deRAnged Part 6: Wide-Eyed – a Review

London is my private photographer’s Mekka. Every time I go to London I check all the photo exhibitions and soak up the inspiration they provide. I was delighted that my third trip to London this summer coincided with Sarah Dunn’s short show “Wide-Eyed”, and I made that the first port of call after my arrival. The decision to look at her work was not motivated by the desire to see the image of a particular gentleman on the wall but by a genuine interest in checking out Dunn’s work. I had initially discovered her wide-eyed project on her website in May, and was quite intrigued. There were no particulars about the project, just a collection of images, and I only discerned from the images and the project name that it was a wide-angle view behind the scenes. As is often the case, the personal projects of photographers are more interesting than their commercial work, and often give more insight into the respective artists’ way of working, aesthetics and interests than their commissioned work. I liked what I saw – the snapshot feel of it contrasted starkly with the glossy perfection of Dunn’s commercial portraiture. I wanted to see more, but the images were far too small to give much insight. My curiosity was piqued. And then I duly forgot about it again.

Until she announced her show. Incidentally I heard about the show through Dunn’s twitter herself. If anything Mr A’s endorsement put me off, I’m such a photo snob . With the gallery’s central location it also provided the perfect entertainment on Tuesday morning, post-arrival and pre-meet-ups, and I was delighted when Helen agreed to accompany me to the exhibition. She was a wonderful companion, full of enthusiasm and interest, while allowing me my own time with images, indulging me in a couple of droning lectures of photo stuff, and giving her own honest appraisal of the exhibition. Thanks Helen, I’ll go to photo exhibitions with you any time. You are officially approved 😀

We carefully timed our arrival at the gallery for 12 am as to not appear overly enthusiastic – the show had only opened at 11 am that morning. When we arrived the artist herself was present, chatting to a client or buyer, I think. She looked very nice and normal, btw *gg*. Helen and I busied ourselves with looking at the exhibition though, and by the time we had re-emerged from the basement, Dunn had left, so no opportunity to comment on her work face-to-face. However, I took the opportunity of addressing the chap who was manning the exhibition with a few technical questions – hardware, how, where, when, what. We chatted for a long time (I’m afraid we must have put off Helen with some of our photo speak. Shutter speed this, available light that bladibla.)

It turned out he was Dunn’s husband, Marcus Doyle, a photographer in his own right, specialising in landscapes. And not only that – he is definitely not a commercial but a fine arts photographer (If you are interested: Very topical – check his “108 project” – images of Scotland shot along the border… day after tomorrow is the big decision!). He told me that he actually gifted his wife with her first Widelux camera. I could rabbit on about him, because I loved what he told me about his work, but I will only repeat what I said to Helen after we left the gallery: He was a case in point for my theory that photographers are just the nicest creatives *ever*. Chatty, open, interested in discussing photography, and everything but secretive about his work or his way of working, sharing insights happily. Seemed to be a great guy.

As for the show itself – I have written a rather lengthy discussion of it in the style of a proper review as I would write it for my photo blog. If you are not interested in photography, exit NOW :-D. Because I have to disappoint you – Mr A was not represented in the show. So here goes…

The exhibition “Wide-Eyed” is Sarah Dunn’s first foray into a less glossy, more fine art-focussed area of photography. Although – that is not entirely true. The well-established portrait photographer with a portfolio of big name stars is represented with 13 photographic works in the National Portrait Gallery of Britain. The focus there, however, is on the sitter and less on the photographer, and aimed at recording and documenting influential people in British public life. Dunn’s exhibition in The Strand Gallery is therefore her first solo show (to my knowledge) in a fine art context. Because glossy this ain’t. Atmospheric is more like it. And confused. But we’ll get to that later.

Atmospheric may also be the word to describe the venue for Dunn’s show. The Strand Gallery is a small private gallery space in central London. It comprises a large, rectangular-shaped room on ground-floor level, illuminated through windows, and a maze of rooms in the downstairs basement. This description already points at one of the drawbacks of this exhibition. The venue was not conducive to fully apprising and appreciating Dunn’s photos. In some rooms of the gallery there was not enough space to stand back and fully take in the impact of her panoramic photos. And panoramic is not an understatement. Dunn’s prints of the Wide Eyed project are a generous 70″/178 cm width (x 30.5″/77.5 cm height). That demands a lot of space to get a full view – and a lot of space to accommodate  such a print on the domestic sitting room wall… that’s if you have enough spare change to afford the steep GBP 1000 price tag.

Mind you, the images are not made for a homey still life comprising chintzy couch, wood veneer integrated wall unit and net curtains. They are much too edgy for that, and that is largely due to the camera the images originate from: Using a Widelux camera, the images are  shot on 35mm film and enlarged to their max (before they seriously deteriorate in terms of sharpness and clarity). The camera itself is a true speciality – a Japanese-made panoramic camera used mostly for landscape photography, with a pivoting shutter that exposes the film through the fixed lens behind the vertically moving shutter. The result is a panoramic shot that records everything within a 140° field of vision. For comparison: The human eye has a field of vision of nearly 180°, standard lenses range between 40° and 60° – the Widelux therefore records much more than what we are used to seeing in photographs. Unlike our own eyes/minds, however, it distorts what it records, resulting in curved lines. (If you want to see the Widelux in action, check this short little clip that demonstrates the shutter movement. The slowest shutter speed of 1/15 of a second is so slow indeed that you could theoretically place a sitter on the left edge of the frame, release the shutter and make him move to the right edge of the shutter, catching him twice in the same exposure. Check an example of that with Colin Farrell acting as Jeff Bridges’ sitter in such an experiment. )

Dunn is using this unusual camera to capture the feel of a photo shoot – or what is usually not seen in the glossy, polished end product we are presented with in the magazines. “The Widelux is an amazing tool for recording the chaos around the calm”, British Marie Claire  quotes Dunn. “I love that this camera records everything around the subject.” Strictly speaking *any* camera could do that – you just take a step back and include more in your frame, but she is right in the sense that the Widelux gives us a much bigger overview at a large depth of field. Plus, in Dunn’s experience it works as a fabulous ice-breaker, because it is such an unusual piece of photographic equipment that it attracts much attention and provides opportunity for a mood-loosening chat.

In Dunn’s case she also uses it to show the viewer the less than glamourous immediate environment around the glitzy poses. What may be a bit boring for anyone familiar with a professional photo shoot, is no doubt fascinating to see for an outsider: There is the mundane protective plastic sheeting on an outdoor location shoot with the begowned Felicity Jones; a glimpse of a wall full of torn out images – for photographic inspiration? or a reminder for the stylist? – in an image of Jeremy Renner, the arrangement of photographic equipment such as flags and fill lights like in this image of Michael Fassbender, how many people are required to stand around at a shoot in the image of Rosamund Pike or how even shooting outdoors requires a whole big set-up like in this shot of Jennifer Hudson.

The shots somewhat dismantle the glamour image of celebrity photography and could even be seen as a commentary on the artificiality of the final image. Or more literally: They put the final shot into context – the context of a deliberately styled and somewhat falsified, over-glamourous quasi-reality. For that reason it might have been interesting to see the corresponding final image from the respective shoots; maybe as a small print beside the panoramic print. However, Dunn carefully avoids that. She wants the images to speak for themselves, and does not even allow the names and identity of the sitters to detract from the impact. The prints were displayed without the names of the famous sitters on a label beside. And the presentation was decidedly unglamourous. No fancy frame or acrylic covering but the simple C-type print, nailed to the wall as it is. It fits the impromptu feel of the behind-the-scenes photos as such and the grainy look of the images, caused by enlarging to the max and grainy high ISO film. Adding to the edgyness of the imagery, the b/w images generally work better than colour images because the composition is the star of the photo, not the colour glare. Maybe Dunn feels the same: Most images do without much colour (although that is also incidental to shooting with available light only in a dark studio environment).

But apart from the subject matter there has to be more in the images to engage the viewer. And Dunn’s imagery works best when the special characteristics of the Widelux can be seen in action. Because frankly – what is the point of using this camera, otherwise? So images like the exhibition poster of Ewan McGregor really bring the wide format to its fullest, drawing the eye of the viewer into the centre of the image, adding amazing depth to the picture and zoning in on the sitter in the centre. ” This was my first, and still my favourite, shot on the Widelux”, says Dunn in Marie Claire and one has to agree: The image is crispy clear, has great lighting due to shooting outdoors and is most aesthetically pleasing thanks to the  over-emphasised leading lines. The distortion in the images could be perceived as a distraction – but free your minds, all you conventional photo appreciators, it is an interesting visual device. It emphasises the expanse of the table top in the image of Josh Hartnett, or it creates an interesting round effect in the picture of Liv Tyler in her dressing room  that contrasts with and challenges our knowledge of reality.

The set images where the sitters are pictured waiting on their stool and ready in front of the backdrop, however, quickly lose their fascination.  That could be due to my overfamiliarity with such set-ups, but the repetitiveness of their symmetrical content – flag, light, backdrop, sitter, backdrop, light, flag – quickly lost their initial appeal. The attention is held much longer by the other shots, some of which could serve as artsy portraits in their own right whereas the studio ones do not so much. They did, however, provide the promised glimpse behind the scenes.

And yet it was not clear to me what this project wanted to be? Was this merely a documentary peek behind the scenes through an artistically obscured lens? Was this an art project? Referencing the public’s ever unsated interest in the celebrity life behind the scenes as well as a desire to capture the “natural character of her subjects”, the artist statement did not really clear this up for me. I wondered over its target audience – fans, photonerds, art appreciators? And my confusion over its intent and purpose was also fed by the fact that it felt jumbled even though united in its use of a particular camera and its uniform presentation. But it did not seem like *one* body of work. It might have been useful to group the images in the exhibition – as in “studio environment”, “outdoor”, “stand-alone portraiture (with no signs of the BTS chaos)” – showing the possibilities of the camera and the versatility of the photographer.

A critical reception of this exhibition is basically missing. There are a couple of articles in Marie Claire and Esquire, as well as the announcement on The Strand Gallery’s blog but these are not reviews but exhibition advertisements. What does that reflect? That engaging in celebrity photography automatically excludes the creator from being taken seriously as an artist in her own right? Surely the use of the Widelux alone should have merited some interest from arts media. Or were potential reviewers as confused as me about the intent and purpose of the exhibition? And would the fact that the show was self-organised and not endorsed by a weighty arts institution also put off reviewers? That would indicate a lot of prejudice because with her years of experience Dunn is hardly an emerging artist and has proven her technical abilities beyond doubt.

Or is it a reflection on the never quite evaporated whiff of commercial compatibility of this exhibition? Avoiding all name dropping in the exhibition itself, the subtitle of the show nonetheless appeared to piggyback on the cult of celebrity, promising “behind-the-scenes images of Hollywood’s biggest names” and thus cashing in on the pull of celebrity. I found this as jumbled as the exhibition itself – it looked like a project that wanted to be taken seriously on its own merits – but then it half-heartedly backtracked by alluding to the big recognisable names that can potentially draw the crowds. It wasn’t purely commercial despite its contradictory (but characteristic) name-dropping, though. The imagery was (deliberately) not polished enough to sustain mainstream, commercial attention .The use of the Widelux and the aesthetic choices indicate an interest in art photography. But it looked confused. Not knowing exactly what it is.

I’ll give Dunn the benefit of the doubt, though. Like all photographers do with their “sanity projects”, she shot this for herself, for her own enjoyment of using the Widelux camera. It’s likely that she had no project in mind when she embarked on it, but seeing the results felt that they were worthy of showing. As a way of providing context, the “big Hollywood names behind-the-scenes” is the lowest common denominator. She is a commercial photographer, a celebrity photographer, after all, and this is a way of marrying her daily job with an attempt at being published in a photo book. A  mixture of commercial and art? Upon suggesting the photos ought to be published in book format as the print prices are hardly mass compatible Dunn’s husband Marcus Doyle, a landscape photographer himself, who was manning the exhibition and took his time to chat to us, confirmed my assumption that the exhibition was self-organised, and added that it was intended as a showcase for potential book publishers.

And that answers my questions above – the intended target audience, the mixture of art and documentary, the great big jumble.  A photo book. The perfect mixture of commercial and art. With the added benefit for the public of being able to afford a piece of Dunn’s work. Let’s see if it happens. I would definitely be interested because I liked the Widelux format, the gritty aesthetics and the demystifying subject matter. Never mind whether an extended print version of Wide-Eyed might also contain the supreme piece of totty that was otherwise sadly lacking. At least said totty pointed us into the direction of an interesting photo exhibition. Well Dunn!

Sarah Dunn “Wide Eyed”,
The Strand Gallery
2-6 Sept 2014

47 thoughts on “deRAnged Part 6: Wide-Eyed – a Review

    • It was good, definitely interesting and worth-while. I liked some images, others not. But I really enjoyed the chat with Doyle whose friendly demeanor certainly helped make the exhibition visit a positive experience.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Thank you for the mini education on the widelux format and the subject matter. Is it common practice to put on an exhibition of your photographic work in hopes of attracting a publisher? I realize an added benefit would be to turn a profit by selling to the public. But wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to submit a portfolio, or are the images too large to do that effectively? Loved the gallery narration. I felt like I was there, and indeed, I wish I had been.


    • Hm, I wouldn’t call it common practice. It’s not unheard of. But usually people expect to be called up on the strength of their imagery alone. However, it is kind of important to have had exhibitions to your name. In that respect, though, a self-organised, self-financed show usually doesn’t cut it. Publishers want to see that you have clout in the art world… In this case I suspect that Dunn has enough connections to pull it off, though.
      The portfolio vs an exhibition – well, it’s entirely possible to print the Widelux images much smaller and show them in a portfolio. Or to rely on the digital format altogether. However, any image looks much artier once it is printed, framed and hung on a wall. You could photograph your loo and make it look artsy that way *ggg*.
      And yes, in terms of selling to the public it provides a nice opportunity for that. Mind you, there are the gallery fees to pay – sometimes 50 percent of the price. Steep.


  2. Great insights on this exhibit! Wish I had this info when I saw the photos. Ladygarnett7 (Kathy) and I were also lucky enough to be in London for The Crucible the week this exhibit was on, so of course we went to check it out. I really loved these Widelux photos; while the celebs seem to be the focal point, I loved seeing the BTS stuff and the things on the fringes. I thought the one with Elijah Wood was interesting because of all of those other people in the room, some of them with odd or bored expressions on their faces! And Dunn showed her ability to capture wonderful moments in that photo with Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman sitting at that table, seeming to have a nice and affectionate conversation.

    We were there on Friday, and it so happened that Dunn’s father and stepmother were there. Kathy struck up a conversation with the stepmother and she was really very nice. One of things she told us was that Ewan McGregor was Dunn’s first big client; she was an unknown then and had been trying to get work by doing stuff like hanging out at stage doors and giving her card to actors, managers, or anyone who was interested. Ewan took a chance on her and has been supporting her work ever since. So good on her for not giving up!

    And it probably was a good thing that the photo of “said totty” was not on display because I probably would be in serious debt now. 🙂


    • LOL – nah, I don’t think I would’ve been tempted by that. It’s not really the best of the lot (save for the identity of the sitter :-D), plus, it would take up so much space… nah, not really my thing. I would’ve splashed out on something a quarter of the size. And risked divorce 😀 Of those images displayed there I very much liked the composition of the McAvoy and the Pike photos (although I’d have preferred them b/w) – they were visually interesting comments on commercial photography, I thought.
      How lucky of you to bump into Dunn’s parents. And nice that they had time for a chat. Interesting story about her start in the business. Well done to her indeed – it takes a lot of strength to get a foot in the door in that business, especially as a woman. (Still find photography slightly sexist.) Oh, and McGregor is fab. Recently watched his motorcycle series. Just came across as a genuinely cool and easy guy. Loyalty sounds very much like his thing 😀

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the Widelux photo of RA isn’t the best one of him, but knowing me, I would have seen it, been derRAnged, and handed over my credit card!

        Love Ewan too. He was actually one of my first celeb crushes, way back before I even knew of RA. I’ve seen most of his work but his motorcycle series is something I’ve been wanting to watch, so thanks for reminding me. 🙂


  3. Thank you for this review, I myself didn’t have time to go there (and my friend isn’t interested in that kind of things I’m afraid). My hubby did some photographing before kids so I know a bit of that 🙂

    I took a look at the ‘108 project’ by mr. Doyle and I don’t know why but the pic with the small house made me cry. I’m bawling my eyes out here.. I feel like I knew that house. Terrible. But the pics are really good.


    • The small house with the sunset behind the woods? there is an eerie feel to it, I find. I love the strong sense of direction in his pictures. These are not all, just an overview – strange that he hasn’t got them on his website, only on his blog. But maybe that indicates he is doing something with them, exhibition or book??
      Did you read the post underneath the one I linked to? Very telling. Re. his wife doing an exhibition.


      • Yes, that’s the one (house). It feels such a sad picture somehow, I think the house is abandoned; there is the road right next to it and you can spot a trash-cart lurking on the right side I think, like it was being ripped out inside. His pics have the ‘otherness’ feeling imo, sort of ‘change is coming and we don’t know if it’s good or bad’-kind.

        I didn’t see that post, thank you. I’ll take a look at it 🙂


  4. this exhibition seemed to be showcasing the camera’s talent, instead of hers. which is a shame b/c I really like the ones from the Nat’l Gallery :/ I’m no photography buff, of course, so I may not “get” what she is trying to showcase or convey. *is* there a meaning or particular aesthetic at work here? maybe simple moments frozen in time? the behind-the-scenes shots came across that way to me: nothing artificial or staged about the set up/angle of the shots (except for the Liv Tyler one); while the others (Ewan McGregor, J. Hudson) seem like the focus is more the panoramic capabilities. (confession: I had to read this post twice to try and understand it. but I’m learning new things! 😎 )


    • Yes, I do think the use of the camera obscures some of the message and the work as such. It draws interest.
      According to her own statement the work is about the look behind the scenes – so the simple moments frozen in time that you mention. But she does so with a very particular camera, not used for this kind of documentary project, and which results in a particular aesthetic – due to the panoramic format and the grainy fuzzyness. That’s why I was somewhat confused, too – a particular aesthetic which is slightly in the way of the documentary nature of the project. But hey, maybe that kind of mash-up is intended.
      The meaning of that aesthetic? Hm, you could construe it along the lines of “obscuring who is in the images, taking the focus away from them” or as a deliberate contrast to the polished perfection of her commercial end-product.


        • A common reaction with Dunn’s imagery :-D. At least that was what a lot of people experienced with her portraiture. I don’t really find it flat or unevocative as such, either way. But I definitely prefer her project work to her commercial work. Because it is so unusual. And yeah, I suppose that is a form of technical appreciation, too.


  5. Interesting — it feels very much like the mood of the moment, this combination of sales and art. (Not mind you that I thought they were ever separated, but we seem to be in one of those moments where the connection is both close and particularly transparent, if not to say bald). Thanks for all the time you took to describe and preserve this exhibit.


    • Hm, I don’t really think that it is particularly new to attempt to marry art with sales. After all, artists have always relied on *selling* in order to widen their reach and make a living to continue living. What I find quite “of the moment” is the fact that it seems to be about a photo book. Photo books are *the* trend right now in the photography. Partly due to the self-publishing opportunities the internet has opened up for us in the last few years. But a self-published photo book is obviously not what Dunn wants…
      And yes, this was a post for myself, really 😀


      • No, I don’t think it’s new, either (see comment) but I think the moment seems particularly open to it. I was tempted to quote Marx but skipped it. Oh, bourgeoisie.


  6. I actually went to see it twice because i liked 1 and almost 2 images in it quite a lot. Which was a surprise in itself because i didn’t really like the usual commercial work, very polished but a bit soulless. Empty eyes kind of stuff and odd poses for no apparent reason?
    But although i tend to go check things out in a bit of a doubtful disposition, i am equally happy to change my mind and admit it if i liked something i thought i wouldn’t.
    Some images i didn’t care much for, but some i really really liked. My absolute favourite, even at 2nd viewing was the Joaquin Phoenix one on a little green patch with houses in the background. There was just something about it that really appealed to be, i don’t even know exactly what, Certainly the fact that wide angle truly hit that one and the whole atmosphere of the place was great with him definitely exuding enormous calm or peace with himself. It is the only one i could have imagined on any wall of mine. There were a few more i liked, Tom Hanks, but that us because it was the only laughing picture and even now when i think of it i can hear him laughing 🙂

    The other two were Hartnett and the other chap, whose name i unfortunately now forget on the top of the building with the city landscape in the background. Those two seems to work really wonderful in the wide lens perspective ie i really got that contrast between peace in the central point and the bustle around it, which is the main think i took away from the exhibition as a whole.
    My main quibble with the rest is that there isn’t enough of those 2 levels there, some are still too focused on the subject and they still looked like a pose and other were just bustle, the images with the ladies and the makeup mayhem (but probably they did capture the atmosphere as they made me want to run away from the chaos ;-).

    I think the other problem is the famous nature of the subjects who have been photographed to eternity and back. In some cases it became obvious that whatever you do some people always pose and it never looks like they are in a natural state. That was the Tom Cruise one, it felt like a pose and not a comfortable one. Probably why Hartnett and Phoenix speak to me because they just looked so utterly comfortable that the photographer seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted, they just made themselves part of the landscape.

    The McKellen+Freeman one is lovely but it’s the two of them and the warmth that comes across, i didn’t get much of the background. I liked the way the Renner gave some of that nicely ( and did you see among the pinned photos in the sides of his there was the 4 Hobbits photos that was also in the exhibition? 😉

    I found them interesting to look at but not sure if all provided that extra story through the wide lens.
    I had one questions though, how much does the wide perspective distort the proportions of the main subject ie central point of the image? I kept looking at the one of Hugh Jackman and his clasped hands looked unusually big ( for example in proportion to his head) And i was wondering if that was mostly due to the use of the Widelux?

    i thought poor McAvoy looked just uncomfortable and like he had a headache, and i’ve seen the final ones and he doesn’t look much better though he is smiling 😉 ( i like him, what i mean to say is i’ve seen much better of him, ehem ‘cough’ recent Leibovitz Prada shoot – just a strong side interest i promise ;-))

    I liked the Ewan McGregor one! and the widelux just made it wonderful as he was still the focal point, but that one definitely felt like being very much part of a shoot and not something experimental on the side. I could have imagined that any day as the cover of Vogue!
    And speaking of McGregor – ehem ‘cough’ ‘cough’ me too i’m afraid ( weak spot for the Scots , what can i say ;-))) But look, it;’s all about interest in acting and the profession and that. So, if you have 2h to spare or get bored sometime, check this out

    It’s absolutely fascinating almost monologue about acting, career, directors , etc I knew quite a bit about the movies he’s made but not nearly all of this stuff about acting, it;s fascinating in itself, you’ll feel the 2h whizzing past. 🙂
    Oh and by the way S Dunn will have another exhibition at Sommerset House in Dec,she mentioned it on twitter. Maybe it will coincide with BOFA?
    Now i’ll go back to praying at the alter of the man on the left of my screen because he;s given me the evil eye 😉 ( yes Richard i want a 2h long interview with you like that so you can talk to us some more about your roles and acting and so on 🙂


    • Yes, I read her tweet about a forthcoming exhibition. Somerset House is one of my favourite photo venues in London and I’ve seen several very interesting exhibitions there. A great place to hold a show. If it coincided with BOFA it might be her imagery of the Hobbit actors… Which would make it a completely different kettle of fish.
      As for what you saw as the problem of the photos, Initially I thought the same – that the fame and celebrity of the sitters take away from the subject matter. But I think that is wrong. The subject matter *is* that these are famous actors, shown BTS. I personally do not mind that some of them look as if they pose – McAvoy, Wood, Cruise. BTS implies that this is an alternative look at what happens on a shoot, but not that it is necessarily a look at sitters who are unaware of being photographed. I just think that a lot of it was repetitive. – Having said that – I would love to see what Dunn gets up to when she trains the Widelux at people who *don’t* have big names. And how I react to images where I do not recognise the sitter.
      As for your question – I don’t think the distortion is that much. Jackman’s hands do look huge, but distortion like that is also possible with a standard camera.


  7. Ehrlich, der Kontext englischer Prosa erschließt sich mir eher, bei Themen, die nicht so spezieller Natur sind 🙂
    Habe mich trotzdem tapfer durchgearbeitet und kann abschließend wenigstens sagen: schöne Bilder 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • Welche Prosa? Hehe, und ich hatte doch extra noch gewarnt, dass man am Anfang aussteigen soll 😀 Das war jetzt nämlich ein Text, der nicht wirklich hier fandom-kompatibel ist, sondern eher ins Jargonesisch meines Fotoblogs passt… Aber man muss sich ja selber auch mal ein Geschenk machen 🙂 Und wenn du wenigstens den Mehrwert der Bildbetrachtung dann doch noch hattest, ist ja immerhin dein Auge belohnt worden 😀


      • Klar habe ich die Warnung gelesen . War aber Ehrensache , wenigstens zu versuchen.
        Boah , muss mal jammern: hier ist es gerade zum K…. :-(. Muss mal dringend aufs den Arm!


          • Grrrrrrrh. Danke ! Habe mich gerade gefragt, warum zur Hölle ich Bankkfm. geworden bin. Meine ältere Kollegin hat mich getröstet: sie sei nur zur Bank gekommen, weil die Räumlichkeiten da so schön waren. Geil, oder ? Das hat mich dann doch erheitert 🙂


              • Doofi! Ich war immer nur so’n stinklangweiliger Normalo. Kein Öko, kein Popper. Irgendwie null Reibungsfläche 🙂 Keine Idee, was zu tun nach dem Abi = klassische Vernunftentscheidung.
                So, hier ist es jetzt soweit : wir machen eine Flasche Sekt auf!


  8. Love the McGregor and Fassy shots. She makes them seem real, and yet glamorous. I also like the breaking of the “glam” illusion by widening out the camera view to include the setup. Reminiscent of “making of” featurettes on DVD’s, which I always find fascinating.


  9. by the way, another side-dish, saw in Radio Times the uncomfortable looking image of Cumberbatch in the otherwise very very well meant funds collecting campaign for cancer research. An exhibition of the series this week in la Galleria /Picadilly. It’s there until Saturday so i’ll try to make time Sat to go have a look and see if anything interesting.. (i mean this.. Seems like a lot of these famous faces exhibitions going on in London at the moment.


  10. Pingback: deRAnged Part 7: Stage Door Survived | GUYLTY PLEASURE

  11. A very belated thank you for your kind words Guylty, it was a pleasure seeing the exhibition with your expert guidance and I enjoyed the conversation with Marcus Doyle, too! 🙂 Always happy to accompany you to arty things! Great review too.


  12. Pingback: #BlogIntroChallenge #5 – The Post with The Most Views | Guylty Pleasure

Let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.