The Camera. The Print. The Negative.

Granada. Veronica Hansen

Everyone loses. The answer to last week’s challenge is in the color. Each of the photos is color toned according to the color model Blue/Yellow; Magenta/Green; Cyan/Red. Each photo’s color was enhanced based on the color tone it naturally had (sunny street = yellow tone) or artificially toned based on how I felt directed based on the asthetics of said photo (blue birds = looked neat). All the photos are paired according to RGB. Just an idea/I’m insane.

Some recent film from my exploits in Madrid and Granada…a firm pat on the back (or warm handshake, if you prefer) to the first person that can guess the theme. Or rather, why are these photos put together in such a way?

And all of your emails will be answered promptly. Things have been hectic.

Madrid, Veronica Hansen

Últimamente, hice algunos fotos para ayudar una amiga mía quien trabaja en un OGN. Este OGN intenta a ayudar los inmigrantes que están solicitando residencia en España, que tarda (como mínimo) tres años para recibir. Y muchas veces tarde más porque la policía les dan multas a los inmigrantes si ellos no tienen cada documento perfecto. O, a veces, les mandan a su país de origen.

Los hombres que conocí para este proyecto son genial, llenan de alegría. Aunque tienen vidas tan dura, no lo sabría con las sonrisas y las bromas que hacen. Fue un placer para trabajar con ellos.

Aquí hay las primeras fotos que he arreglado. Me quedan más para arreglar – pronto lo haré. Te lo juro!

Pablo Picasso

“Everyone wants to understand art. Why don’t we try to understand the song of a bird? Why do we love the night, the flowers, everything around us, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting, people think they have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only an insignificant part of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world though we can’t explain them; people who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree.” – Picasso

Steph's mom, Sevilla, Spain

..be ruining my life and my blog!  Blame my lack of updates on Steph and her drinking problem. It’s bringing us both down.

More thoughts to come soon (and a witty response to your perfect comment, Brandon, love of my life.)

Granada, Spain Veronica Hansen

My thoughts have been chewing on me a lot lately. One of those thoughts has been of my personal style of photography: why I do what I do, and how I define that ’style.’ It’s been roughly 4 years since photography and I became an item. And from the outset, my Faustian love for photoshop marred my success as a “straight photojournalism” student. I’ve since spent many perfectly good facebooking hours pondering the same question: where and how does the threshold for photo manipulation fall?

After sardonically scoffing, the history nerd in me immediately and jumps to the first ‘manipulated’ photo composites, way back in the good ol’ Henry Peach Robinson days, when light quality was irrelevant and the more rigidly cut out the people, the better. From the beginning, everyone had their viewpoint crafted and logic Kant-ily reasoned. Henry P. Robsinson was hacking up bodies left and right – composing images to elucidate emotional response. Peter Henry Emerson was down for manipulation, but only if there was an immediate and previsualized double exposure, where the sky could later be added in for dramatic effect but the ‘truth’ of the image preserved. And don’t worry, there were of course the first photo-puritans, invoking the Cotton Mather spirit to condemn any image that wasn’t an exact replica of the negative (or positive – wink, wink – collodion fans!) I believe, however, the first significant case of actual ‘content’ manipulation came from Roger Fenton’s Crimean War photographs, where mysteriously missing canon balls are still being debated by the most boring people on Earth.

Fading away Henry P. Robinson

Peter Henry Emerson

'Shadow of the Valley of Death,' Roger Fenton

And so, as history often does, repeat. repeat. repeat. New technology, first darkroom advances and now the digital craft invasion, have obviously amplified the magnitude and perfection of said manipulation. Not to mention, the lack of honest reporting by opportunistic photojournalists  (read: Iraq,  Saddam statue protest).

For now, I’ll leave you with this: is there a threshold for photo-manipulation, be it before the shutter closes or after, that defines the label of the photograph? In other words, how do the aesthetic, technical, and moral aspects of photography determine how we differentiate between opposing worlds of art, journalism, commercial, and personal photography? And furthermore, are these labels necessary?

OFF to Cadiz for Carnaval!

Because tomorrow will bring more photos and (i promise) something formally written….  For now, Las Alpujarras…

You are looking lovely!