(J1.15 classroom, 2009)We had an editing session yesterday. Each one was give other people’s photo and choose 5-7. I was given Michal’s 28 photos. His topic is about a disappearing river in London, which run well 100 years ago but now covered with urban structures. I choose 7 according to subjects and storyline. In discussion, Ulrike took a different approach and picked 5 and instantly I noticed they are of a better choice. She emphasizes on visual coherence. The 5 shots she chose have similar composition with horizon in the middle and space in front and residential house in the back, though they only depicts residential house rather than road, space, land and building, which what I tried to convey. As the topic is conceptual engaging already, it makes a better argument with these 5 shots. It is stronger to form a series to pass this conception this way. I wanted to convey many things but end up with weak and messy photography rhetoric. The visual coherence!
She also emphasized that the context (on a museum wall, in a book, or…) is very important for edit. We discussed my works. An easy consensus was made with 5 shots chosen.
More haste, less speed. I can not understand this any more today. I tried to print everything but end up with not a single satisfied one. What I should have done is to print each one to its perfection, then move to the next… It seems I might have to make do with these prints, as next Friday is our last chance for print.
She also emphasized that the context (on a museum wall, in a book, or…) is very important for edit. We discussed my works. An easy consensus was made with 5 shots chosen.
More haste, less speed. I can not understand this any more today. I tried to print everything but end up with not a single satisfied one. What I should have done is to print each one to its perfection, then move to the next… It seems I might have to make do with these prints, as next Friday is our last chance for print.
No comments:
Post a Comment