I’ve decided to aim for the Wedding, Portrait, Autombile and Architecture markets as a starter for 10 – a the former are probably where the money’s at, the latter being things I actually enjoy doing. So you look back through 4 years of work and suddenly realise how much you’ve shot in that time. I got the 5D on the 27th feb 2006 and have probably shot on average 100 shots a day since! So the sheer bulk of what you need to look over is quite outfacing.

Then you realise that your photography has changed over time – both in style, subject and processing. In 2006/2007 I had the saturation slider to the max, lots of landscapes and a few weddings to fish shots from. So do you use shots from the past which you are pretty happy with, but know you’d not shoot any more? It’s tough one to answer, so I’ve copied shots to a new folder ready to get critical on!

I think the next big problem is that the site I’m building is hopefully going to get people to buy stuff off me or hire my services… so you really have to take a step back and look at it objectively, which is something I’ve not really done before. When you’re taking shots as a hobby, even as a semi-pro, I don’t think what you put on your website is that critical as your mortgage doesn’t depend on it – on my current website, I’ve got stacks of shots of people getting drunk, and to my mates that’s the best part of the site! So now it’s case of whittling down to a few shots of each genre that portray where I’m going… so do I just pluck from the last year or last 6 months even? Tricky.

The other thing I’ve noticed, as I’m looking at the older photos as “normal” people see them – moments in time, nostalgia, seeing people I’ve not seen for ages, and it’s quite refreshing as I usually look at shots as a photographer would and am more concerned about the composition and lighting! I remember taking them, it was a period when I was out most nights learning new things every day, trying anything and everything just to see what works. A lot of duffs of course, but I kinda miss that childlike wonderment you get when you’re new to something.

Ah well, the nostalgia must continue I guess – 2007, here I come!

Bookmark This:

FWAPhoto is  a photo a day project with a difference, it is not one submitter but many, and so has a constant rich vein of photographic talent to draw from. You can even submit your own work to the project. It’s definitely  a site worth browsing with a fresh hot cup of Java and some time to kill.

Not quite a 365, but  a few of us set up a 31 day photo challenge that we’ve talked about before. It’s coming to a close soon and has been fun to participate in and see what everyone has produced. Seeing how a group event differs from the very personal 365 exploration has been interesting and informatinve.  I know a few, including Matt, are hoping to make it a 365 experience.. let’s hope they can. For me, I’m thinking about it again.. maybe this time I will finish the task.

Bookmark This:

This is the problem I have with one of the masters of photography, Ansel Adams.  Whilst there is no doubting his expertise and technical prowess, I feel that such things actually hinder his images. In my early days of discovering photography, I held his work in high esteem; the skill was something to aspire to, however, as I learnt more my interest in his photographs waned. Why did this happen? Well, I began to see a sterility in his work, Adams’s assertion that: “We can have craft without art, but we cannot have art without craft” was a double edged sword. His rigorous application of his craft actually becomes a barrier to interacting with the photographs he produced. When viewing his images all you can hear is his voice and expression. The technique overpowers and sublimates the narrative in the image; you end up looking at the technique, not the subject. To me, this makes his work like propaganda, there is no debate/dialogue with his work, you either agree with it or you don’t. I’m not saying that something has to be flawed to have a narrative, it can help yes, but the content of the image should be the main point of focus (sorry) not the technique you use. As I’m forever telling clients at work when they are asking us to create a ‘successful website’, “Content is king”. Without it, you can have the most well designed, thought out site, but if there’s nothing there for the user to engage with, well you might as well not bother. When you can marry technique and content you get some wonderful work such as that of Jack Spencer.

This engagement with the viewer is something that TV companies have recognised, the draw that reality TV shows have. Despite the lack of polish and to some extent content, there is a narrative there that draws in the viewer, inviting the viewer to be part of the story itself.

This engagement with the viewer got me to thinking about portraits. Taking for example the Taylor-Wessing portrait prize (was Schweppes portrait prize), every year a common theme amongst the shots chosen, is bored looking teenagers staring off into the middle distance. There are rarely any genuinely happy looking portraits. Why is this? Well I think it does come down to engagement and narrative. A neutral or pained expression seems to draw in the viewer, it throws up questions and scenarios. Whereas a happy expression seems to act like a block to that, we don’t question them as much.  For some reason the darker emotions speak to us more strongly, we empathise and feel compassion for those that appear to be troubled or in extreme circumstances, yet seem to dismiss those that are happier. Lets bring back happiness into portraiture, but do it so that people engage more; it’s not easy but something that would in itself be rewarding.

Can you do that?

Bookmark This:

It is a darn shame the world would see you burn in hell before let you point a camera at a child, but I got lucks last sunday when Kat from work asked me to photograph her little bundles of joy in Leeds. They really are one of the best subjects to capture, inhibitions are low, moods swing fast, they are full of energy and really responsive to requests..

So they turned up in Park Square, leeds – right in the middle of the financial area, what a place to shoot – it was about 3:30, so ambient light was pretty much gone. So I set up to strobes, pretty high up on 1/16th power and a wide angle (24mm) to get a decent coverage. I got them sat on the bench and asked them to pose… got some funny faces then that “slightly bored” look….

So time to think Ade…

What do you do?

Well I asked who could jump highest… got the 17mm lens, led on the floor and got them jumping in front of me.

I’d won them back – after a few jumps, I just invited them to “play” on the path, simple, no instructions. “Do the red arrows”, that manoeuvre where the planes pass each other, but appear to be on a collision course. So they did that and started running like posessed animals. Fantastic… then I realise that my 24-105 F4 can’t AF on them, they’re moving way to much to contemplate manual focus… so out with the 70-200 F2.8 and put the camera in in Servo AF, so you can lock on to them and follow them around..

I get about 5 shots, then even F2.8 wasn’t working… the AF assist beams don’t work when you’re using radio transmitters either…

So do I tell them to stop? Pose in a place I can focus on them? Risk losing them to bordham?

Nah – what’s the fastest focussing lens in my bag… a Lensbaby V2. Just squeeze and click…

So that;s what I used for 40 minutes – entertained them by changing the apertures and showing them the stars and flowers in the background, they were well into it.

After about an hour of shooting I’d filled a 4 gig card, they looked goosed and we’d all had an enjoyable session.

So you look at the technique…

• a couple of lights set up, one at 3PM, one at 8 – the kids were rarely in position to get “correct lighting”….
• manual focus lensbaby….lots of blurry stuff…

It’s all wrong isn’t it, not professional at all…

You then give a disc to their mum and the next day you get the feedback… they loved them, all of the family around the computer for ages having a right laugh.

Too many shots from childhood are staged, kids having to pose and look unnatural, not character at all – you remember more about the jumper the kid’s wearing than what they were like. With this technique, if you can call it something so grand, I’ve managed to capture 2 kids being kids, which I think is something they’ll really enjoy looking back on in 20 years time – or on their 21st birthday when Kat drags the photos out and embarasses them!

Here are a few shots from the shoot – mostly unprocessed except in Capture One

Bookmark This:

Continuing the water theme, Manjari Sharma’s Shower series is a very interesting look at portraits that immediately have a strong sense of vulnerability and intimacy. The act of being in a shower puts the sitter in an unusual and vulnerable position, even when clothed as some of them are. The images also conjure up the feeling of river baptisms, the ritual of cleansing spiritually rather than physically. It’s an interesting series and one that makes me want to hear some of the subjects stories.

via PDN photo of the day

Bookmark This:

I’ve been in that situation a few times, the images are technically good, but I just feel they are empty and lacking any passion. One of the things that I’ve discussed with the Real Mark Scholey several times is ways to rediscover that passion and drive; and our conversations always come back to shooting a project. Sounds easy doesn’t it, that’s what I thought.

Setting out with the idea of a project, you can’t just think of a subject and shoot it. It actually takes quite a bit of planning, especially if your goal is to produce a body of work at the end of it for a book or a small gallery exhibition. It takes time, and lots of thinking, planning, re-planning, adapting the project as you progress it. But one thing it does for me, is hand me the passion for creating art again.

And project planning is just what I’m starting now after a period of feeling a little flat and jaded with my own photography. The results of which shall be shared on these very pages!

Bookmark This:

Well you’ll be pleased to know this is a much shorter post than the last one, but very related. On City Streets is a book that I have ordered and I am awaiting delivery on (not so patiently). As soon as I read about the book and the back story on the Online Photographer, it was a must buy option.

Gary Stochl, after shooting on his own for 40 years and “without really showing his work to anyone” walked into Columbia College’s Photo Department, with a paper shopping bag of prints. Bob Thall, the head of the department, browsed the prints that Stochl brought in and cancelled his afternoon schedule to devote more time and effort to the archive.

I love the story for the independent attitude of Stochl and his drive and determination to work at what he loved, to create that body of work, and then walk into an office to show it. From that meeting he has had exhibitions, and now a book too. One that I’m looking forward to getting!

Read more of the story here at The Online Photographer.

Bookmark This:

© Vivian Maier, Courtesy of John Maloof

Those of us that cover weddings or family events will usually know that their work is appreciated during the subjects lifetime. What happens to it afterwards? Will it become part of the family photo history, brought on on rare occasions as people are rifling through a drawer, looking for a specific photo or document?

All photographs, and genres of photography have a different values and to a certain extent a “lifespan”. Indeed, many photographs will have their value fluctuate as time passes. Take for example, wedding photographs. These will be immediately valuable to the couple and their immediate family, but once they have passed on the value will drop, apart from maybe one or two of the photos held dear by their children. Once we have passed that generation their value will more be of a record of the “times” in which the photo was taken, the styles of dress, fashion and rituals of the time. This is not to make light of wedding photography in any way (I have and do cover those events), but merely an observation and musings on the lifespan of  photographs.

What brought me to this? Well I recently stumbled upon the works of Vivian Maier. The blog of her work is run by John Maloof who acquired her work in an auction, some 30-40,000 negatives,  many of them undeveloped. He’s had a great and inspirational experience looking through, and developing the films in the collection.

To see such a large body of work, devoid of a commercial angle or bent is interesting. You are seeing through the photographer’s eye without the wishes of the client having any impact. This appeals to me, mainly as I have had several discussion with family and friends over the years, about what I’m “Going to do with my photography”. With a lot of it centering around people not understanding my reluctance to make money from what I do. It’s not from a lack of aptitude, or from a lack of confidence, but from what I want to cover/show and how I feel, mainly that the work I want to cover  is not something that’s going to be commercially viable, and a commercial aspect could get in the way of the meaning behind those photographs.

© Vivian Maier, Courtesy of John Maloof

I’m interested in the non-commercial aspect of photography, the documentary and telling of a story unfettered by commercial concerns.  This comes back to looking at the parameters to your work. There is the real danger that without any parameters or goals a life’s work can become formless and hard to manage. 40,000 negs is a lot of images to catalogue, edit and narrow down! Imagine how bad it can be these days with the numbers of digital images that we take! Vivian Maier’s work appears to have avoided this, she has a strong vision and central theme, one that is communicated excellently through her archive. Her work centers around the streets of Chicago and New York, and the people that inhabit them.  It is a good example to look at as inspiration for work driven by a vision and goal.

Looking back at the shots you have taken, will you be happy with your “life’s work”? Are you happy with what you have shot to date? I feel I’m on the right tracks, in a few cases I’m shooting what I want to shoot and, where possible, working to doing more of that. Do I want fame and money? Surprisingly, no.

Ok, an exhibition in a major gallery would be nice, it’s always nice to have your ego boosted like that, but it’s not why I do what I do. I enjoy the act of photography, and I like the idea of a comprehensive and impressive body of work* that’s driven by what I want to cover.That is what I’m aiming for, with a few side goals where individual projects are concerned of course.!

*it still needs some work admittedly

If you have yet to browse Vivian’s work then do so, there’s a lot of inspiration to be had there.

Bookmark This:

I was browsing a web forum dedicated to photography and there was a comment regarding the new purchase that someone had made. They’d upgraded from a Nikon D40 to a D200, quite a jump and to a very capable camera, a good learning step. However, a comment from someone made me think, this person was looking forward to what they’d produce with this camera, almost as if they would suddenly improve. I know what they meant, a better more capable camera gets in the way less, so you can perform better, however, as a photographer it is not the camera that is important and often we are not better with a new camera as it means a change to how we work,  so what did this person mean and why, to an extent, were they right?

Well, I remember a review of a new camera in the early(ish) days of the DSLR revolution* and the reviewer made a reference to receiving the boxed camera, which he came back to at the end of the review. The best part about new gear, they said is “opening the box”. The joy you have at getting  the camera out and using it. Yes, we can never recapture that, but the reviewer made a great point. Put your main camera away in its box, use another for a while. Your backup camera if you have one (and it is different to your main camera), if not break out the old film cameras (or spend a little to get one). Once you have done thatfor a while go back and get your main camera out, you will be surprised at how you feel with it in your hands.

The difference it will make will be quite surprising. If it is a camera which you have not used in a while, you will be amazed at how comfy it feels and what memories it brings back… yes it will have its flaws, perhaps be slower but with it comes some good memories and that lovely sense of nostalgia. If it is a new ( but old) camera then with it comes a period of discovery, tinged with expectation. What does this key into? Well it taps into that “love” that we have for making pictures.  That sense of joy and fun, either from an old friend or finding  anew one. Reusing an old camera reminds us why we liked it in the first place and re-invigorates our desire to make pictures. On top of this you feel refreshed when you go back to your main camera. It becomes new again and a welcome return.

This re-invigorsation for your love of taking and making pictures will always show in your images. Technicality aside, if you are loving the process, in tune with yourself and the subject then there will always be the making of a good picture in there somewhere. That desire and joy will shine through, so go pack up your main camera for a while, pick up a different one and go shoot.  Once you have finished open the box, and revel in the return of your main camera, as if it was new. If you are lucky you will enjoy both aspects of this challenge, at the very least you will enjoy getting your main camera back and so will have a renewed interest/appreciation of it, at best you get enjoyment out of both aspects. What’s to lose? Box it up and have fun, embrace the love and joy of picture taking.

*I wish i could remember who the reviewer was and which camera it was, if you know drop a line in the comments.

Bookmark This:

Of all the photographic magazines out there today, there are very few that I still buy. Yes, they are very formulaic, you can compare this years editions with last years, and lo and behold similar articles and techniques are trotted out. However, one magazine I have stuck with over the years is Black and White photography magazine, although that may be changing, read on….

One thing I always liked about B&W Photography magazine was it’s enjoyment in “the process” and specifically, they had a “printer’s art” section, where a negative of a reader would be printed by a professional printer/photographer. To be honest, despite not having been in a darkroom in a long time, this was one of my favourite parts of the magazine. Why was it so? Well for a start you could see a thought process. The printer would draw over the image, showing how they would dodge/burn or vary the print (and paper) to get the image they were wanting from the neg. You saw a progression, but more importantly you saw what they were thinking…

Over the past year or two the magazine has changed, especially with a staunchly anti-digital editor leaving and it has changed for the worse. Why? Well  it is always interesting to listen to the views of someone who opposes your methodolgy.  The printer’s art now has a digital worker going through the process, sometimes in isolation, but mostly against someone in a darkroom. You know what? The digital version leaves me cold. This is not from some romantic yearning for the days of old, for a darkened room full of chemicals, mostly because I used to be a poor darkroom worker. I like to see what I am working on. Why does it leave me cold? Well that’s easy; it is a lack of thought and process.

Whilst it should be easier to document what you do in a digital workflow… (remember that Print Screen button)… what you often get is a series of settings and numbers, an easy to follow formula rather than a considered approach to the image in front of you.

A wet printer, on the other hand, has to go out of their way to show you what they did, so they create a visual history of their thought process. They will scrawl on a print showing areas that need work to bring out what they want. On an image there is notation of +2 here -3 here with a drawn outline of the area, illustrating how they were seeing an image and notes such as pre-flashed the paper on print 3. This to me is key. With digital, it has become far too easy to show “what we did” and the process of creating an image. In B&W Photography they just show the settings of the adjustment, rather than highlighting which bits need work on, a big mistake. It has been reduced from an art and a thought process into a series of variables that if you know them will lead you into the photographic Nirvana. Two examples of this are Andrzej Dragan, and Dave Hill. Both had a very distinct style and there were many threads across the photographic world (on the Internet) trying to discover their secret… “What settings should I use?” etc etc… As if finding this would unlock a secret. People were looking for that “quick fix” rather than a considered thought out approach. Instead of looking at the process as a whole, with digital there is a fixation on looking for the “right settings” what curves should I apply? Should I use layer blending? What sharpening?

In this printer’s art for the digital version, showing a curves/layers adjustment in PS makes people think, “this is what I should do” and “that’s the formula”. The person working on the image does not show how they “see” the image, we do not get an idea of how they interpret it, and that is a shame, as that is the interesting bit! People look at this as it is easier to quantify than looking at a rough print and going… “Hmmm I could bring out that area a bit”. This is what is missing in the whole process…thought.

We need to look at our images individually and see where they need and how they can be improved. Don’t think about a technique, a PS process, but think of a visual metaphor, look at how the image appears and how it needs to be refined. Not how to refine it. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one… one method relies on a “do it in PS approach” the other requires you to look, evaluate and adjust your shooting or overall approach and treatment of the image. Don’t use a formula either in shooting or in Post processing…look to develop a thought process and a narrative with your images.

Will I buy many more B&W Photography magazines? I don’t think I will, it will be the odd one from now on, ones that still contain articles about the love of photography, and they are getting fewer

Bookmark This: