Portfolio: Martin Kimbell's 'Light Paintings'

Many photographers at some point experiment with a light source(s) as a means of mark-making or drawing within the frame of a photograph, ala Picasso's Centaur (technique actually dates back far earlier - first probably Frank and Lillian Galbreth, 1914); but, for most photographers, it is a quick check-off phase, often arguably unrelated to the primary arc of their development. In contrast, I am always interested to see certain artists take off their coats and stay for awhile.

I largely enjoy Kimbell's work here. Taken on an aesthetic level some images work better than others. Once one considers the means of production, the associations for me become performative - I quite like thinking about the ritualistic quality of throwing these DIY constructions repeatedly into the frame, suspecting/directing outcomes until the film is processed. And sloppy as it might be not to provide a better explanation, I do see these as more appropriate to or compelling within a film methodology.

not to my taste, it's like when you try light painting for the first time (much more elaborated in this case of course) but after a while you don't feel anything anymore

I'm not sure any of this is real...I tried it and could not get the light columns to behave. Maybe I have too much dust on my D800 sensor.

So he uses a film camera. To avoid being cheap.

Comments here crack me up.

Martin Kimbell: Here is some of my work.
DPR Forum Users: I don't know what you're doing, so I don't like it.

LOLOLOOLOLOL!!!!!!

No lights used, he just uses "erase" in Elements. :-)

Why outside in the bush? I think the setting is distracting. The symmetrical lights belong against a city scape or a more simple background like a beach. While there was some technical effort to be acknowledged I don't see what is report worthy about it.

Best UFO shots I ever seen:-)

Where's the interview??