Static non-powered objects with FACES #42: A house
Got sent this enormous 4.2MB photo of a house or at least building with a face in London, accompanied by an essay about film cameras and fictional EXIF data. It’s humbling when readers put in more effort than we’ve managed for months.
“So I think this is someone’s home. It’s in a location in London which I feel may be rich pickings for Static Non-Powered Objects with Faces, so I’m not going to reveal exactly where in case it ruins my chances of appearing on here every week for the next 7 years. Which is obviously my only ambition in life.
You may find the EXIF data disappointing, if it even exists. I expect you’ll find some babble about Photoshop, that’s because I took this photo using a film camera. Remember those? I found one recently that I didn’t know I had, took it out “for a spin”…and got this. Impressive huh?
Here’s your analogue EXIF data
Camera: Weird Minolta AFT thing that seems to serve no useful purpose
Film: Fuji 400H – too expensive for such a crap camera
Exposure: Who knows? It’s a needlessly massive point and shoot.
Processing: The lovely lady at Snappy Snaps
Scanning: Badly. Me. At home
Dust marks: Probably on the scanner, or maybe the film – can’t be bothered to remove it from such a godawful photo.
Should have taken it on my phone really” – S.
filed in STATIC OBJECTS WITH FACES on Feb.19, 2010
February 19th, 2010 on 11:37 am
I like it. The use of an old style camera makes it looks even more oppressive and 60’s/70’s. Maybe there’s a niche there? Oppressive looking buildings with faces from the 60’s and 70’s.
February 19th, 2010 on 11:54 am
House looks malnourished, poor thing’s probably been fed a diet of welfare scum for years…
February 19th, 2010 on 12:23 pm
I like the way you can’t tell if the grubbiness is caused by dirt on scanner, the camera lens, the building or in the air itself. I’m assuming it’s a combination of all of these factors.
February 19th, 2010 on 4:38 pm
I do like the fact that some oaf at the local planning authority granted consent to a building that has its upper levels overhanging the ones directly below, thus dooming all inhabitants of the lower flowers to live in semi darkness all year round.
Mind you, it looks like a bolthole for chavs so who cares?
February 19th, 2010 on 4:38 pm
Flowers? I need to go home and lie down. More.
February 19th, 2010 on 6:22 pm
Sackboy House!
February 19th, 2010 on 6:32 pm
How semi-poor English live past 30 remains a mystery to me. I can’t imagine how depressed its inhabitants must be. It’s too depressing to even commit suicide from, or against, or in. If the sun could realise thís is what it’s lighting, it would freeze in protest.
February 19th, 2010 on 6:50 pm
I think it’s an architectural style known as “Brutalism” (honestly, I kid you not). We did a lot of it in Britain, unfortunately. Architects are a bunch of fucking cunts!
February 19th, 2010 on 7:06 pm
‘Neo-Fuckthepoorism’.
February 22nd, 2010 on 11:42 am
I’d like to acknowledge Prison Hardmans post. It *does* look like sackboy.