"Are You from the Social?": Exterior Location

So I finally managed to prize myself out of bed last Sunday morning, at the rather disgusting time of 4am, and carry my weary frame down to not one, not two, but three car boot sales. To say the light was bad at the first two would be an understatement, for there wasn't any. I used my flash here, but apart from the fact this was going against the brief, the results were in the main terrible, full of harsh shadows and overly-lit faces (as one may imagine). Indeed, it was only towards the end of the second venue that the light became workable. It was upon leaving here that I shot what I now feel is the flagship image of the whole series, and what is probably the best portrait I have ever taken, and the one I felt all others would work around. This and the rest of them can be seen below. I will then show some that I felt did not work and say why I thought this was.


f8, 1/40, ISO200, 34mm.
I think some people are just so laid-back that they're almost asking t be photographed. This character was one of them. I shot three pictures of him. The other two were of him smoking; equally as good, but there was just something about the way he looked at me for this first shot. Also of interest is the fact we are given a look in his van, and how this adds context. The reason I used f8 was because I was in rush and didn't have time to adjust settings. This image is akin to the example I used in my research post from Nick Dawe in my profile (below):



OK, there is a white van and bits of tat, but the pose is completely different. This chap has a very regal pose, whereas mine looks too cool for school. Here we cannot see what is inside his vam, whereas many have said it is the wicker basket in 'my' van that adds context. I tend to agree.

Its good- the smoking makes it very good- but because he had chance to relax and pose for it, it took something way from what could be called 'the decisive moment' in my first shot.

f4, 1/40th, ISO800, 50mm.
This struck me as a novel composition, not to mention slightly humorous because of the randomness sausages hanging down. I just liked it because there's a lot in it. Some would say it is a bit cramped, but I kind of like that in these types of shots: how the subject doesn't fully dominate the frame to the extent of not being the subject at all. Below is a better example of this.

Completely cluttered this one. The viewer almost has to look for the subject in amongst it all. This was in my short list, but one of the others just about pipped it at the post.
During a trip to the Xmas Markets with the class, I managed to 'nail' this sentiment (below):

I really like this. You have the myriad different coloured bags leading you to the subject, who takes up a very small part of the subject.

A similar one (taken before), but not as strong as the above image, I feel. Still, she had such a cue face, which seemed to compliment what she was selling (whatever that was).

Obvious what I was going for here. I seen him from afar, then asked him to assume his previous pose. A friend of mine said it looks 'too posed'. What does he know?

f5.6, 1/80th, ISO800, 26mm.
Again, clutter = environment. Many versions of the same thing reminds me of the typology stuff we were looking at a few weeks ago (Gursky et al), and the fluorescent light really swung it for me. It is a posed shot masquerading as a candid one. Way I see it, by asking them first you risk them saying no and ruin your chances of getting anything. But there's the obvious chance the moment will be lost forever, so I feel it best to snap away, THEN ask them to recreate the 'missed' moment (meanwhile Bresson spins in his grave). Click here for a link to a similar portrait by the photographer Manny Valejo.

f5.6, 1/320, ISO200, 40mm.
By the time I'd reached Smithfield market at around 9am, the light was outstanding. So crisp! What struck me here was the shadow of the man adjusting his gazebo, and the fact I managed to capture the activity without him realising I was there.

f5.6, 1/50th, ISO800, 52mm.
This chap was perhaps the most compliant of all my subjects. I did shoot him directly in front of his van first of all for another cluttered one (below), but eventually decided it wasn't as strong. There was also a difficulty in printing this image, largely due to the lack of detail in where hi coat meets the van. I've recently been shown the 'Shadows and Highlights' adjustment layer in Photoshop, setting me in good stead in the future.

I mean for one he had his eyes closed, but I still think its a strong composition. Below is one with his eyes open, but I tried it from the opposite side, and it didn't work. Looking at it now, I'm having second thoughts, but no: his eyes are closed.

See what I mean? Something awkward about van & man leaning to the left.

f5.6, 1/320, ISO200, 40mm.
Went for the comedy angle here. I call this one Rooster because of the way his Vileda mops appear to be sticking out from his head. Again, I asked him to assume his previous position to take this picture, and explained the 'cockrel' point. He looked at me like I'd just stepped off a spaceship. Again, this seems to reflect the humour of Matt Stuart and Martin Parr, whilst still retaining the human touch of Nick Dawe.

f5, 1/50th, ISO200, 35mm.
Another comedic one. Goes well with the image above I feel. She looked glum when I first came across her, but changed her facial expression when I explained what I was doing. Its all about the smiley face for me. Would it have worked better had she kept her initial expression as a contrast to the smiley face? Probably, but the way she was sat and the composition just about clinched it.

f5, 1/40, ISO800, 50mm.
I like this. Again, he was smoking and looking right at me from the off, but It just didn't look right. Only issue I have with this is the focus point. Can't help thinking it'd look better focussing on the man and not the bears. Conversely, there's something to be said for highlighting the fact that a chiselled old-timer is selling teddy bears. Introduces the element of masculinity, or the lengths people go to make a living. At the first site I went to, a guy didn't want his picture taken because he didn't want his son to see what he had to do to make a living. Throughout the whole morning, at least 10 different people asked me: "are you from the social" or "don't take a picture of me, I'm on the sick"; hence the title of the series. 

f3.5, 1/160, ISO400, 18mm.
Was after something that typified the British experience of 'carbooting'. I found table full of homemade mince pies on a white lace tablecloth. I used the kit lens for these, so could only go as wide as f3.5. Soon I will have my 50mm, and there'll be no stopping me in terms of these types of projects. Below is similar shot that didn't quite work as well.

Very Martin Parr this I feel, but still don't think it was strong enough to make the final 'cut'. Still, a tartan biscuit tin next to a Bob the Builder toy... Magic.

f5.6, 1/60, ISO200, 18mm.
Thought it'd be nice to go for the wider shot here. Took one without the person in middle, but decided- by way of the fact tit says 'keep out' on the door he is evidently going 'in'- that this would work better. I like the repetition of carpets here. Below is another favourite, which I was all for putting in, but it just didn't go with the rest of them. Shame.

Really loved the uniformity here. Again, it reminded me of the typology stuff. Be good to revisit and do a study of the types of things that get stored in vans. I really love this shot.

Below are some of the images I liked, but decided against. Of course, in order to do this I had to let go of the emotional attachment I had to various sub-themes and different moods that I felt had developed whilst sifting through the many images I shot.

I loved the light in this. Not only do I like Environmental portraits, but I like ones where parts of the scene are quite evidently underexposed save for the key areas (e.g. face). Of course, I did take some of the explicit blackness out of this in Camera RAW.

Was going to stick this in instead of the sausage stall one, but  didn't want to risk overdoing it with the 'shallow depth of field with an object thing'. Plus I felt it didn't really fit in the end.

Really like this, but it was taken with flash (just briefly removed the light from it in Curves), which is- I believe- against the Exterior Location Brief rules. It was posed, of course. His wife in the background wouldn't allow her face to be in the photo. Its a strong picture, and I still feel it would fit well with the rest.

Another strong composition and facial expression here. Also nice colours (blues) and iconography (they look like stolen goods, sorry), which is what I was after from the off. Still, another flash one. If we were allowed flash, the mood would take a completely different turn. Oh well!

There's nothing wrong with this images, really- closest guy looking at me, furthest looking away- but it just lacked the dynamism and sense of theme/environment of the others. For this reason it was impossible to include it.

Like the image above, there is nothing terribly wrong with this picture... If I was giving  it to a client (the two subjects are smiling etc etc.) But its absolutely what I didn't want from the shoot. I wanted environment. I wanted the seller's faces to tell a story, (e.g. "why the hell am I getting up at this time?), and wanted a sense of the actual ritual of the car boot sale (as I mentioned in my proposal).

I had to shoot this for the sheer brazenness of the seller in including it within his stock. It also introduces a slightly seedy undertone to the stall. It also reminds me of a more refined shot by the photographer, James Medcraft, who has also covered car boot sales (below):

Its similar the way it focusses on the types of stuff that typify British life (nothing more British than people's love of Charles and Di). And let's not forget The Daily Telegraph, which is very possibly worse than Men Only Magazine.

The Printing and Selection Process:

It didn't take me long to choose my final ten, due to my enthusiasm at having produced what I thought were high quality images (its rare for me to be happy with something after the first attempt). 

The difficulty, however, came in sending them to print. This was partly due to my arrogance of not listening properly to the explanation on colour profiles given by my tutors. I knew I had to all images to DS Colour Lab's own colour profile (I had been doing it for a good year before starting the course; hence my arrogance), but I didn't know there were two separate profiles for glossy and lustre papers (I always go for lustre, for I feel glossy causes harsh reflections when exhibited). 

My images came back really dark. I don't know, I think there's something about my judgement of my own work that has me erring towards the dark side and not the light (no change there then). I must have a natural fear of blown highlights and empty space in an image, thus subconsciously allow dark images to slip through the net into print.

I was livid when I seen them: all that hard work (not to mention money spent on the things), and upon first sight you can tell they're not good enough to submit. So I opened the PSDs for the images again, this time opening a new curves layer and setting the white point of each image separately, then reducing the opacity of the layer to avoid any overkill in brightness. This was quite simple with the portrait of the man in the back of his van (my fave), but more difficult where lights tended to dominate the frame (the one with the homemeade mince pies and coke cans). An alternative was to increase brightness by 30 in a Brightness and Contrast layer (not as reliable).