alex rumford 25/11/2015 alex rumford 25/11/2015

Danny Sapani

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

alex rumford 17/11/2015 alex rumford 17/11/2015

People, Places and Things

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

alex rumford 10/11/2015 alex rumford 10/11/2015

Romain Grosjean

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

alex rumford 02/11/2015 alex rumford 02/11/2015

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.

alex rumford 23/10/2015 alex rumford 23/10/2015

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.

alex rumford 13/10/2015 alex rumford 13/10/2015

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:

Alex Rumford 01/10/2015 Alex Rumford 01/10/2015

Ratings are overrated

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

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.

Alex Rumford 23/09/2015 Alex Rumford 23/09/2015

Indra

Actress Indra Ove

Alex Rumford 15/09/2015 Alex Rumford 15/09/2015

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.

Alex Rumford 08/09/2015 Alex Rumford 08/09/2015

Black and white (two)

alex rumford 02/09/2015 alex rumford 02/09/2015

The decisive moment (two)

alex rumford 25/08/2015 alex rumford 25/08/2015

British Gas

Alex Rumford 19/08/2015 Alex Rumford 19/08/2015

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.

Alex Rumford 12/08/2015 Alex Rumford 12/08/2015

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.

alex rumford 05/08/2015 alex rumford 05/08/2015

James

alex rumford 31/07/2015 alex rumford 31/07/2015

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.

Alex Rumford 28/07/2015 Alex Rumford 28/07/2015

Black and white

A rare opportunity to shoot black and white portraits, using (mostly) window light.

Alex Rumford 20/07/2015 Alex Rumford 20/07/2015

Comedian

I photographed comedian Sam Fletcher at Alexandra Palace. Well, mostly in the bushes, both with and without an orange.

alex rumford 15/12/2014 alex rumford 15/12/2014

2014 in pictures

I've been doing a *lot* of corporate portraits this year. But in the interest of keeping it interesting, I think one is probably more than enough, and then we can move on. I took this only a few weeks ago:

The next image was of Joey, from War Horse, who visited the poppy installation - Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - at the Tower of London with writer Michael Murpurgo. I've "met" Joey a couple of times now. He stamps and flinches; he gets nervous around people (despite his size); even the puppeteer in charge of his harness sometimes struggles to keep him under control - or so it seems, such is the skill with which they bring him to life. I feel nervous walking behind him, as if he could kick me. Anyway, the reaction from the crowds was fantastic - moving, even - and many of the pictures went viral. Unfortunately, it was one of those shoots where I can't take much credit, as it would be hard not to take a decent shot. given the subject matter. This was my favourite:

I work a lot with Mousetrap Theatre Projects, a wonderful charity who educate and inspire young people, getting them access to and involvement in theatre. One of many projects and programs they run, I've photographed a number of "Relaxed Performances", where you have families who might not otherwise ever get to see shows. Here, Matilda was actually put on by the RSC - and it went down a treat. Other slideshow images are from one of Mousetrap's workshops. And below that is Michael Ball, helping raise money at one of their fundraisers.

I covered some dance:

One of my favourite commissions of the year might was stock photography around Central London, for a commercial property developer. People, buildings, details - that sort of thing. I had a shot list to include certain locations and landmarks, but apart from this I was free to wander off track with vague and occasional detours, just looking for interesting photographs:

I love portraits, and was fortunate enough to spend a few days shooting case studies - lecturers and students, mainly - who use a Virtual Learning platform (Canvas). We filmed and photographed at a few locations including the University of Birmingham and Norway's University of Science and Technology, Trondheim:

I did some portraits on the set of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time with playwright Simon Stephens ahead of its opening on Broadway. Writer Mark Haddon (not shown) was also there. Despite the minimalist set and extremely short time allowed, it was one of those sessions where you leave heavy-hearted because you feel you missed the shot. Black walls, dotted lights, white cubes, mathematics lines - it's a great set you could do a lot with. Or not?

And there were some other case-study/interview portraits. Which are kind of corporate, actually. Sorry about that, I did promise no more:

Create Victoria held four days of free events and workshops, including a DJ masterclass (rear-curtain flash - first time in years, and it shows!), an early-morning fitness session, a rooftop art class, a musical theatre lesson, and a textile upcycling workshop. It was hard work:

Sometimes you get great access - I visited a facility in Birmingham where millions of wills are stored. These are now available to search online, and I photographed some of the more famous ones, including those of Charlie Chaplin, Charles Darwin, Lady Diana, Michael Faraday, Dr. Crippen, J.R.R. Tolkein, Alan Turing, A.A. Milne, Beatrix Potter and George Orwell:

And I'll leave you with some images, again from a Mousetrap workshop, of an activity nobody seemed to understand, but was a lot of fun:

Alex Rumford 09/01/2014 Alex Rumford 09/01/2014

2013 in pictures

It's now well into January. I was too late getting to this, and made the mistake of looking at friends' 2013 roundups.

Their work, I decided, is far more interesting than mine, shooting as they do news, celebs, fashion, and war. I did a lot of corporate portraits.

The quality of the work I saw was outstanding, too. On the other hand, I only took two photographs this year I liked, and they've been on my website for six months so I didn't feel like publishing them again.

So I decided not to post anything, and a fortnight later I think there's something very wrong with that attitude. So in no particular order, here's some of the work I did in 2013: