Egosurfing

in

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.

Seeing past the subject

in

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.

Cohn & Wolfe

in

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.

Cohn & Wolfe-blog_01.jpg

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.

Cohn & Wolfe-blog_04.jpg

Photographing the photographer

in

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.

2014 in pictures

in

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:

2014blog_46.jpg

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:

2014blog_56.jpg

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:

2013 in pictures

in

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:

 

Blog201317.jpg
blog2013a03.jpg
Blog201322.jpg
Blog201301.jpg
Blog201309.jpg
Blog201326.jpg
blog2013a01.jpg
Blog201323.jpg
Blog201320.jpg
Blog201329.jpg
Blog201332.jpg
Blog201331.jpg
Blog201318.jpg
Blog201305.jpg
Blog201313.jpg
Blog201314.jpg
Blog201328.jpg
blog2013a02.jpg
Blog201336.jpg