Very much interested in your response. I am having a solo exhibition next year of oil-colored photographs. I submitted 20 images of landscapes, 2 of which were "industrial". Curators looked over my submission and said that they would like to exhibit the industrial landscapes. I have plenty of negs of this style, but would never settle with what I have in the books and am going to venture forth this summer to shoot new landscapes. For those of you interested in what cameras I am employing, I have two medium formats: Fuji 69 and Pentax 67, and a Toyo 4"x5". Medium format is easiest for me to handle, but that is not the issue here. I am not sure how to phrase my question delicately. How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition? Somehow I believe that by asking this loose question can help define the result. The one hand I have in my toolbox is that half of these will be oil-colored and tinted.
I'm hesitant because of the oil color component, but to me the industrial photo op is based on a combination of light and shape with the added dimension of actual landscape in some cases. Simplicity or intricacy of the devices themselves provides endless opportunity. There is a refinery not far from me that I have probably photographed dozens of times, and come away with something interesting on every occasion. What the equipment does, representing the process, technical illustration never enter my mind.
One way you might consider is to photograph a mood on a particular day. Use the site not as an object or subject but as a conveyer, along with atmosphere, of mood. Think abstractly as much as or more than concretely. Metaphorically over literally. Don't be afraid of the content, just don't make it your primary focus.
You might look at the work of the photographer/painter Charles Sheeler, if you're not already familiar with it. sheeler - Google Search Charles Sheeler - Wikipedia He did both painting and photography, but not mixed media, so far as I know.
Great question! It's interesting that curators should have selected your 2 industrial landscapes and rejected the 18 other photos you submitted. I don't pretend to understand much about curation. But - as a volunteer for a large photography festival here in NL - I've come to know the festival curators quite well. From conversations with them, my impression is that their initial criteria for evaluating submissions include: - their relationship (in terms of subject matter) to the overarching 'theme' for any upcoming festival - whether they shed any new/different light on subject matter related to the festival theme - whether they are innovative in terms of background research, (video)photography and presentation Your curators may well have a different set of explicit or implicit criteria and it's important to know how your 'artistic vision' relates to their curation criteria. IHMO, the answer to your basic question is embedded in the question itself: whatever you see around you is just "industrial stuff" for photography. Which parts of this "stuff" you choose to include in a frame (and from which distance, perspective, angle, etc) determines the basic composition in terms of lines, forms, textures, etc. Lighting, exposure, and Dof (sharp/diffuse/blurred), etc. determine how 'whatever's in the frame' will appear in a photo. As will any digital PP. So a working title could be something like 'new ways of seeing/appreciating the industrial landscape'. Where your emphasis is not on 'the landscape' (=the "stuff") at all but on enabling viewers to see and appreciate (parts of) this in new ways.
I think the example your showing is a pretty good example of what you say you're trying to achieve. It seems one route to that, in terms of composition is for you to think of in their abstract shapes and how you can arrange them in your frame, and you can use content within that as well. That seems what you did in your photo and the content part of it and of course the lighting seem to work. But you can take an idea like that a long way. Is that what you're trying to do?
Hi Chris. Love your picture and your project. Seems very fresh and alive. I think the combination of mixed media, industrial subject and a great sensibility makes for serious stuff.
OP...I like your work. Post more of them. As far as your question? Dunno, except shoot a lot and color them and see what you can use. The more you do the bigger the lot to choose from. I always liked working with hand-colored / tinted photos in the Archive. Search Results for “tinted” – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection (wordpress.com) I also liked the freaked out one that are pretty out there. Good luck...and if you go to the show take photos of it to post.
If you are after form and shape and not after content, you should make form and shape the content, i.e. look for shapes and compositions of shapes and disregard what the things are that lend their shape to your compositions. I.e. focus on what you're after, and do not shoot a lot and then see what's usable and what's not afterwads. I'm sure the OP knows that, viz. "without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?" The composition must be strong enough to catch the eye. It helps that you use paint, i think, because that provides a tool to emphasise what you want to.
" How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?" I don't understand the question. Can you explain the difference between content and intent? How do separate the content from the intent? In your photographs what do feel is the difference between the content and the intent?
The contrast is the ancient one between form (composition) and substance. The intent is to focus on the first, not allowing the second to distract from it.
