Portraiture within photography

                                                                                                                                                                                                     


  The definition of portrait photography is described as being a likeness of a person mainly of the face as a photograph, painting or drawing this creates a narrative or a memory of what a person looks likes although the narrative may not be clear at first glance.It can also be used in a more formal way as a way of identification. A more creative portrait must have a deeper meaning."a creative portrait must have some deeper meaning behind it. Usually, it’s personal to the subject, ironic to the viewer, or identifies something about the subject that you may not have otherwise have known." (craftsy.com) this point can be strongly agreed with as creative images and images to do with photojournalism does tend to relate more to  feelings and trying to get a message across it focuses more on the emotional side.


From Manchester UK Lee Jeffries is a portrait photographer who originally photographed sporting events until he met a young homeless girl on the streets and it changed his approach to photography forever. "The photographer knew that the young girl had noticed him but his first reaction was to leave. He says that something made him stay and go and discuss with the homeless girl. His perception about the homeless completely changes. They become the subject of his art." (all-about-photo.com) he describes his work as definitely not photojournalism.


This image is truly stunning with the amount of detail within it, it shows elements of beauty even though that maybe something that is not normally associated with the homeless.The woman appears to be posing for the camera which may show she does want to portray beauty.There is so much detail within the image showing the element of age and wisdom in some way.The image is clearly staged which means she was comfortable around the photographer.This 24mm lens which is a wide angle lens which allows you to get in all this detail.This image is also shot at f/5 which gives it a massive depth of field creating the beautiful blur around the woman which could be seen as her dreams around her.

I really like the way Lee Jeffries speaks to the subject before taking the photo this makes the subject a lot more comfortable around the camera it gives a connection between the photographer and the subject which is portrayed within the images. He has chosen to photograph homeless people as he wants to sway public opinion of them by getting to know them he chose to do portraits of just the face as he did not want to create photojournalism . He infuses his images with light which could also have a connection with the glimmer of hope they have with getting into a home or some kind of accommodation. "I think Jeffries intended his art to honor these people, not pity them." this point can be strongly agreed with as the way of images are shot with the light as it looks they have a element of glory within them or a glimmer of hope.




Angus McBean was a welsh photographer he photographed some really famous people from Audrey Hepburn to Marilyn Monroe his work has been displayed in the national portrait gallery. He was very famous in the era of vintage film and the rise of the cinema. As his work was done in the 1904 to 1990 it was all done in black and white film which meant there was way these images could be manipulated or changed in any way they could only enhance shadows and highlights within the darkroom.  In 1935 he opened his own studio; and his prominent style was soon being published in glossy magazines.

This image is really beautiful and the light in the image is so soft the image is clearly staged yet it is natural surroundings.The way the image is so light reflects the elegance of Audrey Hepburn who was a style icon this also connects with the flowers within the picture giving them a feminine touch to the image this image also has a element of romance within which is also created by the way the light is in the image. This image shows natural beauty of her as there was no way of manipulation with this image as it was shot in film also meaning the image has been well thought out to get this beauty within the image using light. This photo was not used in any way to educate people it was to show of beauty it is meant to be beautiful to the eye as Audrey was and that is how people saw her and i think it really achieves it with such simple elements as it only really uses light to do so.


Portrait photography is used mainly to show beauty or to be appealing to the eye however some can be used to tell a narrative a story behind the person something that the view may not know or to make you feel some kind of emotion this tend to be linked with photojournalism as this is a good way to sway public opinion.The main focus when it comes to portraiture as you can see with the two images above is the eyes and that's what makes a portrait there needs to be emotion or a glimmer in the eye to add emotion into the image also light is a massive thing when it comes to portrait photography as it brings out features on the face by the way it sculpts the face or to highlights main features. It can also be used in a formal way as of identification or a way to create a memory of what a person looks like however it is more associated with showing off beauty and features of the face as it is a massive thing today within the media as portraits can be seen everywhere.



Bibliography
http://www.craftsy.com/blog/2013/06/creative-portraits/
http://www.all-about-photo.com/photographer.php?name=lee-jeffries&id=76

documentary within photography

documentary photography can be portrayed in many different ways it can start from photos of family to documentary a world event however the main way it is portrayed is by documenting things going off in the world from happiness to horror this is mostly shown within the news and media.The world is ruled by media we use it as a way to communicate and find out information.Documentary photography is a massive things as it acts as evidence to back the words up it also creates artifacts so we have physical memories of what has happened  using light and time to reproduce that moment.However this has become risky as now we can manipulate images easier than ever before


Before digital cameras were invented images were a lot more raw and realistic."Looking back, documentary photography has made waves of impact as a method of truth-telling in difficult times, a way of exposing disturbing scenes to raise awareness of things like poverty and famine, to ultimately reshape the public’s opinion on government policies that were often the direct cause." (learnmyshot.com) this point can be strongly agreed within the era of pre - digital as it was used massively as a way of impact producing these shocking and raw images to educate and raise awareness on taboo subjects or subjects that had not been addressed and spoke about as much,it was a really good way to shape the public's opinion as these images were 100% real and could not be manipulated in any way possible it also focused more on getting on a raw and real image than looking at ways to create a pretty image that was appealing to the eye." If i could say anything with words i wouldn't of picked up a camera"(David Du Chemin) This point is very interesting as it is stating that you can say more with pictures than you can words this has a massive impact when it comes to documentary photography as it needs to speak words it needs to get a message across, it needs to speak words.


Post- digital is very different within documentary photography as now we do not know what is real and what isn't. Images can be manipulated so easily these days and it also a lot easier to manipulate other peoples opinions and shape the way we think threw media because most of the time if it's in the media people will believe it.It has definitely made people more careful when viewing media and on what to believe,"Despite being widespread, digital manipulation provokes anxiety and unease, especially when news photographs are involved. "(David Campbell 2016) This point states that sometimes it is used as a way to enhance fear and make things worse and they seem its a good way to get reactions out of people by exaggerating the situation with photographic manipulation and big debates about guidelines on how far images should be able to be manipulated in media. This can be strongly agreed with as guidelines should be put in place so people can feel more safe when viewing the media.

Should media and documentary photography be trusted is a massive question within today's society where it is really easy to make facts into fiction by this process as it is so easy to manipulate images today and also it is easy to take old images and manipulate them to.


"Iconic: Historians say the couple captured in a passionate embrace on V-J Day in 1945 didn't know each other before the kiss; and in fact, the sailor's future wife, Rita Mendonsa, can be seen peering over his right shoulder" (mailonline) this picture is very iconic as it was done to celebrate the end of the seconds world war  this kiss was shared by 2 complete strangers which i think it make it really iconic the fact people where so happy and the war had ended this image created evidence for this period of time, a artifact of a iconic moment in history.This image was before digital camera so it is certain that this is a legitimate and has not been manipulated.This image is still composed really well even though it was a spur of the moment you can tell the photographer still thought about the image.




  This image was taken Rohan Gosh this image speaks about a woman who is a widow."Every morning, at dawn, come rain or shine, Durga Devi walks the short distance from her ashram to the bathing ghats on the banks of the river Ganges (Hoogly) in Kolkata." (Rohangosh.co.uk) This image could give feelings of sympathy as this woman does look in pain and does have some kind of body deformity.|This image could have been manipulated or tweaked with to make the image appear worse than it actually is,This image appears to be cropped this again maybe so you focus more on the lady and not the surrounding areas however if this image is not manipulated it does show some beauty within the image as it shows true beauty of a lady and her motivations to not give up no matter what her situation is.



There a few questions when it comes to documentary photography should we trust it with modern day technology or should there be guidelines when it comes to documentary photography within the media and is documentary photography dead? guidelines should be put in place when it comes to documentary photography to a certain extent as it should not be used to changed the opinions of the people viewing the images and to changed public opinion .This does not mean documentary photography is dead however it may mean we are loosing the authenticity of it and even the beauty of it.Film photography was a lot more trust worthy when it comes to using it as evidence and artifacts for historical value but then it is a lot easier to access images since the process became digital both sides have pros and cons.It seems a lot more pros are related to the practical side when it comes to the digital process. 







Bibliography

http://www.rohanghosh.co.uk/the-ritual#0
http://learnmyshot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187071/Times-Square-Sailor-nurse-kissing-iconic-WWII-photograph-reunited.html

women in photoraphy

In this essay I want to look at the way woman have changed and influences within photography I want to look at how women have changed the way we view photography I want to look at the shock factor within photography and the way women have used it to educate and the way society has reacted to it. I wanted to look at women photographers as the photography industry is ruled by men I want to look at woman that stood out from the crowd when it came to photography and there work by shocking the world to educate them.


Diane Arbus was born in 1932in New York. She learnt her skills as a photographer from her husband. They found massive success within their fashion work however Diane wanted to branch out on her own. She started to create these very distinctive portraits of people who are perceived as ugly or freaks, who were people who were not perceived as normal in society this could be anything from travesties to dwarfs. many people found her work disgusting or as if she was making a mockery of these people when I believe she was trying to educate people and show we are all the same on the inside. A source says "If Arbus undoubtedly felt at home among the outsiders she photographed, she also experienced a frisson of guilty pleasure when photographing them. "There's some thrill in going to a sideshow," she once confessed of her nocturnal visits to the circus tents of Coney Island, where performers were still earning a living in the 1960s. "I felt a mixture of shame and awe." (Sean O'Hagan 2011) this showed Diane did have mixed feelings about her photography as she did feel shame but also felt proud and she looked up to these people this supports the fact she wasn't this horrible person people thought she was and she wasn't trying to embarrass them. She felt comfortable enough to be around them but at the same time did feel shame for them as they were out of the ordinary in society. I find her work extremely powerful and educating and I do feel it is used to embarrass anyone.


 Here is a picture Diane Arbus she called this piece the Jewish giant.I think this may be one of her most extreme images.It shows someone who would stand out extremely within society but I also like how it shows his parents who are "normal" in society. I really like the simplicity of the image as it doesn't really experiment with angles or composure however I feel Arbus really just wanted to educate people by getting a message across that people like this do exist and that's okay and they are no different to the rest of us. I really like the vignette she has used around this image it makes you focus more on the person than the background.The second image is of a transvestite Arbus took this again was extremely out of the ordinary. This was very frowned upon within society. I love the graininess within this image as I feel it gives the image a raw quality as Arbus shot in film and her images were always in black and white. The image looks very natural yet really contrast with what candid image is as a candid usually shows elements of beauty within them.But at the same time Arbus may of found beauty within these image and that's what she wanted express. The shadow adds depth the image. Arbus defiantly wanted to use the shock factor to educate people within her work however many people did frown upon it or feel it was a way to embarrass these people who are pictured within society.



Nan Goldin was born in 1953 in America she captures captured a world of sexuality, violence and addiction in her slideshow and book, The Ballad of Sexual Dependency (1981). Goldin herself left home at the age of 13. She joined a group that were involved in sex drugs and violence she documented this by taking photographs in the late 70's then she then put together to create The Ballad of Sexual Dependency book. This showed images of her friends which included addicts, hustlers, transvestites and prostitutes. A source states "In doing so, she redefined what photography could do and what it could be – a mirror of oneself as well as the world."(Sean O'Hagan 2014) I feel this is stating Goldin went over the boundries of what photography could be and really pushed it in what was acceptable in photography and in society just like Arbus did. Her work may have been perceived as shocking however I wasn't to Goldin as she had lived this, it was her reality.




 I really like the colour in these images as she shot in analogue film it gives it a soft effect with colour which really contrast with what the images are about as they are the gritty truth of violence, sex and drugs. The first image is of three transvestites they come across as very pretty and prim and proper in contrast to what their lifestyle would be. I really like the use of rule of thirds within the image as it gives it structure and makes you look at each man individually. The image looks very staged however is candid. Not a lot is going on in the background so this again keeps the attention on the men. The image shows a lot of beauty in the image but in a unique way The second image shows strong feelings of violence this image is shocking and does push the boundaries of what photography should be as it does not show beauty in the way its suppose to be perceived in society. It the extreme and gritty truth of violence within society and shows things you may not seen normally in photography. I really like how this image is framed as it fill the frame and as the woman is in the centre it and how her hair fills the frame this makes the image work better as this is the only thing you focus on. The darkness of the image adds to the effect. Only basic colours are used within this image it is very simplistic just like Arbus.


Both these woman have made a massive impact on photography by pushing the boundaries to the limit on what photography should be by focusing on the ugly instead of the beauty society is usually associated with it. I feel the images are unforgettable as they are so raw and focuses on subjects that back then were taboo subjects. Both used this method to educated however some people had mixed opinions on their work as some did find it offensive I find both of their work really interesting and extremely unique. They have influenced many people to not be afraid of the hard truth or don't be to afraid to push the boundaries and photograph it as photography should be open and not structure we all have to stick to.

landscaping and photography

what is landscape photography? Andrew Carter (2013) says " landscapes  were originally used to fill in blank spaces behind people or objects in painting however as art and photography has evolved. However as art and photography has evolved, the “background” was seen to have artistic value in and of itself. Today, landscape photography is a very popular pursuit." I do agree with this point as I do feel landscape photography has blossomed and it does have a lot of artistic value now and this is all thanks to the work of people like Ansel Adams.

What makes a landscape?

  
Born on February 20th 1902 Ansel Adams in San Francisco California rose to fame as a photographer of the American west. His black and white images showed fine art within photography. His images were used for environmental purpose. His work showed natural beauty within landscapes. Adams work consist of so much detail and extreme lines and layers. I also like the way he it was not possible for him to manipulate the images so this is the true beauty of the landscape. His work has lots of contrast and tonal ranges within them and a lot is going on in each image however I do not feel the image is to overpowering, as Adam shot in film a really long exposure would of been used to get the detail for this he would of needed a tripod. On his first trip up to Sierra Nevada with a Kodak no1 brownie and started taking shots. sources from national geographic (October 2011) state he said  "I expect to be broke if I keep up the rate I am taking pictures," This statement shows that film was very expensive however Adams did not want to give up his dream just because it was expensive and that he did have faith in himself when it can to making a living.


William Eggleston has almost changed the way we look at landscapes as he showed landscapes in a way that injected colour. Born in 1939 he was an American photographer.He is know for being the genius of colour. A source written Eric Kim shows a quote from martin parr written about William eggleston this states. "His color is just sort of the color of nothing, if he likes- just ordinary life. And its funny that originally he started in black and white and moved to color. And I guess for him, it wasn’t an issue. But at the time, you have to understand, if you were a serious photographer you had to be working in black and white. So when he came along and did this sort of nothingness color, it wasn’t decorative, it was just ordinary life –it was quite radical, because it was so underplayed. And it took us a long time to understand and appreciate that.” and I feel this is a really big reason why William eggelston made a breakthrough as he had the confidence to use colour why everyone was else stuck to black and white.



composition has been done really well in these images as he uses a lot of rule of thirds and lines. This technique makes the images more easy to read as your eyes follow the lines creating dimension and depth to each image. The colours in the image are extremely strong and just like in Ansel Adams work a lot is going on in each image yet again it is not overpowering. He also shot in film as well and i feel this helps a lot with the effect of the images and the graininess. The colour shows extreme passion and enthusiasm in his work and this also reflects his personality and feelings towards photography. I do agree one the statement that he is the genius of colour as I feel the film he has used to shoot did bring out these extreme colours he wasn't afraid to experiment.


After my research and evidence I feel one of the main factors about creating a landscape is composition as this is shown strongly in both Adams and Egglestons work. Both use lines and rule of thirds to create depth and dimension within the images. Both also use a lot of texture within the images but Adams does seem show more as he did high contrast black and white however Adams did shoot at a wider angle so he could get more detail within both would of used long exposures to get this as they both shot in film. Yet both capture the natural beauty of the landscapes both in a different way Egglestons focused a lot more on street and man made things why Adam focused mainly on natural landscapes and mountains. I feel both have contributed massively in the way we look at landscapes and landscape photography today they are perceived now as something beautiful and unique instead of using it as something to just fill in the space. I feel this would not be the case if it wasn't for these two photographers, they push way out of there comfort zone and was not afraid to try new things. Both of their work was extremely unique the time they were around and both photographer did think their images threw carefully before shooting them. In a way i do feel Ansel Adams did have more of a impact as he started taking landscapes first and his work does show so much detail because of the black and white contrast however William eggleston did modernise landscapes by injecting these big bright colours into these landscapes. Overall i feel both photographers made a massive impact in the way we see landscapes today and they were big influence's to photography as a society.They have taught many photographer to push yourself out of your comfort zone and try new things as this is what they did as got amazing results from it by also  shooting with film they both show that the process to a great landscape photo isn't quick and it does take a long time and thought in the shooting and development. I feel this still applies to digital photography today as I think you do really need to think about your photos like composition to produce good photos.












http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/04/01/10-lessons-william-eggleston-has-taught-me-about-street-photography/
http://carterlandscapephotography.com.au/what-is-landscape-photography/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/ansel-adams-wilderness/poole-text

Politics within photography

political issues surround us in today's world photography is on the main way of expressing these issues as is a massive part of today's society. This can be used as a way to shock the world or can be as propaganda to manipulate opinions. Photography can be used as a way of portraying these issues in the media.Animal testing is a huge issues when it comes to today's society it has been protested against for many years. Using photography of what really happens within these labs to shock the world has been used a lot to protest against it and people feel people have the right to know what is really going on behind closed doors. Animals can be tested on for medical research to cosmetics. source says "People do argue for animal testing as they feel human benefits are made." (bbc ethics)  I strongly disagree with this point as I feel animals do have feeling and it isn't right they have no informed consent also there is so many ethical issues within this topic we are not exactly the same as animals so sometimes benefits are not  even proven towards humans I feel this is really not ethical.



Photography Is used mainly used a defensive to protest against animal testing however it could also be used a evidence to support research between labs however we never get to see this. So many images are used to protest against as it is such a massive issue this shows animals in such a defenceless way and in such shocking conditions this is all used to shock the world as this is the real hard true the images push boundaries as they are not what a normal photo would be that consist of elements of beauty this can appear offensive and upsetting to people when it is suppose to educate people.



when I look at this image I feel it does make me think more about the reality of animal testing as it isn't nessicarly something that crosses our minds when buying products.This image is very tame to other protest against animal testing.This is used more as a advertising pieces protesting against instead of a really offensive picture of what is reality.This pieces is used more to educate than shock people. However it is still quite upsetting as it is about beauty companies and I feel they have chosen a beautiful looking animal also the expression on the animals face shows emotions of defenceless and sadness.The image is very simplistic and spacious this makes you only focus on the main subject which is the animal and another else as there is nothing else to take you attention away. I also feel the way they have changed the name very cleaver as it gives a vey clear message that this is the reality this is how it really is. I find this piece very effective in a tame way it does not use the shock technique to educate people.






I find this image extremely uncomfortable to look at. This uses the shock factor to educate people but not in a violent way yet it still has the same effect in my opinion. By using dark colours this links with the dark truth of animal testing again the image is very simple and spacious so this is the only thing you focus on. They have used images layered together to create this shocking image however I feel it is very effective by making the dog smaller this also shows the power we have over animals not just in this subject but in general as they don't get a say in anything by making the animal the product the human is using this makes me feel really uncomfortable as it makes you hit reality that what you are using has been tested on poor defensive animals. This image does has an element of beauty however not in a good way as the only thing showing beauty in this is the woman as she has a full face of make up and looks just like what society labels as beautiful. This image is extremely shocking as it shows a really good example of the power we have over animals and the way animal testing is being used to test products and it is basically getting the message across that you are using these animals by using the products.



Overall when It comes to animal testing photography is used a lot to protest against as poster are made with photography within them. They are used to shock and educate people as this is a truly and unethical here are so many issues within in this subject it is hard to get the point across without being extremely offensive. Photography is a lot more powerful when it comes to educating people as it  shows more than words and shows a lot more. Photography is a lot stronger evidence than words and this is the strongest way of evidence when it comes to animal testing the only thing is its so hard to get photographs of the conditions they are as the labs are extremely confidential as they don't want us to see the truth so poster campaigns with different images place together are the best evidence we had at the minute. Also people remember images a lot more than words as it is a visual object. a sources says "The RSPCA has long campaigned against this use of animals. There are already more than enough cosmetics products available and thousands of existing cosmetics ingredients are accepted as safe. It is simply not justifiable to cause animal suffering to develop more."(RSPCA) this states that changes have been changed to some degree however animal testing is still a massive issue and how it is just not humane to injure and harm poor defenceless animals for are benefit I strongly agree with this as this is not ethical and animals do not have any informed consent.

what is a photograph?

what is a photograph? the answer to this question can be interpreted in many different ways. there is the scientific or technical way which states "a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally" however I want to look at the more of a deep meaning. I feel that a long time ago photos were objects or artefacts of moments frozen In time however I feel as photography has progressed it has evolved to more than that as we now have photos everywhere such as Facebook and instagram and photos are used everyday now days from magazines to social media but has this took away the beauty and feel to what a photograph really is?


I feel that for a photo to be a photograph and successful it need to have some kind feeling within it needs to speak emotion especially when it involves people and that makes me think does photography have to link with beauty? conscientious photography states (march 2014)  "This connects why the question “what is a photograph?” matters with the idea of beauty. Robots or machines have no concept of beauty (again, not yet). They can’t make photographs because they are unable to make decisions entirely based on their own whims (instead of relying on scripts or algorithms programmed into the memory banks), and they’re unable to make photographs because they have no concept of beauty. All they can do – right now – is to robotically record parts of the world so that humans, at whatever stage, assign value and sense to the resulting images." This piece of evidence states that camera can not fully record the world properly as now they can only record parts and place then together to create an image from their whims. I think this is trying to say that the image you take on your camera isn't actually a photograph as it is only the camera representation of the word threw their parts they have recorded I do not know if a agree so much with point as I feel a photograph can lots of beauty within even though it is not the exact representation of the world. This article argues mainly on the question of what is a photograph to mainly have a practical answer and looks at the way robots are used to create these images with all the information they record.


 Another source says; Pixelated mind ( January 2013) that "People will always ask me how I made the photo. Tell you honestly, most of the time I will not remember what f-stop or shutter speed my camera was at. But I will always remember the moment when I took the shot, where I was, and the feeling it gave me right after I pressed the shutter." I feel I agree with this point as I do feel their is a deeper meaning to what a photograph is than the practical elements and I agree with this as I feel its a lot more about how the photo makes you feel how you felt when you took it and how it continue to make you feel because every photograph has some feeling it, it just depends on how the person has interpreted it. The feeling when we see something we want to take a photo of is why we take it as it intrigues us or gives us some kind of emotion for us to take the photograph otherwise what the point at just shooting something random that does connect with you in anyway.



History of photography states "Some people find that photography is a way to express our ideas instead of letting them sit in a sketchbook. It allows you to show people the world through your eyes-whether it be bad or good. For others, it is an addiction, a hobby, a way to relax when you are stressed. For them, after a stressful day, just a few minutes with a camera is therapeutic-even if they are taking a bad picture of a bad subject. It is an escape, a reason to get out and do something. It gives their days meaning to be able to capture and preserve special moments that may never happen again. It helps them to look back on those moments and smile, even if they aren't particularly happy moments."  I feel his pretty much covers people opinions of what a photograph is yet all of them link to feelings and emotions and the connection of feelings so again it that saying that a photograph needs to link with feelings which makes the point above stronger.


I feel that this question does has a practical answer to it however I feel the more psychological answer is more important as I feel what really makes a photograph is emotion and feelings I feel you need to connect with a image for it to be a photograph you need to feel something when you press the shutter. The image needs to speak something. It is almost like a moment frozen in time as it captures a moment forever. It can create memories a artefact of how you felt that exact moment. I feel the more practical answer would apply more to professional photography or staged images as this is all set up and planned ahead however it can still speak emotion however they will probably not be natural unless it was candid photography. But then you could also argue the fact that you need to have people in a image to create emotion however I don't feel this is true it can also be spoken threw objects or landscapes. The practical answer pretty much states the obvious as it looks at the elements needed to create an image and looking at the way we process it. I think it is more important to look at the more psychological meaning as the practical reasoning is just to obvious. 






































bibliography
https://samcoran.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/a-deeper-meaning-of-photography/
http://isabellaphotographyepq.blogspot.co.uk/p/deeper-meaning-of-photography.html
http://cphmag.com/what-is-a-photograph/

Visual Communication research blog 3 Erik Johansson

A Swedish born photographer Erik Johansson focus his work on surrealism by using combining lots of different images together creating one image that is extremely life like. This can range from suing only a few images to 100 of little ones within his work he spends many hours on Photoshop creating these image as he has to cut out every individual image using the pen tool and then place the on to the original image this called image manipulation The work he creates really bends reality and makes you think about the way we perceive the world.

i really like the first set of image i have chosen as i feel they have a dark feel to them. Most of them are shot at night or have lots of grey within in giving them a very dismal and erey tone to the images. these images are really hard to understand when it comes narratives however this the way surrealism is meant to be.i find the composition are done well in these images as Erik would of really had to think about where to place the images to create these images. I also feel a lot of patience and effort needed to go into these images. The lighting in these images is amazing as they they are all light yet show darkness. I really like the dream like feel to these images and how they really make you think about what is going off in the image. Even though the images are quite dark the dream like effect does make the images have a element of calm to them. 

These images are a lot brighter and have a lot more positive feel to them. I really like how real the images look and how all the separate images really work well together. These images a a whole are all quite bright when it comes to lighting. Erik has also use computational elements like rule of thirds making the images more appealing to the eye. Also in his work he has mainly used everyday objects a lot larger than we seen normally in a landscape i really think this idea works as it takes everyday objects and makes them surreal. The lighting has a lot to do with creating the dream like effect. 

i find his work really interesting as i really like the idea of making reality surreal also so much time and effort must of gone into these images. They are done so accurately and do not look like lots of different images yet they look like one big real image. i think one factor that makes Erik's work so unique is the lighting as the lighting is amazing in all his images and really help when it comes to making his images so unique and surreal.