who / where / when: aubögte (flickr name), unsure where, 2007.
what: The photo is of a girl, it looks like near a beach. Rule of thirds to position the girl. The yellow ball in the middle almost seems like a burn mark, however the photo was taken digitally so I’m assuming they added it in in photoshop. The colors are really amazing in this shot, I definitely get a 60’s feel from the colors and the gradient.
why: I think this photo tells a story. As I said before, I definitely get that it’s some girl in the 60’s who ran away from home to live on the beach near SF. The film border to me also adds to the 60’s effect and makes it look less digital (obviously). The colors and gradient just give a psychedelic feel, again, adding to the whole 60’s thing.
how: The photo was taken digitally. The photographer probably added the colors and gradient over the photo in photoshop using different layers. I’m guessing the artist took a picture of a negative and put it over top of the photo, though I’m no photoshop expert. It looks like the yellow ball was added over it too, possibly when the negative border was added. I think it turned out really well.
I learned that you can do really cool things by destroying your film. I was looking on flickr and found all this sweet stuff people were doing to their film or disposable cameras to get cool effects. I’m trying out a few things for my emulation project and I can’t wait to see how they turn out. I love experimenting with film and I never knew about all of the different things you could do with film or a disposable camera!
who / where / when: Thomas Anderson, unsure of where, 2008.
what: The photo has a bunch of great colors in it. There aren’t really any rules used as there is no subject, it’s abstract. The photographer didn’t intentionally make anything how it is because of the nature of how the picture was taken.
why: I think the why is mostly just experimental. “Let’s see what happens when I do this…” type of thing. Although, when looking at it, you get the sense the picture is of some bacteria or something. It looks like it’s a really close up shot of something, or under a microscope.
how: To get this shot, the photographer took a disposable camera and threw it in a pool for about a day. After that he just took the disposable camera and took the pictures as normal. The result was awesome abstract colors and the little black and orange spots all over the picture.
what: The rule of thirds is used to draw your eye to the main focus of the photo, the mirror. In addition, the mirror is a bit lighter than the rest of the shot which draws your eye to it even more. I really like the difference in texture in the picture. There is the clear flat sky contrasted with the grass and then the birch tree which all bring different textures to the photo. Although, it’s not distracting from the main point of the shot.
why: I think these two photos definitely tell a story. They show my sister looking in the mirror at her reflection, which isn’t her reflection, but her with a mask and a knife in a Michael Myers like fashion. Her face when she looks at her reflection is kind of disgusted, which I like. I was definitely thinking about the whole Michael Myers story when I took these, as I had just watched all eight movies with my sister. In his story, he hates himself, which is why he wants to kill his whole family. This really relates to the picture where she holds the knife up to her throat. Killing herself because she hates herself. And even when she looks at this reflection, her face is disgusted.
how: To take these photos, I set up a tripod in my backyard. I put a mirror leaning up against the tree and my sister so that I could see her face normally and her reflection. I made sure not to move the mirror (although I did forget and moved it slightly, which caused a few problems later in the darkroom…) so that everything would line up. Then I took pictures of her normally, with a mask and knife, and some of just the mirror. I then made a cover for the photo paper with mat board. I cut out a shape the same size as the mirror and covered everything but the mirror while exposing one negative, and covered only the mirror while exposing another negative. It proved to be pretty challenging, but I think I pulled it off alright.
who / where / when: rdtanseco (flickr name), outside, 2009.
what: The leaves are mostly in the middle of the photo and off to the right. I like that there isn’t anything on the left because the unbalance makes it more interesting. I really love the light leaks in this photo. The vertical lines look really cool and it definitely brings out color in the brown leaves. Without the light leaks it would be more of a dull photo. The color in the background contrasts the warm colors in the leaves which looks lovely. The clouds in the background add texture too, which makes the photo overall more interesting. If it were just plain I think it’d be kind of boring.
why: The artist seemed to say the main reason of this photo was to experiment with light leaks. I think it is more of a documenting photo rather than a story-telling one as I personally don’t really get a story from it. I think it’s a pretty emotional photo though. The bright reds and oranges make the leaves look like they’re on fire which is kind of angry, but the mellow background is completely the opposite.
how: This photo was taken digitally. The artist used a light leak to create the vertical bright lines across the leaves. The artist said they played with the curves and probably a few other things in photoshop as the colors are so intense, and lets be honest, it looks kind of fake.
who / where / when: Andrew Kua, unsure where, 2008.
what: I feel the actual picture of the building is second to the idea of the negatives and the set up. However, I do think the building is pretty cool and I think the lines are very pleasing. I like how the whole photo is tinted blue because it adds to the negative effect. The random line of negatives coming out of the bottom is sort of annoying, I think it would look better if there was a line going across the bottom instead of one jutting out.
why: This photo is very mysterious. You can’t see the entire bottom half of the picture so you naturally look more to the sky (which is beautiful). I feel the main point in the photo was the “coolness” of the negatives and the why of the actual photo is lost.
how: This photo was taken digitally and is a double exposure. The photographer probably scanned the negatives and used them as one layer and then used the photo of the building as another layer. There is a guide of how he did it on his blog, but unfortunately the link is blocked. 😦