I met him last spring at an ASMP lecture where I go to school.
I don't remember everything he said, but there are a few recurrent
themes or concepts (?) that appear in his images.
1. Images are built in layers from background to foreground. In both the
branding photograph and his photo of pears on a Moscow hotel window sill:
http://events.nationalgeographic.com/media/images/photos/Abell-promo-tp.jpg
... the image is built up in layers. You have the cowboy on the horse
framed by the mid-ground pair wrestling the calf framed by the pair in
the foreground. You have the cathedral framed by the street, framed by
the window also framing the pears. The light on cathedral is the light
on the pears, all framed by the sheer lace curtain with just enough of a
breeze to pull the hem up into the image..
2. The hidden/implied face can sometimes be more powerful than the face
itself:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0202/images/35DENISE.jpg
... in the image we see Abell's wife with just the outline of her cheek
revealed, while in the branding image the cowboy's eyes are hidden by
the brim of his hat.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/sam11.htm
3. Separation of the subject and background:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0202/abell03.htm
... what a difference that tiny sliver of light separating his father
from depot makes in the image.
In the branding image and in the image of Abell's wife, the heads are
above the horizon separating the subjects from the background.
From: CheekyGeek
I'd like to try something, and if it goes well perhaps it will provide
a new sort of PDML thread for members to start periodically.
Conversations will, no doubt, evolve like wheel spokes off of a
central topic (hub), but I'd like this threads "hub" to be National
Geographic photographer Sam Abell. I think there may be multiple
pieces of my commentary (below) that you may have different reactions
to. I look forward to the discussions that will hopefully ensue.
My son-in-law, Ryan McGinnis ( http://www.bigstormpicture.com &
http://www.bigstormpicture.com/blog ) and I drove to Hastings College
in Hastings, Nebraska a couple of weeks ago to see a presentation by
Mr. Sam Abell (sponsored by Canon). Now this is not going to be a
worshipful thread (by any means) at least not from me. Maybe I'm a
harsh critic, or maybe I just had my expectations set too high, but I
did not see as many photographs in his presentation that I said to
myself, "WoW. I wish I had taken THAT." That surprised me. Perhaps it
was simply his choice of images for this presentation, because when I
look at this page (
http://compassrosebooks.blogspot.com/2010/03/sam-abell-national-geographic-stylist.html
) I see a lot of images that I wish I had taken. Only three images on
that particular page were included in his 2 hour presentation.
What Mr. Abell's presentation and work DID do, however, is stimulate
some thinking on my part (which is always good, in my book). As a
National Geographic photographer, Mr. Abell has been sent to some of
the really interesting places on earth to photograph really
interesting subjects that most of us will never get the chance to
photograph. It seems to me that there is a spectrum of subjects:
Nominally very uninteresting to nominally very interesting. And there
is also a spectrum of photographic images: Nominally uninteresting to
nominally very interesting. The two spectrums are independent of each
other, or perhaps interdependent - depending upon the skill (or luck)
of the photographer. Obviously, this is highly subjective. But when I
look at a photograph I sometimes ask myself: Is this a great image of
what could otherwise be an uninteresting subject, or is this an
average image of a very interesting subject?
One example, I might suggest, is one of the three Sam Abell images
that graced the COVER of National Geographic magazine:
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/POD/a/aboriginal-teenager-504198-sw.jpg
( http://on.natgeo.com/903wXD )
Is the "greatness" of this image due to the photographer or the
unusual subject? Put another way, if we put ME in that water, would
this be a compelling image?
On the other hand, consider this image:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FNndI0BvPNA/S7AXaamrd8I/AAAAAAAABLA/HNtibpofTPA/s400/Abell7.jpg
( http://bit.ly/cU3pDu )
At his presentation, he included a farther away image. There are a lot
of different "groups" in this branding scene that the photographer had
to choose from. He made conscious decisions (which group to focus on,
how close to get, framing, etc.) and then he had to have the timing to
capture the image when elements converged at an interesting fraction
of a second. This is an incredible image and one he says for which
other photographers wish to trade him prints (the ultimate
compliment). Yes, it is interesting subject matter, but it could be
treated in a pedestrian way, which this image is not. While still
subjective, I might argue that this is an EMPIRICALLY great photograph
- in other words: If you are in the minority that don't think so, you
are a moron.
:)
Sam also has some quotes that are worth of discussion, or at least
consideration. One that I particularly like is:
"It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we
be masters of all we do use."
Thoughts?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
