#977. DS Challenge : Bayhem and the state of competition photography

By Adrian | Art & Creativity

Mar 11

Anyone who is familiar with the work of the modern American film industry will understand the importance of the action movie. They have been a weapon in Hollywood’s arsenal since the 1980s, together with their older cousin the 1970s disaster movie. “The Towering Inferno” and “Poseidon Adventure” became “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Terminator”, and “Die Hard”, but all offered the same formula of action and, most importantly, pathos – because if you didn’t care about the characters, then the drama and suspense that accompanied the action has no meaning.

Reflecting on the city.

Since then, Hollywood has created the genre of the action movie as a theme park thrill ride: film as a rollercoaster where spectacle transcends traditional notions of film making. The origin of this modern genre can probably be traced to director Jan de Bont’s 1996 film “Twister”, which subjected audiences to an hour of tedious sub-plot about the state of Bill Pullman’s marriage before they get what they paid for. It made no pretence to story telling, had terrible dialogue, but it gave audiences the experience of “being there” in the middle of a giant tornado ripping middle America apart. A genre was born.

Tower at dusk.

If there is anyone who has taken the idea of Hollywood-theme-park-thrill-ride and made it his own, it must be director Michael Bay, who has apparently based his entire career on the concept. Bay was credited in an interview with a directorial style was known as “f**king the frame”, the modus operandi being that every single frame of his films should be so full as to wring the last ounce of experience out of it. Anyone who has seen one of his “Transformers” films will know the feeling of having been visually assaulted by his work – an entire franchise based a range of toys with a visceral visual style and sound design that pummel the viewer into some form of submission due to sensory overload. Eye candy as a weapon of mass destruction.

Out to sea.

There is some academic analysis of his directorial style which breaks it down into a number of techniques he uses again and again. Shots are often ultra wide to create a sense of epic scale; frames are composed using intersecting planes of movement both across and through the frame; the camera moves all the time, even when it’s unnecessary; actors speaking dialogue are shot with long lenses as the camera moves around them to envelop them in swirling background; scenes are cut fast in a jarring style, so the eye barely has time to take in each shot. The result is both to imbue every single scene of his films with a strange epic grandeur, and to visually overload the viewer with so much movement and cutting that the eye can see it but the brain can’t interpret it. It’s what gives his work such visceral impact – you simply don’t get time to take in everything you’re seeing.

Stained glass chapel.

What has any of this got to do with stills photography?

Refecting shards.

I recently saw some of the shortlisted pictures in the Sony World Photography Awards professional category, and most of them left me cold, as if the judges had never seen any other contemporary photography and therefore didn’t recognise how it felt when you thought you had seen the same thing many times before. I shared them with Pascal, as we discussed that perhaps part of the problem was that so much had been photographed so often that we had reached an age where we had literally seen it all before.

Crucifix.

We then segued into a discussion about the type of work that get’s recognised by competitions. I remembered seeing a photograph that had won a “travel” competition that featured a skier mid air jumping over a road on the side of a mountain. It had made me wonder if that was the best travel photography then I should probably give up. Since then I have often felt that winning images seem to be more about the difficulty in getting to a location to get a picture, or the directorial complexity of setting it up, than about camera craft or story telling. Sometimes it seems that to be recognised as photographers, we must learn to ski, dive, abseil, or paraglide, and if that fails then charter a helicopter or learn to fly a drone.

Ascend.

I know that part of the role of photography is to show something new or something familiar in a new way, but is the heroism and difficulty of “being there” more important than photographic skill and artistic vision?  If you go somewhere difficult and shoot a picture in “P” mode, is that a greater accomplishment than great story telling or something with a unique vision?

Tiny king.

I suggested to Pascal that to make a winning photograph you had to take an underwater picture of a Buddhist monk in saffron robes swimming with a humpback whale and a calf in a lake half way up a mountain that’s the result of a melting fjorde caused by global warming next to a volcano that was erupting as a skidoo jumped over it. Pascal rightly pointed out that it should also be shot with a drone. Piloted from the side of a helicopter. Shot using a 100Mp camera. Stitched into a 200 gigapixel image. So you can see the threads in the monks robes. With sharp corners.

Figurehead.

I told Pascal that Dear Susan really should be promoting the Michael Bay philosophy of cinematography as the future of photography, as a way to maximise DS engagement across all channels and social media platforms. Fill every frame of every photograph with as much brightly coloured stuff as possible to make every shot a sensory overload. Pascal liked the idea so much that he thought it would make a good challenge.

Dancer.

It turns out that Michael Bay’s unique attitude to the film making process goes by another more media friendly moniker -“Bayhem”.

Sailing at Dusk.

And so we have the “Bayhem challenge” – to submit the most maximal photograph that you can. Maximum impact, minimum meaning; don’t leave any square inch of the frame unused.

Distant horizon.

Photographs in this thread were taken with a Sony A3000 E mount camera and E 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 OSS lens, and are unapologetically non-maximal. In fact, the selection was chosen for their stillness and simplicity, which I find calming – and which is what you might need after watching a Michael Bay film.

 

​Never miss a post

​Like what you are reading? Subscribe below and receive all posts in your inbox as they are published. Join the conversation with thousands of other creative photographers.

  • jean pierre guaron says:

    Bring on the angry horses! I can’t speak for Nancee – but I can say this. Since I was 8 years old, I have always done my own thing. Which undoubtedly rules me out. So I will just keep taking & processing my own photos, and sit back and watch.

    After all, you seem to be dismissing this Michael Bay as some kind of idiot, and I really think I’m quite sufficiently idiotic without imitating other people who are already worse than I am.

    • pascaljappy says:

      My guess is he’s far more cynical than stupid 😉 It takes a lot of talent to create something as deliberately “wrong”. How he chooses to use his talent is a shame, in my book. But no doubt he’s very happy with his work.

      Anyway, I love the idea. It’s incredibly difficult, if you ask me. Most of our photographs are just of one thing. Introducing a second is hard as it is. So, 10 ????

      Cheers 🙂

    • Adrian says:

      Hi Pierre

      I’m sorry if the impression is that I think Michael Bay is an idiot, as I don’t think that. To some tastes, his films may be idiotic, but within the confines of the genre in which they belong, they are “well made”. I actually admire some of the artistic and technical quality of what he brings to the screen, and as Pascal points out, it’s clearly deliberate (“cynical”) and we have to accept that many of his films arena commercial success and make money – in some cases, very significant profits.

      Whilst much advice about photographic story telling is to “simplify”, it’s interesting to consider what the stills photographic equivalent of the “Bayhem” philosophy. How can one create a single still image that captures the epic scale, drama, movement, and sensory overload of Michael Bay’s films?

      • jean pierre guaron says:

        Another one of my “Ooops’s”? My apologies – just placing him in the lunatic fringe, with people like me, because I am then better placed to speak up in his defence. I’ve had lots of practice at it!

        Adrian, there are heaps of people out there who “try to be helpful” by corralling anyone who’s prepared to listen to them, into raising the standard of their photography by all doing the same thing – or something similar.

        And then there are standouts – people like Philippe and you, who “do your own thing” and really don’t seem to bother much about what other people say or think. Clearly this Bay guy is one of them.

        Your description of his scenography (is that a word? – if it wasn’t, it is now! 🙂 ) reminds me of another genius, who thrived in British film – John Clease. He’s another “do your own thing” guy. If you don’t realise it already, try getting hold of his film “Car Troubles”! 🙂

        In one of his films, “A Fish Called Wanda”, there is a fascinating scene – it’s barely possible to take it all in, if you only watch it once (unless of course you have it on DVD and can get instant reply, over and over, till you’ve seen it properly). Because suddenly the screen is filled with about four different stories, or vignettes. Best one of them is the kids – staring in disbelief, at something we all know that they’re seeing, but we are spared the impact of seeing it ourselves – when I saw that, my laughter jumped from grade 2 to grade 5!

  • Nancee Rostad says:

    I really enjoyed your images, Adrian. Nicely done, and a nice counterpoint to Bayhem style, I’m thinking. Like Jean-Pierre, I’ve been a life long “do it my own way” type; however, I want to take on your challenge, give it a go, and most importantly, do it my own way! I’ll let you be the judge on whether or not I succeed.

  • Kristian Wannebo says:

    O.T.
    (.. associated from some of your photos.)

    Two of my favourite wood carvers:
    Tilman Riemenschneider,
    here from his Marienaltar in the Herrgottskirche in Creglingen:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Herrgott101011_02.jpg

    Axel Robert Petersson (“Döderhultarn”), examples:
    Click “Images” in
    https://www.google.se/search?q=d%C3%B6derhultaren

  • philberphoto says:

    Adrian, I loved your pics!! And your challenge!! Bayhem!! How about a Woodhem challenge, after Ed Wood? Either way, kudos and congrats!

    • Adrian says:

      Thanks for the compliments.

      Ed Wood was famous for his amateurish films, and amateurism is something I’m sure we can all be skilled at! I’m not sure how wooden acting and wobbly sets translates to the still image?

      I must admit I have a somewhat love/hate relationship with Michael Bay, as his bombastic style and the sensory overload it creates can be quite compelling, and sometimes make me feel.exhausted as a viewer, which I think is the point. There’s a chase scene on flying motorbikes in his film sci-fi “The Island” which is a good example of this.

      The idea of using every single millimetre of the frame in a way that achieves the epic scale, drama, and feeling of overload that his films create in a still photograph is interesting, as much saturated, commercial photography is often sneered at, much like Bays films. I can’t confess to know how to achieve the result, but I’m interested in the techniques he uses to deliver it to the cinema screen.

  • Lad Sessions says:

    Adrian, Thanks for the stimulating essay–and lovely images! And thanks also for suggesting Bayhem as the next challenge topic. Lad

    • Adrian says:

      Thanks for the compliments, and I’m glad you liked the photographs!

      I can take credit for the challenge, as Pascal suggested it when we were privately discussing the state of competition photography, and I mentioned Michael Bay’s approach to film making. I think Pascal is going to officially launch the challenge in another post. Don’t count on me to submit anything as I’m rather stuck for how to achieve it… For me, it would require a lot of stage direction and Photoshop skills I don’t have!

  • >