Gabriel Beinczycki

To me, Gabriel Beinczycki is probably of the most inspirational dance photographers of my list. Why? Because he is a FREELANCE photographer, who had now sprung is own booming business of dance photography and portfolio design, sort like what I talked about ealier.




Being the unique character that he is, Beinczycki is fluent in both English and Polish, and is operational in German, French, and Russain.



He studied, the cello and piano at Primary Music School from 1987-1993, ballet and modern dance at the National Ballet School in Poland from 1993-199, modern dance at Marah School of Dance from 1999-2000.



Beinczycki’s company is called Zebra Visual. In the past he had worked with Little Films, Becky Stendal Productions, Joseph Hudson/ACME Productions, Tri-Films Productions, Cardinal Films, Mary Pomerantz Advertising, Dance Advance, Comcast, Pennsylvania Ballet, Princeton University, Dance Magazine, and Oaks Productions.



His photographs are a great example of things you can do post-production. You can tell by looking at any of his collections that he is a fan of both photoshop and lightroom



What Beinczycki does best is create a powerful scene, and put motion into it. He has many collections where he had created these elaborate sets and placed dancers into them in the most unsuspecting ways. Some of them reflect certain time eras, or a certain time in our lifespan, some look urban while looks look fancy. Then when they dancers do their “thing” on the set, the set comes to life and the avant guard image is created. His photographer give what I call “the big picture”.

Beinczycki also does a lot of studio work similar to what Lois Greenfield did in her day. There are simple plain backgrounds, usually black or white and bright lights to illuminate the dancers body. He captures not just these seemingly impossible movements from the dancers, but this entirely new dramatic almost cinema-esque feel in his studio work. When you see his work, it feels like it’s a poster, or a still out of a movie.



If you’d like to take a look at Beinczycki’s photography check him out at http://www.zebravisual.com/movement/index.html

Bruce Monk

Bruce Monk’s photography is most definitely one-of-a-kind. His unique classy ghost-like style is recognizable worldwide. He is internationally known, having his work displayed in many famous art galleries. His work has also earned itself a permanent spot in the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography.


You could say that Monk has gotten around in his lifespan, and it probably one of the most successful dance photographers considering the wide variety of work he had done. Monk is a dancer, teacher, choreographer, and a photographer.

Monk graduated from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School, and taught at the school in the Professional Division for twenty-three years. His choreography has appeared in movies such as “Vanilla Sky” and “Two For the Money”.

His interest in photography began when he saw firsthand the short lifespan of photographic materials. After three years of diligent studying he produced a Platinum print that will withstand the test of time.

Monk’s photographs have a certain light and eerie essence to them. He does a good deal of experimental photography, like multi-frame shots. He takes several pictures on one frame making the subjects nearly see-through allowing you to see the background and other object faintly through the body of the dancer.

He also plays around with silhouettes. Monk will purposed block out all detail of the main subject to purely show the outward shape of the performer and giving faint detail in the background.

A staple of his photography is the grainy almost foggy. It seems as if there is a cloud, smoke, or smog surrounded his subjects or lingering in the background. He uses grainy film or ISO settings, and it gives his photographs a very classy almost 1920’s style.

One aspect of Monk’s photography that sets him apart from many other dance photographers is his post production work. In coherence with his eerie style, some of his photographs are taken and turned in to the negative form. The photograph is turned inside out, and subjects have lessened details and take on a bright white color in comparison to his stark black background.

If you’d like to check out his work visit http://brucemonk.com/thumbs1.html

When the words "dance photography" are said, the first name that should always come to mind is Lois Greenfield. Greenfield's goal in life was to be a photojournalist for National Geographic. After graduating from Brandeis University in 1970, she began working towards this goal by working freelance for Boston's counter-cultural newspapers. One assignment she received was to photograph a dance concert. She found this task quite difficult given the unpredictable movements of the dancers. After a while, Greenfield felt that she got the hang of it, and actually found herself very intrigued by the subject themselves. She had been captivated by the idea of only needing to worry about visual interest while photographing dancers, and not some sort of editorial relevancy.

Greenfield set the foundation for this circular understanding of dancer inspiring photographer, and photographer inspiring dancer. She asked her subjects to simply free style, no set choreography. She wanted them to dance from within, to experiment with their own bodies, to use what they've trained for and to push themselves. As they took this direction they found themselves in this unique wholesome state in which each move they made couldn't be repeated. It was pure expression through their bodies.



Being both a photographer and a dancer I feel this this combination of arts is beautiful match. Dancers use their bodies as an instrument of expression, just as a painter uses a paint brush. They train their bodies in a technical fashion only so that when perfection is nearly achieved, they can break the bounds of their classical training. They can experiment, and indulge in whatever their imagination inquiries.



Now this where photographers enter to make this magnificent duo complete. When dancers perform each movement they make is simply a movement is passing to create the larger idea of the entire routine. The naked cannot see each move, position, and frame the dancer makes, it is seemingly fluid movement. However, in order to make their movements so fluid and graceful there are basic move by move frames each dancer is hitting mentally, and that is what the photographer captures. This moment that would have passed by with grace if not captured on camera, where it will now radiate for eternity.



Greenfield captured these moments with a weightless, nearly angelic fashion. As the dancers pushed themselves, she captured them frame by frame is these seemingly impossible positions. Frozen in the air however, we can get a more extensive look into the beauty and strength of each dance. They almost become like these ideally sculpted statues in mid-air.



The white background in Greenfield's pictures gives the dancer a blank canvas to express themselves. She has no control over what the dancer does, and has no expectation for what they will do. She is simply inspired to capture this unique form of art, and sees each and every beautiful move. She takes the picture so that the four corners of the camera's frame are honing in on all the energy the dancer is exuding. The end result. Magic



If you'd like to check out any of Lois Greenfields pieces of work you can find them at http://www.loisgreenfield.com/index.html 

ReTouching

We all know what magazines look like, what they stand for, and have formulated an opinion as to whether we like them or not. Some say they are the cause for many of the issues among society regarding self images, self esteem, and the current eating disorder epidemic. Other believe they are simply harmless little booklets with cute pictures, funny stories and half-way decent advice.

Recently we have all been debating over the idea of retouching photographs. We all know much photoshop work goes into the photos between the actual shoot and the printing of the magazine. For some it makes them feel better that the seemingly flawless girl on the cover probably does have a few wrinkles, a blemish or two and her hair is probably not that shiny and bouncy. However, for many they can't get past how beautiful this front page girl is even though they know it's not what she really looks like. All they see is someone better looking than themselves and they set unrealistic goals and standard for themselves.

Right now in the United States depression is a very prominent mental illness. In fact according to the World Health Organization of the 121 million suffering with it worldwide 18 million of those cases are in the U.S. It is estimated that twenty percent of teenagers will suffer from depression by the time they are young adults.

Now the question is, do the photos in magazines play a significant role in this widespread depression? My vote is yes. I feel that it doesn't matter if we see the process from beginning to end on how the photos are altered, we see what we want to see. There is a beautiful confident woman on the cover of the magazine, and she is prettier and more successful than we will ever be. We see what we want to see, and we think what we want to think. Regardless of the alterations of the photos we still have the media telling us what we should look like, and that images is expressed in magazines.

Also, as an art form I feel that it's almost amoral to edit photos like that. It takes a skilled photographer to capture the true beauty of someone, and relying on computer technologies to finish the job just isn't fair. The people to take pictures of models and celebrities should be geniuses with lighting, set design, and all the functions of their camera to be able to take a picture so beautiful and so real, that retouching wouldn't even cross one's mind. It almost takes away for the wonders of photography. The ability to capture someone and their essence for who they are in reality, not for who the world thinks they should be.

Diane Arbus

I feel that we can all learn a lot from the extraordinary photographers that came before us. There are so many that first began with experimentation of lighting, and different angles and filters that inspire us to do what we do as photographers today. Not to say that modern day photographers aren't experimental or inspirational, but I think it's important to learn about these classic photographers. It may help us find what we are passionate about photographing, and allow us to explore the different way we can do it. Personally, Diane Arbus is one of my favorite most interesting photographers. Let's start with some background on Arbus. She was born into a prominent and wealthy Jewish family. Growing up in this atmosphere made her feel like she didn't know her true identity. She had all of these people in her life telling her she was perfect and she could do anything, and no matter what she did in life that she the best at it. Although that may see nice, it gave her a strong sense of falsehood among society. She knew deep inside that she wasn't perfect or great at everything she did, and yet everyone was telling her otherwise. This made is very difficult for her to really discover who she was, and what she was all about. She had always been an artsy, girl. She loved to draw and paint. However it wasn't until she met Allan Arbus did she become interested in photography. The two of them married when she was eighteen. They worked together at a fashion magazine, him the photographer and her the assistant. However, they both hated how artificial that world was so they moved on to taking pictures on their own, Because of her past, she had this yearning to find out who people really were, to look behindthe masks we all put on for society. She traveled far and wide for her photography and got to know some of the most interesting people in the world. She found people who are typically ignored and disregarded by everyone around them. People seen as different, strange or even freaks, and she got to know them. She lived with them, walked in their shoes, listened to their stories. Then, she would photograph them. She felt like her photographs truly captured these people for who they were, and not how everyone else viewed them. She used natural light, never posed anyone, she just documented the raw truth. One of my favorite quotes from her is "I really believe that are things nobody would see if I didn't photograph them". We can all learn a little something about Diane Arbus. She took this situation she had been put it, and these feeling she was experiencing, and she ran with them. She did what no one had ever dared to do before. She got in peoples faces and caused controversy all for the sake of what she was passionate about: seeing people for who they are. That's something I believe all photographers should be reminded of today. Yes, we can take a pretty pictures, light them to emphasize certain features, but it's important to sometimes to take pictures as is. To capture natural beauty, even of the people and places most wont see beauty in. Artists need to find what makes them wake up in the morning, what makes them smile, what gives them butterflies in their stomachs, and they need to go after it with all their heart so that the whole world can see. Here is a link to a great website where you can learn about and be inspired by many amazing photographers of the past.

Film-tastic

Today we live in a digital age. It's all about our nice digital cameras, the cameras on our phones, on our i-pods, i-pads and the the convenience of downloading them to our computers and displaying them on Twitter and Facebook. I too enjoy this technologically savvy digital era, however I am a firm believer and advocate for film photography. Whether it's a film SLR, a simple disposable film camera or even an old school Polaroid I feel that these photography outlets are under appreciated. I personally went through a phase where I only used my Polaroid camera or my disposable, and I always had at least two disposable cameras on me. Just the simple idea of snapping a shot and not being able to go back and edit, or retake it makes the corners of my mouth turn upwards. Using film allows to to truly capture a certain moment, whether it's ugly or pretty, happy or sad. Not having that seconds chance allows you to truly see what's in front of you, not what you want or what you think is in front of you. You'll be surprised to find out what beautiful pictures will develop. The natural lighting and graininess of a picture from a disposable camera gives you this grasp of reality you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. There are even disposables out there with fish-eye lenses! With film SLR's there is an entire world of darkroom processes that are being ignored. Although you are able to adjust the setting unlike a disposable camera, you still only have that one chance to capture your vision. And through multiple exposures, the enlarger and developing chemicals, the experiments and possibilities are endless. It's this entire other media of photography that is truly beautiful, and I feel it allows you to express yourself and obtain your vision in ways the digital photography never will, even with Photoshop. Film and digital both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I encourage everyone to ensue a change of pace, and pick up a cheap little disposable camera, or experiment with film SLR's. It'll be worth it!