ThisIsJoe

The Raven is one of my favorite poems by E.A.P. A poem portraying the effects of lost love on a person leading him into the abyss of madness.

I dedicate this blog post to this amazing piece of art by Edgar Allan Poe, by showing a few of tributes, illustrations & works of art by people depicting their conceptions, adaptations & understandings of this poem.

First, John Tenniel's illustration of the setting of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven."

Second, a short film by Rolly Zsigmond who transformed this conversational writing into a conceptual piece of visual art.

Next, is a conceptual photo by Mario Grobenski titled: Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore"

Fourth, is a dark & moody digital art/photomanipulation enterpritation by Eric titled "Poe's Classic Raven"

Finally, a Wordle of the poem:

If you don't know the poem, then, you can find it here.

What do you think?

Lately I've been thinking about photography and how much I need to work on it; I need to take new photos, even if they're ugly ones, even if they're just mere snapshots, but I haven't been able to just grab the camera and shoot. I don't use the term "Lack of inspiration" because, well.. that would either be a lie or - bluntly - that would be mere stupidity. I believe that inspiration is all around whether be it life, people, the sky, music or sometimes, even, a grain of sand.

A while back I was talking to a friend of mine, who used to work for Greyscale/Aramram as a videographer, about the differences & similarities between videography & photography and about which one of those two is harder. As anyone might have guessed, there are a lot of things in common between film and photography, maybe even less than the differences between the two, since they're both based on film/sensor, optics and light, and since, well.. uhm uhm, videography was derived from photography. (owned) But to my shock, my friend thought that photography is much harder than videography which was the exact apposite to my own ideas.

The point that my friend was trying to pass was that in photography you have to capture a whole story or emotion in an exposure or two and sometimes a bit more, while in film, you can just press record and get the whole thing in a minute or two, which, based on my calculations - where a second is composed of 24 frames - is equal to 1440 exposures/min, which makes it easier for him to deliver the story to his audience. My response was that with film you have to take care of the technical, creative and compositional aspects for the entire time the camera is rolling, where in photography you just do that while working on an exposure and then you're done & start looking for another angle or scene to photograph.

Needless to say, we both weren't convinced with the other person's point (3agel zbaleh :P ) and we carried on drinking our coffee.

With the newer models of SLR cameras, you don't have to choose whether you want to go into video or still, since they're boosting Gazillion MPix photo sensors and FullHD video capabilities with full manual control.

What do you think?