Hi Kerri,

Yes, that is just my point – these images of Nedizha and Nicole that I just posted on my weblog are far from perfect – they are the originals and raw and earthy and untouched – but I can tell you that they don’t have the same impact when I make them perfect – and if I recreated these shots to be textbook perfect nobody would give them a second glance because these days we are flooded with images of people and images that sometimes seem too perfect to be real.  You see, what I am really saying is that these two images are different and they are unique and that’s their appeal.  They stick out like sore thumbs in the sea of perfection that swims around us all in our daily lives.  My background is photojournalism and this is where I came from, where I cut my teeth so to speak. In my mind, these images represent a softer face to pure photojournalism portraiture which can often be brutal and confronting. Really, in these images I wanted to capture the ethereal beauty of the two girls while preserving the integrity of the shots.  My style has evolved through the years and now although my style is still photojournalistic and I’m still telling a story, I do use the tools available to me to make the story of my subjects more of a fairytale which is really what we all want these days, but I still strive to maintain the integrity of the images.

Christine

Hi kerri,

I just wanted to clarify it because I thought I might have confused you.  What I was really saying was that these images were originally printed as huge enlargements using film oriented enlargers and without any infusion of digital enhancement.  They weren’t digitally scanned just printed by hand using film enlargers and really, these original enlargements are just stunning, even to this day, and no matter how I digitally adjust them, I’ve never been able to beat the original prints which were printed before digital printing & scanning became the norm.   I captured these images just as they were as I saw them on the days I took them using only available light and reflectors and a little fill flash and I framed and adjusted the girl’s poses till I saw the effect I wanted through the lens before taking the shots. I took several shots around these particular ones but I knew (and I always do know)  when I got the shot. You and Mark probably do, too.  Just to give you an example of what I wanted to capture on film that day when I did the photo shoot of Nedizha was the infinite detail of the myriad of shades and the intricate colouring of her exquisite green eyes, and thankfully, I did manage to do that much to my relief when I saw the negatives.  It wasn’t until I heard comments from some members of Nedizha’s family remarking that they had never realised the kaleidoscope of green tones in Nedizha’s eyes until they looked into the photo, even though they saw her every day that I realised how photography can bring something missed in everyday life into our line of vision.  In Nicole’s case, I used a filter on my lens to give that dreamy look and accentuate her features, in particular her beautiful  vivid blue eyes and her porcelain skin, and even though today there are what seems to be a million digital manipulations software programs out there to give this effect post processing, I don’t think that I could beat the image of Nicole through the lens as I saw it and as I composed it that day captured on film and printed using the (now) old method of enlarging and printing images from film without any digital input.

The images that I’ve posted on my weblog don’t really give any idea of what the original images really look like blown up and enlarged.  But although I love the freedom that the digital revolution has given me to manipulate and correct my images, my background makes it so rewarding when I capture something real (although we all know that the camera can never really capture the “real” picture – only a representation – for instance, it adds ten pounds to a person’s perceived weight in a photo).

That’s why these two images are my favourites.

Christine

@lydellphoto - Hi Kerri,

I reckon you’d love going into the darkroom, even for some black and white prints to experience the magic of seeing the prints come alive from what was before just a blank sheet of photographic paper.  I don’t know, but sadly one of the things that we’ve lost to the past with the advent of the digital age is the “chemical darkrooms” which are really a thing of the past nowadays.  Being in the darkroom was like being in another World, a World of safe lights, controlled temperature and sometimes eery silence and and when you see an image begin to appear as if by magic on the blank paper in the trays, it always created an air of expectation, to see what you’d created.  You’d come outside into daylight and have no idea what the weather was like till you emerged fom the darkroom.  The same went for colour darkrooms  but they were another experience again, because of the pitch blackness that was essential around the enlargers, you’d have to feel your way around the room in the pitch black and so much testing had to be done to get the prints right, I can tell you that I really learnt the basics of photography having worked with film and in the darkrooms because no two images captured on film or printed are ever the same due to the nature of film emulsion and photographic papers. Mind you, the digital revolution has made things so much simpler, and the best part is that you can see the results straight away. I tell you what, if you ever get the chance, just experience the darkroom, I really think you’d love it.

Christine