Jump to content

Your Shadow


Recommended Posts

<p>Do you ever use your own shadow in your pictures? If so, how do you think of it? As being "you"? Or as a more generic kind of outside presence? Or as simply a structural ingredient (useful darkness)? Do you think it's the same as, in a documentary film, where you hear the voice of the filmmaker (from behind the camera), or not? For example, if you look at <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow08.jpg"><strong>THIS</strong></a> example [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow08.jpg"><strong>LINK</strong></a>], what does the (unintentional) shadow of the photographer's head "do" to the picture?</p>

<p>Do you (I'm looking at you, Steve Gubin) think there is a prejudice against the inclusion of self-shadows in "serious" photographs? You rarely see it, with the very notable exception of Friedlander who delights in making clever use of his own shadow.</p>

<p>More examples of snapshot (unintentional) inclusion of the photographer's shadow are:</p>

<p><strong>01 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow01.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>02 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow02.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>03 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow03.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>04 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow04.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>05 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow05.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>06 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow06.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>07 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/yourshadow07.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong></p>

<p>[<em>all examples from the Fraenkel Gallery's publication</em>, The Book of Shadows]</p>

<p>Do you have examples, from your own work, of serious or not-so-serious use of your own shadow in your pictures? Show us -- and, if you can, say what you think the shadow is "doing" in the picture. Or, can you think of well-known photographers who have used it in published work (I'll give some examples of Friedlander's stuff in a later post).</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me, a difference between a shadow in a photo and a narration by a documentarian is that the former is more gestural. Usually, but not always, photographers' shadows in their photos seem gimmicky to me, as was the case when I viewed a recent Friedlander exhibit at SFMOMA. Not only his use of his own shadow, but a lot of his gestures started to feel thin during my experience of the show, though I still got a lot out of it.</p>

<p>In snapshots, on the other hand, they are usually amusing. That's often because their accidental-seeming nature in snapshots can be endearing and they sometimes fall just right so they can make for interesting serendipitous juxtapositions.</p>

<p>Obviously, a photographer's shadow would serve different visual and emotional and narrative purposes in different photos and situations.</p>

<p>The only time I've included my shadow, and I don't love the photo so I won't include it, is a self portrait, where I was not behind the camera. The camera was on a tripod on a timed exposure and some more graphic parts of my own shadow got projected on the wall behind me because of the lighting situation. Very different from the more personal-extended nature of a shadow cast directly by the photographer behind the camera into the frame.</p>

<p>I love feeling the physical presence of the photographer, but I think using one's own shadow is often, not always, a lazy way out. There are much more interesting, subtle, compositional and structural or emotional ways to get the photographer's presence into a photo.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, I do use my own shadow in photographs. Typically those are photos triggered by situations in which I notice my own shadow (a companion we too often ignore) and discover how it interacts with the surroundings (<a href="/photo/17608317">example 1</a>) or other shadows (<a href="/photo/17608318">example 2</a> - <a href="/photo/17608314">example 3</a>). In these cases I see my shadow less as an index of the photographer (nor as some 'voice of the author') but rather as a projection of myself into the scene (or world). It's probably some personal thing, exploring the interdependency of the outside world and my physical presence (<a href="/photo/17608315">example 4</a>).<br>

While in my examples, probably other viewers would not immediately identify with my self-shadow, I can very easily identify with the photographers' shadow in <a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/wp-content/gallery/lee-friedlander-self-portraits/lf-11-custom.jpg">this</a> photo by Lee Friedlander. So, I think the role of a self-shadow can be manifold. But, until I see a counterexample, I think, the own shadow is always a very explicit, maybe even blunt, way to create a link (or index) to the physical presence of the photographer. It probably only works reasonably well, if it plays a vital (if not central) role in the composition. Therefore, I'm not too surprised, that self-shadows are seldom included in 'serious' photos.<br>

I agree to Fred, that there a more interesting and subtle ways to include the presence of the photographer (like reflections of the photographer in shopwindows, mirrors, etc. see e.g. Friedlander (again), Candida Höfer, Fred Goldsmith :-)).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I absolutely love quirky vernacular photographs. These are some real gems, Julie. Much more imaginative (even if unintentional) than anything I have ever come up with (I have used it, but must have thought so little of any attempts at self-shadow images that I can't even find any...no loss, believe me).</p>

<p>Some of the vernacular examples are quite interesting. The first two (unnumbered and side by side in the link): the one on the left appears as if the photographer wore a cowboy hat, while the one on the right is dominated by a shadow that makes me think of Marvel Comics "The Hulk". My favorite, though, is the woman showing a bit of leg. I swear the shadow appears to be that of a cop. What a wonderful juxtaposition. Had these all been intentionally done by a single photographer, I would not think them out of place on a museum or gallery wall.</p>

<p>Which leads me to believe that there is not (or need not be) a prejudice against self shadows in "serious" photography. I understand Fred's and Wolfgang's feeling that there are more creative ways of making known the photographer's presence (commonly some sort of reflection, or even more subtle and implied methods), but the shadow itself can be an interesting element. </p>

<p>For example, I quite like Wolgang's use of twin shadows at the seashore. And I was actually intrigued by the shadow and the "boring landscape". There was something interesting to me in the way the shadow pierced that banal landscape. It somehow accentuated the banality, and paradoxically made it more interesting. You might want to rethink your perceived value of your shadow pictures, Wolfgang!</p>

<p>The shadow as "narration" is an interesting concept. In Wolfgang's Friedlander example, I see a sort of wry commentary by the photographer, perhaps even a darker view of it as a domination if one wanted to take it that far (I don't). </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve wrote: " ... the shadow itself can be an interesting element." That's what I'm feeling. Still ruminating about it, poking it with a stick from a safe distance-- there's something interesting going on there. That darkness has an unruly attitude, a charge all its own ...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Given the time of day and the lighting it would have been difficult for me to make this photo of a stairway at a former employer's building without also showing my shadow. I think that the shadow is important to the image in order to balance the composition, adding a suggestion of an organic presence among the severe lines of the stairs and the concrete artefacts left by the wooden forms. The negative came out very well (it makes very good silver prints) and it is one photo that didn't need any dodging and burning to recover its wide dynamic range, although the texture of the blacks has been nearly fully blocked, except for some slight detail in the upper body shadow.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11472731</p>

<p>Personal shadows taken by themselves may not divulge much of the personality of the photographer, but their placement in a scene can often do that or they can figure as an additional prop to complement or counter existing subject matter.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I often use my own shadow, and those of others, as <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1046919">a primary element</a>, often in conjunction with signs and symbols, or interesting juxtapositions of geometric forms and other shadows.<br>

<a href="/photo/17600734"><img title="D4" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17600734-sm.jpg" alt="D4" width="200" height="200" border="0" /></a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/16825792"><img title="Tags" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16825792-sm.jpg" alt="Tags" width="150" height="200" border="0" /></a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/16515612"><img title="Negative space vs. receding perspective vs. the versus monster." src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16515612-sm.jpg" alt="Negative space vs. receding perspective vs. the versus monster." width="199" height="156" border="0" /></a></p>

<p>In other photos I use it to disrupt the notion of a photograph as a detached or objective record or document.<br>

<a href="/photo/17600733"><img title="Bus stop" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17600733-sm.jpg" alt="Bus stop" width="200" height="150" border="0" /></a></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like silhouette and though I've no examples on PN I've used my own silhouette together with the silhouette of my subject to get only silhouette, trying to portray form and movement.</p>

<p>Otherwise I've made mistakes with shadow (lens hood on a wide angle lens using flash: nice shadow of the lens hood) or with my own shadow where with a super wide I'm unintentionally in the shot. Reminds me of an exhibit I saw at LACMA a few years ago where a photographer had a full figure portrait of a 50's Dad type in a 50's neighborhood posed in front of a tree such that the tree came out of his head: the photographer put a caption and arrow on the print "NOT LIKE THIS"</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As promised, here are some examples of Lee Friedlander's use of self-shadows. First the humorous:</p>

<p><strong>01 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow01.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong> >>> with an erection<br>

<strong>02 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow02.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong> >>> clearly he is imitating Steve J Murray in this one<br>

<strong>03 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow03.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong> >>> classic tree-growing-out-of-the-head<br>

<strong>04 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow04.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong> >>> pure Friedlander</p>

<p>Next, the less humorous (I'm not sure any Friedlander picture is ever entirely without humor, or at least wit):</p>

<p><strong>05 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow05.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>06 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow06.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>07 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow07.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>08 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow08.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong><br>

<strong>09 [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/friedlandershadow09.jpg">LINK</a>]</strong></p>

<p>There are many, many more, but those are my picks for this morning.</p>

<p>Out of respect for Friedlander, who can't stand theory, I will give my theoretical comments in a separate post to follow this one.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With Friedlander sequestered in the next room (I hope he can't hear us), here are my un-concluded thoughts so far on the examples I've linked, and those posted (thank you!) by others. As always, all my remarks are FOR ME and not intended as pronouncements of TRUTH:</p>

<p>When there's a self-shadow, there is a sort of mental contest in my viewing between the shadow/ghost condition and that of the meat/flesh conception of the stuff in the picture -- and the ghost state seems to prevail. I find this to be true in all the examples, but look at <a href="/photo/11472731">Arthur's picture</a> (which I think is very good, aside from this topic); how the rather harsh, geometrical content moves and sparks in a way that I don't think it would without the liberating inversion promoted by the self-shadow. Self-shadows have some powerful voodoo.</p>

<p>****</p>

<p>A self-shadow inverts perspective: where the other stuff in the picture is spreading outward from the frame, side to side, and retreating away to a vanishing point(s), the shadow vectors inward and TO me out of the frame in MY direction, not to the horizon -- the inverse of everything else.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>In some cases (Lex's for example) the "touch" of the self-shadow does something tactile that I'm still pondering.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lex's shadows are incorporated into the suggestiveness of his photos. On the other hand, as Julie puts it when talking about self shadows in general, "the ghost state seems to prevail." For me, that's why so many of them seem self conscious and obvious. Though I usually don't like their use, Lex's are shadowy enough to be worthwhile efforts. They don't force themselves on me.</p>

<p>Wolfgang, I wasn't thinking of reflections, which I often find just as obvious and uninspiring as self shadows. I was thinking more of narrative and compositional ways in which to photographically suggest one's own physical presence. Just one example, one can sometimes set up an implied triangle with other things in the photo so that the photographer becomes the implied completion of a triangle. It's a non-reflective pointing back at oneself or simple (intended or non-intended) inclusion of oneself.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>For me, that's why so many of them seem self conscious and obvious</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see lots of photos where the photographer has put himself as much as his subject in the creation. Those efforts are sometimes praised without calling them self-conscious. As it is for shadows, and yes, of course they are all photographed with the knowledge of the photographer (excluding overlooked cases) but that intention does not necessarily make them self conscious and obvious as if that was something that has to be avoided. I disagree. The shadow can add something to the "dialogue" of the image as Julie seems to mention. I like intentional photographs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Those efforts are sometimes praised without calling them self-conscious."</em></p>

<p>As I did when I referred to Lex's photos.</p>

<p>I praise photos when I deem them praiseworthy and praise specific gestures that I like as well.</p>

<p>As I said, I find most uses of self shadows self conscious and not praiseworthy, even if philosophically interesting.</p>

<p>Just my opinion, not a dictum.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote> Just one example, one can sometimes set up an implied triangle with other things in the photo so that the photographer becomes the implied completion of a triangle. It's a non-reflective pointing back at oneself or simple (intended or non-intended) inclusion of oneself.</blockquote>

<p>I had a feeling you weren't just talking about reflections, Fred. Which is why I added a remark about more subtle ways of the photographer projecting themself. I could not think of any examples, but the implied completion of a triangle is, to me, very clever and subtle. Not something I might normally take notice of. (As an aside --- this is one of the reasons I appreciate the POP forum. Even if I do not directly comment on someone's post, I read them all and frequently come away with knowledge, or ways of seeing, that I had not considered.)</p>

<p>I have only skimmed the surface of Friedlander's work, so a lot of those shadow examples of his were new to me. </p>

<p>Arthur's comment "I like intentional photographs" sends me back to some of the vernacular photographs with which Julie began this thread. I too appreciate intentional photos and I'm never quite sure what to do with, or how to categorize, vernacular photos in which I find a certain significance. Not that it is necessary to categorize, but does one accord a vernacular less "value", "significance", "artistic weight" (choose whichever words work best) on the basis of intention? Not trying to start a separate thread here. As is often the case, the observations you all make send me spinning off in other directions.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Likewise, good silhouette is distinct enough to afford quick recognition of form, so Friedlander's examples work because his use of his own shadow affords quick recognition of his <em>reason</em> for using his own shadow in the photograph. If the viewer has to think too long about why the photographer's shadow is there, or even <em>think</em> at all: the image isn't working and no clear statement has been made by the image, the photographic statement as obscure as the photographer's shadow itself. Where's Waldo works because the viewer wants to find him. Friedlander doesn't make us work.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used the word intentional on my own use of self-shadow (By the way, Julie, some of Friedlander's use of shadows I think are superb and define the artistic spirit) so I should explain why. Whether it was successful or not is not for me to say.</p>

<p>I wanted to add the suggestion of human presence to complete the narrative in mind. The somewhat abstracted form of the triangular leg shadow works for me, although I should have worked more to make the upper body less (apparently) personal and less « busy » (in the sense of the pose suggesting that the person is doing something and taking away from the abstract nature of the shadow, thereby detracting a bit from other aspects of the image).</p>

<p>The self-shadow suggests a human entering into what turns out to be a rather closed composition. (« Closed » here in the sense of...) Where does the staircase lead us? The rail diagonal, the stairs themselves and the directional light all suggest to the viewer that the person is going somewhere, like to a landing, followed by a reverse sense downward stair component. But that is not seen or otherwise evident from the photo. Also, the light on the far wall seems to suggest an opening. However, there is no such opening, only building cement blocks. The upward reaching diagonals on the right concrete wall take us back up to the original departure point, where stands the photographer. The opening below is a false one. Where does this staircase lead the person (shadow)?</p>

<p>The image need not suggest all this of course and may simply work as an aesthetic composition of lines, texture and form. Provided you grant it that much.</p>

<p>We all experience the presence of our shadow in the lower parts of our images, often unwanted in late afternoon or early morning pictures in sunshine. I refer more here and in my example to the intentional use of the self-shadow, in order to give more meaning or even mystery to an environmental image, but also to a self-shadow photographer seeking some sort of quasi surrealistic statement, or one who imposes the photographer’s being on a pictured subject, as in some of Friedlander’s work, and I think Steve's photo above.</p>

<p>I hope my example of intentional use of self-shadiow answers some of Julie’s very interesting questions in her OP.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was inclined to agree with Fred's first comments, even before I posted my own photos, that it's often gimmicky. I'm always aware of that risk and tend to be satisfied with very few of my photos with my own shadow. I'm usually more satisfied with photos of other peoples' shadows. </p>

<p>But I seldom think in terms of humor or clever/ironic juxtapositions. Dunno why, since I enjoy it in other people's photography. Just doesn't occur to me often when I'm taking photos. Mostly I'm drawn to form and geometry, including temporary shapes formed by line and shadow. And perspective. I seem drawn toward receding perspective and strong diagonals. I hardly ever take flat or dead-on photos - the semaphore photo above being an exception.</p>

<p>Occasionally I'm so obsessed with shadows, geometry and other stuff that I forget to photograph faces. I've actually talked with people about what I'm doing and even showed them the result on the digicam's LCD. Perfect opportunity to ask them for a portrait - and half the time I forget.</p>

<center>

<p><a href="/photo/17485661"><img title="Intersection" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17485661-sm.jpg" alt="Intersection" width="150" height="200" border="0" /></a><br>

<em>I chattered with the fellow whose legs and shadow appear in this photo, but I completely forgot to ask if I could do a proper portrait. Sometimes I'd just too single-minded about a particular type of photo and miss other opportunities.</em></p>

</center>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I love feeling the physical presence of the photographer, but I think using one's own shadow is often, not always, a lazy way out. There are much more interesting, subtle, compositional and structural or emotional ways to get the photographer's presence into a photo."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I started to write a bit more about this earlier but it was a digression from the shadow theme. Some of my photos explore disruptions of the notion of the candid/street photographer as an invisible observer or fly on the wall. It might be interesting to explore that in another discussion thread.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lex: in a photograph, the shadow is not the photographer. It is precisely its independence, its difference, its disconnect, its "misbehaviors," the sense of insubordination, that make it interesting. I would have thought this was too obvious to need pointing out, but apparently it is not.</p>

<p>Arthur, thank you for your insightful critique.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I look at Lex's photos, not all the shadows of himself seem to represent or call to mind himself as photographer. In some cases, as he suggests, they are more graphic players. In other cases, they could be anyone's shadow. That's because of his creative use of perspective.</p>

<p>Notice how so many uses of self shadows, including Friedlander's, are straight-on with the shadow clearly directly emanating from the photographer. That's what I meant by self conscious and obvious. They seem more a recording of the shadow than about incorporating the shadow without fanfare into the narrative or visual aspects of the overall photo. Most of the other examples in this thread are like portraits of a shadow. They act as protagonists. On the other hand, in most of Lex's examples, they are elements in the photo. They are not tied down. They are shadowier.</p>

<p>Notice a couple of Friedlander's photos use his own shadow less as an extension of himself and more as a reflection of himself, as in the one where he's reclining with his leg resting on his knee and his toe elegantly pointing and that's all reflected on the wall. Again, Friedlander, IMO, has limited himself creatively and photographically to self extension and self reflection. Lex's shadows, by contrast, seem to be free agents.</p>

<p>Which is why Lex's own statement . . .</p>

<p><em>"Some of my photos explore disruptions of the notion of the candid/street photographer as an invisible observer or fly on the wall."</em></p>

<p>. . . is so interesting to me. In so many of the uses we've seen of self shadows, the shadow does seem to become subject. It seems to impose itself on the scene. Most self shadows do come across, IMO, similarly to the role of observer, even when they seem to be trying to interact with their environment. The shadows are weighty (sometimes physically but as often narratively), they command a certain place and presence. In at least a couple of Lex's photos, they simply seem so interactive. Lex's shadows, IMO, are neither substantive flies on the wall nor completely invisible observers. They are like shadows, neither here nor there, both observer and observed. They are participatory and passive at the same time. They are more like echoes than clear voices, and tend to feel disembodied.</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps I should have commented about my own photo posted above. The shadow was unintentional; I was merely playing around with my new camera. As soon as I saw how dark and dramatic the shadow was when post processing, I realized it look rather creepy, as if a voyeur had sneaked up on an unsuspecting female who was sunbathing. Its made even more impersonal because her head is "cut off." So, for me there is a sort of ambivalence about the photo. I would guess to a stranger looking at it it would certainly seem like a voyeur shot. At the same time, I like that ambivalence!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...