Noma Dumezweni

Noma has been cast as Hermione in the stage production of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child which will open in July.

Creating a portfolio

Squarespace has kindly added a 'cover page' feature to their offering - something I've always wanted. Therefore, I've spent far too long this week sorting through my galleries, choosing what would work best for an opening slideshow. 

My rules were:

- have no more than about 15 images. To be honest, few would ever watch through more than about six.

- only to have wide images (to fit the space). And for those to be cropped, only those which work as 3:2. 

- no travel, and less performance. I mainly do other kinds of photography at the moment, so it's not really representative.

It's not quite a portfolio (a complete body of work), more a taster of examples. And it's seriously weakened where images are chosen by the predetermined wide layout. But nevertheless, it's as close as you'll get to an old-school portfolio from me.

I can't remember the last time I put a portfolio together*. These days, for general use on a website, you can have lots (and lots and lots) of thumbnails with little need for careful and tight editing down, and that's ok. More like a tumblr blog, where people can scroll down and view what they like. Where every job is a casual throwaway, nothing of more prominence than anything else. "Oh, this? This instagrammed picture of my coffee was from this morning. Next to it is yesterday's ad campaign for Nike. It's all the same. Whatever." it seems to say, nonchalant. 

Of course, I've tailored examples of certain kinds of work to show clients, but I feel the last time I *really* had to work on it was for my final NCE photojournalism exam, where different categories had to be crossed-off: Use of flash; Character study; Sport; Night; Studio etc. I never think like that now, in terms of areas of technical competence and understanding of a genre. That is, there are some areas I don't do - and wouldn't be very good at compared to the professionals in those fields - weddings, babies, sport, news, landscapes, to name a few. But I think I could do each of them them to a passable degree - well, some better than others at least. All the skills practised during the NCE, and those learned from the various shoots I've done over the past decade, they all feed into one another and overlap. For instance, I've never done jewellery (let's just say it's extremely specialised), yet I know roughly how it's done.

What I'm getting at is that each shoot requires a different combination of skills, knowledge, tricks and abilities. And many photographs, to the trained eye, reveal some of the challenges behind them. I have a few images which I really want to like, and to put in a portfolio, displaying as they do my creative, organisational, problem-solving or lighting skills which I'd be proud to put forward. But they never make it because that still doesn't necessarily make them a good image. It doesn't matter how easy a shoot was, how difficult to achieve or how complicated the setup. The only things that matter are: Is it any good? And could it be done better?

With this in mind, I hope my cover page sideshow ('portfolio') is representative of me, of the work I do, the work I could do, and the kind I'd like to do. To get there, you have to go back out to www.alexrumford.com.

---

*For anyone interested, a portfolio needs to have certain things, including:

- variety (you can't be a one-trick pony).

- flow (there needs to be a progression, something tying the shots together as a group, and from one to the next). In some ways, it means not having too much variety. The viewer needs to get a sense of who you are. If you're a bit this, and a bit that, you can do portraits and motorsport, travel and street photography, and interiors and landscapes, then, just, no.

- only your best work. If there's a flicker of doubt, then get rid of it.

Victoria

Victoria Street from the top of Westminster Cathedral:

Collabo

I was invited to East London Dance to cover Collabo, an annual collaborative and interpretative showcase between performers and choreographers. 

Danny Sapani

Publicity photos for actor Danny Sapani, who recently appeared in Penny Dreadful.

People, Places and Things

Actress Denise Gough, who is appearing in People, Places and Things, photographed for the National Theatre.

Romain Grosjean

F1 driver Romain Grosjean, who was being filmed for Microsoft Lumia: 

Egosurfing

I posted one of my photos of Julia Donaldson recently. I was thinking about when I've searched for my work online (photographers have to keep track of their images), and she always appears on page one. So I wanted to post three of my most Google-friendly* shots. 

For the past four years (at least), when I search my name, the image that's usually on the top line is (a version of) astronaut Tim Peake:

As for viral, one photo from a set I took of War Horse's star, Joey, among the poppies at the Tower of London (Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red) has been everywhere, with thousands of shares and likes on Facebook**:

Finally (drum roll...) my most "shared" photo is from 2006 of two Sphynx cats, Dream-maker and Felicity. They are not only beautiful, but they appear to be kissing. As such, it wins the Internet most days:

*By 'Google-friendly', I usually mean shared. And by shared, I mean infringed, a euphemism for stolen. 

**Alas, the value of a picture credit is zero.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

We took Sion Daniel Young, who plays Christopher Boone, away from the West-End's Gielgud Theatre for a shoot at Paddington Station. In the story, Christopher, who has Asperger's syndrome, makes a difficult journey to London by himself intending to see his mother, but is completely overwhelmed by the rushing commuters, the bustle and the noise. 

This Girl Can

Blue Rubicon commissioned me to photograph some of the ladies featured in Sport England's hugely successful "This Girl Can" campaign (www.thisgirlcan.co.uk), a celebration of active women. Here are a few from the shoots:

Ratings are overrated

The Star system

First, an explanation: after every shoot, photos are rated from one to five stars in my library. 

One star is for something awful: misfires, blinks, out of focus shots etc. Two stars means poor: this collection contains uninspiring but required images, the dull fillers.

Three stars get awarded to anything reasonable. They're fine, but wouldn't go in any portfolio.

Four stars: while I wouldn't put these on a website, I might keep them for clients requesting to see examples of something. 

Five stars are for my favourite work: many of these are on my website. Those which aren't are either too similar to my website portfolio, too old, or not quite relevant to the kind of work I do.

I never spend more than a second deciding on each picture. The majority get three stars - or at least this is the default rating (I realise this undermines the purpose of the system). Occasionally I'll award an entire batch four/five stars for a shoot which I was happy with, but which provided very similar shots. I'll go back after a few days with a fresh perspective, and after the initial buzz has gone. 

So?

Now that's out the way, there are three things I wanted to talk about.

The first is that I've realised there’s no real need to rate the images, as the value is limited. Mostly, it’s self-appraisal after a shoot is complete, and sometimes the only critique they'll receive. While an important debriefing process (of a kind), my own narrow judgement is not ideal; it's too subjective and informed. Constructive criticism is best coming from other photographers - but this is a rare thing. Feedback from clients is typically rare. 

The second - related - is that star ratings over-simplify and commodify the qualities of a photograph. Worse, they do so in a rather diluted and liberal fashion. At least there's something unforgiving and final with the simple thumbs up/down system (or "kill" and "keep"), and which I apply to the first round from a shoot. Bear in mind that anything less than four stars won't ever be seen again, so it amounts to the same thing.

Third, I notice I’m not improving. I scatter roughly the same amount of stars now as I did when I first went freelance. Less than a dozen times a year will I make a five star image. Actually, I’m probably giving out fewer fours and threes, as I see the same kind of images I’ve shot before: less original, and scarcely improved upon. The fives would also be going down, but for the fact I’m doing more interesting and different work than I used to, which I suppose allows for more possibility of getting something I like. 

Practice does not make perfect

Of course, it’s entirely to do with the critical eye. As we improve on the ground, by necessity our more informed eye looks for higher concerns, and becomes a tougher critic. I’ve probably mentioned elsewhere my press photography NCE portfolio (2004?), about which I was once very pleased. It now makes me cringe. Yet there are still three images from it on my website (I've said too much...) and whether I’ve kept them because they stand the test of time, or because they show an aspect of my style which I’d like to continue to present, I don’t know.

I do know that I’d like to replace them, and that urgency grows every year. There's something Dorian Grey about it all. You just get bored of seeing them, and their appearance is both shaming ("WHY haven't I bettered this?") and a source of pride ("...but I still like it after so long!").

Even the five-star images have a shelf-life, an inherent entropy. Eventually they lose their shine and drop down the rankings: one day you demote them to four, then, later, into the abyss of three stars and lower.

The only thing to do is to keep working, to keep trying. To replenish the top tier, to keep feeding the beast with something fresh, at least for a while.

Indra

Actress Indra Ove

Seeing past the subject

The discussion about Charlotte Proudman had me thinking. Not about how inappropriate the comment was, nor the misuse of LinkedIn, or sexism. I wondered whether it's even possible to separate a good photograph from a good subject. Not to say the images below are good or not, but to argue that the subject matter often has a bearing on it.

I have photos of John Sergeant and Arlene Phillips on my website. To be quite honest, I'm not sure if they're very particularly strong images, but they do suggest access, which can equate to experience or skill. Hence, portfolio.

Similarly, many sports photographers might have shots of Usain Bolt/Mo Farah/Jessica Ennis/Oscar Pistorius shot from the end of the race track, crossing the finish line and winning the final. Even though these photos are far from unique and possibly not very exciting*, their value is in their fame and recognisability (which comes from newsworthiness). They show how - like the athletes they depict - the photographer is at the very top of his or her profession.

As for newsworthiness, we have etched in our collective consciousness innumerable images depicting great tragedy or joy, and never really consider or care whether they're 'good' from any other viewpoint (technical, artistic, creative etc.), but only see them as records of historic fact, and therefore as powerful photographs.

So: photogenic subjects, famous subjects, newsworthy subjects. These kinds of people blur one's opinion seamlessly: "Is it a 'stunning' LinkedIn image, or is the subject 'stunning'?", "Is it a great portrait, or just a well-known face?", and "Is it a good photo, or just access to some incredible event?"

Most interesting of the three kinds of subjects above is the 'famous': interesting because our cultural, subjective, informed position affects (determines?) how we view images of famous people. And it's very much rooted in its time. That is, it makes all the difference if the viewer knows who the person is, and even their opinion of them. If they don't know them, or at least don't recognise them, their viewing is immediately and irrevocably altered once given this information**. So, back to the title: I dug out some images of (I hope) less-recognisable but nonetheless powerful ladies.

This is someone you would know but probably not recognise:

She's an author, and as for fame, her most well-known book is perhaps only second to Harry Potter. Her work has spawned shows, films, mugs, socks and school bags. Every young-ish parent in the country will own at least a few of her books, and many (myself included) know them off-by-heart. It's Julia Donaldson, author of the Gruffalo.

But is it a good picture? Well, as I've been saying, sometimes it's hard to see past the fame of a person and judge a photograph objectively. In the end - and despite there being only a couple of decent images of Julia online anywhere - she never made my portfolio because I don't think the image is strong enough. 

So much for fame. Next are three leading ladies who are (perhaps?) less-recognised still but nonetheless hugely influential, powerful and successful. We have President of International Markets for Mastercard, Ann Cairns; Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Pearson, Kate James; and Vice-President EMEA for Facebook, Nicola Mendelsohn. All these did make my portfolio - but not with these photos. Other images from the shoots were stronger (please take a look in my corporate and portrait galleries).

Let's assume you don't recognise them, and, unlike with Julia Donaldson, there's no immediate association going on even once named. Does their business or their high position affect your judgment? As it happens, two have appeared in national newspapers fairly recently, so will be recognisable to some. But does it matter? Does it make a difference how you view them?

It comes down to historicism - the extent and angle to which the background to an image influences our opinion. Perhaps we like to think we can be more objective, but there's much more going on here. We can't help but frame our view with external knowledge, a cultural climate, and our personal bias and taste.

*Not unique, since many other photographers are positioned in the same place. And not exciting with respect to a photographer's more creative and/or less newsworthy portfolios. To put it another way, if the images weren't of global sports superstars winning the Olympics, but instead showed (otherwise identical) shots from, say, the second-round heats at the U-21 Commonwealth games, they'd be unlikely to feature in a portfolio. 

**I should add that you can argue it's easier to read a portrait of a famous person. You have some idea who they are, and can judge to what extent the photograph captures and confirms that aspect of their personality. Or indeed, questions it. Success or failure in the portrait is surely tied to this in some respect.

Black and white (two)

The decisive moment (two)

British Gas

​ Problem solving vs creativity

I get told regularly that, being a photographer, I must be 'creative'. I think this is intended as a compliment - and would like to take it as such - but I don't think it's true.

Photography is a job; it's about getting the picture that the client wants. The artistic shot might not be very useful; some shoots have a strict shot list which must be adhered to. Despite claims to the contrary, clients are usually after reliability, skill and experience over artistry. Creativity where it's possible and desirable - yes. But the brief comes first. There's a higher value on being a 'good operator' than a creative. Yes, of course, there is more scope to be the latter in, say, fashion or conceptual art, or where the emphasis with the brief is to capture a mood or idea. But much of the time, as I've discussed before, it's about creativity within limitations.

That said, creativity should always be part of the approach: there's nothing worse than merely fulfilling a brief. Yet so often, the most direct or simple shot is often the best one, or at the very least, the frame of reference, the 'safety shot' from which we develop an idea. Hence, the idea of considering oneself artistic and pursuing creativity as a goal feels a little misleading and unhelpful, starting from the end point as it does, and working backwards to the brief. That is, we end up trying too hard.

Even for portraits (in my field, at least) I find myself working logically towards a goal. The challenge is not in considering theoretical or 'deep' artistic concepts, but simply identifying what could improve the photograph, then working out how to do it. Pragmatics and logistics. 

I think creativity mostly takes place in one's personal work. In commissioned work - if creative flow occurs at all - it's at the meeting point between that personal creativity and the objective brief. 

So, I would describe what I do as problem-solving. This might be a creative outlet (I don't know) but it's about dealing with issues, people, logistics, lighting etc. quickly and efficiently. Anticipating, problem-solving, troubleshooting - that sort of thing. A little bit of 'what if' and trying out ideas which come up, perhaps (but even these are rooted in time and situation, not theory). 

And as the trick is to get something fresh within the limitations of the real world (and in real time) that's the challenge I enjoy. To find that meeting point. As I've said before, it's knowing when something good can be achieved from the mundane (and the corollary: realising when even the most (apparently) rich situation has nothing much to offer). That's where creative opportunities lie.

There's the idea (mostly untrue I would say) that you're either logical or artistic. Well, if that is the case, I'm the former. Which is slightly damaging to one's self-esteem, to consider oneself unartistic in what is considered an artistic profession. But that's how it is, at least for me.

Cohn & Wolfe

I was recently commissioned to take some corporate portraits by leading PR agency Cohn & Wolfe. Instead of the usual neutral or white location, the backdrop was a feature wall.

I also took group photos in three locations. According to the metadata, we achieved these in less than 20 minutes! I would usually prefer to spend a little more time... but speed is sometimes more important than polished.

Of the three, I'm not sure which I like best. There is a slightly different feel to the team, depending on the location and setup. The first shot is more professional, the second informal, and the third more organised, somewhat reminiscent of a sports team photo.

James

Photographing the photographer

Portraits of theatre and dance photographer Helen Maybanks. Photographers are typically difficult to photograph: as with shooting friends, you can't use patter, which comes across as fake. Moreover, there's an uncomfortably equal footing to it. It makes one's role in the situation less clear, the relationship (photographer - subject) less defined. Happily, Helen is extremely easy-going. She also has more ideas than I do, yet makes it seem the suggestions and solutions are mine.