Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Kimberly French

I was looking at contest winners on a photography magazine website ( popphoto.com ) and I stumbled across a photo with really amazing light. However, after doing photoshop some, I couldn't help but to wonder how much of it was her photography or her photo skills... I decided I'd give the artist a fair look and search for more.

What I found was photography that I do not get to see too often. She apparently does set photography for movies. I've only worked on one independent film that had a set photographer. I'm not sure what the typical style for this kind of photography is.. So deciding how I want to approach the photographs is part of the battle. Is there a standard style of shooting for this? Does it even matter if there is a style of shooting... Do I want to look at these photographs because of the lighting or the subject matter? Am I looking for familiar scenes from movies in movie scenes I have never viewed? Am I only looking at these photographs because it is taking me somewhere I am interested in being? Because of my film background am I just naturally intrigued?

I dunno.. I'm not sure... Perhaps if I see other artist in this field I will have more understanding and a better way to see it.

In addition.. More food for thought..... Movie scenes have very very nice controlled lighting.. Expensive lighting typically... So... outside of framing how much work do they have to do? And if they are hired specifically to do the work on set.. Then how much leeway are they given to explore angles? A lot... A little? ...

I dunno... I'm interested.. But... skeptical.

1 comment:

  1. Good... so how would you relate this work to that of, say... Cindy Sherman or Gregory Crewdson who created images in the mode of film stills. Yet in both cases, the situation is a fabrication. What exactly is required for the photography to cross the line into the realm of 'legitimate art"?