When Worse Is Better — STREET SILHOUETTES

June Gloom in early spring. This - not being Southern California - is when the cold and the gray roll over from the winter. With plenty of cloud cover, you’d think that this would be the best time to capture colors at its most accurate rendition. But, I wasn't in the mood for it. After all, the day just felt so uninspiring, as were the location and the same old bag of tricks to be carried out for this dog-and-pony show. Again, there was nothing new for show and tell. All that was left for this photowalk was my wits to conjure up meaning from thin air.

Then, there was my partner-in-waiting’s choice of attire for this photowalk. The absolute horror! A light weight ribbed-knit top untucked over a heavier weight woven pair of trousers. How the clash in weight made the hard edge of her black trousers peak clearly through her lavender top. It was ghastly. Not surprisingly, the resulting objective of this ill-fated photowalk was to conceal this grave mismatch, since any visible evidence of it would surely be an eyesore cleaving the clean lines and natural folds of my partner-in-waiting’s silhouette.

We tried tucking in the hem of the offending top under her trousers. However, the intervention only managed to intensify the already dominant black color blocking by enveloping the lavender color accent further. On top of that, the drape of the gather accentuated the mismatch in fabric weight. Caught between a rock and a hard place, we decided to leave the ribbed top untucked and minimize the visual blight through deliberate subject direction. Perhaps, forethought in the act of image taking can make that waistline peek through less.

ISO 400 @ 35mm Focal Length - Notice how the black of the trousers is peeking through the lavender top. It would be more pronounced on unexpired film or a digital sensor.

ISO 400 @ 35mm Focal Length - Whole right side of the image has been edited (quickly) to remove a flaw in the mystery film. I prefer this pose to the donor photo.

Obviously, active and mindful interventions are always recommended prescriptions to remedy less than ideal photo opportunities. However, I was thinking that perhaps an even better alternative is to make matters worse - much worse. At this point, you are probably wondering what I mean by that nonsensical proposition. Simply put, there are times when the most effective way to make a photo opportunity better is by making it worse. As counterintuitive and contradictory as that sounds, this unconventional prescription isn’t without merit.

In our present day age of endemic hyperrealism, when digital sensors can magnify reality beyond the scale of reality, the need to photograph actively and mindfully with deliberateness has never been more critical. Super high resolution capture is relentlessly unforgiving, given a dependence on accuracy expected by the viewer’s discriminating eyes. So when a detail seems amiss, like a patch of unsightly blemishes or a mismatch in fabric weight, the resulting visual blight will appear perceptibly scaled up - even at regular viewing resolution.

It is not always the case that better is better, which is especially true with contemporary imaging. The promise of high resolution sensors in capturing reality more accurately is like that proverbial wish which one should be careful of making. Although increased definition in details from high resolution capture can magnify aesthetic excellence, it often brings unwanted and needless attention to aesthetic imperfections better left obscured in plain sight. And believe me, the world is full of blemishes. As such, there are times when worse is better.

ISO 400 @ 35mm Focal Length. If this photo was shot with unexpired film or a digital sensor, the black waistline would be more pronounced.

Uninspired and vexed by mismatched fabric weight, I really didn’t see a point of doing my best on this ill-fated photowalk. So when I reached down my bag for a roll of Kodak Ektachrome E100, a thought entered my mind. Why waste unexpired film on the same old bag of tricks? With that sudden realization, I reached down deeper into my bag, where I kept some film of unknown provenance and questionable storage. And so, with renewed vigor, I breathed new life into this photowalk. I mean, who knows what this mystery film would produce?

It would be presumptuous to believe we all want the colloquial sure thing, given that certainty of success is by definition the death of fun. Without the possibility of failure, any resulting success becomes hollow. There’s no thrill in the achievement. It’s not hard earned. And, no part of any resulting success from certainty comes from one’s own wits and merits. In short, certainty offers the security of cookie-cutter predictability. But then, it also eliminates the anticipation of serendipity, thus limiting the full potential of what something can become.

To be fair, shooting Kodak Ektachrome E100 is not the death of fun. That said, carrying out the same old ball of tricks on a photowalk comes awfully close. Logically, remedying the death of fun with the uncertainty innate in film of unknown provenance and questionable storage can effectively resuscitate an ill-fated photowalk from the security of cookie-cutter predictability with the anticipatory breath of serendipity. Then again, it could also be an absolute recipe for disaster with all your efforts withered in lost dynamic range and faded exposure.

So, it was with the intervention of mystery film that I hoped to resuscitate fun back into this ill-fated photowalk. And because I cannot know with certainty that the resulting photos would turn out, there really was no point in addressing each photo opportunity with excessive seriousness. Fun in the shadow of the same old uninspired bag of tricks was the name of the game, and I was going to play it to my heart’s content. And, who knows what serendipity will bring? The resulting photos with lost dynamic range and faded exposure might be better.

I admit, the photos on this blog entry are technically worse than photos taken with unexpired film or a digital sensor. But, there is an aged and rustic quality to them which adds to their presentation. Because of that, each photo has the tell-tale sign of serendipity resuscitated into them, thus eliminating the security of cookie-cutter predictability and freeing each photo from the limits of reality in order to reach its full potential. And if that isn’t enough, it also does away with that pesky mismatch in fabric weight, which started this whole undertaking.

Frankly, I am satisfied with how these photos turned out, given how uninspired I was. But seriously, do I really prefer lost dynamic range and faded exposure to the security of cookie-cutter predictability - including exact midtone colors mixed with balanced highlights and shadows? Obviously, I prefer certainty to uncertainty. But in the case of the photos on this blog post, the inexactness in rendering makes each photo more distinct than what it would have been if taken conventionally, thus freeing them to go beyond the limit of replicating reality.

But are these photos better because they are worse? In my opinion, if I captured these photos conventionally, they would not be as distinctive as they presently are. The mismatch in fabric weight would be loud and clear, the cold and gray of the June Gloom day in early spring would not have been as stylized in rendering, and the light leak which found its way into a handful of photos would not have serendipitously entered the frame. So in the final analysis, is worse better? When you have nothing to lose and want a different look, worse is better.

So if worse is better, why not just shoot optimally with unexpired film or digital sensor and then slap on a filter? The thing is, when taking proper photos and then downgrading them with a filter, you’re actually making them worse - which is conceptually wrong. But, if you are a taking photo with questionable film, you are not making that photo worse. It is already technically worse in rendering to begin with. As such, the resulting deterioration in documentation is not inauthentic in conception, but is in fact natural, intentional, and conceptually sound.

Nevertheless, I do not believe I would have opted for film of unknown provenance and questionable storage had I approved of my partner-in-waiting’s outfit. Then again, I did have a handful of this mystery film burning a hole inside my bag. Sooner or later, I had to shoot them. Otherwise, they would just go to waste. And besides, there really was no better time than that moment to shoot this mystery film. For that reason, I decided to have some fun with uncertainty - in anticipation of serendipity resuscitating new life into this ill-fated photowalk.

You must all think that I am extremely obsessed with expired film (or in this case, film of unknown provenance and questionable storage). Fact is, I have a considerable reserve of unused and forgotten film. As such, It only makes sense that I put this reserve to good use. Besides, I think it is fun to flirt with uncertainty and risk failure because of the surprise I get in discovering that my photos turned out better than expected.

Last, subject direction was actively prescribed to minimize the offending mismatch in fabric weight. Plus, I did not button up the jacket because I needed the lavender accent to balance the dominant black color blocking, given the intensity of black clippings.

Special thanks to Beatrice for joining me on this photowalk. Obviously, I forgot to tell her not to wear clashing fabric weight. Chalk that up as yet another goof-up for me.

Disclaimer

Apr 23 When Worse Is Better

Disclaimer

Apr 23 When Worse Is Better

May 7 The Impulse For Wanting New Gear

Apr 7 The Horror Of Taking Photos On A Sunny Day