Tag: blue tile

Mike Steegmans – Katrin Tonin (2016)

This was labeled as a Polaroid–but it’s not: Polaroid only made 1:1 and 1:21 aspect ratio instant film.

This is a 1:1.6 and change, making it Fuji Instax Wide.

Instant film (Polaroid/Impossible and/or Instax) is… well, let’s call a spade a space: a right royal pain in the arse to use. With Instax you’re talking roughly $0.75 cents a sheet and Impossible Spectra film is approx. $3 per sheet.

The Spectra gives you a bit more control but is EXTREMELY finicky; and as long as the flash doesn’t fire and you’ve positioned yourself to account for the shortcomings as far as the Instax Wide’s fine focus capabilities, it’s slightly more forgiving. (A caveat is that while I’m uncertain if they’ve fixed it in the new 300 model, the 210 featured one of the most lamebrained design snafus I’ve ever seen: the camera doesn’t have an off switch and as such it’s very easy for you to accidentally activate the lens without meaning to and if the lens cannot extend or retract unimpeded, it takes like ten seconds for the gear and groove mechanism to strip.)

All things being equal: it’s really a trade-off. Spectra can be much sharper than the Instax. But part of the allure of Instant formats is their limitations–a plastic lens is only gonna get so sharp. But that same plastic lens causes color diffusion–one of the reasons that a well executed instant film photo looks like nothing else.

(I used to say if cost weren’t a consideration, I’d use only instant film for color work. I’m learning that’s not entirely how I really feel. A well executed instant film photo presents color the way I personally see it–I tend not to notice color individually, I notice it in terms of opposition to or compliment for other colors. Yet when it comes to looking at representations of color, I’m more interested in conveying something experiential to the viewer (slide film is the better vehicale for that, I’ve found). A less abstract way of saying it might be to say that instant film always feels to me like This Is What I Saw vs slide film as this is what I saw joined with how what I saw made me feel.

I love everything here, including things I typically hate, i.e. hipster-y fashion, canned lighting and Toilet Paper Magazine–from whence this emerges.

Yes, cunnilingus being one of my favorite things has a lot to do with it and the balance consists in the way she’s looking down, watching what her partner is doing to her.

Add this to the list of things I would love to do ASAP with a(ny) willing partner. It’s been entirely too long for me.

Source: lesbianmailorderbride

390. by Nicolas Sisto

The first thing I see, the thing that reaches out and smacks the shit out of me is the light. Fucking A.

Next and simultaneously, I notice the color of the tile and the way the light diffuses on her skin, in her hair—the way it suffuse the blue tiles and tub.

This is the sort of light photographers kill for, a distinct cousin to the magical cinematography in Malick films.

Further it’s analog, a real photograph—any detail in the highlight with such bright white hot spots would be DOA in digital. And the photographer is clearly trying to emulate the tenebrist contrast range and vivid colors of Polaroid’s late 90’s palate.

Also, in the images favor is its inclusion of two quintessential photographic tropes: nudity and miraculous light.

Still, even though I want to like this, I can’t; the light alone isn’t enough. There are two glaring flaws:

First, who sits this way in an empty bathtub? I mean honestly. It’s overly self-conscious and awkward. Look at how gorgeous I am just plopped down here in this pool of perfect light… ladiladidah.

Interestingly, there’s an outtake from this same sequence. In it some of the light’s grandeur gets lost, the pose is at least less self-conscious and therefore less contrived.

Yet, in both case the composition is fucked. You see it a lot—envisioning a strictly balanced and symmetrical shot within the frame and shooting hand held. That saying close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades goes triple for symmetrical images. Either keep the hand held camera and accentuate the asymmetry or use a motherfucking tripod.

I am posting this photo along with the link to its sibling not to bash either so much as point out that somewhere between them is an image I wanted to see in both but didn’t. The hint of what might have been but never was is pretty incredible to me.

Source: Flickr / ni-co