‘Transformation’ – Evaluation of Submission

At the start of the project, I spent a significant amount of time looking at various ideas which could come together and exploring areas which could work, but many were rejected.  Generation Loss as a project has taken much more effort than the other projects on the course, as it is has been technically demanding pushing me in all aspects of photography but time consuming to prepare the submission.  In the last 9 months I have valued the learning experiences from the course, which have had a dramatic impact on my outputs in the medium:

  • Plan shots and ideas well before I go near the camera
  • Shots need to be cohesive when presented together
  • My images need to say something to the viewer
  • Careful use, or removal of, the colour palette can have a dramatic impact on final results

In my research for this project, one of the outcomes was a desire to conveying beyond my own views visually, per-se, but prompting the viewer to question intentions and meaning of what I present.  This concept I started becoming aware of during the second term, but has really only become solidified recently, through the final project.  In addition to building on my learning experiences, the project I hoped would:

  • Prompt the viewer of my images to question intentions and concepts behind whats being presented
  • Images would retain an aesthetic cohesion despite degeneration

Pritts demonstrates very clearly that partial degeneration of images can have dramatic impact.  I felt her images did suffer to some degree, as while I think in areas beautiful, I don’t think they communicated much beyond partial degeneration or offered the viewer areas to ponder.  Dina Goebel really influenced me here, as did the works of Lorna Mills to question and think deeper about what I wanted my work to evoke for the audience.

Technical Evaluation
The first base image (Richmond Hill) involved long exposure photography, three different filters in operation simultaneously and tone blending of three exposures.  In the last project, for the studio submission, the use of 7 lights and taking a group portrait challenged my technical abilities significantly.  In this project, however, the technical demands have been right behind the camera and in post production (of sorts).  These shots alone took me three days to get right, while tone blending needed experimentation during the project.  This is an area I need to follow up on, as I am not fully comfortable with the colour outputs from the tonal blending process.  The second base image (Wheat in the Wind), also a natural organic image, took a couple of days to get right also.  In sum, I am pleased with the base images used for the Generation Loss project, they took time to formulate and get right.

The process of writing a batch shell script and creating Generation Loss iteratively has, by in large, been successful, creating both still images and time-lapse videos.  In testing I was pleased with the outcomes following this process in a variety of formats.  While webp format is not a file type I am likely to use, the degeneration process created some nice abstract images and colours.

Aesthetic Evaluation
The decision to ensure all Generation Loss images are visually cohesive has been important to the final submission.  Presenting jpg Generation Loss in B&W worked so much better than in colour, however, the webp degeneration in colour was a really nice surprise in testing.  The second key outcome for me has been the communication of ideas and particularly looking to prompt questions in the minds of the viewer about underlying concepts associated with Generation Loss.  The semiotic elements of what digital degeneration means, digital durability, current sociopolitical issues surround the digital era are complex subjects, which society has yet to answer.  While I have opinions on these topics and ideas, it is more important for me to stimulate the independent unique views of each viewer rather than communicate my own, instead communicate the concept and the viewer to question that concept.  I hope viewers are stimulated by the images and videos from the project, but something which is impossible for me to evaluate.  I am delighted however, that I have reached this realisation about my own photographic work and something I am likely to always carry with me.

Evaluation of Mediums – Time-lapse and Print 
To me, the submission is both still images and video presentation.  I received a positive appraisal from class, following matt printed images, which together comprise the rotation and degeneration of images of 100 times in each print.  Colour jpg total degeneration took 4200 iterations, while B&W took 3100 iterations.  The jpg Generation Loss in B&W totals 32 images in print (1 original and 31 prints of each 100 iterations), while both colour webp total 13 prints each (1 original and 12 prints of each 100 iterations). My printed submission and presentation will therefore feature 58 still images. I wanted to keep the video and prints at increments of 100, to demonstrate the rate at which different file formats change.  Matt finish really worked so much better than gloss printing when I investigated both.

We looked briefly at time-lapse video techniques during the term, but generated the videos in a completely different way.  The time-lapse videos communicate in a more visceral way, but with less permanence.   I believe the project has been successful and glad I took Generation Loss that but further than Pritts to follow my own interpretation of what these images may look like and where they could go in the project.  My major concern has been over cohesion of the Generation Loss artistically, but pleased with the final results.  Hopefully these images do prompt other questions and ideas in the minds of the viewer, beyond what I am communicating on the surface.


Criteria 2, 3, 4, & 5

‘Transformation’ – Final image selection for submission

After testing Generation Loss for a few weeks and creating lots of files I am not likely to store for any period of time, I took the matt printed images to be evaluated by the class.  I was really surprised that my approach had met with broader approval, as it concerned me that the aesthetic cohesion of the images would be lost.  The submission is based on the three images, but on the written submission have included time-lapse videos with the still images for the project.

Submission 1: B&W Richmond Hill, jpg Generation Loss




Submission 2: Colour Richmond Hill, webp Generation Loss




Submission 3: Wheat in the Wind, webp Generation Loss




Criteria 2, 3, 4 & 5