Crossovers
Hello again and welcome to another musing from the mind of NathanPhoto, sometimes my work practices cross over into each other and result in a convergence that I feel compared to share. Crossovers can be great; a sign that you’re on the right path with a convergence of ideas, hopefully culminating in an ‘ah’ moment. This week’s moment presented itself not such as an ‘ah’ but ‘mmm’ and it appears to be based in the simplest of ideas. That idea is providing an image caption or as it is being used now providing an image descriptions or ‘alt’ text.
Mainly noticed this on social media as I’ve been seeing articles on the importance of providing image descriptions to make images more accessible to people and to give a context to the image, possibly providing details that aren’t apparent at first reading of the image.
To relate this specifically in the context of the NathanPhoto blog I’ve been working on my archive, choosing images then trying to think how many or how few words to leave with the image, also to what depth the words need to be. All of this to make it
accessible, searchable and valid, for it to have some sort of value for future generations or the suchlike. In practice I’m leaving it to my kids with the hope that they can make something (hopefully cash) out of it.
Now as I have mentioned previously my archive is a sprawling affair with many parts, many threads and ideas that there is almost too much to contemplate. As a quick example off the top of my consciousness there’s:
60 seconds with Beyonce, Lady Gaga eye contact at the Apollo, the bemouth that is the one glove project with who knows how many images, the work for City Life, MEN, Gay Times, Boyz, APN, Getty to name a few publications, the unpublished work that sailed by. Then there is the forgotten about shots (whose importance may be amplified by the passing of time). Coupled with the ‘mishmash’ images that seem to have no individual significance but perhaps all of these pieced together may form something of value and interest.
Will take a moment here to remember what’s missing, a main part of my early archive and career which was unfortunate lost due to fire…
I digress...
All of these mentioned could possibly stand-alone but they would stand taller with the addition of an image description but what to put. Let us take the Beyonce 60 second’s story. The trials of getting a front cover usable shot of Beyonce in 60 seconds, shooting from the sound desk of the MEN arena through the crowd in the maximum time of a minute, with management stood next to me (possibly timing on a stopwatch), crowd all sat down on my arrival but then as soon as she came on then they rise with hands and phone’s in the air blocking all sorts of views, then once repositioned with a 300mm and a doubler, her arrival being solely back lit with fireworks for the first 20 seconds/lifetime. The minute over to then get about 50 usable images only for the team needing the picture not to understand how gig photography works to ask ‘is that it?” Should I mention the fact that only locals were allowed in, so I have crafted an almost unique shot in time and space or the wonder of the next time Beyonce appeared in Manchester that I was given 90 seconds (was this because I was good the last time or the fact that I wasn’t?)
Which details would you like and how do I present them?
Think coming from a commercial-esque background I’ve never been afraid to caption images as some have, always thought there was a touch of the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ when I hear it said that ‘an image should speak for themselves’, aye it does but it’s always nice to have a touchstone or as the inspiration for this article, to make an image more accessible to a wider audience.
Rightly or wrongly, I think providing a lack of context is a way of avoiding ‘nailing your colours to the mast’ stopping the image from getting caught out if presented with a more definitive argument or preventing them from exploring a new idea if it is presented to them. Is that being cynical or incisive?
Questions lead to more questions: How much information do you need for an image? Only the facts or something more? Sometimes the words can open up a picture to become more valid or respected, can they work the other way, that once you find out more about a picture you like it less?
These discussions can go on and on…so I’ll jump to the picture, well what to put up after that musing? Well, any of the above-mentioned archive shots would work, especially the Beyonce one, but a quick google search does not reveal its presence on the internet which is interesting so maybe I’ll sit on that one for a little longer…
Thought I’d share this one from the archive instead…this is in a section called the mishmash section and contains random images from a time, now I think I know where this was shot and when mid 90’s but there’s not much else I’ve got to go on.
How would you explain this one?
Guess the obvious would-be stool, cat, fire extinguisher but what about the scratches on the door near the handle, how would you explain the colour on the walls, what about where it was shot and what about the mindset of the time? Would words help to improve this otherwise bland shot?
As ever let me know your thoughts, ideas or feedback on the usual channels.
Thank you for reading.