Stills V3

January 19, 2009

the family of man

Filed under: Gordon McGregor — Rex @ 03:57

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. Rather sinister. At least there is a gap along the right there for you to hope they walk that way I guess. Without that slither this would be completely sinister!

    Comment by akikana — January 19, 2009 @ 13:45

  2. According to this, the foreground character must be “rather vain and is negative and sad.”

    Comment by matt — January 19, 2009 @ 14:46

  3. Matt – how does one become a rumpologist?! It’s the Latin ones (bottoms that is) that never fail to amaze – watching dancing in Latin America is a never-ending source of amazement. I’m not sure they’re always too truthful though!

    I get slightly distracted by wondering whether the man is bleached colour (blue) whereas the rest is b/w (with a tinge of green) or all is the same. So he’s letting her go test the water first?

    I’ve tried to read his body language and am not sure that I’ve succeeded, although he looks kind of hunched up. The background looks like the backdrop to a ’30s movie.

    Comment by John Ellis — January 20, 2009 @ 08:13

  4. ‘Matt – how does one become a rumpologist?’

    Oh, I don’t know, but I’m sure that it involves lots of exposure to law suits.

    ‘The background looks like the backdrop to a ’30s movie.’

    The color palette is slightly reminiscent of one of Ted Turner’s re-colored B&W movie. It’s interesting, but sinister, as akikana noted. I’m not sure what to make of this one.

    Comment by matt — January 20, 2009 @ 12:47

  5. I think the rumpologist digression is probably more interesting than the photo.

    A few comments, to maybe illuminate the scene. The colour is a global adjustment – convert to B&W and leach some of the colour back in (90%-80% drop on saturation, rather than a full 100%). I’ve liked that sort of partial desaturation cross the whole image for a while. It is a purely digital sort of effect, not trying to mirror any sort of film style (at least that I’ve seen).

    The scene is zomeone looking at a gorilla, in a zoo. Not entirely sure if that is obvious (enough) or not.

    Comment by Gordon — January 20, 2009 @ 15:27

  6. Ah… . That does explain a lot. I had thought that the ‘gorilla’ was the back view of a woman wearing a sheepskin coat going down the steps. I wondered why the sheepskin coat was so bulky! I understand about the bleaching but when the posts, for instance, are close to b/w it makes it look as though anything with colour, like the jacket, is treated separately.

    Knowing now what we’re looking at, I wonder whether dropping the frame (enought to clear the bright bit at the top) when shooting would have helped a bit.

    Comment by John Ellis — January 21, 2009 @ 09:33

  7. I saw the zoo scene, and, like akikana, am glad of the sliver along the right as an escape. What caught my attention most though was the background. Beautiful.

    Comment by Colin — January 21, 2009 @ 22:32

  8. At first glance I completely missed the payoff. Then, as it finally sank it, I was delighted by the delay. This is full of an eerie quality that grows stronger with every viewing.

    Comment by Anita Jesse — January 22, 2009 @ 00:40

  9. I suppose that you could call this ‘the regression of man’.

    Comment by John Ellis — January 22, 2009 @ 07:59

  10. I really don’t see the sliver on the right, my view is constrained between the two verticals.

    It is the comments that reveal the poignancy of the image. I think it needs to be clearer that it is a gorilla.

    Comment by Rex — January 23, 2009 @ 20:46

  11. I was confused about the gorilla figure at first, also. Now that I “get it”, I like it better. Agree with Rex that it would be nice to have that bit a little clearer. The color treatment is interesting and works fine for me.

    Comment by Christina — January 25, 2009 @ 01:19

  12. I had the exact initial reaction as John – a woman in a fur coat. Wasn’t until I saw it on your blog that I knew what the scene was of. Not enough gorilla detail means it doesn’t quite work.

    Comment by doonster — February 1, 2009 @ 12:52


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.