| Rick Pearson |
| Creative Crux |
| Written by Samantha Enslen |
| Sunday, 19 July 2009 20:01 |
|
Rick Pearson is a freelance director of photography and the owner of Pearson Media. Rick shoots video and still photography for local producers like ManaVision and UD Media Production Group, and for national customers like Tradewinds Tea and Appleton Electric. He’s also done work for the Italian firm Beretta, shooting product-release videos featuring the company’s legendary shotguns, rifles, and pistols. I sat down with Rick to get his take on photography and video in today’s digitized, Photoshopped, camera-phone world. Rick feels that high-tech tools can only get you so far—that great imagery flows from an artist’s one-of-a-kind vision. But what about all those citizen journalists? Here’s what he has to say.  SE: So, are you a photographer who got into video, or a video guy who got into photography? RP: Actually, neither! Originally, I was a performance art student, but I kept noticing the camera work being done on the student films around me — what shooters were doing with the camera, how they were choosing to move it, and how they were augmenting the actors’ performances. It got to the point that when I was rehearsing, my mind would begin working out coverage as if I were going to shoot the scene in my head. I guess that’s when I knew that motion photography was for me. SE: What’s the relationship between still and motion photography? Does what you know about one play into how you approach the other? RP: Many aspects of the mediums transfer to one another, but each is distinct. With still photography, you are capturing a single frame – that that allows you to get every detail exactly as you want it, an opportunity you don’t generally have with video. On the flip side, I think it’s far easier to tell a story using motion photography. And you still have pretty precise control over the actions, lighting, colors, and composition. SE: As a photographer, how do you feel about Photoshop? Do you ever feel like it’s “cheating,” or is it just part of the art form? RP: Photoshop is an important tool, and I use it regularly. However, I think when anyone’s work becomes too much about Photoshop, the photography ceases to be photography and becomes more of a graphical art. The rule I impose on myself is that if a photograph doesn’t work on its own before going into Photoshop, then it’s not going to work at all. I want to get the photograph done correctly where it counts most—and for me, that’s in front of the camera. SE: On a related note, how much of commercial photography do you think is about shooting, and how much is about post-processing? RP: Again, my philosophy is that a photographer’s work happens in front of the camera, not primarily behind it with the press of a button, or after the fact in heavy post-processing. If a subject is staged well and lit appropriately, you can’t go wrong. Anything you do in post should really be an enhancement, not a “repair job” done to fix poor work.  SE: Do you have any favorite films or images that inspire your work? What about ad campaigns? RP: Lost In Translation, shot by cinematographer Lance Accord, is one of my favorites. It can be watched with the sound turned off, and the imagery alone tells the story. In terms of still images, I love the work of Patrick Hoelck, and I kind of feel he can do no wrong. His photography impresses me, and that’s a great and rare feeling. As for ad campaigns, I remember enjoying the Prada 2007 campaign. It was all street and location work, with pools of mixed colors of light illuminating only what was important to the story. SE: Have you ever had to work in really ugly or unappealing spaces? If so, how do you handle it? RP: An old Ford Motors plant comes to mind. The city was doing a video in hopes of selling the plant to overseas investors. The plant was just a shell of a building, the parking lot was overgrown with weeds, and the pavement was like a spider web of cracks running everywhere. The surrounding city was a ghost town, save for a marina and a very old movie theatre. It was an . . . interesting location. But you’d be amazed at the tricks that can be used to make a place look better than it really is. SE: How does professional photographer feel about “citizen journalists” — people shooting anything and everything with their cellphones, iPhones, etc.? RP: I used to shoot for television news, and there were times on location when a guy would come up and hand me a tape from his home video camera. As a news photographer, I had no problem with this. What he had captured wasn’t a substitute for my work—it was an augmentation. This was his home turf, and he was able to catch something that otherwise would have been missed entirely. There’s a 9/11 documentary that aired on History Channel this past September that blew me away [“102 Minutes That Changed America”]. What made this doc absolutely riveting was that it told the 9/11 story completely through home videos taken by residents, tourists, and amateur photographers, rather than through the calculated commentary of a paid narrator. The existence of this documentary alone places me firmly on the “fan” side of citizen journalism. SE: Do you feel like you’re established at this point as an artist? RP: On the contrary, I feel like my perspective is still evolving, both as a photographer and a person. And I think that’s what generates a good photograph or video—the shooter’s perspective, not the expensive technology, or the subject matter. Anybody can push a button on a camera. It’s the shooter’s unique perspective that can make an image amazing. About the author: Samantha Enslen is a copywriter, editor, and owner of Dragonfly Editorial. She generally feels much less creative than anyone else in the “Creative Syndicate.” Do you have a suggestion for a future Creative Crux article? Would you like to interview someone? Email Brian Ward. |
| Last Updated on Saturday, 17 July 2010 11:20 |
Subscribe
