The post explains a little bit about my background, my approach to photography, and why my subject matter has changed so much over the last couple of years.
UPDATE Sept 13th – if anyone has had any problems adding comments to the Leica blog, please keep trying. I have notified them that their site is not working properly, and they assure me that it is being sorted out! Sorry – it is out of my hands.
Here are two thought provoking qoutes from the man….
“Be yourself. I much prefer seeing something, even it is clumsy, that doesn’t look like somebody else’s work.” William Klein
“I used the wide-angle lens as a normal lens. I had no philosophy about it. When I looked in the viewfinder and realized I could see all the contradictions and confusion that was there with the wide-angle — that was what was great… I’d had a Rolleiflex with different lenses, I wouldn’t have cropped that much. I had no compunction about cropping, because I did my own layouts…[And] I’d use anything in printing. Throw cyanide, white out over things. I approached photography a little bit like a painter would play with a lithograph, fooling around, pouring milk, tea, anything on it. It was the sort of thing that anybody with any sort of strict, classic photographic training would have qualms about. But I had no qualms at all about doing things with photography. First of all, I had no knowledge of it, and I couldn’t care less, because I thought the whole photographic world was alien.” William Klein (via Lens Culture)
I have worked intermittently with Practical Photography Magazine since 2001, and recently completed a job with them as part of their “24 Hours With..” feature. The brief was that they follow me during a landscape shoot on Hadrian’s Wall, an area I have visited frequently over the years. But with Ben Hawkins, the Deputy Editor from PP, looking over my shoulder and noting down my every move, the elements conspired against me, and it turned out to be one of the toughest assignments I have ever done, and definitely the wettest.
Any type of “landscape” work in the summer can be challenging as the quality of light is often poor, and depending on the weather, the “golden hour” can be reduced to the “golden five minutes if you’re lucky”.
This summer I have been revisiting Hadrian’s Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall to try and make something different for stock libraries. Most of my pictures of the iconic Wall have been made in the winter months, when the sun is lower and more predictable.
For a few months in the summer the sun sets north-west of the wall, making for a much more challenging set of conditions and vistas, often dissected with harsh shadow. To complicate matters the north facing side of wall is not accessible in many places, so coming away with useful pictures is much harder than in the winter, when so much is laid out on a plate for the photographer.
An important part of outdoor photography is careful planning, researching the location, understanding the position and movement of the sun, and watching the weather forecast. Sadly the date for this shoot had to be fixed well in advance, and if the choice had been my own I would have not left the house that day.
The forecast was terrible and the rain fell in torrents for seven frustrating hours, only briefly interspersed with flat grey skies and a chill wind…..ah the joys of early summer on Hadrian’s Wall. We must have looked quite a sight, just standing in the middle of nowhere in the driving rain, water logged and dripping. But at least the midgies were drowning!
I had hoped for a shooting window of around two hours to make 20 or so pictures for the magazine piece, covering various locations over a one mile stretch of the Wall; instead I had around ten minutes total working time, with sodden kit and a nice fine drizzle. Outdoor work should be considered and calm, and not carried out at running pace with a journalist trailing behind with his umbrella! It could be argued that all shoots will not go to plan, and this IS the reality of outdoor photography, but ultimately I had quality pictures to produce for a client whatever the weather, and they had to be done that day.
With hindsight at least I got to know the location better, and made some (moist) notes for future visits, and I also know that my coat pockets will fill with water after a while standing in heavy rain. More seriously I received a reminder that for some commercial jobs the pictures have to be a compromise. When time is a constraint, every picture that comes out the camera may not be amazing, but has to be the very best that can be made at that time, taking into account all of the circumstances.
Only rarely on commercial jobs will the expectations that you have in your mind be exceeded, and you must be prepared for even the best laid plans to fall apart. That is part of the challenge and the constant learning curve, and you learn more from adversity and from having to draw on all your skills to complete the job.
Balancing commercial work with personal projects is never easy, and the two strands are often difficult for a photographer to reconcile, but the bills have to be paid.
“Shooting Hadrian’s Wall” features in Augusts’ edition of Practical Photography Magazine. http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/
I am a big lover of “Photobooks” with a collapsing bookcase to prove it.
As with any quality book, the very best photobooks are beautiful, tactile, and precious things, which seem to make their readers treat them with respect when they pick them up. To a photographer they can be inspiring and frustrating in equal doses; sources for ideas and for understanding, but they are often (expensive) objects of desire.
This week brought an interesting symposium on Photography Publishing and the Future of Photobooks, organised by the North East Photography Network, and held in Newcastle upon Tyne.
Many of the problems surrounding and facing modern photographers in producing photobooks were raised through a series of talks by various lecturers, practitioners, and curators; and I would like to pick out a few of their observations and add some of my own.
John Kippin http://johnkippin.com/ pointed out how a photographer’s career is judged by their success within the Galleries, and through exhibitions. This system is very exclusive, subjective, and normally operates within certain social and economic contexts; and galleries only show work by a certain type of photographer. There is a strong arguement that they are “excluding” to most practitioners, and also to large sectors of the population, and that they only represent a couple of styles of photography.
Marc Feustel is an independent curator and writer, and specialist on Japanese Photography. He runs the excellent Eye Curious Blog http://www.eyecurious.com/ He pointed out how important photobooks and photobook publishers are in changing photographic history, and observed that we view photographers differently as a result of their books, viewed through the lens of time. Having the time to sit and engage with a photographers work in book form can be a very personal way of learning about their work and their outlooks. It is much easier to look at their pictures in the comfort of your own home or in a library, than it is in the alien and sanitised environment of the Gallery space.
Bridget Croaker (Picture Editor for the Guardian and Observer newspapers and Director of Photography for http://www.troikaeditions.co.uk/) pointed out that photography suffers because it is “not a homogenous whole,” and because of its ubiquity, and its ease of creation. She also thought this was compounded because photojournalists are now seeking the gallery wall, and as a result are blurring the boundaries of what is considered “art”, and also what is considered good or bad. Because of this she felt it was important that photographers understand what type of work they are producing, and the context of that work, and sees this as more important that being exhibited or publishing a book.
In todays market less and less photography is commissioned, book publishing offers are very rare, and are largely reserved to celebrity or “name” photographers. As a result of this some artists and photographers have turned to what is known as “crowd funding” to try and raise the funds for their projects directly from online audiences. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/feature/1936101/crowd-funding-little-help-friends
A fascinating example of this was given by Dutch documentary photographer Rob Hornstra http://www.robhornstra.nl/ who started the fascinating and ambitious Sochi Project in 2009 with the help of online donations. http://www.thesochiproject.org/home/?en His books have also been crowd funded.
Rob also detailed how expensive and difficult it can be for photographers wanting to produce quality photobooks, and also how small an audience there is for them. The importance he places on every minute detail in his own highly acclaimed and collectable photobooks was very evident, and this approach is common in those at the top of their fields. He also stressed the importance of a photobook telling a story, starting with the cover and continuing with every page. It was refreshing to hear him talk about how the narrative and his story telling was the important thing in any book, and not the self aggrandisement of the photographer.
Bruno Ceshel gave an interesting talk. He is the founder of Self Publish, Be Happy http://selfpublishbehappy.com/(Warning Adult Content) which was established with the aim of “celebrating, studying and promoting self-published photo books through events…, publications and online exposure”. Bruno sees little difference between “artist’s books” and “self published books”, and said the only difference may be that the numbers produced for the latter is larger.
I have been watching the rise and success of Self Publish, Be Happy for some time now, as I have been working on a project of my own for which I see the natural output as a book. They have some superb books for sale.
Something that was stressed by several of the speakers was the ease with which photographers can now produce their own photobooks, something that is exemplified at Self Publish, Be Happy. The expansion and disposable nature of digital and home printing has meant that small run books are appearing everywhere, as thousands of people decide their work should be seen in book form. This ease of publishing is supported by platforms such as Blurb which offers a print on demand service. Books are often now not seen as precious objects, and are printed in zine form, on newsprint, or even as simply stapled photocopies.
Many of these books seem to follow very similar themes, with young photographers exploring personal situations. This exploration in itself can be important and relevant, but much of the work seems very self absorbed. There also seems to be a glut of naked teenagers running around in the landscape and doing the things young adults do, often in the style of Ryan McGinley http://ryanmcginley.com/ – they are everywhere. Many other books feature derelict houses, found objects, and “Dusseldorf” type pictures of the mundane. Maybe there is nothing wrong with this, but are they stopping to considerhow many of them are doing exactly the same, and are then releasing them as photobooks? I question whether this is correct in a market that is hugely overloaded with photographers, and backed by a photographic “educational” system that keeps spitting thousands more out every year, seemingly often making the same type of work. And if we go back to the words of Bridget Croaker who felt that photography suffers “because of its ubiquity” and “its ease of creation” this becomes more worrying.
Many aspects of commercial photography including stock, editorial, and photo journalism, are being eroded by this very same ubiquity, and the fact that everyone is now a photographer, or a citizen journalist. So surely there is an inherent danger with the overwhelming amount of photobooks that are out there.
The market for photographs is massive, and it increases all the time, but there are too many pictures in the system, often given away for free. As a result of this the overall standard and peoples understanding over what is good has been lowered. So in some ways, the glut of small photobooks reflects this trend. But what’s problematic is that the market for photobooks is a very small one, so for the vast majority a market does not exist. Unless a photographers name and reputation is already well known, and the content is relevant to a lot of people, then this work is unlikely to sell.
I am not against the freedom of artistic expression that self published photobooks can bring, and indeed in odd cases this can lead to critical and commercial success. I have been lucky enough to see some incredible hand crafted artist’s books over the last year, unique pieces of art in their own right, and they can be an important part of a makers craft and practice. In fact I also aspire to seeing my work in print, so if anyone would like to send me a cheque for around £15000 that would be a big help and might get me started. But I would always question whether that book was the legacy that I wanted to leave to the world, and whether it contributed anything to the rich history of photobooks that already exists. But perhaps that is not important?
I recently attended an inspiring talk by the unique artist Thomas Joshua Cooper, who is regarded as one of the world’s most important landscape artists. The event was organised by the North East Photography Network http://www.northeastphoto.net/
Thomas only makes images outdoors, only ever makes one image in any one place, and uses an Agfa camera that was made in 1898. He is well known for the extraordinary lengths he goes to in order to make his images, and can spend months travelling to the remote parts of the globe to make a single image.
Cooper has always emphasized that his images are made not taken or shot and the final stage in the process takes place in the dark room.
“When I make a picture it is a considered event and a considered action, and through that consideration the act of construction occurs. So for me, I never take anything because it seems first to be overly aggressive and possessive, I make something, I originate it.” (Thomas Joshua Cooper)
“I see my photographs as meditations, it is as simple as that. To be understood they must be experienced––felt, seen, known. Consequently, I often use the medium of the landscape, for everyone, in some small way, has some very personal relation to the land––thus they are ready (and willing) to come in to look, if not into, at least at the landscapes I produce. I have trapped them then! For if l have made the concept of the photographs strong enough, the viewer will begin to still himself for, indeed, I make Still photographs––and with the coming stillness comes the possibility of a deep meditational understanding and seeing. And seeing leads to Vision. And my photographs are there mainly as pointers, indications, of a vision of possibilities where stillness and silence abound––and where Light is understood to be a substantial reality. My photographs are my greatest teachers. It is my hope that they offer a moment of pleasure to my viewers––and perhaps a tiny hit of (mutual?) understanding … but, as always, I have no expectations”. - Thomas Joshua Cooper, Creative Camera, August, 1974, page 258
I would recommend anyone checks out Thomas’ pictures and words, as they can help to illuminate the thought process behind making pictures.
I was very pleased to be asked to contribute a guest editorial piece for February’s edition of Practical Photography Magazine. http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/ This allowed me to cover a topic that is important to me, namely “Photoshopped” pictures and the abuse of HDR.
The text of my piece runs……………..
We live in a world filled with extreme and “perfect” images, made to grab the five second attention span of a hard wired society. The digital revolution positively changed photography forever as technological advances overcame many of the crafts limitations; but these changes have brought suspicion and mistrust, directed towards digital editing. This is because altered images now dominate our lives, and advertisers, media, and governments use them to lie to us – we all now question the integrity of the pictures we see.
I came to this topic after fourteen of my pictures featured in a newspaper and online, and several readers commented that they were “Photoshopped”. They weren’t, but had been “altered” by my choice of film, filter, and exposure. Photoshop is an essential tool that I use every day, but I do so sparingly and carefully, and always try and get things right in camera.
I used to take these “Photoshopped” comments as a compliment, but lately I have realised that the integrity I tried to use in my pictures, was being damaged by the actions of many others. Basically my work was being rejected as false (and by extension not valid) because the world is now full of extreme images that have been largely made by a computer programme.
The next day I received an e-mail from someone asking whether to “Photoshop” their entries into a competition or leave it natural, as they thought the other entries looked “manipulated and fake”.
Later while out working I met a photography lecturer, who commented that they would “sort the light out later in Photoshop” and my mind started turning all this over.
This rant is informed by the current trend to (over)use High Dynamic Range. HDR is an important advance for photography, but is also the source of some of the most hideous, artificial, cartoon like, fake images ever, and when overused it raises even more questions about the integrity of digital imaging. Used carefully it can help produce amazing pictures which don’t look like some mad CG world. But the pictures are computer generated, and maybe this lies at the root of the whole Photoshopping problem? We allow computers to do the work and each time we use software to alter an image, the further from reality it is taken. This can also remove any originality from an image, just as selecting “Super Vivid” in-camera, or “Auto-Levels” in Raw processing, can bring a bland uniformity to the millions of images made by millions of photographers, all using the same factory and computer presets and trapping many in a homogenous digital straightjacket. Don’t get me wrong, this can be fine if that is the output you require, and you are happy with the results, but often these programmes are used to try and make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, or merely to save a bad picture! That is where I have a real problem.
We have to stay in control of every stage of the picture making/editing process, and use previews and layers as a way of stepping backwards. Knowing when to stop is difficult, as it’s easy to be seduced with contrast, super-saturated colours, or by having 14 stops of dynamic range in every shot. We seem to be afraid of shadows, or true whites, and it’s so easy to “overcook” an image.
Cameras will take good pictures straight out the box without any real skills, but that also opens a Pandora’s Box of evils. The digital darkroom made photography accessible to so many, while software allows us to do things unheard of by previous generations of photographers, giving us almost unlimited degrees of control in making pictures, or recording our lives. But this can easily be used to distort reality so much that this adds to the suspicion that photography faces, and can devalue any picture that is taken, lessening the ability of photography to show “reality”.
Photographs only describe things as they are on the surface, and the camera always lies, so why do we keep adding more lies to that by over processing, and creating scenes that patently do not exist on this Planet? Barely possible colours, impossible shadow detail, highlights that are more saturated than midtones, luminous foliage, and metallic skies? This is surely not progress.
Yes, everything is subjective, and this discussion is endless, but I leave a few questions, as it is important to look at what we do, and to look objectively at the pictures we make. So, please ask yourself are you a “sort it out in Photoshop” person? Do you use a computer programme to replace good basic technique and great light? Are you a “good” photographer or “good” with computers?
And if you feel that none of this matters, step away from Photoshop right now, never touch the saturation slider again, and please do not even consider using HDR.
I was very pleased to be asked to contribute a guest editorial piece for Practical Photography Magazine. http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/This allowed me to cover a topic that is important to me, namely “Photoshopped” pictures and the abuse of HDR.
The text of my piece runs……………..
We live in a world filled with extreme and “perfect” images, made to grab the five second attention span of a hard wired society. The digital revolution positively changed photography forever as technological advances overcame many of the crafts limitations; but these changes have brought suspicion and mistrust, directed towards digital editing. This is because altered images now dominate our lives, and advertisers, media, and governments use them to lie to us – we all now question the integrity of the pictures we see.
I came to this topic after fourteen of my pictures featured in a newspaper and online, and several readers commented that they were “Photoshopped”. They weren’t, but had been “altered” by my choice of film, filter, and exposure. Photoshop is an essential tool that I use every day, but I do so sparingly and carefully, and always try and get things right in camera.
I used to take these “Photoshopped” comments as a compliment, but lately I have realised that the integrity I tried to use in my pictures, was being damaged by the actions of many others. Basically my work was being rejected as false (and by extension not valid) because the world is now full of extreme images that have been largely made by a computer programme.
The next day I received an e-mail from someone asking whether to “Photoshop” their entries into a competition or leave it natural, as they thought the other entries looked “manipulated and fake”.
Later while out working I met a photography lecturer, who commented that they would “sort the light out later in Photoshop” and my mind started turning all this over.
This rant is informed by the current trend to (over)use High Dynamic Range. HDR is an important advance for photography, but is also the source of some of the most hideous, artificial, cartoon like, fake images ever, and when overused it raises even more questions about the integrity of digital imaging. Used carefully it can help produce amazing pictures which don’t look like some mad CG world. But the pictures are computer generated, and maybe this lies at the root of the whole Photoshopping problem? We allow computers to do the work and each time we use software to alter an image, the further from reality it is taken. This can also remove any originality from an image, just as selecting “Super Vivid” in-camera, or “Auto-Levels” in Raw processing, can bring a bland uniformity to the millions of images made by millions of photographers, all using the same factory and computer presets and trapping many in a homogenous digital straightjacket. Don’t get me wrong, this can be fine if that is the output you require, and you are happy with the results, but often these programmes are used to try and make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, or merely to save a bad picture! That is where I have a real problem.
We have to stay in control of every stage of the picture making/editing process, and use previews and layers as a way of stepping backwards. Knowing when to stop is difficult, as it’s easy to be seduced with contrast, super-saturated colours, or by having 14 stops of dynamic range in every shot. We seem to be afraid of shadows, or true whites, and it’s so easy to “overcook” an image.
Cameras will take good pictures straight out the box without any real skills, but that also opens a Pandora’s Box of evils. The digital darkroom made photography accessible to so many, while software allows us to do things unheard of by previous generations of photographers, giving us almost unlimited degrees of control in making pictures, or recording our lives. But this can easily be used to distort reality so much that this adds to the suspicion that photography faces, and can devalue any picture that is taken, lessening the ability of photography to show “reality”.
Photographs only describe things as they are on the surface, and the camera always lies, so why do we keep adding more lies to that by over processing, and creating scenes that patently do not exist on this Planet? Barely possible colours, impossible shadow detail, highlights that are more saturated than midtones, luminous foliage, and metallic skies? This is surely not progress.
Yes, everything is subjective, and this discussion is endless, but I leave a few questions, as it is important to look at what we do, and to look objectively at the pictures we make. So, please ask yourself are you a “sort it out in Photoshop” person? Do you use a computer programme to replace good basic technique and great light? Are you a “good” photographer or “good” with computers?
And if you feel that none of this matters, step away from Photoshop right now, never touch the saturation slider again, and please do not even consider using HDR.
Recent Comments