The story behind the environmental portraits

[Mike Buckley]

This thread is NOT about the photos. (I realize their limitations.) Instead, it's about the long story behind the photos.

The couple in the second photo are my next-door neighbors of 32 years. The property in the photo is where the woman lived as a child and where her father lived his adult life until he recently died at 95 years old. This visit to the house will be her last one. Even though I had never been to the house and had no connection with it, it seemed more important to me than to her that it would be her last visit.

The property has been taken over by the state as a claim of eminent domain. That could have happened years ago. However, they didn't seriously try because they knew the owner was old, frail and wanted to live out his last years in the house. Even so, the state is building a major highway intersection that will prevent access to the property. Indeed, when we went there for the photo shoot, typical access to the house had already been eliminated, which required us to drive illegally through the construction area. The buildings on the property will be knocked down and removed in the coming weeks.

The family hired a photographer to make photos of everyone (nearly 30 people) in front of the property and that shoot had already happened quite successfully. However, the man in the image shown below doesn't like having his photo taken and his wife was not able to convince him at the time to join her on the rock. When she was going through the photos made at that session, she regretted that she hadn't at least had some photos made of just her on the rock, as the rock is a fond memory for her. So, I told her I would go to the property with her and make some photos.

Though she managed to convince her husband to join us, he was being a bit of a curmudgeon, complaining on the way there that he didn't understand why she wanted to do another photo shoot. I wasn't sure she had convinced him to pose for anything.

The property I encountered was in a different condition than when the first set of photos was made. The grass had not been mowed, so we took some hedge clippers and quickly cut the tallest grass immediately in front of the rock. The pair of white doors had been removed from the carport. That and the knee-high grass meant that it made no sense for me to use the same compositions the first photographer used. Stone had been removed from parts of the sides of the house, though I was able to return those areas to their original appearance during post-processing.

Though you can see that the woman did indeed convince her husband to join in the photo-making, you can also see that he wasn't the least bit thrilled about it.

I discussed in this thread that I would take a large reflector, an off-camera speed light, a diffuser attached to the speed light and the accessories required to properly use everything. (The first photographer used only a camera and the results were what you would expect.) When I saw the mood the husband was in, I realized that the time required to set anything up would completely go against anything he would find acceptable. So, I never got any of that stuff out of the car.

Every once in awhile I make a rookie mistake. My mistake when making these photos was that I forgot to check my shutter speed, which was set at 1/100. I would normally shoot portraits such as these at absolutely no slower than 1/200, so I got lucky that 1/100 worked. I used to think the day will eventually come that I will no longer make rookie mistakes but I no longer suffer from the delusion.

[Donald]

Well done on getting a shot of the man at all Mike. And the fact is that you managed to get to him to at least look relaxed is testament to your skill.

[Cantab]

Mike, congratulations on getting the photos done and including the husband (and repairing the stonework on the house ).

[William W]

Thanks for posting these and also for the story.

They are more than "environmental portraits" - they are images which will (should) maintain an historical record: local history and family history.

The fact that the man's demeanour is properly (i.e. ‘honestly’) captured is significant and not any loss whatsoever.

Congratulations well done.

WW

[Shadowman]

Nice capture of the event and backstory, I would have for the purpose of this forum included some of the construction/destruction as it would have offset the happiness the couple convey. I know showing the inevitable wasn't your intention; it is something that fills my thoughts when viewing these images. I have a slightly personal experience with how eminent domain can change the history of a family, the cemetery plots of my family members were relocated for the enlargement of an airport. Decades later my sister visited the area and many of the graves were missing, damaged, or simply scattered in the new area.

[Digital]

Mike, nice photos. BTW - that is one huge belt buckle in the second pic.


Bruce

[Manfred M]

Mike - I'm glad things worked out. The husband certainly does not look all that comfortable and I think that you captured both of your subjects quite nicely. The lighting may not have been perfect, but it looks a lot better than I would have expected, given your previous comments.

Well done! And for that "newbie" mistake - I think 1/100th is a very conservative shutter speed for that focal length. I routinely shoot that focal length (crop factor factored in) at 1/60th and even 1/30th and get good, printable results. I suspect your hand holding technique is better than you give yourself credit for.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, everyone!

I would have for the purpose of this forum included some of the construction/destruction as it would have offset the happiness the couple convey.

You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I learned of the situation less than 24 hours before I captured the images and my schedule makes it impossible to capture related photos later. It is similarly impossible for me to capture images of the related highway construction because of the danger and denial of legal access to the scene.

I have a slightly personal experience with how eminent domain can change the history of a family, the cemetery plots of my family members were relocated for the enlargement of an airport. Decades later my sister visited the area and many of the graves were missing, damaged, or simply scattered in the new area.

Any time a government takes action, there is the possibility of results occurring to either the good and/or bad of the public. Their ability to take action in the name of eminent domain is a classic example. In this particular case, the government allowed the homeowner to live out his last days in his home, so it's likely that most if not all of the implementation of eminent domain is going to be to the good of the public. The initial price offered to the heirs is being challenged using a process that is set up by local law. We won't know if they are satisfied with the final price and the process for arriving at it until the details are explained and determined.

The lighting may not have been perfect, but it looks a lot better than I would have expected, given your previous comments.

That's understandable at least partly because my previous comments in the other thread were misleading. I had incorrectly explained that the subjects would be back lit. I was relying on my memory of the images made by the first photographer and my memory is nothing short of horrible. The light at that time of the day is strongly from the subject's left side rather than back lighting.

When I saw the sun disappear behind a cloud, I rapidly captured some of the photos knowing that for my taste the diffuse lighting would be best considering that I was not using any reflectors or man-made light sources with modifiers. Interestingly, the woman, who knows nothing about photography, was saddened by the fact that I was taking pictures when there was not strong sunlight (which of of course would have introduced unappealing, strong contrast to her and her husband's face).

I think 1/100th is a very conservative shutter speed for that focal length... I suspect your hand holding technique is better than you give yourself credit for.

I usually shoot static subjects at 1/85 when using my 35mm lens. That's because it's mounted on a 1.5 crop factor camera, because the lens has no image-stabilizing capability and because I've learned that when shooting at a slower speed the results are occasionally lacking in sharpness. The reason I would normally shoot at 1/200 in this situation has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens; it has to do with the possibility of the subjects moving when I release the shutter. That explains why I try to capture posed adults at no less than 1/200 and posed children at no less than 1/500 (because children move more often and faster than adults even when they're posed).

[William W]

. . . When I saw the sun disappear behind a cloud, I rapidly captured some of the photos knowing that for my taste the diffuse lighting would be best considering that I was not using any reflectors or man-made light sources with modifiers.

Clever.

***

. . . The reason I would normally shoot at 1/200 in this situation has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens; it has to do with the possibility of the subjects moving when I release the shutter.

Yes. I thought that's what you meant. I was just about to ask for clarification. . .Thanks.

WW