Apart from what the famous re-photographers had done, I knew from the very beginning that I would go for colour instead of black and white. The reasons were various - the main one being that I don't really work in black and white and cannot "see" things without the colours.
Besides, if I put a black and white image of the place today, it would not contrast a lot with the vintage one. What I aimed at was contrast and I needed to show it in some way. That is why I aimed at couloured images - the photographers 100 years ago had worked with what they had at their disposal hence I would do so too. The popular way of shooting things is in colour so that would be one of the levels of contrast in the images.
As for editing, I aimed for minimal editing in the images, to mimic the documentary style. People back then couldn't manipulate the images a lot so I decided that I would also not manipulate mine.
As for the "double panes" (like the one below), here I incorporated some of Rigaud’s approach. What he did was to put the old image of the place into the new one and create a blend between old and new. I didn't really want to copy paste his approach in my work but loved the way he showed change. So when I needed to do my final poster, I decided that I can show how the places I have photographed have remained the same and how their surroundings have changed - hence I created panes where the dividing line goes in the middle of the place in question and it is 50% in the past and 50% in the present, showing how much the place has changed.
Luckily for me, the thing worked (I have never done something like this so it was quite the challenge to make the panes look the way I want them to). I left part of the monuments/buildings I rephotographed in the old image and then put the other half of the subject in the new one to create the most striking contrast - when the place has not changed and the surroundings are unrecognizable (see below - this one is maybe the most striking example).
No comments:
Post a Comment