Tag: Singapore Photography

The reality of The Straits Times

ST3d

Straits Times put on trial its latest “feature” today — seeing the world through tinted lenses (aka 3D glasses).

The paper says this is one way it is trying to improve itself, by allowing its readers to get the news from a different perspective. So I decided to do a simple quantitative analysis to find out if it was so. It turned out that only 10 out of the 65 news photo and graphics (excluding small profile pictures) could be seen in 3D perspective. On the other hand, some 20 advertisements were 3D ready. Plus, that pair of 3D spectacles was “Brought to You by Samsung”. And, if you didn’t know, TODAY newspaper was actually the first to bring 3D to newspapers. They worked with Panasonic Singapore and were upfront about it.

Most importantly, they kept it out of editorial content.

This aggressive campaign by Samsung and Panasonic to reinvent advertising on our local newspapers to push the 3D agenda is one thing. But, 3D editorial content? I’m not sure if it works, at all.

Besides the fact that it takes 1.5 hours for the photo desk to process a 3D photo, and photographers having to shoot such that it is suitable for 3D, the effect is simply not very nice at all. Through those glasses, the photos lose their colour. Without them, the photo looks blur. Moreover, none of the photos I saw today convinced me that seeing something pop out was nothing more than gimmicky. And, let’s not even start on how those spectacles hinders the reading experience!

If ST is really keen on improving their readers’ needs for images in the newspaper, then put it in multimedia journalism like this, and give more space to infographics and photojournalism in the newspaper and online. No need for anything fanciful, just let the talented photographers and artists do good old visual storytelling.

The only reason why I think ST hopped on to 3D was because it is ‘cool’ now to have it, and I won’t be surprised if it was heavily subsidised by the advertisers in some way or another.

Do photographers ‘make’ or ‘take’?

I’ve been talking to some photographers recently and there is a recurring word they use to describe what they do…

“I make photographs.”

I’ve always thought of photographers as people who take photographs. So is there really a difference between the two?

To make, I think, highlights the photographer’s involvement in the photo. That the act of snapping is deliberate and possibly, even ‘manipulated’ (not photoshopped), to create a desired image. This is opposed to take, which almost sounds objective and mechanical — think of this as photographing what you see, as it is.

In case you’re wondering, these photographers were all doing social documentary work, which means they see their pictures as a reflection of reality.

So why make instead of take? I think it inserts a purpose (some say agenda) into the photographs, which without it, might make photos seem nothing more than events coverage. If it’s the latter I want, I probably just need to place a camera at strategic times and locations and let it snap all day.

To make a photograph, means the photographer matters too, that it is he/she telling the story through a photo and not just the camera.

—

If you’re keen on social documentary and visual story-telling in Singapore, do check out this new PLATFORM.

Singapore Photography: Me, Myself and I

The element of introspection seems to be a common thread amongst Singaporean photographers here. Specific examples fail to come off my head now, but a lot of the work I have seen from emerging photographers in the past year always circle around their personal memories or subjects. A chair at home, a family portrait… it seems like most Singaporean photographers when allowed to pursue their own body of work prefer “self-expression” as compared to something like documenting the society around them.

How often is this element found in Singapore photography, and could such an element in our visual language say something about the country? 

I think it may reflect the kind of environment the photographers are in. When trying to take photographs in the public, they get unfriendly stares, hands-covered faces or stern-looking security guards questioning their right to take photographs. Why go through so much hassle to take photos? Why not just turn the lens at yourself?

A society of “mind-your-own-business” further discourages photographers from being pesky and getting themselves out of their comfort zones. So they turn to what is easily available and comment on themselves.

It may also be due to the need to express themselves because of how small one feels in Singapore. Unable to express themselves freely in the presence of larger voices like the state, documenting personal artifacts and lives becomes a way of contesting the domination and assuring their existence as individuals.

These also lead to photography that is often conceptual and abstract. So what they cannot say or document, they hide behind photography that allows them to say something but not say it, all at the same time.

Formula for the language of Singapore Photography:

Introspection + Abstract = A form of self-censorship

 

What do you think?