn’t do nudes ‘n’ nature. So the question you’re no doubt asking is: why does he limit himself in this way?
One problem is time. In order to create a natural landscape shot, the natural light is either correct for the best shot (time-of-day and weather permitting) or there’s no point in taking it. However Rich works such long hours that he simply doesn’t have time to wait for the lighting conditions to be right, and so he prefers his studio where the lighting conditions are always perfect because he creates them. This may change with my purchase of an off-camera flash for his birthday, and I may yet be able to drag him outdoors, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. One off-camera flash is no substitute for the vast light show with which he usually operates, and let’s be honest here, for Rich photography really is all about the lighting, so much so that the subject (very nice though she is) is pretty much secondary.
Rich is a control junkie, it’s his nature, and so he maintains strict (almost obsessive) control over all aspects of the shoot. He doesn’t let the model free-form and then run off a series of shots hoping that one of them will be perfect. Rather he shoots carefully, precisely, and thus each shot takes ages to set up. His style is not that dissimilar to Edward Weston in that he photographs by carefully recreating a preconceived image in his head and spends ages moving the model ever-so-slightly in order to get the correct shot, even if this means shooting less photographs per shoot than other photographers seem to. Each shot must be as close to perfect as he can get it before he will press the shutter. Because he originally trained as a physicist, his thought-patterns are very precise and ordered. His photographic style therefore reflects the way he thinks and the way he creates his art. Each shot is a controlled experiment in light, a recreation of the picture in his head.
Secondly there is also the matter of personal taste. Rich does love capturing a beautiful landscape, but (and I would like to state categorically that I do not agree with this) he likes the viewer to be able to drink in the beauty of a scene without the distraction of a naked woman in it. He feels that if he photographed a nude in our beautiful woodland, for example, the focus would be on the nude. She would be the focal point of the image and the landscape would be secondary, a background, whereas Rich feels that the scene itself should be primary in a landscape shot. One of his favourite expressions is “Why ruin a perfectly good landscape by sticking a nude in it?” Incidentally, this is also deliberately designed to irritate both me and his favourite nude photographers who shoot outdoors (dry British sense of humour you see) so don’t rise to the bait, folks.
To Rich, nudes and landscapes are two different genres. For him, they don’t mix. The beauty of the nude form, another example of the wondrous talents of Mother Nature, is best reflected under controlled conditions so that the fusion of light and form create an art-piece in itself, without distractions like a background scene. The blank setting of a studio creates a psychological distance and removes the requirement for a background story. The only story which matters is the light itself as it caresses the perfect form. Nothing more is necessary. No emotion, no deep meaning, nothing more complicated than the beauty of light on flesh. Such images seem to resist psychological interpretation and yet the sensuality of the light itself does reflect a certain depth in the same way that Weston’s pepper wasn’t just a pepper because Weston’s use of light transformed it into so much more.
Rich seeks the mastery of light one day, to bend that light to his will and thus create beauty. To him, this is the essence of what his art is about. This may sometimes seem to others to be a rather narrow interpretation of the wonders of Mother Nature, but who are we to argue with a photographer’s creative vision?
Images are of Alexis Summers, posing very elegantly on our pouffe cushion.
Stephen Haynes once asked me why Rich never photographed nudes in our garden. As some of you will already know, we have a woodland garden which has been beautifully landscaped by yours truly and looks pretty bloody marvellous, even if I do say so myself. Photographers who have visited here in the past have often declared they would gladly kill to have such a beautiful natural habitat in which to shoot nudes, and they often try to encourage Rich to go forth into the woods and make art. They’re wasting their time of course. I think he’s only ever photographed me in the garden twice, and even then he took his studio lights. Truth be told, Rich doesn’t do nudes ‘n’ nature. So the question you’re no doubt asking is: why does he limit himself in this way?
One problem is time. In order to create a natural landscape shot, the natural light is either correct for the best shot (time-of-day and weather permitting) or there’s no point in taking it. However Rich works such long hours that he simply doesn’t have time to wait for the lighting conditions to be right, and so he prefers his studio where the lighting conditions are always perfect because he creates them. This may change with my purchase of an off-camera flash for his birthday, and I may yet be able to drag him outdoors, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. One off-camera flash is no substitute for the vast light show with which he usually operates, and let’s be honest here, for Rich photography really is all about the lighting, so much so that the subject (very nice though she is) is pretty much secondary.
Rich is a control junkie, it’s his nature, and so he maintains strict (almost obsessive) control over all aspects of the shoot. He doesn’t let the model free-form and then run off a series of shots hoping that one of them will be perfect. Rather he shoots carefully, precisely, and thus each shot takes ages to set up. His style is not that dissimilar to Edward Weston in that he photographs by carefully recreating a preconceived image in his head and spends ages moving the model ever-so-slightly in order to get the correct shot, even if this means shooting less photographs per shoot than other photographers seem to. Each shot must be as close to perfect as he can get it before he will press the shutter. Because he originally trained as a physicist, his thought-patterns are very precise and ordered. His photographic style therefore reflects the way he thinks and the way he creates his art. Each shot is a controlled experiment in light, a recreation of the picture in his head.
Secondly there is also the matter of personal taste. Rich does love capturing a beautiful landscape, but (and I would like to state categorically that I do not agree with this) he likes the viewer to be able to drink in the beauty of a scene without the distraction of a naked woman in it. He feels that if he photographed a nude in our beautiful woodland, for example, the focus would be on the nude. She would be the focal point of the image and the landscape would be secondary, a background, whereas Rich feels that the scene itself should be primary in a landscape shot. One of his favourite expressions is “Why ruin a perfectly good landscape by sticking a nude in it?” Incidentally, this is also deliberately designed to irritate both me and his favourite nude photographers who shoot outdoors (dry British sense of humour you see) so don’t rise to the bait, folks.
To Rich, nudes and landscapes are two different genres. For him, they don’t mix. The beauty of the nude form, another example of the wondrous talents of Mother Nature, is best reflected under controlled conditions so that the fusion of light and form create an art-piece in itself, without distractions like a background scene. The blank setting of a studio creates a psychological distance and removes the requirement for a background story. The only story which matters is the light itself as it caresses the perfect form. Nothing more is necessary. No emotion, no deep meaning, nothing more complicated than the beauty of light on flesh. Such images seem to resist psychological interpretation and yet the sensuality of the light itself does reflect a certain depth in the same way that Weston’s pepper wasn’t just a pepper because Weston’s use of light transformed it into so much more.
Rich seeks the mastery of light one day, to bend that light to his will and thus create beauty. To him, this is the essence of what his art is about. This may sometimes seem to others to be a rather narrow interpretation of the wonders of Mother Nature, but who are we to argue with a photographer’s creative vision?
Images are of Alexis Summers, posing very elegantly on our pouffe cushion.
Labels: AlexisSummers, composition, purist
posted by Lin at 9:27 AM
6 Comments:
Continuing with my on going edgejamacation.
Pouffe?
Tuffet, pouffe or hassock are all terms for a piece of furniture used as a footstool or low seat. It is distinguished from a stool by being completely covered in fabric so that no legs are visible. It's essentially a large hard cushion that may have an internal wooden frame to give it more rigidity. Wooden feet may be added to the base to give it stability. If the piece is larger, so that storage can take place inside it, then it is generally known as an ottoman.
Hassock has special association with churches, as it is used to describe the thick cushions employed by the congregation to kneel on while in prayer. [1]
The names tuffet and hassock are both derived from English names for a small grassy hillock or clump of grass, in use since at least the sixteenth century. Pouffe is a nineteenth century French import for "something puffed out".
Yes she is pouffe.
Beautiful.
This is an image of nature at her finest. Be it taken inside or outside.
“Light is the symbol of truth.”
James Russell Lowell
I’ll take Rich’s great images from where ever he wants to create them. His light speaks the truth.
D.L. Wood
***Twists at door knob but finds it locked***
This is such an interesting post. I am fascinated with the very different ways photographers work and the multitude of preferences and purposes I encounter. Everything you say about Rich makes sense in terms of his finished images. I certainly agree, from my model's POV, that lighting matters greatly. His work with models is always art, and beautiful, too.
Having said this, I would very much love to see pictures of the garden.
Maybe Rich could bring the garden to the studio? You know, like a vase with a bouquet of flowers placed strategically against the seamless.
or take Jimmy's vase and use it as a GOBO to project onto the backdrop.....
Hmmmm...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home