Seeing New York
February 12, 2014 7:53 AM   Subscribe

"I’ve been thinking about the art of looking. The importance of focusing and what we see. This past March I bought a pair of Giorgio Armani frames in Geneva, classic per usual, and I decided to put them in front of the frame. To see what I see. To show you a day in New York through my lens…"

Created by photographer Jamie Beck and visual graphics artist Kevin Burg of Ann Street Studio and Cinemagraphs.

See the cinemagraphs tag for previous posts.
posted by The Girl Who Ate Boston (27 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
So... These are photoshopped, yes? Eyeglass lenses don't work like that, do they?
posted by Sys Rq at 8:17 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


I especially liked the falling leaves one... Though I must admit that while perhaps it's the jaded consumer in me ruining this art, I simply can't shake the feeling that I'm looking at a banner ad for LensCrafters or one of those Bliurry/Clear Claritin-D commercials.


I also don't think you're supposed to hold glasses a foot in front of your face like that,
posted by Debaser626 at 8:22 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]


I love you most of all my darling when The auto-awesome leaves begin to fall.
posted by hortense at 8:34 AM on February 12


A brilliant little idea.
posted by shivohum at 8:35 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


I also don't think you're supposed to hold glasses a foot in front of your face like that

He's also wearing a space helmet
posted by oulipian at 8:38 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]


I also don't think you're supposed to hold glasses a foot in front of your face like that

He's also wearing a space helmet


Or is invisible with a camera strapped to the back of his head.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:40 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


What? No stepping over homeless people in East New York? No repeated but ultimately futile swiping and re-swiping of one of those unreliable metro cards, or waiting 20 minutes for his uptown A? No sitting around hoping to god his internet comes back while the guys from Time Warner Cable are monkeying with the wires outside his house? What New York does this guy live in?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:41 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]


I was worried that someone wasn't taking enough pictures of New York.
posted by planetesimal at 8:46 AM on February 12 [15 favorites]


Eyeglass lenses don't work like that, do they?

No, they don't. For a moment, I thought that they were stereo 3D, with the left frame being the same scene as the right, which would have been more like wearing glasses, but no. I'm sure the Luxottica guy is happy with this. Me? Meh.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:50 AM on February 12


I simply can't shake the feeling that I'm looking at a banner ad for LensCrafters

Pfft, those are Giorgio Armani frames, thankyouverymuch. LensCrafters only carries the cut-rate Armani Exchange brand. (I had to look this up, to ensure accuracy of my derision and snark.)

Also, I am concerned about the traffic flow in the last image on this page. There are a lot of buses in the right lens, but none in the left lens. Where did they go?
posted by filthy light thief at 8:53 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


"These are photoshopped, yes? Eyeglass lenses don't work like that, do they?"

If you're asking about the fact that the interior surface of the eyeglass frames is in focus as well as the images shot through the lenses - yes, that's likely shopped. No one's corrective lenses force them to focus on the surface of the glass.

If I were putting these together I would do three shots:
1.) world out of focus, no eyeglasses in the shot
2.) world in focus, no eyeglasses in the shot
3.) eyeglasses in the shot, focus on the frame
then comp them together. The only reason #3 is even necessary is to ensure that you have the right lighting on them for the location - if you don't care about that you could shoot it once and lay it over whatever shots you wanted.
posted by komara at 8:54 AM on February 12


I think it's even easier:
1) World in focus
2) eyeglasses in the shot, focused on the frame
3) blur everything outside of the frames

Or it could be as simple as one shot of everything in focus, then blurring in post-processing.

And I'll say that these are pretty pictures, and the cinemagraphs are nice enough, but there is nothing that makes these stand too high in either category. The focus on the brand of the glasses degrades the effort, for me.

A really interesting series would be to work with different people and convey New York through their glasses, instead of the pretty frames you bought in Geneva. Your views of New York aren't that impressive, but could be more interesting set in the context of the view of others. This is your New York, why not look at someone elses for a while?
posted by filthy light thief at 9:01 AM on February 12


"3) blur everything outside of the frames"

Blurring in post won't duplicate the look of an area that's out-of-focus when shot through a camera lens. Refer to the pretty little circles formed by lights in the distance in both the Times Square and traffic/bridge shot.
posted by komara at 9:04 AM on February 12


Via Google, here's a non-shopped picture through half of a pair of glasses
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 9:05 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


Oh, this artist is just making a spectacle of himself.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:09 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]


I also don't think you're supposed to hold glasses a foot in front of your face like that,

It's actually not that far off from what you see while wearing glasses, says I, currently wearing glasses. The 2 biggest issues are that a) the frames are in focus and b) no nose. As for the blurry space around the glasses, I think they got the amount of blurry, unfocussed peripheral vision down reasonably well.
posted by Hoopo at 9:11 AM on February 12


Also you don't see the middle part, now that I think about it. you see the outside of the frame, but not the bridge
posted by Hoopo at 9:12 AM on February 12


I stuck my face up against the screen. It still doesn't seem like real glasses. I did get all sorts of grease all over my screen though.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:14 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


Depending on one's prescription, there would be differences in magnification. I haven't shot video through my lenses, but I shot a few self portraits through mine a while ago, and got fun effects with the shrinkage.
posted by louche mustachio at 9:14 AM on February 12


"I’ve been thinking about the art of looking. The importance of focusing and what we see."

Huh, focusing on the most touristy tropes of NY? This seems like the sentence would belong in some social commentary or something and then you get pictures of grand central and the skyline?

I still think they're neat, just that seems like a very 'tacked on' presnetation of what these are.
posted by Riton at 9:14 AM on February 12


I understand that vinegar is good for getting Gunn grease off your computer screen.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:28 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]


Pfft, those are Giorgio Armani frames, thankyouverymuch. LensCrafters only carries the cut-rate Armani Exchange brand.

A distinction without a difference. Luxottica makes all the Armani frames, and also owns Lencscrafters (and Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and many more).
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:37 AM on February 12


Looks to me like the glasses are half full.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:42 AM on February 12


"If I were putting these together I would do three shots:
1.) world out of focus, no eyeglasses in the shot
2.) world in focus, no eyeglasses in the shot
3.) eyeglasses in the shot, focus on the frame
then comp them together."


Duh, I'm an idiot. It can easily be done in 2 shots: focusing on the frames will create the 'world out of focus' portion at the same time. The second shot is no eyeglasses, world in focus. Then just layer them in Photoshop with the blur above the focus, mask out a hole where the lenses are, and you're done.
posted by komara at 9:44 AM on February 12


Neat way to write off an expensive pair of glasses.
posted by odinsdream at 10:03 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]


Frankly I would have enjoyed all of these more without the glasses photoshopped in.
posted by mmoncur at 11:07 PM on February 12


So just blurry photos with weird, floating focused areas?

Maybe from a different photographer who wears contacts...
posted by cribcage at 1:15 PM on February 14


« Older For years, Fred "Slacktivist" Clark has been disse...  |  This film produced by the Unit... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments