Issuu

The sneezing man An Investigation of Motion in Photography

V.H.T. van Baar A.J.P. Geene D. de Jong A.E.J. de Nooy S. Uitdehaag

The Sneezing Man

The sneezing man An Investigation of Motion in Photography

Periodical for Photography No. 2 February 2014 ÂŠ2014 Den Haag / Amsterdam Salvo : Anne Geene Arjan de Nooy David de Jong Sander Uitdehaag Vincent van Baar

Salvo makes and shakes photography. www.salvo-periodiek.nl

Periodical for Photography is an independent publication by Salvo, appearing irregularly. Its shape and edition may vary greatly, hence also its price. Conceived and edited by Salvo Layout: Buro Van Baar Printing: Drukwerkconsultancy Special thanks: Ilke Gers for proof editing Marc Gijzen for pre-press advice Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders. Any omissions are entirely unintentional and should be addressed to Salvo.

ISBN 978-90-820291-1-6

â€˘

Contents

7 Hypotheses 9 Degrees of Freedom 21 Dead Motion 25 Found Sketchbook 31 Motion Face vs. Stasis Face 37 Fluid Reality/ Real Fluidity 43 Efficiency in Bird Photography 81 Time Aesthetics 87 Man Ray

Photo by Julia van den Broek

A•

SALVO n0.2

Hypotheses

- A photographer who moves while taking a picture is inside the situation photographed; a photographer who takes a picture at standstill is outside the situation photographed. - A picture taken in motion is subjective; a picture taken at standstill is objective. - A picture taken in motion is a coincidence; a picture taken at standstill is a decision. - The best way to free a photograph is to take a hipshot; the best way to freeze a photograph is to put the camera on a tripod. - A picture taken in motion cannot be a picture taken at standstill. - A photographer who moves while taking a picture needs more light than a photographer standing still. - A photographer who takes a picture while standing still needs more time than a photographer who is moving. - A photographer who moves while taking a picture is on a trip; a photographer who takes a picture at standstill performs a trick. - A picture taken in motion is real; a picture taken at standstill is artificial. - The moving photographer sees the world as one big space; the photog rapher standing still looks at the world as a collection of places. - A picture taken in motion works with elements that exist at the surface of the world (horizontal movement); a picture taken at standstill aims at entering the depths of the world (vertical movement). - The content of a picture taken in motion = its form; the form of a picture taken in motion = its content. - A picture taken at standstill tends to hide; a picture taken in movement tends to show. - A moving picture believes in development; a static picture believes in authenticity. - Movers dare to doubt; standers dare to state. - A picture taken at standstill says ‘yes’; a picture taken in motion says ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know (yet)’.

B•

Degrees of Freedom How to photograph a moving target

Ever since the invention of photography, representation of moving subject matter has posed a central problem. Famously, the first human beings to be photographed were accidentally shown in a picture by Louis Daguerre when he photographed a lively street in 1838. Two vague human silhouettes are recognizable, a shoe polisher and his client, only because they hardly moved for several minutes. In ‘The Pencil of Nature’, the first book of photographs that appeared as a series between 1844-1846, Henry Fox Talbot presents an early overview of the possibilities photography has to offer both in text and images. From the 24 representative pictures he chose, only one shows moving subjects: in a photograph called ‘The Ladder’, three humans are depicted from a distance. Not one portrait is included in The Pencil of Nature, possibly because exposure times were too long. One could argue that, since those early days, most of the technological improvements in photography have in some way focused on the arrestment of moving subject matter by the development of quicker lenses and films with increased light sensitivity. Even present-day research appears to be directed at higher quality in less light. Naturally, photographers have followed the technological improvements and more and more moving targets have been photographed, from humans to fast animals to flying bullets. Worth mentioning in this tradition is the work of Charles Nègre, Eadweard Muybridge, Étienne-Jules Marey, Ernst Mach and Harold Edgerton. In general, the pioneering experiments performed in this field were highly specialized set-ups which were not accessible to average photographers. Nowadays this situation has entirely changed. With the ongoing technological improvements, an unprecedented level of freedom has been reached that gives a photographer many choices when it comes to photographing a moving target. Even with cameras for the enthusiastic amateur, shutter speeds of 1/8.000 of a second are not uncommon and a light sensitivity of 25.600 ISO yields acceptable results for most uses. In short, all but the most extreme moving targets can be photographed by anybody. Therefore, in order to photograph a moving subject, one could say that the problem for the photographer has shifted from technological limitations to a choice of possibilities that are more of a stylistic nature. Should the photographer put his camera on a tripod and wait for its subject, or should he move with the subject? Should he take an enormous amount of virtually

Degrees of Freedom

SALVO n0.2

random pictures, or should he concentrate on the moving subject and take one perfect shot? Those questions have never been scientifically addressed. This article is a first systematic attempt towards such an investigation. Two remarks: 1. Due to a lack of publications with relevant results in the field of moving target photography, no list of references is taken up at the end of this article. 2. In this article, I refer to the photographer as a â€˜heâ€™. This does not reflect any bias from my side towards male or female photographers, but must be considered a practical choice.

The camera mounted on the robotic arm as used in DOF IV

Experimental section Used materials Camera: Nikon D7100 with a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-105 1:3.5-5.6G ED lens Settings for all experiments: focal distance 50 mm (75 mm eq. 35 mm image), shutter speed 1/800 s, aperture f 8.0, ISO 400 Robot Arm: TurboSquid Nachi Robot Arm Balls: Summerplay, Gebro BV purchased at Intertoys Location and date: Malieveld, The Hague, July 6 2013 Set-up: Four experiments were performed in which the photographer had different degrees of freedom (DOF) in the handling of the camera. In all four experiments, eight equal yellow balls were thrown in the air in the same manner and the photographer had to try to get as many balls as possible in the picture. Each experiment was repeated two hundred times. The four procedures were as follows: DOF I: The camera was mounted on a tripod and could not move, i.e. was directed in one direction. The balls were thrown in front of the camera and the photographer took the picture at the moment he chose. DOF II: The photographer was free to move with the camera in his hands; he had to point the camera and choose the moment to make the picture.

SALVO n0.2

Degrees of Freedom

The balls used in the experiments

DOF III: Same as under 2, but a pink ball was added to the eight yellow balls. It was thought that this would help the photographer concentrate because he could focus on a single point. DOF IV: The camera was mounted on an industrial robotic arm (see photographs) which moved rapidly and randomly in all directions in space. The photographer only had control over the moment he chose to take the picture and had to follow the balls as well as the â€˜camera armâ€™. Results and discussion For an investigation in which photographs are compared with each other to be meaningful, the question of how to judge and compare the results from different photographs is central. Which photograph is preferred over the other? In principle, from a qualitative point of view, this is difficult, if not impossible. The choice will most probably turn out to be a matter of taste, which is of course to be avoided in a scientific article. Therefore, the experÂiment as described in the experimental section was developed, in which the judgement of the results is purely quantitative: the photograph with more yellow balls is considered better than the one with fewer balls in it. Composition, focus and sharpness are of no importance because it appeared that however blurry the picture, the yellow balls could always be counted. It is important to note here that when only a part of a ball was shown (e.g. because the ball was at the edge of the frame, or because a ball

Tables 1-4. The results of the four experiments DOF I-IV as described in the experimental section.

Degrees of Freedom

SALVO n0.2

was partially obscured by another ball), the ball was counted. And the assumption was made that in no case a ball was exactly behind another one and therefore invisible. The author is aware of the fact that this may give rise to errors, however, the likelihood of such an event is negligible and comparable to, for example, the frequency a solar eclipse occurs at a certain point on earth. The results of the four experiments DOF I to DOF IV are presented in Tables 1-4, and a representative selection of photographs is shown on the following pages in Figures 1-4. Not in one attempt out of 800 did the photographer succeed to include all eight balls in the picture. In the first experiment DOF I, the camera was mounted on the tripod. There was no freedom to move the camera and the only action required by the photographer was to release the shutter at a certain moment. Clearly, he had to concentrate on the position of the balls with respect to the fixed frame covered by the camera. This is relatively simple, but the inability to manipulate the frame poses a serious limitation to his possibilities. Those two ‘forces’ are reflected in the results. Through the bar graph shown in DOF I, a Gaussian curve could be drawn. Due to the limited possibilities the photographer had, it comes as no surprise that only few high scoring pictures were obtained. On the other hand, also the amount of failures is acceptable which is probably due to the fact that the photographer had to concentrate on one variable only. The most dynamic and at the same time obscure result is obtained in the second experiment, DOF II. In this set up, the photographer had to be aware of his movements with the camera and of the position of the eight yellow balls at all times. Although this appears to be the most often encountered case in real life photography (in many situations, subject matter is moving and in most cases the camera is not mounted on a tripod), the results obtained in the experiment do not allow a complete interpreta tion. As expected, the higher degree of freedom resulted in a less predict-

SALVO n0.2

Degrees of Freedom

able pattern. More complete failures (no balls in the picture) or almost failures were observed, but also more high scoring photographs resulted from this set up (five balls in the picture). The more difficult task the photographer had because he had to concentrate on the pointing of the camera as well as on the position of the balls explains the lower scores. The higher freedom of movement with the camera is reflected by the higher number of satisfactory photographs. However, one result has to remain unexplained: the striking fact that many more photos with an odd number of balls in the frame were obtained. Not counting the photos with zero balls in them, the ratio odd:even is 152:21. The chance of such a result, were it mere coincidence, out of 173 attempts, is smaller than the chance of predicting five times in a row the right number in a roulette game (no person ever succeeded in doing this). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the result is coincidental. It appeared impossible to come up with a rational explanation. Since the author does not wish to move into the field of the supernatural, no further thought was given to this remarkable observation. The third experiment, which differed from the second only in that a ‘guide to the eye’ in the form of a manifest pink ball was added. It is assumed that, on average, this pink ball can be seen as the centre of mass of the eight yellow balls and may be considered a point in space (since its volume is small, the excluded volume by the pink ball is close to zero. It is not expected that the presence of this ball has an influence on the position of any yellow ball at any time of its flight) on which the photographer could concentrate in order to have the highest possibility of ‘good’ results, i.e. photographs with many yellow balls. This indeed appeared to be the case as can be inferred from the DOF III table. Although the distribution is not predictable due to the increased freedom the photographer has compared to DOF I (see discussions above), over all it is clear that this experiment yields the most results with a high number of balls in the frame.

fig.1: results test 1 (DOF I): camera on a tripod

Degrees of Freedom

SALVO n0.2

fig.2: results test 2 (DOF II): hand held camera

Degrees of Freedom

fig.3: results test 3 (DOF III): hand held camera with a pink ball added

SALVO n0.2

Degrees of Freedom

fig.4: results test 4 (DOF IV): camera mounted on a robotic arm

Degrees of Freedom

SALVO n0.2

And indeed compared to DOF II, the addition of the ‘guide to the eye’ is beneficial to the result. From an experimental point of view, the most challenging set-up was DOF IV. The camera was mounted on a robot arm, which was free to move in all directions. It was programmed in such a way that it moved very rapid compared to the velocity of the balls in flight. In every single throw there were several opportunities to release the shutter ‘at the right moment’: due to the rapid movements of the camera, situations always occurred in which balls were in the frame in front of the camera. The reader will understand that this is a very demanding set-up for any photographer. The two independently and rapidly moving entities, the balls and the camera, create an impossible situation to control. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that DOF IV was the least successful experiment. The photographer succeeded in capturing a ball in the frame in about a quarter of the attempts. And in only 1% did the photographer have two balls in the frame, which probably is the maximum any human being would be able to attain under the applied conditions. Conclusions It is clear that the above-described experiments were performed under carefully chosen conditions. In real life, the photographer of moving subjects will encounter different conditions. The subject may move slower or quicker than the balls in flight, it may be smaller or larger. The photographer may be far from the subject, the weather conditions may play a role, for example strong wind will influence the resulting picture. Moreover, the photographer may have certain aesthetic preferences. For example, he may like a tele or wide-angle lens, he may want a lack of sharpness of the moving particle, he may like the subject in a corner of the frame or he may want a certain use of depth of field. Nevertheless, some important conclusions can be drawn from this investigation, which may help the future photographer in choices he will have to make when engaging in the photography of moving subject matter. If he wants to be sure of having a reproducible result, it is probably wise to bring a tripod and mount his camera on it. This is the most reliable way of getting an acceptable and reproducible result. When, on the other hand, he is more ambitious and is willing to take risks, which may result in failure but may also result in spectacular images, he will photograph the moving subject with the camera in his hand. In this situation, it is wise to study his subject matter in advance. That way he knows what he wants in the picture and can focus at that, as if focussing on a point and not being distracted by other things that may occur in the frame. If the photographer is result-oriented, it is not advisable to introduce a random element when photographing moving subject matter. When he does so, he will probably end up with pictures

SALVO n0.2

Degrees of Freedom

without the moving subject. According to this investigation, this will be the case in approximately 75% of the images. For this author, it is hard to imagine why a photographer might want such surprises. However, situations aiming for pure randomness (which is almost impossible to attain) or in situations where artistic intentions come to the fore, a set up as the one described under DOF IV may provide a suitable starting point.

Câ€˘

Dead Motion

SALVO n0.2

Dead Motion

Dâ€˘

Found Sketchbook

In the fall of 1989, whileÂ the Cold War is coming to an end in Europe, an experimental biologist makes an expedition to the Yorkshire Dales to see how far an object in nature can bend before it snaps.

Found Sketchbook

SALVO no.2

Found Sketchbook

SALVO n0.2

Found Sketchbook

E•

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face The Elckerlyc Tests by C.A. Oppendüzer, psychiatry researcher in the field of free will. 1952-53

Bona, sweetheart, enclosed you’ll find a summary of my study of the Elckerlyc Tests. Olovsky has admitted that he and Leilan were inspired by Oppendüzer’s experiments. So I think we have a case. What do you think? Soon, soon, intellectually yours, Anina

One of the earliest experiments of Dr. Oppendüzer were the ‘Elckerlyc Tests’. In order to find out if money is able to suppress thrills, Oppendüzer offered his models (mostly children) two cents if they sat still before his camera while he took their picture, no matter what happened in front of them. He staged situations that took place behind his camera while he was taking the picture: belly-dancers that ran past, a disguised friend stealing his camera bag with equipment, an Indian shooting an arrow into a gathered crowd, a mounted bull in full flight, etcetera. The models who ignored the scenes and chose to look straight into the lens instead of turning their heads or eyes to follow the action, earned two cents. The models who ignored the reward in order to watch the scene that was taking place behind the camera, missed out on the two cents but had gained a new experience. Oppendüzer concluded that the ones posing perfectly still for his pictures were victims of their time, slaves of a money-driven society, who were already at a young age willing to turn their will away from excitement, from freedom, from life.

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face

SALVO nr.2

003

004

005

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face

SALVO n0.2

006 003. The girls clearly focus on Oppendüzer’s lens. The baby follows the action (Oppendüzer has written underneath this picture: “Baby happened to be male… (sex related to free will?!)” 004. – 005. Apart from the boy looking up at the sky, also note the two kids in the background looking up. Suggestions for the content of the staged scene vary wildly. R. Gughimmel has made a plausible pledge that the strong light reflections on the ridge of the sandbox and on the roof of the building in the background, plus the hazy white cloud that hangs above the group of kids in the foreground, are the results of fireworks. 006. Maurice de Bevere (alias Morris), the creator of Lucky

007

Luke, was a close friend of Oppendüzer. This was the picture that gave him the inspiration for what quickly became Luke’s typifying slogan: he is faster than his shadow. Morris states in his autobiography that Oppendüzer has claimed that the shadow was not his, and indeed of the moving model, reacting passionately towards the scene Oppendüzer had staged. 007. Interviews with some of these women have taught us that this is the ‘stealing scene’. All women interviewed claim they knew it was a set-up, and that this is why they chose not to look. The woman in the middle has never accepted an interview or anything of the sorts. The other women admit that she broke off their friendship right after the experiment. 008. –

008

010

013

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face

011

SALVO n0.2

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face

SALVO n0.2

015

016

017 010. This is a snapshot found in the archive of Oppendüzer. On the backside this line is scribbled: “my belly-dancers stretching during rehearsals.” 011. and 013. More pictures from Oppendüzer’s archive. Most likely rehearsals as well.

015. and 016. These two pictures are taken on the same day. Elize and Bernadette Église, the two very young girls with dark hair in the first row of the group portrait, who would later be part of the notorious Toulouse Six, wrote in their memoires about the Elckerlyc Tests. When confronted with this picture,

they recognized the three people on the other picture as the models who suddenly popped up naked in their living room, making out all through the room during the session. They were told by their father to concentrate on the lens of the camera, because the money was needed and these people would be dealt with later.

When their youngest brother, Antoine, could not stop looking at the scene, the entire family could not stop giggling. 017. Oppendüzer’s wife and their goat, which they brought along during field trips in the countryside.

Motion Face vs. Stasis Face

You could say that the ‘static starers’ chose for an experience that might lay ahead of them, they chose to invest in the possible future: the joyful taste of a sweet candy; the increasing number of digits in their bank account; a night at the drive-in cinema; another glass of wine. The ‘motion watchers’ on the other hand chose for the certain thrill of an experience in the here and now. Oppendüzer was heavily criticized towards the end of his career for this particular experiment. Nobody doubted the accurate outcome and the groundbreaking results, but questions were raised (and until this day never fully answered) about both the shady conditions of the people that he hired to perform dangerous, burlesque and even debaucherous actions in the background, and about the young children exposed to these scenes. The groups of so-called ‘extras’ consisted usually of students of Dr. Oppendüzer, to which people picked from the streets were added, sometimes family members of the young models. Supposedly, none of these people got paid. Moreover, his choice to work almost exclusively with young models added to this shadiness. When being faced with these serious accusations Oppendüzer claimed that every ‘extra’ acted upon his or her free will. The reason to work with children as models was twofold: 1. Their reactions are more impulsive and direct which benefited the test; 2. The test results showed that free will was already present at a very early age in life. Thus the experiment not only provided clear figures on the direction of the free will; it also opened up ways to revisit and re-open the Control-debate that had reached a dead end in the previous decades. The experiment clearly showed that control was not only a mature characteristic obtained by intelligent, educated adults, but something intrinsic in every human being.

SALVO n0.2

F•

SALVO n0.2

Fluid Reality/ Real Fluidity

Fluid Reality / Real Fluidity

SALVO n0.2

Fluid Reality / Real Fluidity

SALVO n0.2

Fluid Reality / Real Fluidity

Gâ€˘

Efficiency in Bird Photography Movement vs. standing still

Many of us have an interest in birds. We find them beautiful and we like to photograph them. Some photographers can spend days walking around in order to find a particular bird species while others sit still and hide in a strategic spot to capture a specific bird. But which situation leads to the best picture? Combing the largest possible area, or sitting in coverage for hours? On the one hand it depends on the purpose of the photograph but also on the technical ambitions of the photographer. The purpose of the picture can be manifold. Sometimes one might study the birdsâ€™s behaviour, its appearance or its habitat. For these purposes, technical quality is required. But sometimes one may also be interested in counting all individuals in a given area, or in photographing as many individuals as possible. Then of course quantity can be more important than a sharp picture. In this study, situations that are ideal to make a specific picture are evaluated. Not only the technical quality of photographs taken at different speeds was measured, also the number of different birds and the resolution of the picture were taken into account. The result is an enhanced probability study determining the ideal speed for bird photography. If one wants to make a technically perfect picture, it is likely that this will happen at a very low speed or without movement even. On the other hand, a high diversity in the result is probably caused by a higher speed (and thus a longer distance).

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

This study does not offer much help in identifying birds and it is clear that this research will never be completely finished. Each new place is a new habitat and will require repetition of the same experiment. But it is likely that repetition of this rather simple test will result in causal relations, trends and probabilities for capturing a given species in a given city at a certain speed in the near future. Anatomy of the investigation The results of this study are based on three experiments of one hour in the Hague. In the first test the photographer did not move at all. Seated in a chair he aims and presses the shutter as soon as he spots a bird. He can move the camera, but he cannot move himself. In the second test the photographer will be walking around with a speed of 5 km/h. When he sees a bird, he aims and shoots (but he keeps on walking). The same applies for the last test, only now the photographer is moving at a speed of 10 km/h, a modest running speed.

SALVO n0.2

TEST 1 Suezkade 24 The Hague

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Time: 1 hour Distance: 0 Camera: Sony Cyber-shot Dsc-rx100

Seagulls: 19 Sparrows: 1 Starlings: 4 Jackdaws: 3 Pigeons: 6 Swallows: 3

Seagulls: 19

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Sparrows: 1

Starlings: 4

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Jackdaws: 3

Pigeons: 6

Swallows: 3

Missed birds:6

SALVO n0.2

TEST 2 5 km.

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Time: 1 hour Distance: 5 km Camera: Sony Cyber-shot Dsc-rx100 Results: number of photographs taken: 72 number of birds: 178 number of different species: 15

Seagulls: 27 Black headed gulls: 13 Magpies: 5 Jays: 1 Ring-necked Parakeets: 2 Ducks: 24 Swans: 1 Egyptian Geese: 3 Coots: 6 Moorhens: 3 Sparrows: 21 Starlings: 27 Jackdaws: 36 Pigeons: 7 Crows: 3

Seagulls: 27

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

SALVO no.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Moorhens: 3

Ducks: 24

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Swans: 1

SALVO n0.2

Egyptian Geese: 3

Ring-necked Parakeets: 2

Crows: 3

Jays: 1

Pigeons: 6

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Starlings: 27

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO no.2

SALVO n0.2

Jackdaws: 37

Magpies: 5

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Sparrows: 21

Black-headed gulls: 13

SALVO no.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Coots: 6

Missed birds: 5

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

TEST 3 10 km.

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Time: 1 uur Distance: 10 km Camera: Sony Cyber-shot Dsc-rx100

Seagulls: 34 Magpies: 2 Ducks: 14 Swans: 1 Egyptian Geese: 5 Coots: 16 Jackdaws: 17 Doves: 11 Blackbirds: 3 Jays: 1

Seagulls: 34

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Swans: 1

Jays: 1

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Egyptian Geese: 5

Pigeons: 11

Magpies: 2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

SALVO no.2

Ducks: 14

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Blackbirds: 3

SALVO n0.2

Jackdaws: 17

Coots: 16

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

SALVO no.2

Missed Birds: 18

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

General conclusions Average amount of birds per photograph: test 1: 0 km/h: 0,92 test 2: 5 km/h: 2,47 test 3: 10 km/h: 1,55

Average bird percentage per photograph: test 1: 0 km/h: 1,2% test 2: 5 km/h: 2,3% test 3: 10 km/h: 2,9%

12,5%

1,8%

fig 1

fig 2

Examples of how the percentage has been calculated

When you stand still, the chance to shoot a bird that covers a big piece of the picture is the smallest. It is well known that birds do not approach human beings very easily by themselves (fig 1.), but when you are in motion, you can surprise them (fig 2).

The number of photographs taken is the highest at 5 km/h as is the number of birds in total and the number of different species.

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

fig 3: 0 km/h

fig 4: 5 km/h

fig 5: 10 km/h

fig 6: 0 km/h

fig 7: 5 km/h

fig 8: 10 km/h

The faster you go, the bigger the chance that your photograph is unsharp. Although the number of photographed birds increases when speeding, it is more likely that they are unsharp. In fig. 3 - 4 - 5 one can see the sharpest picture from every test (in a comparable situation) and in fig. 6 - 7 - 8 the most unsharp ones. At a speed of 10 km/h the amount of missed birds is the highest (16), that might not be

fig 9: 5 km/h

fig 10: 10 km/h

very remarkable, but at a speed of 5 km/h less birds are missed than while not moving. Apparently, when the photographer himself does not move, the speed of the bird is relatively high. The chance to shoot a picture with many birds in it is very low at 0 km/h (never more than 2 birds per photograph). At the two other speeds the chance is almost the same (Fig 9 and 10).

* On average, the productivity is the highest in the first part of each test.

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Efficiency in Bird Photography

SALVO n0.2

Test results: test 1 birds per photo

Efficiency in Bird Photography

Test results: test 2 birds per photo

SALVO n0.2

Test results: test 3 birds per photo

Efficiency in Bird Photography

H•

Time Aesthetics “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once” - Albert Einstein

Time Aesthetics

SALVO n0.2

Time Aesthetics

SALVO n0.2

Time Aesthetics

fig. 1: Kiki de Montparnasse. Courtesy De Montparnasse family

I•

Man Ray

In 1924 Man Ray takes a picture of Kiki de Montparnasse. She sits with her bare back towards the camera, her head is turned sideways and her chin is slightly tilted. It is a photograph in which framing, lightning, background, the position of the model, and the way she is dressed have all been given the precise attention any type of studio photographer at that time would have given to them. It is a captive photograph, unusual in its composition, slightly arousing, to some people even a bit offensive. Due to the unusual positioning of the model – her back towards the camera – the image has a private, almost snapshot feel. At the same time it is a picture shot inside a studio, clearly intended by the maker, a static situation fixed in time and place. Man Ray develops the negative in his darkroom, he makes two prints, one of which he gives to his girlfriend, Kiki de Montparnasse (figure 1, courtesy the De Montparnasse heirs). At that time Man Ray is trying to pursue a career as a painter but instead finds himself to be a popular portrait photographer in the bohemian world of Paris. This is what he has to say about that: “I keep turning out flocks of photographs […] for the entertainment of the human race. […] They come with enthusiastic expression on their face: ‘Will you do a picture of me for this or that event, you are the only one who can do something with my face,’ and think I am pleased and flattered.” A few weeks later, in the middle of a rowdy opening of his recent photographic works, Man Ray takes the photograph of Kiki de Montparnasse’s bare back off the wall and together with his friend Marcel Duchamp disappears into the night. They return an hour later with the same picture onto which Man Ray has painted two sound-holes of a stringed instrument and re-title the work. Le Violon d’Ingres soon becomes an icon of the Surrealist Revolution. Also, Man Ray seems to have stumbled upon a new trademark: techniques later applied in order to create otherworldly effects, thus adding an element of chance into otherwise carefully composed images. (The most famous example is the technique of solarisation.) By disrupting the familiar look of a photograph he disconnects the photographic print from its ‘original’ moment in time. Up until then a photograph tended to be inherently fixed in the moment in which the camera’s shutter was released. Man Ray has found a way to enter the non-time of the medium: the time between the situation photographed and the photographic print.

Man Ray

SALVO n0.2

His playful and at the same time precise darkroom processes put the flux of life and the motion of the world back into the stasis of the photographic moment. By adding movement to the static photograph, the pretentious claims of photography’s apparent commitment to the real are finally overthrown. They are replaced by something far more real: the unreality contained in reality itself. To bring out the core goal of many photographer’s aim, namely to mimic life’s swaying chaos, Man Ray just needed a darkroom. He shows that a photograph can be a decision, a thought, an act, an action, instead of a proof, an image, a representation. Photography is not simply a reproductive and documentary tool, but something creative and inventive. In his own words: “these images are oxidized residues fixed by light and chemical elements of an experience, an adventure, not an experiment.” And in the words of André Breton, one of the leaders of the Surrealist Revolution: “Man Ray has applied himself vigorously to the task of stripping [photo graphy] of its positive nature, of forcing it to abandon its arrogant air and pretentious claims.”

The portrait photographer takes a picture of Jim. At the exact moment he opens the shutter, Jim sneezes. On the photo, Jim is not recognizable. The photographer doubts whether this result is still a picture of Jim, or just a blur on paper. The street photographer has been walking all day taking many pictures. At the end of the day he asks himself whether it would not have been better to stay put and take all those pictures from the same position. The nature photographer has been concentrating on photographing a rabbit from his camouflaged position. As he takes his picture, an eagle grabs the rabbit. After printing the photograph, the photographer also sees that a fox had entered into the frame. It is the best photo足 graph he has ever taken. The astrophotographer takes a picture of a far away galaxy with an exposure of many hours. When he sees the result, he wonders if the colours are actual colours from space or whether his own equipment has created them. Those kind of questions, situations, thoughts and coincidences, all related to photography and motion, are the subject of this book. At first sight, motion is the opposite of a principle characteristic of photography: stasis. But is this really the case? Through various experiments, investigations and propositions, Salvo shows that motion and stasis are intrinsically connected. Photography arrests motion in order to be recog足 nizable as photography. But what precisely is the nature of this arrest? How do we locate their intertwining? Where does motion stop and where does photography begin?

Periodical for Photography N0. 2

Salvo #2 The Sneezing Man