GLOW

What is glow you say?
Well... glow is a free, yearly festival organized by the government of Eindhoven. Since Eindhoven is -after all- the city of light, it kinda makes sense for a light-related event (or three) to take place here.
So, in short, GLOW is all about light. How to create art with light.

The thing took place over the course of a week, all over the city. You would find weird sculptures scattered around town, buildings transformed into huge canvasses for artists to show they audiovisual creations and an all around festive mood that could be felt in the air. The damp, freezing air.
The downside to a light festival in the street is that you actually need darkness to appreciate it. And darkness means November. And November -here- means cold and rain. Lots of rain.
To be fair, it didn't rain on sunday... but it did the other 6 days of the festival.

Anyway, I'm not here to complain about the shitty weather (though, for the record, I maintain it did make a difference in the quality of my pictures... I was just to busy freezing, getting wet and trying to keep the camera somewhat dry to actually think about taking nice pics), so without further ado here's some of my favorite shots from GLOW.


Laser bed, Philips light museum.


Totally trippy wall from the Philips museum.
This image is not really "real" though, cause it was just a laser randomly moving around, creating cool designs. The unreal aspect of the image comes from me using a long exposure for the shot, freezing -in a sense- the movement of the light.

Click on the read more link for more "glowy" images.

Another kiss

Don't you worry, I'm not turning into a hopeless romantic only shooting people in love, silently judging their happiness. At least that's what I tell myself :)
But seriously, this is an old picture that I remembered after posting the Stockholm kiss.
You can tell it's an old one cause it's in color, I don't really shoot much color anymore. That, and the fact that it's a wideangle pic. I don't really shoot wideangle anymore. At least not in the street.

So, here's this week's picture:

That's a random street in Strasbourg, France. June 2008 I think.

I usually hate these "fake color" pictures, where you desaturate the image and just leave something in color. It strikes me as fake, and well... just not my cup of tea. But having said that, what I adore about this shot is the splash of color from the red light, specially on the wet street. It's 100% luck and I think it looks wonderful.
No "artificial" post processing was done to the image, that was the way that night particular street looked like that night. Also, that kiss is fantastic. I love how it's pretty hidden in the image, but once you see it, you cannot stop looking at it.

THE KISS

Not much to say here.

This happened somewhere in Stockholm, a couple of weeks ago.

(I wonder if they remember that kiss).

INCUBATE

I love music. I love concerts. I love photography.
So, it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see that I love taking pictures at any gig I go to.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a pretty interesting festival going on near my place: Incubate. It took place all around Tilburg and lasted for a whole week.
The idea behind Incubate was of having all these different artistic endeavors going on simultaneously around town. So, it was not a huge festival where you have one or two stages in a stupidly large park (as most euro festivals are) but the festival itself took place within the city, everything could become a venue; record stores, bars, actual venues and -of course- the street itself.

I regret a bit that I was there for just one saturday. The things I saw and heard were so good that I promised myself I'll go there for the whole duration next year.
So... without further ado, here's some pictures from Incubate 2010.

As for the images, I think they do speak for themselves in the sense that I like to treat my concert photography in the same way I treat all my photography. I'm not there to show you how it was, I'm there to show you how I see it. I usually find concert pics boring because they attempt to show something that cannot be shown.
The visuals of a live show are extremely difficult to capture. Lighting conditions are usually crap (for photography, that is) and in any case, visuals without the music and vibe just don't convey much.
So you can easily end up with sterile shots that are technically good but transmit nothing or with complete nonsense, shots that are out of focus, over exposed and under exposed all at the same time.
My way out of that? Just shoot like crazy. The more shots you get, the bigger the chances you get at least a useable picture. And focus on the details. Shoot whatever it is that sparks your interest. It can be the lead singer, but it can also often be something as simple as the symmetry of a cable running the length of the stage.

EKLIN. http://www.myspace.com/eklin Dutch psychedelic trip-hop. They played in almost total darkness to a backdrop of bizarre public domain dutch footage.

THIS WILL DESTROY YOU. http://www.myspace.com/thiswilldestroyyou

American post-rock. Think Godspeed you! black emperor or mono.

PSYCHOFAGIST.http://www.myspace.com/psychofagist
Craziest shit I've ever seen. Brutal death metal jazz thingy. Like Mr. Bungle, UneXpect and Secret chiefs 3 all rolled into one with the aggression turned up to 11.

Well... That's it for today. See you next time.

TODAY I TOOK A PICTURE OF A FLOWER

Actually, it was not today. I took it yesterday afternoon just before going out to dinner with a few friends. But yesterday I took a picture of a flower doesn't quite have the same ring to it :)

So, here's the picture I took [yesterday]:






















It's just a yellow flower, growing around the corner. It's a pretty wild thing and while it's not particularly beautiful, there's something about it that caught my eye yesterday morning when I first saw it.
Since I had no camera at hand, I made a mental note of its location and returned armed with the camera in the afternoon.
I don't know what attracts me to this flower. I think it's the imperfectness of it. The -let's say- lack of beauty. It's a typical city-flower. More in common with the common weed that grows in the pavement than with the beautiful (and expensive) bouquets we commonly associate flowers with.
I dunno. I was walking by and it was love at first sight. I knew that the flower would make a nice picture.

I think I was right, cause I really like how the pic came out.

Photographically, there's not much I can tell about it. It's pretty standard. I knew I wanted the flower completely centered and wanted it to be the only splash of color in the frame.
I've been trying to use my wide angle lens a lot lately. My theory is that I suck at taking pictures with wide angle lenses, so I should be using them as often as possible :)
I used the 17-35 zoom (yes, I have one zoom lens!!! but I got it for free, it used to belong to a big newspaper and it's had the crap beaten out of it... still works, though).
AND to make it even more interesting, I'm trying to shoot more color pictures. Basically for the same reason. I suck at color.

So, here you go. A color picture of a flower, taken with a wide angle lens! all things I suck at :)

One lens.

 Another weekend, another photo trip. This time I went to Antwerpen (amberes en castellano), Belgium.
It was a fascinating experience, both from personal and photographic perspectives.
But since this is a "photography" blog, I'll concentrate on the pictures and spare you from reading about my life :)

 It's been a while since I spent some days completely disconnected from the world (my phone died and I left the computer at home) in a city where I know no one and nothing at all. Just randomly walking around, no schedules, no discussions on what to do or see. Complete freedom!

 As for the photography, I think the Antwerp set pretty much qualifies as "weird". Before we get to the pictures, and their style, let me tell you what I did. I took around 400 pictures, all of them with one lens (my favorite, 105mm DC), one aperture setting (f2, wide open) and with the defocusing ring turned all the way up (for the soft focus effect). I did have another lens in the bag just in case, but I wanted to make of this shoot a useful photographic exercise.
Now, I'm an advocate of prime lenses (i.e. no zooms) for a variety of technical and romantic reasons that I will maybe get into one day. Not today though.
Prime lenses are more "uncomfortable" for the photographer. Not having the ability to zoom, you are the one who needs to move. Having just one prime lens limits your perspective a lot.
Which we tend to think it's a bad thing.

 The idea of this exercise is to challenge that. Be forced to think of ways to capture the world around you with just that lens. Infuse yourself in that limited perspective so much that you can automatically know how life through that lens looks without actually looking through the viewfinder.
Yes, there is a place for many different lenses in photography. Some pictures scream for a long tele and some just work better with a wide angle, but how do you recognize which lenses to use if you are not able to see "through the lens" in your minds eye? Yes, you can carry a shitload of lenses with you and try the same picture with all of them. But that's not very practical (and you'll probably miss the shot unless you shoot architecture).
I believe that there's a difference between framing and composing. I'm not discovering anything new here, in fact this was recently discussed by ken rockwell (a photographer I don't particularly like, but who is very good at expressing his opinions -whether you agree or not, it's always interesting to read what he has to say-), Thom Hogan (now he, I really like) and countless others. So, bear with me here. If you heard this all before, sorry.

Ok, so framing and composing...
 You compose a picture with your mind, you frame one by moving your camera around. Yes, it's a subtle difference (and most of the times you do both at the same time) but it's what separates an ok pic from a great one. Composition takes perspective into account. Composition really takes into account which focal length you are using. It's easy to see what I mean: take a wide angle and a tele (or a big zoom lens) and snap two pictures of the same subject without changing your position.

 The change of lens (or focal length) changes EVERYTHING. Unless you know what effect each lens will bring into your composition, you are not composing, just framing to make sure everything fits. That's one of my issue with zooms. They make you lazy, make you zoom instead of moving around. They make you frame instead of compose.
Their sheer versatility complicates the job of learning how the world will look through the lens before putting your eye into the viewfinder.
Finally, Prime lenses are usually better built, lighter, more luminous and all around of a better quality than zooms at comparable prices.
It looks like I did get into all the debate of primes vs. zooms... but now, enough of the technical shit, let's go back to actual photography.

 As I said before, you need to know your lenses inside out. You need to know the effect you'll get shooting through them before pressing the shutter. Hell, you need to know that before even taking the lens out of your bag. You need to eliminate the randomness in lens choice.
And the only way to learn that is: practice, practice, practice. So that's what I did, I took one lens and I fixed the "parameters". I snapped 400 pictures with a fixed focal length, a fixed aperture and a soft focus effect. You would probably expect all the pictures to look extremely similar. And in a way they are. All the pics from the set share the same feel, there's something linking them. But no, they do not look similar in composition. And that was my greatest achievement this past weekend. Even though I didn't come back from Antwerp with an amazing set of photographs that work together as a cohesive thing I would be proud to show around, I came back having managed to learn how to use one of my lenses. In one setting. At least that's what I think :)
And that's quite a lot.

Pictures. Let's see pictures!

As usual, my favorite of the set:

 

Click on the read more thingy for more pics!

LEIDEN

So, I wanna be a photographer.
I mean, seriously. I want to be one.
My first step to achieving that is taking more pictures. It sounds obvious, but it makes sense. Really.

What I mean is not taking more pictures per "session", I do take a lot of pics every time I head outside with my camera. What I mean is that I need to go outside and look for the pictures more often.
It's super easy to take nice pictures when you are out on holidays. The trick is to try and produce a good picture every week. Even in those uneventful weeks where seemingly nothing happens.
It's a bit like writing. It's easy sitting down and retelling a funny story that happened to you. The difficulty comes in writing regularly, even when [apparently] nothing out of the ordinary has happened to you.

So, my new mission: Go look for the pictures, do not wait for them to come.

And so, this past weekend I fought my desire for a relaxing couple of days of music and reading while lying on the couch and took a train to Leiden. A beautiful dutch city that is somehow not as well known as it should. Now, I have to admit that I chose to go there in order to pay a visit to a friend of mine I hadn't seen for a few months. BUT still, the whole idea was to dedicate at least an afternoon to photography.

And so I did.

Actually, I had two "projects" going on at once, in two different compact flash cards (so as to not cross contaminate either of them). It was a bit of a nightmare to switch back and forth between them (AND change the settings in the camera EACH time!) but I think it was worth it. I still haven't transferred the pics from the "secondary" camera but will hopefully do so soon. Soon as in before the weekend.

Ok. So, about the pictures. I don't know if it was my mood or if the people in Leiden were not that interesting, but the majority of the pictures I took were of architectural or just plain abstract nature. Of course, this doesn't mean I didn't get to shoot some people... In fact, my two favorite captures of the weekend relate to old men.
It's also striking that I came back without ANY stalker shot. I remember there being beautiful women there. I wonder why I didn't think of taking their picture.

Anyway. My favorite shot of the weekend:

























One thing I love about the shot is that it's almost symmetric. As I hinted at in the last post (at least by looking at the pictures I showed), I'm getting back into symmetrical framing: -as I put it bluntly- fuck the rule of 3rds.
What I love about this shot is that I framed it perfectly centered (I did crop a bit at the edges, though) but the picture is still not centered because the actual stuff isn't! One of the doors is shorter than the other, and this gives the whole thing a bit of tension. Just enough not to be obvious but still notice it.



Click on the Read more link to see more of Leiden through my eyes.