OBITUARY
Dr.
Alexander Sedgwick Playfair, ARPS Honorary Member, Royal
Photographic Society Honorary Life member, Cambridge Camera Club
Dr.
Playfair passed away on the 29th of August 1997, aged 83.
His
father was Russian; the family settled in this country after the
first World War. On naturalisation, in the 20`s, they reverted to
the name Playfair, Scottish antecedents of the family. Known, almost
universally, as Sacha, a Russian diminutive of Alexander.
He
joined the RPS in Aug. 1971, gaining his Associateship in 1974. He
was selected to Council in 1984, serving until 1990 and as Regional
Organiser for East Anglia from 1985-1995).
As
a member of Cambridge CC, he served as President (1977-78) and was
later made Honorary Life Member. On the PAGB Judges` List , on the
Federation`s "A Panel", and until very recently on the
Federation`s List of Lecturers, for many years he was in demand,
sometimes from far beyond his home area.
His
articles, some pseudonymous, have continued to appear in various
journals: sometimes controversial, often humorous, always with a
serious intent.
My
thanks to Editor, Mike Neville (East Anglian Federation of
Photographic Societies) for passing this information via his local
"Bulletin".
It
has been interesting reading and using Dr. Playfair`s articles the
CRCN and I appreciated him allowing his articles to be used. By way
of dedication I produce here, the final three articles that I have
had lined up for future use:-
Reflecting on the Retina
The first time I saw and Anti-Red-Eye camera I
was incredulous. Why create a gadget to prevent something which is
easily avoidable? If it has not been avoided, then that is entirely
our fault!
By now everyone knows that the inside of the
eyeball is lined by the retina which holds umpteen light sensitive
cells, the starting point of the image impulses which are then
transmitted through nerves to the part of the brain dealing with
with vision. It holds also that a great number of minute blood
vessels, which give the retina its rich red colour. Any strong light
hitting the retina will be reflected back as red. Fire a flash gun,
which is either on or alongside the camera, full frontally onto a
human face and some of its light will be reflected, now reddened,
back towards the camera. This comes out through the pupils which, on
the resultant photograph will look a glowing scarlet instead of a
decent black. And so the portrait gains its H certificate. Not so
bad on a man who looks more or less, anyhow most of the time, but
devastating on women who can look enchanting some of the time. And
devastating also to the photographer himself who will look awfully
foolish for having let it happen.
Light beams travel in straight lines; when they
hit a surface straight on (ie: at right angles) they are reflected
straight back along the paths by which they came, If beams hit a
surface in a sideways manner (ie: at a sharp angle) then they will
be reflected back similarly sideways, but in lines away from the
direction whence they came. As they taught, at school, in physics
classes "the angle of reflection equals that of incidence’
So, when taking portraits by flash one can neatly
make sure that the light comes sideways on to the subject. If that
is difficult then one arranges the sifter to turn their head (or
their eyes) a little sideways and not be full face to the camera.
After all is a portrait with a sitter staring at the camera really a
good portrait?
Simple, isn’t it? And so much cheaper than
those 'Anti~Red.Eye' cameras which can all be ignored. They would do
so much better in musiums, as amusing examples of human naïveté.
The Eyes Do Not Have it
Yes, I too have bees- in my bonnet (some
unkind people refer to bats in my belfry). It is my photographic
bonnet, and it is full of photographic bees. The particular bee
which will buzz this time is the belief that eyes need not, indeed
often should not, dominate in portraits. HAlf, say the
orthodox, "the eye is the mirror of the soul". Well, it is
nothing of the sort. It shows extremely little, if anything about
the owner. It is a technical bit of anatomy designed to receive
images. It is, in this context, inert, neutral. But then, what part
of the face registers character? Our faces are patterned by the
muscles underlying the skin. They shape the cheeks, they move the
brow, they pull on the lips.
Nave you ever had an argument, a heated
discussion, with your girl friend? No? Really? Well then, say, with
the Inspector of Taxes, or a Traffic Warden? What area of his/her
face were you watching? Not the eyes, but the mouth, i’ll be
bound: a grinning or sneering mouth, a tight set of lips, a sort of
snarl, or with luck, the gentle upward pull of lip corners to smile.
Perhaps, unfortunately, downwards to grieve. Muscles which compress
the cheeks against the teeth can give a look of disdain. Others show
irony by raising the upper lip and averting it while widening the
nostrils. And so on ... and so on.
From our earliest age faces have been undergoing
acrobatics corresponding to emotions. Eventually, as we grow into
maturity, the physiognomy settles, from pure practice, into
expressions of self-satisfaction, sorrow, good humour, scepticism,
contentment or gloom, or of whatever is in your nature. Character
shows.
In the meantime, the eyes have not altered. To be
sure, the muscles around them working brow and eyelids have been in
action. And of course there are muscles which turn the eyeball up
and down, or sideways. Half closed or open eyes and side glances are
expressive in their way but they show only a momentary mode. Within
this, the eyeball does not change at all. Yet photographic pundits
are all insisting that we should concentrate on the eyes to achieve
‘pin sharp" pupils and to put in the "catchlights"
- sheer technical artifices. I never focus on the eyes; I focus on
the mouth region as being the most important, the most informative,
part of the face. It is a little forward of the eyes, and that may
mean losing the apin sharpness" of the pupils. It means also
catching the personality of the sitter.
Think this out, try this out. Thoughtfully watch
the faces of your fellow humans and you will be convinced. Then aim
photographically for the mouth; your portraits will become more
truthful.
The Eyes Do Not Have it
Yes, I too have bees- in my bonnet (some
unkind people refer to bats in my belfry). It is my photographic
bonnet, and it is full of photographic bees. The particular bee
which will buzz this time is the belief that eyes need not, indeed
often should not, dominate in portraits. HAlf, say the
orthodox, "the eye is the mirror of the soul". Well, it is
nothing of the sort. It shows extremely little, if anything about
the owner. It is a technical bit of anatomy designed to receive
images. It is, in this context, inert, neutral. But then, what part
of the face registers character? Our faces are patterned by the
muscles underlying the skin. They shape the cheeks, they move the
brow, they pull on the lips.
Nave you ever had an argument, a heated
discussion, with your girl friend? No? Really? Well then, say, with
the Inspector of Taxes, or a Traffic Warden? What area of his/her
face were you watching? Not the eyes, but the mouth, i’ll be
bound: a grinning or sneering mouth, a tight set of lips, a sort of
snarl, or with luck, the gentle upward pull of lip corners to smile.
Perhaps, unfortunately, downwards to grieve. Muscles which compress
the cheeks against the teeth can give a look of disdain. Others show
irony by raising the upper lip and averting it while widening the
nostrils. And so on ... and so on.
From our earliest age faces have been undergoing
acrobatics corresponding to emotions. Eventually, as we grow into
maturity, the physiognomy settles, from pure practice, into
expressions of self-satisfaction, sorrow, good humour, scepticism,
contentment or gloom, or of whatever is in your nature. Character
shows.
In the meantime, the eyes have not altered. To be
sure, the muscles around them working brow and eyelids have been in
action. And of course there are muscles which turn the eyeball up
and down, or sideways. Half closed or open eyes and side glances are
expressive in their way but they show only a momentary mode. Within
this, the eyeball does not change at all. Yet photographic pundits
are all insisting that we should concentrate on the eyes to achieve
‘pin sharp" pupils and to put in the "catchlights"
- sheer technical artifices. I never focus on the eyes; I focus on
the mouth region as being the most important, the most informative,
part of the face. It is a little forward of the eyes, and that may
mean losing the apin sharpness" of the pupils. It means also
catching the personality of the sitter.
Think this out, try this out. Thoughtfully watch
the faces of your fellow humans and you will be convinced. Then aim
photographically for the mouth; your portraits will become more
truthful.
Obituaries
With immense regret we report the demise of some
major figures of the photographic scene. We mourn the death of
Manual Focus. After ailing for a few years he died, some say from a
broken heart. His absence was deeply and emotionally felt by the
majority of serious photographers, though his cousin Otto worked
very hard to replace him. Now, with the rising commercial tide of
compact cameras it is with sorrow that we report the death of two
other great contributors to photography. "Shutter’ Speed was
a valiant and reliable personality.
Ever since the removal and replacement of lens
caps ceased to be the only method of controlling exposure times he
had been the arbiter of correct exposing. But present day compacts
made his services unnecessary and he retired from work, eventually
to pass away from inanimation. Gone is his judgernent to assess and
activate duration of exposure. The "point and press’ owners
of compacts have to act without him, since these cameras
automatically dictate their exposures. They do this anonymously -
one might say secretly. No loner can photographers request their old
friend "Shutter~ to take into consideration any circumstances
of light the contact gives an identical exposure to, for instance, a
racing car and to a waterfall. Technology thus is denied °Shutter’s"
thoughtful selectivity.
Fred Aperture, or ‘f Stop’ as he was
affectionately nicknamed, alas he also passed away and will be
greatly missed. Here too dictatorial all automatic cameras will
decide he matter for themselves and give no hint of their settings.
This has denied the photographer any exercise in depth of field such
as the minimising of an undesirable background or trying to get
several elements of a scene at different distances all produced
sharply. Nor can the advanced worker call upon Fred to help in
special effects where illumination of different areas of the scene
photographed may vary greatly. To take one example, the instruction
booklet of the Nikon Zoom 500 QD describes extensively which buttons
to press for taking a picture with or without flash, how to use the
viewfinder, how to obtain a ‘panorama", how to superimpose
date and hour on the picture, how to load the camera which will then
wind on each exposed frame in turn until, when all have been
exposed, it will rewind the lot and how to replace an exhausted
battery but it makes no reference to the revered names of Shutter
Speed and of Aperture. A new generation of camera owners are growing
up who will never know of the magic Ansel Adams zone system and will
never be able to try out some of photography’s wonderful
subtleties. But in innocent ignorance they will call themselves
photographers.