Assignment 1, Part 1

Hello again!
Today I'm going to be writing about portrait photography, then and now.


What are the main differences and similarities between portraits in the early days of photography and portraits today?

There are many differences from then and now. There are even many different styles and types of portrait photography now because we have so much more technology. Sometimes it's artistic like the works of Annie Leibovitz, and sometimes it's boring like your high school graduation photo.
The only two things that remain the same in my opinion is that portraits usually contain one subject in the shot and that it's a longish exposure to get all the details in one's face.
I find now there is also more lighting involved, especially if you're shooting for a magazine or a high-profile person/event of some kind.

This old family portrait was taken in 1891 Ireland most likely using the Daguerreotype process (This process was discussed in my last post and also a little bit below). This family would have had to hold perfectly still for at least 30 seconds, if not then they would be blurred. Most photos in that time were taken against really plain backgrounds and people had to sit so they would be less likely to move. All the white dots are just from the aging of the actual photo.

This photo of legendary musician Iggy Pop was taken in 2000 by Annie Liebovitz. The lighting is perfect and the shot, although probably not 1000th of a second, still much faster than that of the family above. Look at all the detail everywhere! Face, arms, torso, and even his jeans!


And finally the embarrassing middle school portrait. Nothing too special but there is still clearly much more detail and you bet the exposure time was still faster than the portrait of the family. The photographer may have used a lighting kit as with the other two but this one was probably doctored to take out blemishes or other unflattering bits (More about lighting and doctoring later).

Who was the photographer and who was the subject of photographs in the past and today?
The process of Daguerreotypes process was developed by Louse Daguerre together with Joseph Nicrphore Niepce. Although not used for portraits at first, with time they became more popular around the world by other people making the same instrument (See my last post for more details).
Eventually it did catch on one could be charged a minimal fee to have their portrait taken, much like one can get their passport photo done today.

Portraits in this digital age can be done by anyone, anywhere, and with anyone or anything in them. I mentioned before that there are different types of portraits and here are some examples of modern portrait photography, and of course, pay attention to the detail and note that they're all in pretty amazing colours!

Environmental portrait: a portrait of someone that tells a story about what they do for a living. This is of a cranberry farmer.


Wedding portrait: Every couple does them, and they're almost always "action shots" which absolutely could not be done in the past.


Pet portraits! This one is of my cat by local photographer Piotr Organa. Could you imagine trying to photograph a dog or cat in the 1800's, you'd get a big blob.

What was the impact of technology on the portraits in the past and today?
Technology has had an immense impact on portrait photography and the photography world as a whole. There are new technologies being introduced everyday from many different companies. Portrait photographers are lucky to be able to use more lights, more light trickery, Photoshop programs, better lenses, better bodies, and of course it's all digital!

This is the basic lighting setup for a portrait. Light trickery plays a part in modern portrait photography because you can change the mood of the photo as well as the subject itself. For example, you can make something look dramatic, or fun, or straight-up insanely amazing.


I'm not at all saying that Photoshop programs are the devil because it surely has other uses than just making people look better. Touch-ups like this are okay, when limbs go missing it's a problem.


This Canon 50mm f/1.2 will set you back $1600.. talk about fancy new technology!

Sources:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype
*I hope I credited everyone, and I left watermarks on pictures that had watermarks

Discussion Week 3

1. My opinion based on the readings:

I think something that has been reproduced over and over again loses it's artistic value. One example of this is the Mona Lisa. The original painting by Leonardo Da Vinci is in the Louvre in Paris, France. The painting is so prominent in pop culture and it's been seen in so many ways that the one time I was in Paris for a few days I had no desire to see it. I can't say the same thing for everyone because I'm sure it attracts people from all over the world every day.

Photography is both a contribution to art and a tool to make art. They go hand in hand! You can't contribute photographic art without a camera. The only argument I would here is that with today's technology, everyone thinks they're a photographer, and so everyone thinks they're an artist.

Henry Peach Robinson created Fading Away because he wanted to show the world that photographic art could be controversial, even if it was a staged event. A lot of today's photography is staged like this, just look at any magazine for example.

What is happening now with digitization is what I mentioned before. The medium is so easily accessible and relatively inexpensive that anyone can take photos and call it art, even if it isn't. Facebook and social networks are filled with trendy people who think they are creating art. Some people actually are and have found their talents through it, and good for them, really. Not everyone with a camera can take a good photo.
On the other hand, it's easier to share pictures with other people over social networks.
It's a double edged sword methinks.


2. My reflection on the groups presentation:

I think I was on a different page. They definitely get into more detail about everything from counterfeiting art to advertisers being able to use photographs instead of painting or drawing them like on Mad Men.
Overall I think they did a pretty good job.

Week 2 - Learning activities

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to pick one from the list or just do both, so I'll do both.


Why did the world first love photographs?

In my opinion I would think people liked the idea of keeping a physical record of something they've seen or liked because we all know that memory eventually fades. Even though photography has evolved into an art form (some might even argue a science), people still take pictures for the same reasons they used to; a long lasting memory.


Who were the first photographers?
Apparently photography went as far back as 4th and 5th century BC. Someone discovered that certain chemicals are affected by light and they just kept working with those.

Daguerreotype is one of the oldest types of photography. It was an image produced on a highly polished, silver-plated sheet of copper. In 1829, Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre had formed a partnership with Nicéphore Niépce, and they both were trying to discover a way to capture photos. They were both influenced by what they saw in their camera obscuras, which I'll talk about later on.
Niepce died in 1833 but Daguerre continued their work and eventually got the courage to start showing his invention to other scientists. On August 19, 1839, Daguerre explained the process for the Académie des Sciences and the Académie des Beaux-Arts.

From Wikipedia: Boulevard du Temple, Paris, Spring 1838, by Daguerre (the first photograph of a person ever made). The image shows a busy street, but because exposure time was more than ten minutes, the moving traffic does not appear. Only a man getting his boots polished, the shoe-shine boy, and two people sitting at a table nearby stood still long enough for their image to be captured. The image is reversed (as were all Daguerreotypes) as is evidenced by the writing on a building in upper left.

Eventually his invention started appearing in other parts of Europe through other scientists and eventually to North America.
Although an amazing invention at the time, the complex and labour intensive process led to other devices to be made. Also the mercury that it needed to make pictures eventually poisoned people who may have used a Daguerre.


Before that was the Camera Obscura, which didn't actually make photographs, but projected an image of its surroundings on a screen. It could project and image on a piece of paper and then someone could come over and trace the image. Using mirrors, you could project a right-side-up image.

18th century artist using a camera obscura

Before that was the Physionotrace. This method of portraits didn't actually yield photographs. I've had a really hard time trying to figure out how people used to get portraits with this machine because in this video it just looks like a silhouette
Physionotrace


After Daguerre however, was the Calotype process. It was introduced in 1841 by William Henry Fox Talbot, using paper coated with silver iodide. A negative was exposed in the camera, developed in a dark room and then printed on sensitive paper much like how film is developed nowadays. Without getting into the chemical details, it was superior to Daguerre because it was a little bit easier to make copies of an image.

London, 1845 taken by Talbot

Under near-total darkness, the sensitive calotype paper was loaded in the camera. It was exposed, sometimes for as little as ten seconds, usually for a time closer to a minute or more.

Again, the processing was quite similar to how film is treated nowadays (from the University of Glasgow): An invisible latent image was formed by the action of light. A fresh solution of gallo-nitrate of silver was brought into play. Washed over the sheet of paper in a darkened room, it developed a visible image, usually within a few seconds. When the operator judged that the development had proceeded far enough, the paper was then washed over with a fixing liquid. This was sometimes a solution of potassium bromide and sometimes a solution of hypo. Washing and drying completed the process.


Anybody who inspired me and why?

When I first got into photography was during my first year of college in 2005. I was studying journalism at the time and we had to learn how to shoot our stories. But eventually I got into concert photography because of my passion for music.

My influences included some local photographers who I eventually became friends with and who could give me pointers from time to time. I love looking at pictures of my favourite bands in action and it's challenging because sometimes you never know what they're going to do next.
(Rock Paper Pixels and Sticky Magazine)

Also specifically Annie Leibovitz who worked for Rolling Stone magazine in the 70's and 80's and more recently for Vanity Fair. She's more a portrait photographer, it's something I haven't seriously tried my hand at yet. It's intimidating but that's why I like her so much.
(Vanity Fair work)


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calotype
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/calotypeprocess/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fox_Talbot