Despite only needing to complete a couple of assignments, one of which is more than half ready I have decided to pack it all in. The major reason for this decision is my present state of health which is not that good and presents particular problems in pursuing photography, Stress makes my condition worse so I was less than pleased when I received an e-mail from the OCA in which I was accused of intimidating a study group (I am not sure how you intimidate a whole group) and that I called one of the tutor's "a silly woman". I deny that I used or even thought such an expression - it is simply not part of my vocabulary. The thought of having to defend myself in a hearing is just too much not least because I have very little or any faith in the OCA's management of such issues. It has always been one of my beefs with the OCA that they lack expertise in certain areas. In this particular case I was asked to respond to the accusation not knowing what in particular it referred to and whether the words in the e-mail were those used by my accuser or a 'précis' by the writer.
I thought it would be difficult to withdraw after getting so close to the finishing line but it was one hell of a relief. In the end adding another degree to those I already have is not worth risking my health. My primary aim was to become a better photographer and that I have done. It has been something of a roller coaster of a journey but on the whole it has been a positive experience brought about by working with some excellent tutors that offset the lesser able or on at least one occasion the apparently disinterested.
As to the future I can look forward to doing photography purely for the sheer enjoyment. Boy itr feels good!!!
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Sunday, 19 October 2014
Study Visit - 18th October 2014 - Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts UEA Norwich 'Reality'
It was the title of the exhibition, "Reality" that first drew my attention to the proposed study day. In the accompanying information was the statement - "REALITY contains works spanning across the 20th century to now, attempting to understand and represent the harsh realities that have concerned key British artists over the decades." As I was struggling with my project of Black and White Abstract photography it was my hope that the exhibition would provide clues/guidance to what is considered Reality and, on the assumption that abstract art is the representation of a non-reality, what falls within the world of non-reality.
The day was well organised and offered lots of opportunity to discuss various topics with fellow students and the attending tutors. There was also the advantage, for me, that the majority of the students were not photographers so offered a different perspective on what was being shown. My only criticism would be that, as always, nearly all the works of art were 'talked to death' as explanations and interpretations are offered. There was no opportunity to sit quietly and 'see' the work of art as a whole and to absorb its message without being bombarded with descriptions of ever smaller parts of the work.
We were shepherded round in the morning by a representative of the Gallery who was the perfect tour guide, the only missing element was the rolled umbrella held aloft, but clearly was under time constraints so that we lingered on some work only to be hurried past other works as time was running out. Any chance to consider any individual work in a meaningful way was lost. I realise it might be dangerous to allow students to wander at will forming their own opinions without the benefit of the tutors greater knowledge (you never know they might come up with fresh insight that challenges the preconceived notions of those in charge) but I would strongly recommend it as a way for the students to have the experience of most use to them.
A surprisingly expensive and not particularly good lunch allowed for the swapping of ideas and general conversation. It may be of significance that the major topics discussed were not the paintings we had viewed that morning but the delights/problems of being an OCA student and the strategies of survival mainly concerned with the anxiety levels we all experience as we struggle to understand the Course material whilst feeling very much on our own. The topic of discussion of most interest to me was the amount of contact and responses students had from Tutors. I have been very lucky throughout the Courses I have undertaken and benefited from Tutors who were prepared to offer support and guidance but listening to others this is not universal and some accounts made one wonder why the OCA did not have a better grip on what Tutors should be expected to do.
After lunch we returned to the exhibition, resurrected the paintings that we had talked to death in the morning and made sure, by further discussion, that they were truly dead. I would suggest that it would have been more useful to have allowed for a free roam by the students in the morning followed in the afternoon by an in depth discussion under the guidance of the tutors. Students need to have the opportunity to explore and discuss their own thoughts and judgments.
The question remains - did I achieve my aims? In the large part the answer is 'Yes' although the lasting benefit will come from the passage of time as what I learnt is assimilated into my general thinking. I do not believe that the exhibition achieved its stated aims but that cannot detract from it offering a fantastic collection of works that were challenging and thought provoking.
The day was well organised and offered lots of opportunity to discuss various topics with fellow students and the attending tutors. There was also the advantage, for me, that the majority of the students were not photographers so offered a different perspective on what was being shown. My only criticism would be that, as always, nearly all the works of art were 'talked to death' as explanations and interpretations are offered. There was no opportunity to sit quietly and 'see' the work of art as a whole and to absorb its message without being bombarded with descriptions of ever smaller parts of the work.
We were shepherded round in the morning by a representative of the Gallery who was the perfect tour guide, the only missing element was the rolled umbrella held aloft, but clearly was under time constraints so that we lingered on some work only to be hurried past other works as time was running out. Any chance to consider any individual work in a meaningful way was lost. I realise it might be dangerous to allow students to wander at will forming their own opinions without the benefit of the tutors greater knowledge (you never know they might come up with fresh insight that challenges the preconceived notions of those in charge) but I would strongly recommend it as a way for the students to have the experience of most use to them.
A surprisingly expensive and not particularly good lunch allowed for the swapping of ideas and general conversation. It may be of significance that the major topics discussed were not the paintings we had viewed that morning but the delights/problems of being an OCA student and the strategies of survival mainly concerned with the anxiety levels we all experience as we struggle to understand the Course material whilst feeling very much on our own. The topic of discussion of most interest to me was the amount of contact and responses students had from Tutors. I have been very lucky throughout the Courses I have undertaken and benefited from Tutors who were prepared to offer support and guidance but listening to others this is not universal and some accounts made one wonder why the OCA did not have a better grip on what Tutors should be expected to do.
After lunch we returned to the exhibition, resurrected the paintings that we had talked to death in the morning and made sure, by further discussion, that they were truly dead. I would suggest that it would have been more useful to have allowed for a free roam by the students in the morning followed in the afternoon by an in depth discussion under the guidance of the tutors. Students need to have the opportunity to explore and discuss their own thoughts and judgments.
The question remains - did I achieve my aims? In the large part the answer is 'Yes' although the lasting benefit will come from the passage of time as what I learnt is assimilated into my general thinking. I do not believe that the exhibition achieved its stated aims but that cannot detract from it offering a fantastic collection of works that were challenging and thought provoking.
What does it all mean??
Over the past few weeks I have been trying to gather my thoughts on the term 'abstract' and how it is applied to art in general and to photography in particular. It has been a journey that has been both frustrating and less than enlightening. The lasting impression is that there is no generally accepted definition of the term and virtually all attempts to proffer a definition are written in such broad terms as to be meaningless. For example the definition offered by the Tate gallery reads:
"Artworks that do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and textures to achieve their effect."
All non-language art uses shapes, colours, forms and textures in some combination because that is the only way to communicate with the audience so that the key to the definition lies in the explanation that abstract artworks - do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality. The question that remains unanswered is what is it that the artwork does represent. It presumably represents something (it is difficult to imagine a representation of nothing) even if the interpretation we place upon the work does not match the intent of the artist. A recognisable reality has been created by the very act of the existence of the piece of work. In describing work of Mondrian and its development over time reference can only be made to the real world (for example see pages 51 -55 of Moszynska A (1990) Abstract Art London: Thames & Hudson) because the description has to be in a language that is understood by the reader. That language is of and determined by the world in which we live and has no reference outside of that world.
What was most noticeable in my researches was the number of attempts by different artists and group of artists to create the 'true' abstract or perhaps more accurately the 'pure' abstract. Arising from dissatisfaction with the abstract work of the time the pattern seems to be:- a determination to break away from the dominant works by a group of artists; the publication of a manifesto setting out the new 'truth'; a relatively short period of activity before dissatisfaction within the group or its disciples leads to a fracturing and a fresh attempt to reveal a newer truth. The cycle then repeats. To the outsider this suggests that there is no one answer to the question - What is an abstract work of art? other than it is an abstract because that is what the artist attempted to produce.
"Artworks that do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and textures to achieve their effect."
All non-language art uses shapes, colours, forms and textures in some combination because that is the only way to communicate with the audience so that the key to the definition lies in the explanation that abstract artworks - do not attempt to represent a recognisable reality. The question that remains unanswered is what is it that the artwork does represent. It presumably represents something (it is difficult to imagine a representation of nothing) even if the interpretation we place upon the work does not match the intent of the artist. A recognisable reality has been created by the very act of the existence of the piece of work. In describing work of Mondrian and its development over time reference can only be made to the real world (for example see pages 51 -55 of Moszynska A (1990) Abstract Art London: Thames & Hudson) because the description has to be in a language that is understood by the reader. That language is of and determined by the world in which we live and has no reference outside of that world.
What was most noticeable in my researches was the number of attempts by different artists and group of artists to create the 'true' abstract or perhaps more accurately the 'pure' abstract. Arising from dissatisfaction with the abstract work of the time the pattern seems to be:- a determination to break away from the dominant works by a group of artists; the publication of a manifesto setting out the new 'truth'; a relatively short period of activity before dissatisfaction within the group or its disciples leads to a fracturing and a fresh attempt to reveal a newer truth. The cycle then repeats. To the outsider this suggests that there is no one answer to the question - What is an abstract work of art? other than it is an abstract because that is what the artist attempted to produce.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Back in the Saddle
After what seems to have been a very long break I have returned to my studies.Although yet to be cleared by he medics I am feeling a great deal better and have been out and about taking photographs and working on the black and white abstracts for my current project.
Yesterday took the opportunity to visit The Hepworth Wakefield which, together with the permanent exhibition of some of Barbara Hepworth's work, was exhibiting work by Franz West. A lot to take in and I am still inwardly digesting what I saw and my reactions. One immediate thought was the difference between abstract sculpture and abstract photography. To be a photograph the image should be of something that was in front of the camera whereas the sculpture being 3 dimensional and the product of the sculptor's vision and interpretation does not necessarily have to be anything that exists in the real world other than itself. Whilst I need to explore this as part of the written submission necessary for the project my current thought that abstract photography is an extraction that removes an actual thing from its context and presented to the viewer in such a way as to be open to any number of interpretations.
Also visited the Yorkshire Sculpture Park offering works by other abstract sculptors. It is perhaps to state the obvious but the placing of very large figures in the middle of a large field changes how one views the sculpture itself and the facility of walking round the figure changes ones perception of its form, its internal interaction and the sense of size.
Yesterday took the opportunity to visit The Hepworth Wakefield which, together with the permanent exhibition of some of Barbara Hepworth's work, was exhibiting work by Franz West. A lot to take in and I am still inwardly digesting what I saw and my reactions. One immediate thought was the difference between abstract sculpture and abstract photography. To be a photograph the image should be of something that was in front of the camera whereas the sculpture being 3 dimensional and the product of the sculptor's vision and interpretation does not necessarily have to be anything that exists in the real world other than itself. Whilst I need to explore this as part of the written submission necessary for the project my current thought that abstract photography is an extraction that removes an actual thing from its context and presented to the viewer in such a way as to be open to any number of interpretations.
Also visited the Yorkshire Sculpture Park offering works by other abstract sculptors. It is perhaps to state the obvious but the placing of very large figures in the middle of a large field changes how one views the sculpture itself and the facility of walking round the figure changes ones perception of its form, its internal interaction and the sense of size.
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Working whilst on study leave.
I am not to sure about the protocols of 'working' whilst on a study break although was reassured by my Tutor's suggestion that I spend time on the reading/academic side whilst waiting for the medics to sort out the problem of the tremor. As I am not too good at just 'twiddling my thumbs' I have decided to do what work I feel I am capable of (that sounds far more dramatic than I intended - it is only taking photographs that present one or two problems) so am in the process of responding to the comments made on Assignment 2. I can then research the issues surrounding 'abstract' photography which is the subject of Assignment 3.
Monday, 16 June 2014
Study Break
It has become necessary to take a study break as the medics sort out how to resolve the various issues surrounding my condition. It is rather an odd feeling as I am fully capable of doing the non-photographic work such as responding to my Tutor's comments on my assignment but find it difficult to get out there and take photographs.
Although the outcome is uncertain it is more than probable that I will have to develop a camera technique that allows for the increasingly severe hand tremors. One obvious answer is increased use of the tripod and this makes sense anyway as my next element of the Course is about landscape and seascapes in East Anglia. Fortunately landscapes do not change that much in the brief period of time to set up the camera. I have invested in a ball head for the tripod which speeds up the process considerably. Previously I had used a head that used three handles to set the camera in position and no matter how competent I became there was always a longer time lapse than was desirable except in best conditions. One other alternative is to use the higher ISO's available and set the aperture value so that a high shutter speed is achieved. On a recent outing this worked well.
The other thing is that anxiety/pressure increases the tremor. This is evidenced by the difference in taking photographs I enjoy taking as opposed to taking photographs I am obliged to take such as for the Course. I recently spent a couple of days at Flatford, Constable country, just wandering around shooting what I wanted without any thoughts of how the images would fit into a required output. I used the high ISO technique and the results were good. I did some tripod work and the benefits were obvious in capturing the evening light across the countryside and river. However use of a tripod is much more problematical if not impossible in street photography when photographing people. No doubt over time I will find what does and does not work.
Although the outcome is uncertain it is more than probable that I will have to develop a camera technique that allows for the increasingly severe hand tremors. One obvious answer is increased use of the tripod and this makes sense anyway as my next element of the Course is about landscape and seascapes in East Anglia. Fortunately landscapes do not change that much in the brief period of time to set up the camera. I have invested in a ball head for the tripod which speeds up the process considerably. Previously I had used a head that used three handles to set the camera in position and no matter how competent I became there was always a longer time lapse than was desirable except in best conditions. One other alternative is to use the higher ISO's available and set the aperture value so that a high shutter speed is achieved. On a recent outing this worked well.
The other thing is that anxiety/pressure increases the tremor. This is evidenced by the difference in taking photographs I enjoy taking as opposed to taking photographs I am obliged to take such as for the Course. I recently spent a couple of days at Flatford, Constable country, just wandering around shooting what I wanted without any thoughts of how the images would fit into a required output. I used the high ISO technique and the results were good. I did some tripod work and the benefits were obvious in capturing the evening light across the countryside and river. However use of a tripod is much more problematical if not impossible in street photography when photographing people. No doubt over time I will find what does and does not work.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
"CAPTURE" 12th May 2014 Sky Arts1
Mark Selinger (MS) was joined by Martin Schoeller (MSch), Photographer, and Matthew Modine (MM), Actor and Director, for this programme. I noted points of interest (to me) that occurred throughout the programme and then considered them later. I find that so much is talked about in this sort of programme that there is a tendency to miss the import of particular statements that have occurred in general conversation.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
A bit of Bad News
Just been told that I have an overactive thyroid. One of the side effects is a tremor (it was this that caused me to go to the Doctors) which can be quite severe in my left hand. May well explain why my tutor detects 'camera shake' in some of my images even though I use 'stabilised' lens. Just started a drug regime that will take a couple of months to clear my system so have decided to use a tripod wherever possible as this will sidestep the problem. Fortunately my next series of photographs will be landscape based which makes the use of a tripod worthwhile anyway.
Usual appointments with specialists scheduled for the very near future - whether this will help remains open to question.
Usual appointments with specialists scheduled for the very near future - whether this will help remains open to question.
Sunday, 11 May 2014
"Capture" - Sky Arts1 HD
Watched one of the series of these programmes which, on this occasion, featured Mark Selliger who hosted the programme together with Alan Cumming who is an actor, director and photographer; and Sebastian Kim photographer.
The programme contained some fantastic black and white images by Kim whose other area of expertise is Fashion photography. Not so keen on the latter which seemed to be exercises in the bizarre use of colour. I found Cumming work less successful and he himself makes the comment that his earlier fame provided the necessary recognition in the world of photography so that his work was not judged on its own merits but on who was the photographer. A case of being known rather than knowing someone who mattered in the chosen field.
In his opening Selliger remarks that a great photograph needs no introduction. A comment of doubtful validity which is contradicted almost immediately by Cumming. He tells us that the photographer is telling a story and that is why he writes stories about each of his photographs because sometimes his story is very different from what is portrayed by the image. As he puts it - it is only right who sees the picture should get the full monty. It could be argued from this exchange that judgement of a picture has more to do with fame of the photographer than any intrinsic merit.
Kim told us that he had not intended to be a portrait photographer but the opportunity had arisen and he had taken it. Whether he is happy as a portrait photographer was less easy to determine from his comments and he admitted that he felt intimidated by the celebrity who he was photographing. He seemed to be much happier taking photographs of his wife, particularly a set of her figure seen through a shower door. As he himself said "If your heart is in it you tend to work harder at it." This was endorsed by Selliger who commented that the things that you love are your best subjects.
Roughly 30 minutes in length the programme was too short to fully appreciate the work and views of the photographers. It provided only a glimpse. I have viewed both photographers web sites (www.sebastiankim.com; www.alancumming.com) and would recommend a visit.
The programme contained some fantastic black and white images by Kim whose other area of expertise is Fashion photography. Not so keen on the latter which seemed to be exercises in the bizarre use of colour. I found Cumming work less successful and he himself makes the comment that his earlier fame provided the necessary recognition in the world of photography so that his work was not judged on its own merits but on who was the photographer. A case of being known rather than knowing someone who mattered in the chosen field.
In his opening Selliger remarks that a great photograph needs no introduction. A comment of doubtful validity which is contradicted almost immediately by Cumming. He tells us that the photographer is telling a story and that is why he writes stories about each of his photographs because sometimes his story is very different from what is portrayed by the image. As he puts it - it is only right who sees the picture should get the full monty. It could be argued from this exchange that judgement of a picture has more to do with fame of the photographer than any intrinsic merit.
Kim told us that he had not intended to be a portrait photographer but the opportunity had arisen and he had taken it. Whether he is happy as a portrait photographer was less easy to determine from his comments and he admitted that he felt intimidated by the celebrity who he was photographing. He seemed to be much happier taking photographs of his wife, particularly a set of her figure seen through a shower door. As he himself said "If your heart is in it you tend to work harder at it." This was endorsed by Selliger who commented that the things that you love are your best subjects.
Roughly 30 minutes in length the programme was too short to fully appreciate the work and views of the photographers. It provided only a glimpse. I have viewed both photographers web sites (www.sebastiankim.com; www.alancumming.com) and would recommend a visit.
Anna Fox Lecture - Composites
My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).
A part of the talk that I found particularly interesting was Anna Fox's use of composite images in her completed work. We were shown a number of projected images where what we were shown was a combination of a number of single images. I remember in particular the one taken in Butlins Bognor Regis of a children's play area. It showed what appeared to be a children's slide that had the structure of a big top from a circus. The composite image was full of activity and my attention was drawn, by the composition of the image, to the group of children climbing the slide. The tension created by this element suggested that the whole scene was about to descend into chaos and injury. I found myself looking for responsible adults who in some unstated way would bring their calming influence to bear and bring stability. A happy picture of children playing became one of pending disaster. (I have no idea whether this was the intended outcome of the photographer or whether anybody else viewing the image at the same time had the same response).
The 'reality' was that what I saw had not existed as a whole at any time. All elements of the composite were true, in the sense that they were photographs of something that had happened and captured by the camera, but the sum of the parts was false. It is interesting that I claim that the sum of the elements that are true in themselves can lead to a false outcome. Usually one would expect that true + true = true. What is missing is the temporal element. The elements were not concurrent. They happened at different times possibly spread over a significant period. They appear as one event in the photograph because the photographer offers them in this way. Although there is an increasing cynicism amongst the general population about the veracity of photographs my guess is that when this photograph is published it will be accepted, without thought, as being an image of something that happened. Given the possible use of the image as advertising material our engagement with the image is such that we have no reason for or interest in questioning its validity.
A question that the viewer is unlikely to ask is - What is not there? We were told that some elements had been removed and this was the subject of discussion between the photographer and those of her team responsible for the creation of a possible final image. We were provided with knowledge that would not be available to the general public. Yet the decision to leave these elements out of the finished image is as misleading as the overall composite and possibly more so. Removing things that were there may well lead to a better result but how honest is the practice? Every photographer leaves out possible parts of the overall picture the moment the camera is aimed at an area of interest and the viewfinder used to exclude unwanted elements. We never take an image that includes all possibilities. In working on an image cropping is almost always an option. Leaving stuff out is something photographers do all the time and this is rarely questioned. So why the sense of unease?
I would suggest that the unease lies in the fact that we, as the viewer, cannot know why decisions of inclusion and exclusion were taken. Are we being deliberately misled to reach a conclusion that is pre-determined by the photographer or possibly the person commissioning the work? Just over twenty years ago I was transferred by my employers to another part of the Country which meant that my family and I had to find new accommodation. Registering with a number of estate agents I received the inevitable flood of hand outs on possible properties. Everyone included a photograph of the exterior. In one case (and this was not an isolated instance) the photograph showed an attractive bungalow with a well cared for front garden. What it failed to show was a huge water tower and an electricity pylon that were almost literally at the bottom of the garden at the rear of the property. The photograph was true but was taken in such a way that the negative elements of the surroundings were not shown.
Is there any difference between this example and the decision to remove elements exercised in the Butlins picture? There is the underlying element of personal trust that differs between the two. Very few people trust estate agents so we distrust the information we are given by them. Although the decision in the case of the Butlins photograph lies with the photographer and her team the general public will see the image, however published, as being the product of decision making by staff at Butlins headquarters and presumably accept it as being true. They trust the source. Yet in some ways the Butlins picture is more dishonest than that of the bungalow. The image of the bungalow is true in so far as it shows something that was there in front of the camera when the image was taken. It was untouched and published in the full knowledge that the client would see the reality. Its purpose was to entice. The same thing could be said of the Butlins photograph except in this case the proffered image was of something that never existed as shown.
Is there an ethical problem with the composite and other images created in the same way. Composite pictures have been part of photography for almost as long as photography itself. Early photographers faced difficulties in exposing for the sky and for the rest. This was largely caused by the sensitivity of the emulsions used at the time. They learned to combine two images to get the desired result much the same as modern photographers do in, say, creating HDR images. It is rarely seen as dishonest. Much depends upon the purpose of the photograph and how much information the viewer is provided with at the time of viewing. We do not, apart from in technical publications, publish all the details about the type of camera, exposure settings etc used in the production of the image. Even more rarely do we share the use of image enhancing software all of which help us to produce the image we, as the photographer, want to publish. So is there a need to inform the viewer that the image shown is a
composite? As always the answer is - it depends on what the photograph will be used for and the photographer cannot know this for certain. In the end it has to be a personal decision by the photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Butlins photographs but I am sure that others will disagree.
On a slightly different note and wearing a once discarded health and safety hat if I was Butlins I would not publish this image under any circumstances. It is clear evidence that the safety of the children is not a primary concern. I am sure that this is not the case but the image can be seen as documentary evidence.
A part of the talk that I found particularly interesting was Anna Fox's use of composite images in her completed work. We were shown a number of projected images where what we were shown was a combination of a number of single images. I remember in particular the one taken in Butlins Bognor Regis of a children's play area. It showed what appeared to be a children's slide that had the structure of a big top from a circus. The composite image was full of activity and my attention was drawn, by the composition of the image, to the group of children climbing the slide. The tension created by this element suggested that the whole scene was about to descend into chaos and injury. I found myself looking for responsible adults who in some unstated way would bring their calming influence to bear and bring stability. A happy picture of children playing became one of pending disaster. (I have no idea whether this was the intended outcome of the photographer or whether anybody else viewing the image at the same time had the same response).
The 'reality' was that what I saw had not existed as a whole at any time. All elements of the composite were true, in the sense that they were photographs of something that had happened and captured by the camera, but the sum of the parts was false. It is interesting that I claim that the sum of the elements that are true in themselves can lead to a false outcome. Usually one would expect that true + true = true. What is missing is the temporal element. The elements were not concurrent. They happened at different times possibly spread over a significant period. They appear as one event in the photograph because the photographer offers them in this way. Although there is an increasing cynicism amongst the general population about the veracity of photographs my guess is that when this photograph is published it will be accepted, without thought, as being an image of something that happened. Given the possible use of the image as advertising material our engagement with the image is such that we have no reason for or interest in questioning its validity.
A question that the viewer is unlikely to ask is - What is not there? We were told that some elements had been removed and this was the subject of discussion between the photographer and those of her team responsible for the creation of a possible final image. We were provided with knowledge that would not be available to the general public. Yet the decision to leave these elements out of the finished image is as misleading as the overall composite and possibly more so. Removing things that were there may well lead to a better result but how honest is the practice? Every photographer leaves out possible parts of the overall picture the moment the camera is aimed at an area of interest and the viewfinder used to exclude unwanted elements. We never take an image that includes all possibilities. In working on an image cropping is almost always an option. Leaving stuff out is something photographers do all the time and this is rarely questioned. So why the sense of unease?
I would suggest that the unease lies in the fact that we, as the viewer, cannot know why decisions of inclusion and exclusion were taken. Are we being deliberately misled to reach a conclusion that is pre-determined by the photographer or possibly the person commissioning the work? Just over twenty years ago I was transferred by my employers to another part of the Country which meant that my family and I had to find new accommodation. Registering with a number of estate agents I received the inevitable flood of hand outs on possible properties. Everyone included a photograph of the exterior. In one case (and this was not an isolated instance) the photograph showed an attractive bungalow with a well cared for front garden. What it failed to show was a huge water tower and an electricity pylon that were almost literally at the bottom of the garden at the rear of the property. The photograph was true but was taken in such a way that the negative elements of the surroundings were not shown.
Is there any difference between this example and the decision to remove elements exercised in the Butlins picture? There is the underlying element of personal trust that differs between the two. Very few people trust estate agents so we distrust the information we are given by them. Although the decision in the case of the Butlins photograph lies with the photographer and her team the general public will see the image, however published, as being the product of decision making by staff at Butlins headquarters and presumably accept it as being true. They trust the source. Yet in some ways the Butlins picture is more dishonest than that of the bungalow. The image of the bungalow is true in so far as it shows something that was there in front of the camera when the image was taken. It was untouched and published in the full knowledge that the client would see the reality. Its purpose was to entice. The same thing could be said of the Butlins photograph except in this case the proffered image was of something that never existed as shown.
Is there an ethical problem with the composite and other images created in the same way. Composite pictures have been part of photography for almost as long as photography itself. Early photographers faced difficulties in exposing for the sky and for the rest. This was largely caused by the sensitivity of the emulsions used at the time. They learned to combine two images to get the desired result much the same as modern photographers do in, say, creating HDR images. It is rarely seen as dishonest. Much depends upon the purpose of the photograph and how much information the viewer is provided with at the time of viewing. We do not, apart from in technical publications, publish all the details about the type of camera, exposure settings etc used in the production of the image. Even more rarely do we share the use of image enhancing software all of which help us to produce the image we, as the photographer, want to publish. So is there a need to inform the viewer that the image shown is a
composite? As always the answer is - it depends on what the photograph will be used for and the photographer cannot know this for certain. In the end it has to be a personal decision by the photographer. Personally I see nothing wrong with the Butlins photographs but I am sure that others will disagree.
On a slightly different note and wearing a once discarded health and safety hat if I was Butlins I would not publish this image under any circumstances. It is clear evidence that the safety of the children is not a primary concern. I am sure that this is not the case but the image can be seen as documentary evidence.
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Anna Fox Lecture - Networking
My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).
In her talk Anna Fox mentioned the importance of networking, something she considered to be of vital importance in having a successful career in Photography. Whilst of secondary importance to me, as I have no intention of following a career in Photography (I am happily retired), the idea did raise important questions in my mind not least of which was the thought why is it necessary at all. I should make clear that I think that networking is of fundamental importance in any career particularly in the Arts where so much seems to depend upon the work being seen in the right place and by the right people at the right time.. There is no point in displaying your work unless it attracts the attention of the opinion formers within the field that you work.
However it does raise the very important question as whether there is any 'gold standard' in Art generally and in photography in particular. Stories abound of impoverished artists whose work was sold very cheaply during their lifetime. One such artist was Monet who often visited London to paint the River Thames. His work was considered unfashionable. His works could be purchased for a very modest price and the landed gentry of the time bought a number. Now they are worth millions and even allowing for inflation the prices have rocketed. The only thing that changed between times was the desire of deep-pocketed collectors to own one of his masterpieces. The actual painting had not changed at all apart from the possible patina of age.
It is probably naive to suggest that a painting (or in our case a photograph) is outstanding from the moment it is finished and therefore should be desirable/accepted purely on its intrinsic quality from the very beginning. Naive because this is not how the world works. I would argue that not even the most expert of critics or collectors can regularly spot the next big thing - acceptance can only be created. There is a good case to argue that the quickest way to become an accepted photographer is to get someone to buy one of your images for a large sum of money and then publicise the fact. The 'followers' (as opposed to the opinion formers) will have an unquenchable desire to hang one of your photographs on their walls no matter how good or poor the actual work is. Your career is made - well at least until the next bright star appears in the firmament.
There is something sad and, for someone pursuing a career in photography, frightening that there is no agreed criteria that will settle a discussion about the quality of a photograph. In many ways this is the delight of all the creative arts and it is that which maintains the grip on those who pursue a career or a demanding hobby in the creative arts but at the same time leads one to the conclusion that so much is chance. Of all the many students studying photography in England and Wales (I was told that there are close to 100,000) it is impossible for anyone to predict which ones will be successful (what is meant by 'successful' is another matter). A student may gain first-class honours but that is no guarantee that she will have a successful career in her chosen field. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the one thing an academic honour in photography cannot produce from the years of study is a photographer. Anna Fox made this very point in her talk and I have heard similar comments from other academics in the field. (Personally this was a bit of a blow although I had come to the same conclusion earlier in my career as a student with the OCA. I can say with certainty that my photography has markedly improved over the years of the Course but this is down to the thousands of photographs I have taken in the past few years and the comments and criticisms from my tutors on the work that I have produced).
It is perhaps to state the obvious but there is no such thing as a photograph that will be universally acclaimed. It is equally obvious that the one thing that (almost) guarantees success is to become famous. It seems that once you are acknowledged as one of the 'greats' your future and indeed your past is secure. It is as though you cannot produce a bad photograph or have ever done so. Yet this seems to fly in the face of reality. It is not possible for every photograph taken is a success - that is why the wastepaper basket is full of discarded images or, in modern terms, the 'trash' on a computer of a photographer is full. Nor is the fact that a photograph appears in an exhibition by a particular photographer all of the same high quality. I recently visited the Martin Parr exhibition held at the National Media Museum in Bradford and it was obvious that some of the phtographs were there more because of Parr's fame (I am a great admirer of his work) than because of their intrinsic quality.
As in most walks of life it is not what you know but who you know that increses the chances of success.
In her talk Anna Fox mentioned the importance of networking, something she considered to be of vital importance in having a successful career in Photography. Whilst of secondary importance to me, as I have no intention of following a career in Photography (I am happily retired), the idea did raise important questions in my mind not least of which was the thought why is it necessary at all. I should make clear that I think that networking is of fundamental importance in any career particularly in the Arts where so much seems to depend upon the work being seen in the right place and by the right people at the right time.. There is no point in displaying your work unless it attracts the attention of the opinion formers within the field that you work.
However it does raise the very important question as whether there is any 'gold standard' in Art generally and in photography in particular. Stories abound of impoverished artists whose work was sold very cheaply during their lifetime. One such artist was Monet who often visited London to paint the River Thames. His work was considered unfashionable. His works could be purchased for a very modest price and the landed gentry of the time bought a number. Now they are worth millions and even allowing for inflation the prices have rocketed. The only thing that changed between times was the desire of deep-pocketed collectors to own one of his masterpieces. The actual painting had not changed at all apart from the possible patina of age.
It is probably naive to suggest that a painting (or in our case a photograph) is outstanding from the moment it is finished and therefore should be desirable/accepted purely on its intrinsic quality from the very beginning. Naive because this is not how the world works. I would argue that not even the most expert of critics or collectors can regularly spot the next big thing - acceptance can only be created. There is a good case to argue that the quickest way to become an accepted photographer is to get someone to buy one of your images for a large sum of money and then publicise the fact. The 'followers' (as opposed to the opinion formers) will have an unquenchable desire to hang one of your photographs on their walls no matter how good or poor the actual work is. Your career is made - well at least until the next bright star appears in the firmament.
There is something sad and, for someone pursuing a career in photography, frightening that there is no agreed criteria that will settle a discussion about the quality of a photograph. In many ways this is the delight of all the creative arts and it is that which maintains the grip on those who pursue a career or a demanding hobby in the creative arts but at the same time leads one to the conclusion that so much is chance. Of all the many students studying photography in England and Wales (I was told that there are close to 100,000) it is impossible for anyone to predict which ones will be successful (what is meant by 'successful' is another matter). A student may gain first-class honours but that is no guarantee that she will have a successful career in her chosen field. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the one thing an academic honour in photography cannot produce from the years of study is a photographer. Anna Fox made this very point in her talk and I have heard similar comments from other academics in the field. (Personally this was a bit of a blow although I had come to the same conclusion earlier in my career as a student with the OCA. I can say with certainty that my photography has markedly improved over the years of the Course but this is down to the thousands of photographs I have taken in the past few years and the comments and criticisms from my tutors on the work that I have produced).
It is perhaps to state the obvious but there is no such thing as a photograph that will be universally acclaimed. It is equally obvious that the one thing that (almost) guarantees success is to become famous. It seems that once you are acknowledged as one of the 'greats' your future and indeed your past is secure. It is as though you cannot produce a bad photograph or have ever done so. Yet this seems to fly in the face of reality. It is not possible for every photograph taken is a success - that is why the wastepaper basket is full of discarded images or, in modern terms, the 'trash' on a computer of a photographer is full. Nor is the fact that a photograph appears in an exhibition by a particular photographer all of the same high quality. I recently visited the Martin Parr exhibition held at the National Media Museum in Bradford and it was obvious that some of the phtographs were there more because of Parr's fame (I am a great admirer of his work) than because of their intrinsic quality.
As in most walks of life it is not what you know but who you know that increses the chances of success.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
An audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2013
Attended this study day at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham Surrey. I have to be careful that my comments are not coloured by the horrendous 123 mile car journey endured on my way there. (It was equally as bad on the way back.) However it does raise the question of the worth of such visits when costed against the cost and hassle of trying to get there. My experience based on a number of study visits over the years has, overall, been positive because the 'good times' have outweighed the 'bad times' but it remains in the balance.
Having arrived just in time for the meeting with others who had arrived at the same time I have to say that the welcome lacked a certain warmth. Perhaps a very brief explanation of where were going and why may have helped. Obviously there was no time for the exchange of the usual pleasantries or a verbal explanation of what we were doing there and what it was hoped we would get from the afternoon.
The sense of chaos and lack of caring was not helped by the very poor quality of the projected images. Despite the best efforts of Professor Fox and a technician summoned to sort things out very little changed so that we were subjected to images where the colours were wrong (Professor Fox's response) and far too bright. It was impossible to make any realistic judgement of what was being shown. I was always taught that it is essential to test all equipment fully before lecturing and to have at least a workable knowledge of the technicalities involved. To fail to do this was likely to give the impression that you were unprepared and had a low opinion of your audience. It is also not very helpful to offer the audience printed images in a book form of what was being projected if the lighting in the lecture theatre is dimmed and dominated by the over bright projection.
I am not sure whether Professor Fox was thrown by the problems created by the poor projection, her apparent inability to use the provided equipment and the constant breaks in the flow of her talk necessitated by trying to sort out the mess that was being created or whether she was under-prepared. Whatever the cause I personally was left unsure of what was the overall message - if indeed there was one. A number of important issues were raised but never seemed to be discussed. Overall the whole experience was a massive disappointment.
Having arrived just in time for the meeting with others who had arrived at the same time I have to say that the welcome lacked a certain warmth. Perhaps a very brief explanation of where were going and why may have helped. Obviously there was no time for the exchange of the usual pleasantries or a verbal explanation of what we were doing there and what it was hoped we would get from the afternoon.
The sense of chaos and lack of caring was not helped by the very poor quality of the projected images. Despite the best efforts of Professor Fox and a technician summoned to sort things out very little changed so that we were subjected to images where the colours were wrong (Professor Fox's response) and far too bright. It was impossible to make any realistic judgement of what was being shown. I was always taught that it is essential to test all equipment fully before lecturing and to have at least a workable knowledge of the technicalities involved. To fail to do this was likely to give the impression that you were unprepared and had a low opinion of your audience. It is also not very helpful to offer the audience printed images in a book form of what was being projected if the lighting in the lecture theatre is dimmed and dominated by the over bright projection.
I am not sure whether Professor Fox was thrown by the problems created by the poor projection, her apparent inability to use the provided equipment and the constant breaks in the flow of her talk necessitated by trying to sort out the mess that was being created or whether she was under-prepared. Whatever the cause I personally was left unsure of what was the overall message - if indeed there was one. A number of important issues were raised but never seemed to be discussed. Overall the whole experience was a massive disappointment.
Sunday, 27 April 2014
A day at the National Museum for Media
Spent the day (26th April 2014) at the National Media Museum. It was a day organised by the Royal Photographic Society who has its collection of images and other material at the museum. Included in the day was a tour of archives not usually available to the general public including the chance to view three of the images produced by Niepce believed to be the earliest photographic images produced. During the tour we were also shown a number of examples of early daguerreotypes. A closer inspection was possible with these images. There is a world of difference between the images we see in books of daguerreotypes and actual productions. The need to get right the angle of view to appreciate the quality achieved almost adds a sense of life to what one is seeing as the image suddenly appears. The other thing of note was that one was seeing a unique object as all such photographs were one offs.
In other cabinets were examples of early photographs by Fox Talbot and Fenton which whilst contemporary with the work of Daguerre used a different and reproducible system. Again the difference between the originals and those seen in reproductions was noticeable even not quantifiable or capable of explanation. At the end of the tour the Museum and the RPS had arranged an exhibition of originals by early photographers.
It also provided an opportunity to visit again the exhibition "Only in Britain" showing the work of Martin Parr and Tony Ray-Jones. A second visit inevitably provides more 'information' and perhaps a more critical approach to the work. My thinking was also affected by an earlier remark, made by a member of the museum staff, about the tendency to see all images by the same person as of the same standard with the work of Martin Parr being used as an example. I am an admirer of Parr's work but it has to be said that some of the images on show are not that good. He seems to care little about blown highlights or blocked shadows which may have been beyond his control but he seems unconcerned about verticals and horizontals. I suppose that it can be argued that these had to the charm of the images but in some cases the effect is distracting and mildly irritating.
In other cabinets were examples of early photographs by Fox Talbot and Fenton which whilst contemporary with the work of Daguerre used a different and reproducible system. Again the difference between the originals and those seen in reproductions was noticeable even not quantifiable or capable of explanation. At the end of the tour the Museum and the RPS had arranged an exhibition of originals by early photographers.
It also provided an opportunity to visit again the exhibition "Only in Britain" showing the work of Martin Parr and Tony Ray-Jones. A second visit inevitably provides more 'information' and perhaps a more critical approach to the work. My thinking was also affected by an earlier remark, made by a member of the museum staff, about the tendency to see all images by the same person as of the same standard with the work of Martin Parr being used as an example. I am an admirer of Parr's work but it has to be said that some of the images on show are not that good. He seems to care little about blown highlights or blocked shadows which may have been beyond his control but he seems unconcerned about verticals and horizontals. I suppose that it can be argued that these had to the charm of the images but in some cases the effect is distracting and mildly irritating.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Abstract in practice
Over the past couple of weeks I have been out and about taking 'abstract' photographs. It has been an interesting experience because it is something that I have never done. The first question I had to ask myself was what is meant by the term 'abstract'. As far as I was able to discover there is no generally agreed definition of the term and that any agreement that there is seems to be a definition of an image post production. It is tempting to suggest that the description is applied to images where the subject matter is unclear or ambiguous and as humans seem to need to classify something in order to understand it the term 'abstract' provides the pigeon hole. What is clear is that the actual/implied content does not have the same level of importance as is usual in more conventional photography. What is important is that the combination of elements such as line, colour, and relationships invite/demand an emotional reaction from the viewer.
My past experience in photography suggests to that my general approach is to first see the overall picture that is before me and from that extract a part that best meets what I wish to achieve. The selected part still can be seen as a whole and has not been rendered meaningless by removing it from the context within which it lies. My favourite photography is landscapes, whether rural or urban, so when preparing to shoot I select an element that may be the whole or a very large part of the overall scene. On other occasions it may be just a relatively small element such as a tree. In the latter case I can isolate the tree from its surroundings but it will still be recognisable as a tree. I have ''zoomed' in to exclude elements that I feel at the time are unnecessary to the result I am aiming for. With abstract photography I found myself zooming in to a point where the selected area could no longer be seen as a recognisable object because there were no identifying clues within the frame.
Given this approach I found that there was a need to have some idea of what I wished to 'find' in my lens. Many of my ideas were formed from visiting the sites of acknowledged abstract photographers whilst at the same time trying to create something that was essentially mine. In practice what happened was that I found myself looking at elements that were before me in the hope that by extracting the relevant parts I would, in some magical way, find something to photograph. Whilst this method provided boundaries so that the task was manageable it was not very successful. On reflection my approach was mechanistic and too structured. Many years ago I learnt the art of free thinking which is probably a posh way of day-dreaming whilst at the same time being aware of what is around you. The advantages lie in the reaction to visual stimuli in which there is no attempt to classify what is being seen but accepting it as a combination of light, colour, composition and texture that 'is' requiring no explanation or conscious understanding. [There is a very real need to retain an awareness of where you are and the training lies in being able to acquire the two states at the same time].
Having adopted this strategy I saw a whole new world with many opportunities for abstract photography. What I was unsure of at the beginning was what the outcome would be and inevitably there were a number of failures. In addition I have chosen to work in black and white and this meant that the tonal range was key. What I found was that the monochrome approach in part simplified the process but at the same time introduced complications that had to be addressed.
Work is in progress.
My past experience in photography suggests to that my general approach is to first see the overall picture that is before me and from that extract a part that best meets what I wish to achieve. The selected part still can be seen as a whole and has not been rendered meaningless by removing it from the context within which it lies. My favourite photography is landscapes, whether rural or urban, so when preparing to shoot I select an element that may be the whole or a very large part of the overall scene. On other occasions it may be just a relatively small element such as a tree. In the latter case I can isolate the tree from its surroundings but it will still be recognisable as a tree. I have ''zoomed' in to exclude elements that I feel at the time are unnecessary to the result I am aiming for. With abstract photography I found myself zooming in to a point where the selected area could no longer be seen as a recognisable object because there were no identifying clues within the frame.
Given this approach I found that there was a need to have some idea of what I wished to 'find' in my lens. Many of my ideas were formed from visiting the sites of acknowledged abstract photographers whilst at the same time trying to create something that was essentially mine. In practice what happened was that I found myself looking at elements that were before me in the hope that by extracting the relevant parts I would, in some magical way, find something to photograph. Whilst this method provided boundaries so that the task was manageable it was not very successful. On reflection my approach was mechanistic and too structured. Many years ago I learnt the art of free thinking which is probably a posh way of day-dreaming whilst at the same time being aware of what is around you. The advantages lie in the reaction to visual stimuli in which there is no attempt to classify what is being seen but accepting it as a combination of light, colour, composition and texture that 'is' requiring no explanation or conscious understanding. [There is a very real need to retain an awareness of where you are and the training lies in being able to acquire the two states at the same time].
Having adopted this strategy I saw a whole new world with many opportunities for abstract photography. What I was unsure of at the beginning was what the outcome would be and inevitably there were a number of failures. In addition I have chosen to work in black and white and this meant that the tonal range was key. What I found was that the monochrome approach in part simplified the process but at the same time introduced complications that had to be addressed.
Work is in progress.
Saturday, 12 April 2014
Personal style
In recent blogs I have briefly discussed issues surrounding the 'construction' of images with particular reference to cropping, sharpening and tonal range. I have argued that in each case it is the decisions of the photographer that should drive the final outcome. It is, of course, essential that the photographer takes cognisance of the probable audience. However, because how each individual sees and interprets an image will be different, the reality is that only in a very limited number of scenarios can there be any real confidence in what the photographer intended and what the viewer sees coincide.
During my studies it has been suggested that I should develop a 'personal style'. At first glance this would seem to be good advice but the more one examines the statement the less meaning the statement carries. One presumes that what the student produces is, at that moment in time, his personal style. It may be naive, untutored or poorly formed but if it is an honest submission then it is personal. Over time the style may change but many of the elements seen in the first attempts will remain. The question to be asked is whether what is produced is an honest submission or whether there has been a calculated attempt to provide something that the tutor and assessors will like or appreciate. I would suggest that the pressure is such that the 'pleasing' submission is more likely than the honest one. If a tutor suggests a number of changes to what has been submitted then it seems reasonable to incorporate such changes both in future work and in the re-working of a particular assignment. (Attempts to second guess the assessors at the end of the Course is to take the road to madness. Given the difference between the tutors comments and advice towards the end of the Course and the marks and comments of the assessors that has been such a problem recently in the OCA one wonders whether there is any consensus of opinion amongst those who carry out these tasks seems highly unlikely). The question that then should be asked is how much of the work is the students own personal work and how much is of an unthinking acceptance.
I once heard a comment from someone who had been through the process that it is a case that one has to 'jump through the hoops'. By this was meant that one's own feelings should be subsumed in order to achieve the final aim. If this be true then what is the output from such a process? The most likely is someone who apparently succeeds but who is still locked in to a process that is stultifying and counter-productive. Whilst researching the work and life of Andrew Moore (1957 - ) I came across a response during an interview (www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/01/inte-j05.html) in which he states that he studied for three years at Princeton .... "but it wasn't until I was in my 40's, some twenty-odd years later, that I finally figured out how to make good pictures." It struck me at the time that there may be something wrong with a teaching process that requires twenty years of following practice to come to the realisation of what is a "good photograph".
Based on the opinion of a number of others whose advice I appreciate my photography has shown a marked improvement over the years that I have been studying. Most of this I put down to the advice received from my tutors on the images that I have submitted. Over the past four years I have taken 1000's of images of which only a small percentage have been formally commented upon or assessed. My experience is that there is very little agreement about what is a 'good' picture amongst tutors and assessors or indeed anybody else. Given this I have taken the view that by all means try out the suggestions and advice given but if the resulting product is, to you, unsatisfactory then discard it. Ultimately staying true to yourself is the key to success in any walk of life.
During my studies it has been suggested that I should develop a 'personal style'. At first glance this would seem to be good advice but the more one examines the statement the less meaning the statement carries. One presumes that what the student produces is, at that moment in time, his personal style. It may be naive, untutored or poorly formed but if it is an honest submission then it is personal. Over time the style may change but many of the elements seen in the first attempts will remain. The question to be asked is whether what is produced is an honest submission or whether there has been a calculated attempt to provide something that the tutor and assessors will like or appreciate. I would suggest that the pressure is such that the 'pleasing' submission is more likely than the honest one. If a tutor suggests a number of changes to what has been submitted then it seems reasonable to incorporate such changes both in future work and in the re-working of a particular assignment. (Attempts to second guess the assessors at the end of the Course is to take the road to madness. Given the difference between the tutors comments and advice towards the end of the Course and the marks and comments of the assessors that has been such a problem recently in the OCA one wonders whether there is any consensus of opinion amongst those who carry out these tasks seems highly unlikely). The question that then should be asked is how much of the work is the students own personal work and how much is of an unthinking acceptance.
I once heard a comment from someone who had been through the process that it is a case that one has to 'jump through the hoops'. By this was meant that one's own feelings should be subsumed in order to achieve the final aim. If this be true then what is the output from such a process? The most likely is someone who apparently succeeds but who is still locked in to a process that is stultifying and counter-productive. Whilst researching the work and life of Andrew Moore (1957 - ) I came across a response during an interview (www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/01/inte-j05.html) in which he states that he studied for three years at Princeton .... "but it wasn't until I was in my 40's, some twenty-odd years later, that I finally figured out how to make good pictures." It struck me at the time that there may be something wrong with a teaching process that requires twenty years of following practice to come to the realisation of what is a "good photograph".
Based on the opinion of a number of others whose advice I appreciate my photography has shown a marked improvement over the years that I have been studying. Most of this I put down to the advice received from my tutors on the images that I have submitted. Over the past four years I have taken 1000's of images of which only a small percentage have been formally commented upon or assessed. My experience is that there is very little agreement about what is a 'good' picture amongst tutors and assessors or indeed anybody else. Given this I have taken the view that by all means try out the suggestions and advice given but if the resulting product is, to you, unsatisfactory then discard it. Ultimately staying true to yourself is the key to success in any walk of life.
Friday, 11 April 2014
Tonal Range and Detail
One of the many mantras that the novice photographer hears is "don't blow the highlights and don't block the shadows. It is taken as a given and rarely is there any explanation as to why these two events should not happen. We are told that 'specular' highlights can be blown (by definition it is inevitable) but there should always be some detail in the darkest elements of our images. Perhaps we should be asking why. Is there some immutable rule that allows us to say that the presence either of the two no-no's must result in a 'bad' photograph. Clearly this is nonsense and is a relatively recent judgement of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. Early photographers knew that their skies would be featureless because of the nature of the materials they had available to them. Equally the tonal range would be limited and they were faced with deciding whether to expose for the highlights or the shadows. The decision made was personal to the individual.
With modern photographic equipment we are no longer faced with this problem and many cameras now have the facility for the automatic bracketing of exposure to achieve the best possible image. Added to this is the power of software that helps to produce the maximum tonal range available from the shot. I would suggest that therein lies the problem. The number of decisions becomes less but the result is a uniformity that does not necessarily produce the most 'pleasing' image. What is meant by 'pleasing' is the result that the individual photographer desires. The only boundaries should be his or her judgement of how his audience will react. There are but two people in any judgment of the worth of a photograph and that is the photographer and the viewer. Of course the viewer may well be many people throughout the career of a photograph but at any one moment in time it will be a single individual. The photographer wishes to maximise the impact of the image and whilst cognisant of the 'rules' should be more than happy to ignore them. The graphic contrast between the white featureless areas balanced by the black areas lacking detail can create a tension that demands a response from the viewer - including wondering what, if anything was in those areas.
With modern photographic equipment we are no longer faced with this problem and many cameras now have the facility for the automatic bracketing of exposure to achieve the best possible image. Added to this is the power of software that helps to produce the maximum tonal range available from the shot. I would suggest that therein lies the problem. The number of decisions becomes less but the result is a uniformity that does not necessarily produce the most 'pleasing' image. What is meant by 'pleasing' is the result that the individual photographer desires. The only boundaries should be his or her judgement of how his audience will react. There are but two people in any judgment of the worth of a photograph and that is the photographer and the viewer. Of course the viewer may well be many people throughout the career of a photograph but at any one moment in time it will be a single individual. The photographer wishes to maximise the impact of the image and whilst cognisant of the 'rules' should be more than happy to ignore them. The graphic contrast between the white featureless areas balanced by the black areas lacking detail can create a tension that demands a response from the viewer - including wondering what, if anything was in those areas.
Monday, 7 April 2014
Sharpening
As we all know the digital process softens an image and from that knowledge has grown the created desire to sharpen our images. I say 'created' because there is no agreed criteria for what is considered a sharp image and one that is deemed to be 'soft'. Some images, particularly portraits of females, are seen to be in some way better if the photograph overall is soft and more specifically the face. Almost all training material offers advice on ways to soften the face whilst leaving the eyes, teeth and lips sharper than the surrounding area. With other images, where the texture is 'hard' such as buildings and hard landscape then the advice is to sharpen. Software sellers have seen this as an opportunity to create a market for their goods and we now have 'capture sharpening', creative sharpening' and 'output sharpening'.
The strange thing is that show the same image to two different assessors the chances are one will say that the image requires sharpening and the other will say that it is over-sharpened. This suggests that sharpening is a matter of personal taste and yet the disciples of sharpening continue to proselytise that there is a perfect outcome for each image. There may be agreement at the extremes but as we near the point of best possible outcomes there will be less and less agreement. What looks right to one viewer will look totally unacceptable to another.
Is the statement - "all digital images need sharpening" true. The answer is no. Some very successful images are deliberately left unchanged or may be made softer by deliberate blurring or other methods available in software programmes. Equally I would not agree with one writer who stated that he never sharpened an image and rejected the idea. My personal approach is to judge each image on its merits and the message that I wish to convey. Even when I feel that sharpening will enhance the image I usually try to keep it to a minimum. To me any image where sharpening is evident detracts from the overall image unless there is a contextual reason for increasing the level of sharpening.
The strange thing is that show the same image to two different assessors the chances are one will say that the image requires sharpening and the other will say that it is over-sharpened. This suggests that sharpening is a matter of personal taste and yet the disciples of sharpening continue to proselytise that there is a perfect outcome for each image. There may be agreement at the extremes but as we near the point of best possible outcomes there will be less and less agreement. What looks right to one viewer will look totally unacceptable to another.
Is the statement - "all digital images need sharpening" true. The answer is no. Some very successful images are deliberately left unchanged or may be made softer by deliberate blurring or other methods available in software programmes. Equally I would not agree with one writer who stated that he never sharpened an image and rejected the idea. My personal approach is to judge each image on its merits and the message that I wish to convey. Even when I feel that sharpening will enhance the image I usually try to keep it to a minimum. To me any image where sharpening is evident detracts from the overall image unless there is a contextual reason for increasing the level of sharpening.
Thursday, 3 April 2014
Cropping an Image
I recently received my tutors comments on Assignment 1. As always informative and helpful a number of issues were raised and I thought I would comment on each of them in a separate blog. Like this one some deal with specific issues but I will use the last one the series to address what has become a matter of increasing concern to me - the conflict that arises between the development of a personal style by the student and the sometimes specific advice received from the tutor.
As stated above I will use this blog to address the question of 'cropping'. At first sight this does not seem to be a major issue but in fact cropping is used frequently to improve composition and its use therefore can have a major impact upon the final image. As with all cases of composition it is a matter of personal taste (there are no right and wrong answers only personal opinion). Much depends upon the overall effect that the photographer intends in the final image. Unfortunately it is a fact that it is impossible to guarantee what interpretation the viewer of the image will place upon what is being offered. At best the viewer can only be guided in a certain direction by offering clues and again we are unable to know whether the interpretation will be as we intended.
Here is a copy of an image I submitted with Assignment 1
As stated above I will use this blog to address the question of 'cropping'. At first sight this does not seem to be a major issue but in fact cropping is used frequently to improve composition and its use therefore can have a major impact upon the final image. As with all cases of composition it is a matter of personal taste (there are no right and wrong answers only personal opinion). Much depends upon the overall effect that the photographer intends in the final image. Unfortunately it is a fact that it is impossible to guarantee what interpretation the viewer of the image will place upon what is being offered. At best the viewer can only be guided in a certain direction by offering clues and again we are unable to know whether the interpretation will be as we intended.
Here is a copy of an image I submitted with Assignment 1
It was suggested that the image could be cropped to produce the following image (obviously the red area is the cropped pixels - the comment was added by my tutor).
The 'unbalanced feel' was a deliberate choice to create tension within the image. The position achieved by the dancer is, in my view, remarkable and teeters between stability and disaster and it was my intention to, in some way, have this disequilibrium reflected in the image. For me the second image has created a 'box' in which the dancer is held and it appears that she has only to reach out and touch the sides to maintain her balance. I do not claim that the first picture is in some way better than the second but I would argue that it better reflects my interpretation.
In this second image I show the cropping suggested by my tutor.
Again I make no claims that the original is in some way better than that suggested but again I do not believe that the cropped version best reflects my view. The image is of a five year old girl who, like many of her age, had unbounded energy. She seemed to be able to occupy all dimensions of space and time at the same instant as many young children can. In some way I wanted to capture this phenomenon within the image and this was my attempt. I left space within the image for her to 'move' into.
In summary I fully accept the suggestions put forward but I believe that they create a different result and feel to that I intended.
Friday, 21 March 2014
Beyond the Architects Eye - Mary N. Woods
Have been reading this book during the past week (Woods Mary N. (2009) Beyond the Architects Eye Photographs and the American Built Environment Philadelphia Philadelphia University Press ). It seemed to be directly relevant to the 2nd Assignment part of my Course although this judgement was solely based on the title. It cannot be argued that some of the material in the book is what one would expect from such a book. However two things struck me as strange - the overall construction and the way that the author's views impinged upon the presumed subject matter.
The book was quite difficult to follow (in part because of my expectations about content) because the reader would happily be following the narrative about say a particular photographer or an area of America when for no immediately obvious reason the main topic, at that point would change, frequently to a more sociological bent. I always found this slightly disturbing as I was left with the feeling that nothing ever reached a conclusion that linked directly with the material immediately beforehand. On more than one occasion I checked to see if I had turned two pages over at once. Overall the effect was to lessen the impact of the major themes discussed and which in my humble opinion could have been written in a more structured form.
The author's views on such things as segregation of races are important of themselves but it was never the case that the links that were being suggested between these matters and the built environment were proven. Indeed at times they seemed irrelevant. Clearly the Afro-American and the itinerant population were poorly treated and occupied the less desirable and fashionable housing. Yet the author failed to prove that this was the direct consequence of building decisions - i.e poor accommodation was built and provided for the afro-american. As in all societies the well off and the upwardly mobile move on and usually into better and better standards of accommodation. What they leave behind is occupied by the less fortunate who in turn move out of their original accommodation that is then occupied by the least fortunate. Paradoxically, as can be seen in parts of London, a distressed area can become popular again with the well off and the cycle begins again. This is not to deny that speculators take advantage of the desperate situation of the poor and create multi-occupancy lodgings from accommodation that was originally occupied by just one family.
Those parts of the book that directly relate to the built environment are of considerable interest and offer a great deal of information both written and pictorially. Offering insights into the work of a number of photographers through looking at their work in three areas that were undergoing significant changes in the built environment at the time of their work - New York, the Old South and Florida. We are introduced to the work of such photographers as Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Andrew Moor Eugene Atget, Walker Evans, Arthur Rothstein, Charles Sheeler, Albert Renger-Patzsch and Frances Johnston amongst many others all of whom contributed to the development of architectural photography.
I remain with mixed feelings about the book and my recommendation would be to borrow it if you possibly can rather than buy it.
The book was quite difficult to follow (in part because of my expectations about content) because the reader would happily be following the narrative about say a particular photographer or an area of America when for no immediately obvious reason the main topic, at that point would change, frequently to a more sociological bent. I always found this slightly disturbing as I was left with the feeling that nothing ever reached a conclusion that linked directly with the material immediately beforehand. On more than one occasion I checked to see if I had turned two pages over at once. Overall the effect was to lessen the impact of the major themes discussed and which in my humble opinion could have been written in a more structured form.
The author's views on such things as segregation of races are important of themselves but it was never the case that the links that were being suggested between these matters and the built environment were proven. Indeed at times they seemed irrelevant. Clearly the Afro-American and the itinerant population were poorly treated and occupied the less desirable and fashionable housing. Yet the author failed to prove that this was the direct consequence of building decisions - i.e poor accommodation was built and provided for the afro-american. As in all societies the well off and the upwardly mobile move on and usually into better and better standards of accommodation. What they leave behind is occupied by the less fortunate who in turn move out of their original accommodation that is then occupied by the least fortunate. Paradoxically, as can be seen in parts of London, a distressed area can become popular again with the well off and the cycle begins again. This is not to deny that speculators take advantage of the desperate situation of the poor and create multi-occupancy lodgings from accommodation that was originally occupied by just one family.
Those parts of the book that directly relate to the built environment are of considerable interest and offer a great deal of information both written and pictorially. Offering insights into the work of a number of photographers through looking at their work in three areas that were undergoing significant changes in the built environment at the time of their work - New York, the Old South and Florida. We are introduced to the work of such photographers as Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Andrew Moor Eugene Atget, Walker Evans, Arthur Rothstein, Charles Sheeler, Albert Renger-Patzsch and Frances Johnston amongst many others all of whom contributed to the development of architectural photography.
I remain with mixed feelings about the book and my recommendation would be to borrow it if you possibly can rather than buy it.
Saturday, 15 March 2014
Ansel Adams - "Examples The Making of 40 Photographs
In two previous blogs (7th and 10th March) 2014 I have discussed two elements in Adams' book Examples The Making of 40 Photographs [Adams A (1983) Examples The Making of 40 Photographs. Eleventh paper back printing 2013. Italy: Little, Brown and Company] namely the choices he made and the technique he reveals in his book. In this blog I would like to explore Adams' philosophy as revealed in his comments throughout the book.Not only do we get an insight into Adams' thinking but also the general philosophy that guided his work.
In the Introduction Adams makes clear that there will be no attempt by him to offer the 'meaning' of his photographs believing that such meaning lies with the photograph itself. Later in the book (p. 80) he offers the view that whilst it is possible to describe the physical elements of a picture to then try to express the photographer's aesthetic/emotional response can only lead to confusion for those that view the image and set unnecessary boundaries on the viewer's responses. Despite this statement there are references in the book to 'mood'. Adams does question the use of such a term in relation to photographs but acknowledges that there may be no other word that best matches what he is trying to explain. He offers the suggestion that mood is a quality of both interpretation and subject. Referring to the image "Boards and Thistles" he says - "..this photograph reveals quite convincingly what I saw and felt at the moment of exposure" (p. 31). We are also told of something of his feelings when taking the image "Rose and Driftwood".
Adams gives us an explanation (p. 34) of the difference between a 'found object' and a 'contrived object'. Briefly the 'found object' is something that exists and is discovered whilst 'contrived objects' are organised selectively. One is not better than the other although according to Adams they evoke quite different intellectual and emotional experiences. I would suggest that the interested reader refers to the writing on pages 34 and 35 as Adams reveals more about his approach to photography.
He expresses strong feeling about what he labels the "'in' syndromes" in particular where this leads to the craft side of photography being lessened by over involvement with those things that can distort taste and purpose such as social, political and commercial motives. Given that Adams made his living out of photography and elsewhere comments on the constraints he worked under when carrying out assignments it is possible to agree with the purity of Adams approach but are left wondering whether he was always true to his beliefs.
One theme that is mentioned more than once in the book is his reaction to 'Pictorialism'. It was major reason for his involvement in the Group f/64. In the early 1930's the Pictorialists held a dominant position in the world of photography. To quote Adams - "..anyone trained in music or the visual arts, the shallow sentimentalism of the "fuzzy-wuzzies" [as Edward Weston called them (one wonders what reaction Weston would have had to Adams' picture Lodgepole Pines p. 49)] was anathema, especially when they boasted of their importance in "Art". Reacting to this dominance Adams and others formed Group f/64 in 1932. They believed that what they were proposing ( 'purity of image'; ' optical qualities'; 'in-depth focus'; and 'smooth papers') was a new aesthetic only to discover later that Alfred Stieglitz had pursued similar goals since the beginning of the 20th Century. After a time the Group became less strident in their views. Adams claims that his involvement in Group f/64 and his meeting with Paul Strand led to his abandoning a career in music to become a photographer.
It cannot be said that Adams compromised or hid his feelings about others whose view of photography differed from his own. He writes of the Pictorialists: I have endeavoured to discover what the photographers of this classification [pictorialism] try to express. It is clear that the goal is to reflect closely the qualities of painting in photographs. These attempts are usually futile and inferior [my underlining] for they betray the natural traits of our medium. Another example of Adams dismissal of those who disagree with him can be found in his narrative that accompanies the image - Nevada Fall when he writes - "Some urban aesthetes claim this photograph is just a bit of scenery and is certainly not art. May they and their opinions rest in peace! Perhaps he fails to see the irony in his closing comment in the paragraph that reads - "I do not desire to impose a definition of creativity on anyone."
One thing that comes across strongly throughout the book is the certainty Adams has about the correctness of his own views. In discussing the early use of the 35mm cameras he refers to the 'bleakness' of most of the work produced claiming that the camera was used to create photographs for reportage rather than display. He claims that there were very few photographers using this camera whose intention was aesthetic or expressive. He also refers to the temptation offered by the camera to shoot as many shots of the same scene/action as possible in the belief that one will be successful. He is dismissive of this process claiming that whilst there will always will be one better than the others but that does not make that image a fine one. Whilst one cannot argue against this conclusion there is ample evidence in the book that Adams used a similar, albeit much slower, system when taking his photographs. He also used a 35mm camera in his work where he felt that this was appropriate.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not, he also felt it legitimate to remove elements from a photograph that, in his view, did not belong there. He tells us (p. 164) of the vandalism (my word)caused by the pupils of Lone Pine High School who had painted the letters L and P on the rocky face of the Alabama Hills. His defence reads "...I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy - for me, at least, - the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene." Whilst I find it easy to understand and agree with Adams' motives in this situation I am left wondering where he drew the line when developing and printing other scenes that did not quite meet his exacting standards.
He is dismissive of the demand for detail about the equipment and materials used in the making of the image. Virtually every magazine or book about photography regales us with details about the camera and the settings used as though this will help us both understand and interpret the image and in some way make us better photographers. Adams argues that a more fruitful discussion would be to discuss shapes, colour values and luminance levels. Despite his views almost every photograph in the book is accompanied by such details because of Adams belief that many photographers find them helpful. Perhaps we should ask the question in what sense are they helpful. Photographs represent a captured moment in time in which for all intents and purposes that moment is and remains unique. It follows that the settings used can only be absolutely right for that photograph as seen by the photographer at that time. Unthinking application to other images is useless. Advice from Adams (p. 93) suggests that the photographer (or artist using Adams' term) trust his own judgment (intellect and creative vision).
Adams refers often to seeing in the minds eye the desired outcome in print of the scene in front of him using the word "visualisation". 'Seeing' offers the possibility of the precise application of the actions throughout the process, from taking the image to final print, offering the best chance of success. Adams offers this explanation - With all art expression, when something is seen, it is a vivid experience, sudden, compelling and inevitable...this resource is not of things consciously seen ..it is perhaps a summation of total experience and instinct...." (p. 13). Such an explanation is at odds with other explanations given within the book that present visualisation as a more conscious process particularly where reference is made to the Zone system (discussed in the blog 10th March 2014). It may be the case that in offering an explanation of how he decides where the key elements fall within the Zone system Adams has tried to explain something that was, in practice, intuitive. If this is so then the two explanations complement each other rather than conflict.
Another element of "visualisation" that, for me, was not immediately obvious is the ability to 'see' what the camera 'sees'. Cameras use a particular format. As Adams points out (p. 55) the world rarely fits these formats in its natural state. It behoves the photographer to visualise the image in whatever format it presents itself and in producing the image use cropping to match the original visualisation. I understand what is being said but am unsure what it means in practice.
Adams spent many years photographing Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada. Areas of outstanding natural beauty that offer enormous vistas of ever changing light and detail. I have only visited Yosemite once but my memories and the images I still have are of the majestic beauty as seen from the many vantage points. Adams asks the question whether such all inclusive shots are the best way to capture such a landscape. He asks whether their beauty would not be better captured by selecting smaller fragments or by attention to close detail. Referring to the work of others (Edward Weston; Brett Weston; Minor White; Wynn Bullock and Elliot Porter) he argues that landscape can be "an intimate art form not necessarily dominated by the grand, remote aspects of the world or the passing excitement of events. (p. 17). What seems to be missing from this discussion is that the term 'landscape' is a classification applied to a particular type of photography - it is not a strait jacket. It can include or exclude anything and whether an image 'belongs' in the genre depends upon the acceptance of its placing by others. It is a convenient shorthand that can be both restricting and all-embracing.
Adams comments on the 'contrived' situation, for example the studio set-up, that he suggests leads to an image whose artificiality can be recognised by the viewer. Referring to the world of advertising where, for him, the unreal quality of the image is difficult for him to trust. He acknowledges that he had been obliged to take many images of this sort but he reveals his dislike of this process in his comment on p. 97 when referring to the Farm Family photograph - "Working with the Melones farm people...was indeed a refreshing experience". He talks also in the book about studio work being synthetic because it involves creation of the desired result comparing it with the analytic approach in a non-studio setting where selection and management of the parts of the overall scene by the photographer is the key to success.
Throughout the book it is evident that Adams thought carefully about why he pursued a particular type of photography such as photographing old buildings whilst rejecting there more modern counterparts. In the discussion on this topic on pp. 100 -101 he comes to the conclusion that he photographs that which, to him, is aesthetically beautiful and which he can visualise as a photograph worth creating both for himself and others. It is a statement of the obvious because it, in one form or another, applies to all serious and not so serious photographers. One presumes that even the professional photographer will try, as best he or she can to work on assignments where the level of comfort and commitment is the greatest. At the sub-conscious level this 'zone of comfort' is bounded by those things that we as individuals feel create those images worth looking at. Later in the book (p. 106) Adams talks, in a similar vein, about his work in the National Parks particularly Yosemite. He tells us that he does not remember ever taking a photograph for "environmentally significant purposes" and that those photographs that may be judged by others to be of environmental significance were taken purely for their "intrinsic aesthetic and emotional qualities.".
He was also aware of the effect of pre-conceived ideas about an area or country can have upon the final outcome. Referring to his reactions to parts of America and Great Britain where he had positive ideas about what he would discover compared with Hawaii, mainland Europe and the American South where his projections were largely negative he found that those areas that he thought positively about beforehand he found 'exciting' whereas he retained his negativity in the other areas. I believe this to be one of the most revealing and useful statements in the whole book.
We are all encouraged to plan ahead so that there is a structure about how and where we photograph. We may, where the assignment is not of our choice, have negative feelings and these have to be guarded against. However these are generally easy to recognise and steps taken to reduce the impact. In more general terms where it is a large area such as a country or continent we may not recognise an underlying reluctance or something may occur that re-inforces our negative views. If I may give a personal example. Last year I arranged a holiday in France to coincide with the Arles Photographic Exhibition. The accommodation we had booked left something to be desired and the exhibition was a huge disappointment. I had only passed through this area of France and never stayed more than a couple of nights. I found it largely uninteresting and in some areas frankly disappointing. I took many images, some related to my OCA Courses, but none were outstanding and most were frankly bad. In essence the build up of negativity, that I did not realise until discussing my reaction to the holiday with my wife who had accompanied me, impacted heavily upon my photography with disastrous effects. Beware feelings that sub-consciously affect our work.
In the narrative accompanying the Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn Adams makes the assertion that few subjects lend themselves to both black and white and colour. He tells us about the work of Marie Cosindas who 'saw' her photographs as compositions in colour. He then argues that her visualisations were inappropriate to black and white imagery. When learning the techniques and methods for black and white photography the student is encouraged to 'see' the image in monochrome. Without the aid of software I would suggest that this is impossible to do and that experience tells us which colours and combination of colours, together with the variance of light across the image, will give us a worthwhile black and white image. It is also of interest that almost all advice given is not to use the black and white facility in the camera; and when working on the image on the computer to make the best possible colour image before converting to black and white. This would suggest that Adams contention that few images lend themselves to both types of rendition is far too sweeping and that it is more accurate to say that only a few images do not work in both mediums.
Let the last word belong to Adams (it is also the last paragraph of the book but also happily coincides with my own views):
"All art, including photography, cannot be defined or explained because it relates to experiences not measurable in material terms. Physical procedures and techniques may be thoroughly discussed, but these are of little value unless a compelling creative reason-for-being exists. To borrow again from the statement by Alfred Stieglitz, the camera enables us to express what we have seen and felt in the worlds of nature and humanity."
In the Introduction Adams makes clear that there will be no attempt by him to offer the 'meaning' of his photographs believing that such meaning lies with the photograph itself. Later in the book (p. 80) he offers the view that whilst it is possible to describe the physical elements of a picture to then try to express the photographer's aesthetic/emotional response can only lead to confusion for those that view the image and set unnecessary boundaries on the viewer's responses. Despite this statement there are references in the book to 'mood'. Adams does question the use of such a term in relation to photographs but acknowledges that there may be no other word that best matches what he is trying to explain. He offers the suggestion that mood is a quality of both interpretation and subject. Referring to the image "Boards and Thistles" he says - "..this photograph reveals quite convincingly what I saw and felt at the moment of exposure" (p. 31). We are also told of something of his feelings when taking the image "Rose and Driftwood".
Adams gives us an explanation (p. 34) of the difference between a 'found object' and a 'contrived object'. Briefly the 'found object' is something that exists and is discovered whilst 'contrived objects' are organised selectively. One is not better than the other although according to Adams they evoke quite different intellectual and emotional experiences. I would suggest that the interested reader refers to the writing on pages 34 and 35 as Adams reveals more about his approach to photography.
He expresses strong feeling about what he labels the "'in' syndromes" in particular where this leads to the craft side of photography being lessened by over involvement with those things that can distort taste and purpose such as social, political and commercial motives. Given that Adams made his living out of photography and elsewhere comments on the constraints he worked under when carrying out assignments it is possible to agree with the purity of Adams approach but are left wondering whether he was always true to his beliefs.
One theme that is mentioned more than once in the book is his reaction to 'Pictorialism'. It was major reason for his involvement in the Group f/64. In the early 1930's the Pictorialists held a dominant position in the world of photography. To quote Adams - "..anyone trained in music or the visual arts, the shallow sentimentalism of the "fuzzy-wuzzies" [as Edward Weston called them (one wonders what reaction Weston would have had to Adams' picture Lodgepole Pines p. 49)] was anathema, especially when they boasted of their importance in "Art". Reacting to this dominance Adams and others formed Group f/64 in 1932. They believed that what they were proposing ( 'purity of image'; ' optical qualities'; 'in-depth focus'; and 'smooth papers') was a new aesthetic only to discover later that Alfred Stieglitz had pursued similar goals since the beginning of the 20th Century. After a time the Group became less strident in their views. Adams claims that his involvement in Group f/64 and his meeting with Paul Strand led to his abandoning a career in music to become a photographer.
It cannot be said that Adams compromised or hid his feelings about others whose view of photography differed from his own. He writes of the Pictorialists: I have endeavoured to discover what the photographers of this classification [pictorialism] try to express. It is clear that the goal is to reflect closely the qualities of painting in photographs. These attempts are usually futile and inferior [my underlining] for they betray the natural traits of our medium. Another example of Adams dismissal of those who disagree with him can be found in his narrative that accompanies the image - Nevada Fall when he writes - "Some urban aesthetes claim this photograph is just a bit of scenery and is certainly not art. May they and their opinions rest in peace! Perhaps he fails to see the irony in his closing comment in the paragraph that reads - "I do not desire to impose a definition of creativity on anyone."
One thing that comes across strongly throughout the book is the certainty Adams has about the correctness of his own views. In discussing the early use of the 35mm cameras he refers to the 'bleakness' of most of the work produced claiming that the camera was used to create photographs for reportage rather than display. He claims that there were very few photographers using this camera whose intention was aesthetic or expressive. He also refers to the temptation offered by the camera to shoot as many shots of the same scene/action as possible in the belief that one will be successful. He is dismissive of this process claiming that whilst there will always will be one better than the others but that does not make that image a fine one. Whilst one cannot argue against this conclusion there is ample evidence in the book that Adams used a similar, albeit much slower, system when taking his photographs. He also used a 35mm camera in his work where he felt that this was appropriate.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not, he also felt it legitimate to remove elements from a photograph that, in his view, did not belong there. He tells us (p. 164) of the vandalism (my word)caused by the pupils of Lone Pine High School who had painted the letters L and P on the rocky face of the Alabama Hills. His defence reads "...I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy - for me, at least, - the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene." Whilst I find it easy to understand and agree with Adams' motives in this situation I am left wondering where he drew the line when developing and printing other scenes that did not quite meet his exacting standards.
He is dismissive of the demand for detail about the equipment and materials used in the making of the image. Virtually every magazine or book about photography regales us with details about the camera and the settings used as though this will help us both understand and interpret the image and in some way make us better photographers. Adams argues that a more fruitful discussion would be to discuss shapes, colour values and luminance levels. Despite his views almost every photograph in the book is accompanied by such details because of Adams belief that many photographers find them helpful. Perhaps we should ask the question in what sense are they helpful. Photographs represent a captured moment in time in which for all intents and purposes that moment is and remains unique. It follows that the settings used can only be absolutely right for that photograph as seen by the photographer at that time. Unthinking application to other images is useless. Advice from Adams (p. 93) suggests that the photographer (or artist using Adams' term) trust his own judgment (intellect and creative vision).
Adams refers often to seeing in the minds eye the desired outcome in print of the scene in front of him using the word "visualisation". 'Seeing' offers the possibility of the precise application of the actions throughout the process, from taking the image to final print, offering the best chance of success. Adams offers this explanation - With all art expression, when something is seen, it is a vivid experience, sudden, compelling and inevitable...this resource is not of things consciously seen ..it is perhaps a summation of total experience and instinct...." (p. 13). Such an explanation is at odds with other explanations given within the book that present visualisation as a more conscious process particularly where reference is made to the Zone system (discussed in the blog 10th March 2014). It may be the case that in offering an explanation of how he decides where the key elements fall within the Zone system Adams has tried to explain something that was, in practice, intuitive. If this is so then the two explanations complement each other rather than conflict.
Another element of "visualisation" that, for me, was not immediately obvious is the ability to 'see' what the camera 'sees'. Cameras use a particular format. As Adams points out (p. 55) the world rarely fits these formats in its natural state. It behoves the photographer to visualise the image in whatever format it presents itself and in producing the image use cropping to match the original visualisation. I understand what is being said but am unsure what it means in practice.
Adams spent many years photographing Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada. Areas of outstanding natural beauty that offer enormous vistas of ever changing light and detail. I have only visited Yosemite once but my memories and the images I still have are of the majestic beauty as seen from the many vantage points. Adams asks the question whether such all inclusive shots are the best way to capture such a landscape. He asks whether their beauty would not be better captured by selecting smaller fragments or by attention to close detail. Referring to the work of others (Edward Weston; Brett Weston; Minor White; Wynn Bullock and Elliot Porter) he argues that landscape can be "an intimate art form not necessarily dominated by the grand, remote aspects of the world or the passing excitement of events. (p. 17). What seems to be missing from this discussion is that the term 'landscape' is a classification applied to a particular type of photography - it is not a strait jacket. It can include or exclude anything and whether an image 'belongs' in the genre depends upon the acceptance of its placing by others. It is a convenient shorthand that can be both restricting and all-embracing.
Adams comments on the 'contrived' situation, for example the studio set-up, that he suggests leads to an image whose artificiality can be recognised by the viewer. Referring to the world of advertising where, for him, the unreal quality of the image is difficult for him to trust. He acknowledges that he had been obliged to take many images of this sort but he reveals his dislike of this process in his comment on p. 97 when referring to the Farm Family photograph - "Working with the Melones farm people...was indeed a refreshing experience". He talks also in the book about studio work being synthetic because it involves creation of the desired result comparing it with the analytic approach in a non-studio setting where selection and management of the parts of the overall scene by the photographer is the key to success.
Throughout the book it is evident that Adams thought carefully about why he pursued a particular type of photography such as photographing old buildings whilst rejecting there more modern counterparts. In the discussion on this topic on pp. 100 -101 he comes to the conclusion that he photographs that which, to him, is aesthetically beautiful and which he can visualise as a photograph worth creating both for himself and others. It is a statement of the obvious because it, in one form or another, applies to all serious and not so serious photographers. One presumes that even the professional photographer will try, as best he or she can to work on assignments where the level of comfort and commitment is the greatest. At the sub-conscious level this 'zone of comfort' is bounded by those things that we as individuals feel create those images worth looking at. Later in the book (p. 106) Adams talks, in a similar vein, about his work in the National Parks particularly Yosemite. He tells us that he does not remember ever taking a photograph for "environmentally significant purposes" and that those photographs that may be judged by others to be of environmental significance were taken purely for their "intrinsic aesthetic and emotional qualities.".
He was also aware of the effect of pre-conceived ideas about an area or country can have upon the final outcome. Referring to his reactions to parts of America and Great Britain where he had positive ideas about what he would discover compared with Hawaii, mainland Europe and the American South where his projections were largely negative he found that those areas that he thought positively about beforehand he found 'exciting' whereas he retained his negativity in the other areas. I believe this to be one of the most revealing and useful statements in the whole book.
We are all encouraged to plan ahead so that there is a structure about how and where we photograph. We may, where the assignment is not of our choice, have negative feelings and these have to be guarded against. However these are generally easy to recognise and steps taken to reduce the impact. In more general terms where it is a large area such as a country or continent we may not recognise an underlying reluctance or something may occur that re-inforces our negative views. If I may give a personal example. Last year I arranged a holiday in France to coincide with the Arles Photographic Exhibition. The accommodation we had booked left something to be desired and the exhibition was a huge disappointment. I had only passed through this area of France and never stayed more than a couple of nights. I found it largely uninteresting and in some areas frankly disappointing. I took many images, some related to my OCA Courses, but none were outstanding and most were frankly bad. In essence the build up of negativity, that I did not realise until discussing my reaction to the holiday with my wife who had accompanied me, impacted heavily upon my photography with disastrous effects. Beware feelings that sub-consciously affect our work.
In the narrative accompanying the Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn Adams makes the assertion that few subjects lend themselves to both black and white and colour. He tells us about the work of Marie Cosindas who 'saw' her photographs as compositions in colour. He then argues that her visualisations were inappropriate to black and white imagery. When learning the techniques and methods for black and white photography the student is encouraged to 'see' the image in monochrome. Without the aid of software I would suggest that this is impossible to do and that experience tells us which colours and combination of colours, together with the variance of light across the image, will give us a worthwhile black and white image. It is also of interest that almost all advice given is not to use the black and white facility in the camera; and when working on the image on the computer to make the best possible colour image before converting to black and white. This would suggest that Adams contention that few images lend themselves to both types of rendition is far too sweeping and that it is more accurate to say that only a few images do not work in both mediums.
Let the last word belong to Adams (it is also the last paragraph of the book but also happily coincides with my own views):
"All art, including photography, cannot be defined or explained because it relates to experiences not measurable in material terms. Physical procedures and techniques may be thoroughly discussed, but these are of little value unless a compelling creative reason-for-being exists. To borrow again from the statement by Alfred Stieglitz, the camera enables us to express what we have seen and felt in the worlds of nature and humanity."
Monday, 10 March 2014
Exhibition - Ipswich and District Photographic Society Annual Exhibition 2014
Visited the exhibition which is being held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Galleries, Ipswich until 15th March. As expected there was a wide range of talents and ability although less than I have seen at other Camera Club exhibitions. In part this was due to the method of selection that tends to favour the best photographers within the Club. The effect of this was to allow one member to dominate the exhibition and comments were made that perhaps the exhibition should have been named after him. In other Club exhibitions that I have visited the norm is for all members who wish to exhibit their images have at least one entry and this provides the visitor with some idea as to the range of talents within the Club. Personally I prefer the latter system.
It is always difficult at the time to know what it is that we get from visiting exhibitions. Where the exhibition is of one person's work, particularly where it is in the form of a retrospective, it is possible to see the development over time and the way that different subjects are handled. It allows for a more general approach and an appreciation of the skills and talents of the individual. Where the exhibition is of a large number of people's work there is inevitably a conflict between images adjacent to each other with the risk that the judgement is made as to whether one is better than the other. Study and contemplation of individual images is difficult and I find myself tending to skip glance until I come across something that grabs my interest.
It is always difficult at the time to know what it is that we get from visiting exhibitions. Where the exhibition is of one person's work, particularly where it is in the form of a retrospective, it is possible to see the development over time and the way that different subjects are handled. It allows for a more general approach and an appreciation of the skills and talents of the individual. Where the exhibition is of a large number of people's work there is inevitably a conflict between images adjacent to each other with the risk that the judgement is made as to whether one is better than the other. Study and contemplation of individual images is difficult and I find myself tending to skip glance until I come across something that grabs my interest.
Ansel Adams Examples The Making of 40 Photographs Technique
In a previous blog (dated 7th March 2014) I reported upon my reaction to the images in Adam's book placing them in arbitrary groups solely upon my reaction to them. In this blog I want to look at the techniques used by Adams. The page numbers refer to the edition of the book that I have read [Adams A (1983) Examples The Making of 40 Photographs. Eleventh paper back printing 2013. Italy: Little, Brown and Company].
There is a great deal of technical information scattered throughout the book and the reader is offered Adams' best guess of the exposure used, the method of development of the negative and the paper used for most of the images. The certainty with which one can accept this information is lessened by his confession that he did not make notes at the time and that even the year that the photograph was taken is a best guess. Most, if not all, of this information, whilst of historical interest, is of little value today even for those who use film and print their own images.
Adams is not only famed for his talents as a photographer but also as the joint developer of the Zone system. Developed in the late 1930's Adams describes the system as: "A framework for understanding exposure and development, and visualizing their effect in advance. Areas of different luminance in the subject are related to exposure zones, and these in turn to approximate values of gray in the final print. Thus careful exposure and development procedures permit the photographer to control the negative densities and corresponding print values that will represent specific subject areas, in accordance with the visualized final image (p. 177). It is not the intention of this blog to explain the Zone system and those interested should refer to the information on the Web and/or the New Ansel Adams Photography Series (The Camera, The Negative and the Print).
Visualisation (I revert to the International English spelling of the word) is a key element in much of what Adams tells us throughout this book and has direct relevance to the Zone System. We are told in the Glossary (p. 177) visualisation is the "process of "seeing" the final print while viewing the subject. With practice the photographer can anticipate the various influences of each stage of photographic procedure, and incorporate these intuitively in visualising a finished image." In short you stand a better chance of achieving your final aim if you have a mental image of the desired result prior to taking the photograph and eventually printing it.
Michael Freeman in his book (Freeman M (2009) The Complete Guide to Black and White Digital Photography Lewes Ilex) argues ( p. 166) that the Zone system was developed for a highly specific kind of photography that very few people ever practised. Whilst it was usable for a single sheet film image it was not a practical proposition for a roll of film (the system would ideally have required all the images on the roll to be of the same or very similar exposures). He further argues that it required that the subject matter of photograph was such as to allow the photographer time to visualise the image. The latter argument is less certain because Adams talks of an intuitive process that does not, by definition, require reason or perception. It does raise the question whether the Zone system has any relevance in the digital world of today.
Even the best of modern day digital cameras with their high level of sophistication can not match the dynamic range of the human eye. When we see a potential image, particularly where there is a wide range of tones between the darkest and lightest elements, our eyes allow us to see almost everything. The camera has only a limited range and this is often the reason by what we saw and what the camera produces can be markedly different. I was recently taking a series of architectural images outside where parts of the buildings were in deep shadow whilst other parts were lit by a bright mid-day sun. As I saw the image I could see that in one of the darker areas there was a wrought iron gate that had many attractive features. Furthermore I was able to see the structure and colour of the brickwork that was lit by the bright sun. The image taken showed a deep, featureless, shadow where I knew the gate was and little if any detail in the brighter areas. I was able to recover fully the shadow detail but the highlights were non-recoverable.
The photograph was taken about the same time as I was reading Adams' book and I began to think about the thought processes I adopted when taking a photograph. As with all such processes some of it will be intuitive and difficult if not impossible to describe in words. Very often there comes a point when everything seems 'right' and the shutter pressed without conscious thought. At a conscious level I almost invariably have a specific aim in mind particularly when undertaking assignments where there is a known goal. It is often at a location I have some prior knowledge of and I give a great deal of thought about the images that I wish to take and the best possible outcome given the uncontrollable elements. In essence I have visualised the outcome, albeit in general terms.
Of course there is built-in flexibility but hopefully I am in the right area and the overall chances of getting the image are good. For any image there are the following elements: the essential, the necessary, the desirable and the hoped for. The 'essential' is the element that is the key to the success of the image as a whole. Usually the subject matter of the photograph even if it is as ill-defined as a group of people or a particular sort of landscape or object. The 'necessary' is the element or elements that will provide context and support for the essential element in the story to be told by the image. The 'desirable' is the element that provides the icing on the cake that will lift the image out of the ordinary and capture the viewer's interest. The 'hoped for' is an event or confluence of events that can underpin the image and provide it with a greater depth of understanding.
My concentration and decision making processes are centred upon the essential element. All other decisions flow from this element. Where I have to make choices between different levels of exposure and focal point then the decision will lay with the best choice for this element. I need to achieve the best possible exposure where texture and shape are clearly defined. In some cases the choice made will conflict with an optimum choice for other elements and then it may be necessary to compromise slightly to achieve the best overall result. It is here that experience will offer the best possible chance of success. Knowledge of the dynamic range of the camera being used and the amount of detail that will be captured is invaluable. I have recently purchased a second camera that necessarily means that I have less knowledge of its capabilities and this has been reflected in the success or failure of images where the dynamic range of the scene has been considerable. When I came to 'develop' the images using my computer areas that would have been recoverable using my other camera were difficult to recover whilst other areas were easier to recover.
The question then arises would an awareness of the Zone system help to make better decisions at the time. The Zone system is essentially an evaluation system and thus should help in the decision making process. Whether one needs to fully understand why or whether an area of the scene falls in Zone III or Zone IV is less certain (interestingly Adams in his book refers to certain elements as falling between, for example, III and III and a half which increases the possible number of zones and therefore the gradations by at least two). Attempts have been made to suggest a digital version of the Zone system (see for example Michael Freeman's book referred to above). An awareness of the range of the camera being used and the success or otherwise of any software that is available is what is required. It is essential that the photographer knows what is or is not feasible. Knowing what the chances of success are in capturing detail in brightly lit or deep shadow areas within the chosen image is necessary if not vital but being able to place those areas within a particular Zone by number is of little consequence.
Perhaps the best comment I have read on the Zone system is in this book " Edward [Weston] ..a highly intuitive artist paid little attention to what he called "complexities". Through experience alone he had developed a personal equivalent of the Zone System. ..He simply was not capable of or interested in technical discussions beyond his own methods and controls" (p. 146)
There is a great deal of technical information scattered throughout the book and the reader is offered Adams' best guess of the exposure used, the method of development of the negative and the paper used for most of the images. The certainty with which one can accept this information is lessened by his confession that he did not make notes at the time and that even the year that the photograph was taken is a best guess. Most, if not all, of this information, whilst of historical interest, is of little value today even for those who use film and print their own images.
Adams is not only famed for his talents as a photographer but also as the joint developer of the Zone system. Developed in the late 1930's Adams describes the system as: "A framework for understanding exposure and development, and visualizing their effect in advance. Areas of different luminance in the subject are related to exposure zones, and these in turn to approximate values of gray in the final print. Thus careful exposure and development procedures permit the photographer to control the negative densities and corresponding print values that will represent specific subject areas, in accordance with the visualized final image (p. 177). It is not the intention of this blog to explain the Zone system and those interested should refer to the information on the Web and/or the New Ansel Adams Photography Series (The Camera, The Negative and the Print).
Visualisation (I revert to the International English spelling of the word) is a key element in much of what Adams tells us throughout this book and has direct relevance to the Zone System. We are told in the Glossary (p. 177) visualisation is the "process of "seeing" the final print while viewing the subject. With practice the photographer can anticipate the various influences of each stage of photographic procedure, and incorporate these intuitively in visualising a finished image." In short you stand a better chance of achieving your final aim if you have a mental image of the desired result prior to taking the photograph and eventually printing it.
Michael Freeman in his book (Freeman M (2009) The Complete Guide to Black and White Digital Photography Lewes Ilex) argues ( p. 166) that the Zone system was developed for a highly specific kind of photography that very few people ever practised. Whilst it was usable for a single sheet film image it was not a practical proposition for a roll of film (the system would ideally have required all the images on the roll to be of the same or very similar exposures). He further argues that it required that the subject matter of photograph was such as to allow the photographer time to visualise the image. The latter argument is less certain because Adams talks of an intuitive process that does not, by definition, require reason or perception. It does raise the question whether the Zone system has any relevance in the digital world of today.
Even the best of modern day digital cameras with their high level of sophistication can not match the dynamic range of the human eye. When we see a potential image, particularly where there is a wide range of tones between the darkest and lightest elements, our eyes allow us to see almost everything. The camera has only a limited range and this is often the reason by what we saw and what the camera produces can be markedly different. I was recently taking a series of architectural images outside where parts of the buildings were in deep shadow whilst other parts were lit by a bright mid-day sun. As I saw the image I could see that in one of the darker areas there was a wrought iron gate that had many attractive features. Furthermore I was able to see the structure and colour of the brickwork that was lit by the bright sun. The image taken showed a deep, featureless, shadow where I knew the gate was and little if any detail in the brighter areas. I was able to recover fully the shadow detail but the highlights were non-recoverable.
The photograph was taken about the same time as I was reading Adams' book and I began to think about the thought processes I adopted when taking a photograph. As with all such processes some of it will be intuitive and difficult if not impossible to describe in words. Very often there comes a point when everything seems 'right' and the shutter pressed without conscious thought. At a conscious level I almost invariably have a specific aim in mind particularly when undertaking assignments where there is a known goal. It is often at a location I have some prior knowledge of and I give a great deal of thought about the images that I wish to take and the best possible outcome given the uncontrollable elements. In essence I have visualised the outcome, albeit in general terms.
Of course there is built-in flexibility but hopefully I am in the right area and the overall chances of getting the image are good. For any image there are the following elements: the essential, the necessary, the desirable and the hoped for. The 'essential' is the element that is the key to the success of the image as a whole. Usually the subject matter of the photograph even if it is as ill-defined as a group of people or a particular sort of landscape or object. The 'necessary' is the element or elements that will provide context and support for the essential element in the story to be told by the image. The 'desirable' is the element that provides the icing on the cake that will lift the image out of the ordinary and capture the viewer's interest. The 'hoped for' is an event or confluence of events that can underpin the image and provide it with a greater depth of understanding.
My concentration and decision making processes are centred upon the essential element. All other decisions flow from this element. Where I have to make choices between different levels of exposure and focal point then the decision will lay with the best choice for this element. I need to achieve the best possible exposure where texture and shape are clearly defined. In some cases the choice made will conflict with an optimum choice for other elements and then it may be necessary to compromise slightly to achieve the best overall result. It is here that experience will offer the best possible chance of success. Knowledge of the dynamic range of the camera being used and the amount of detail that will be captured is invaluable. I have recently purchased a second camera that necessarily means that I have less knowledge of its capabilities and this has been reflected in the success or failure of images where the dynamic range of the scene has been considerable. When I came to 'develop' the images using my computer areas that would have been recoverable using my other camera were difficult to recover whilst other areas were easier to recover.
The question then arises would an awareness of the Zone system help to make better decisions at the time. The Zone system is essentially an evaluation system and thus should help in the decision making process. Whether one needs to fully understand why or whether an area of the scene falls in Zone III or Zone IV is less certain (interestingly Adams in his book refers to certain elements as falling between, for example, III and III and a half which increases the possible number of zones and therefore the gradations by at least two). Attempts have been made to suggest a digital version of the Zone system (see for example Michael Freeman's book referred to above). An awareness of the range of the camera being used and the success or otherwise of any software that is available is what is required. It is essential that the photographer knows what is or is not feasible. Knowing what the chances of success are in capturing detail in brightly lit or deep shadow areas within the chosen image is necessary if not vital but being able to place those areas within a particular Zone by number is of little consequence.
Perhaps the best comment I have read on the Zone system is in this book " Edward [Weston] ..a highly intuitive artist paid little attention to what he called "complexities". Through experience alone he had developed a personal equivalent of the Zone System. ..He simply was not capable of or interested in technical discussions beyond his own methods and controls" (p. 146)
Friday, 7 March 2014
Ansel Adams - "Examples The Making of 40 Photographs"
Again this book was on a recommended reading list. I was somewhat reluctant to get the book because of the antipathy I have towards the celebrity status bestowed on people in practically all fields. Such hero worship tends towards all the person's work being deemed 'good' or even 'great' sometimes referred to as the 'halo effect'. I have always felt that this is true of Ansel Adams who seems to have achieved the status of a demigod. Certainly it is almost impossible to study photography in almost any form without coming across his name particularly when the discussion is about black and white photography. Examples of his work that I have seen previously, in all cases in books, have on the whole been disappointing. However on getting this book I have had to change my mind. I believe that this is because there has been a concentration on producing the best possible images of the chosen 40 thus presenting them in the best possible light.
I believe there are three main elements of the book - the images chosen; the references to the technical elements and, for me the best part, Adams' views on photography. I decided to look at these elements separately across three blogs. I realise that this imposes artificial barriers between the separate elements that should really be considered as a whole but it does allow for, hopefully, greater clarity. To this end I have used the following headings - Choice; Technique, and Philosophy. The first element will be presented in this blog and the remaining two in two further blogs.
White House Ruin (no other information) (p. 129)
The dramatic striations on the cliff face lead the eye towards the main element of the picture. Unfortunately the 'white house' itself fails to retain interest. The development has created a bland, poorly contrasted main subject that is dominated by the area in which it is located. One would also question the decision to include the foliage at the bottom of the picture that seems to be unnecessary in portraying the overall message.
Alfred Stieglitz, An American Place New York City 1935 (p. 7)
For me the face of Stieglitz, surely the primary subject of the photograph is too small a part of the overall image. There is also a lack of definition on the left hand side of his face so that there is a sense of imbalance. One has to take into account that this was a 'grabbed' image as Stieglitz walked towards Adams but I only know this because of the script of this section. In the Introduction (p vii) Adams writes: "I cannot, and will not, attempt to describe, analyze, or define the creative-emotional motivations of my work, or the work of others. Description of the inspiration or the meaning of a work of photography, or of any other medium of art, lies in the work itself." Whilst an approach that has a great deal to commend it to all photographers it does leave open the door to mis-interpretation by the viewer.
Boards and Thistles San Francisco c. 1932 (p. 29)
If the image had been of the boards I would have rated the image higher, given the texture and lighting of this element of the photograph. It is the inclusion of the thistles that fail the overall impact of the image as there inclusion is difficult to understand. The structure and detail of this part of the image strike a jarring note.
Rose and Driftwood San Francisco, California c. 1932 (p 33)
The combination of the two elements of this image does not work. The sworl pattern of the driftwood does not complement the structure and texture of the rose. It distracts and the eye flits from one to the other. It is a brilliant picture of the rose, one can almost feel the softness of the petals. The background, provided presumably by the driftwood, is fussy and inappropriate.
Carolyn Anspacher San Francisco c. 1932 (p 37)
I think that it is the strange lighting on the face that detracts from this image particularly the shadow under the eyes.. There is loss of detail in the back of the hair although this is of less importance.
Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 (p. 41)
Described by Adams as his most popular single image it fails to impress. The moon is a relatively small dot in the black sky and the eye.
Aspens Northern New Mexico 1958 (p. 61)
An almost abstract image apart from the brightly lit tree in the left foreground. Does not quite work for me because of the presence of this tree which drags the eye back rather than allowing it to explore the right hand side of the image which is far more interesting. There is a second image in this part of the book that is just the right hand side of the first shown image which, for me, is a far better image.
Mount Williamson (no other information) (p. 67)
The rocks in the bottom half of the image dominate whereas the interest and better part of the image is at the top. It is almost as though Adams had taken to heart the common advice to have something in the foreground but in this case it has become an almost impenetrable barrier.
Mount McKinley and Wonder Lake Denali National Park Alaska 1947 (p. 75)
There is very little to commend this image with the blocked out shadows and the lack of any real detail in the water of the lake. Mount McKinley (I assume that is the massif in the background) appears surrealistic because of the way it has been exposed and developed. It reminds me of a meringue (Baked Alaska).
Rock and Surf Big Sur California c. 1951 (p.87)
The large rock in the foreground is superfluous (the rock on the water's edge provides an ideal foreground point of interest) and diminishes the far outcrop by comparison. Having said that there is a large amount of detail of interest in the picture including the clouds and overall the print is very good.
Farm Family Melones California c. 1953 (p.95)
My initial idea was to place this image amongst the 'Greats' but on further thought there was something about the composition that does not quite work. The figure in the foreground dominates the image and the other figures are (literally) in shadow. Had the image been entitled 'Patriarch' the portrayed relationship between the four people would better fit. The actual composition does not suggest 'family'. As a technical piece of work it is almost faultless.
Silverton Colorado 1951 (p. 99)
The placement of the houses against the backdrop of the mountain does not work. It is difficult to decide context and the geographical relationship between the two elements - how close is the mountain to the houses?
The Black Sun Owens Valley California 1939 (p. 125)
The only redeeming feature in this image is the stream and landscape elements in the right bottom corner of the image. The 'black sun' is just distracting and seems more like a mistake in development but as the accompanying notes explain it was a deliberate decision. The tree that dominates the left hand side of the image together with the ground upon which it stands is too dark and whilst texture is retained one cannot help feeling that concentration on this part of the image would have produced a much better picture.
Moon and Half Dome Yosemite National Park California 1960 (p.133)
An image that is possibly one of Adams' most famous images. For me the image is not 'great' because of the large black blob that dominates the left hand corner. One is left wondering what it is (could be someone's arm) and why it was included in the image. There is also the problem of the blocked shadows on the right hand side. Of course it is easy to criticise from the comfort of one's armchair as one does not know how much leeway to move was available.
Edward Weston Carmel Highlands California c. 1940 (p. 145)
The balance between the subject and the surround is not right. It is difficult to decide what we are seeing - the image of a tree with the human figure there to provide scale or an image designed to illustrate the puny nature of man in nature. Much is revealed in the accompanying commentary but to take Adams at his word and to see the image as presented means that it is just confusing.
Sand Dune Oceano California c.1950 (p. 149)
An image that does not quite make it. Take away the title and it could be almost anything.
Frozen Lake and Cliffs Sierra Nevada, Sequoia National Park 1932 (p. 11)
The image could almost be an abstract but we are told in the title what we are looking at. The image fails on a number of fronts. The blocked out shadows at the bottom of the picture leads us to a layer of snow that is devoid of detail. The snow at the bottom of the cliffs with what appears to be a rock fall within is a strange grey with a texture that may be real but which looks decidedly odd. Shadows on the cliff face are blocked out and overall I found it to be a very unsatisfactory image.
Surf Sequence San Mateo County Coast, California, c. 1940 (p. 22)
It was only by reading the accompanying notes that I could make any real sense of this image. This is largely due to being used to seeing the sky where the surf is in this picture. Even knowing what it is there remains a sense of unreality. The composition leaves a lot to be desired and the three main elements (shadow, scree and surf) are in disharmony and fight for ones attention.
Lodgepole Pines Lyell Fork of the Merced River, Yosemite National Park c. 1921 (p. 49)
Reading the accompanying article one supposes that this image is an experiment in soft focus. The result is poor by any standards but this may be due to the lightness of the rocks and trees in the middle of the picture.
Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn Yosemite National Park c. 1950 (p. 53)
The eye finds it difficult to settle on any particular spot and the overall impression is of an image that tries to provide too much information. The is no doubt about the very high quality of the printing and the capture of detail and texture overall but as a composition it fails.
Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman Orderville, Utah c. 1961 (p. 71)
The subject of this image is Martha Porter but the dominant feature is the porch support on the right of the picture. Brightly lit and textured it immediately attracts attention and further study. The presence of the woman seems almost incidental. The portrait element fails to do justice to the subject and greater attention to lighting and developing to emphasise the character and life history etched into the face of this woman would have led to a much more striking image.
Buddhist Grave Markers and Rainbow Paia, Hawaii c. 1956 (p. 83)
My initial response was - this is awful. On further examination I feel I was being too kind. The rainbow could be anything. The jumble of grave markers with the white one on top is exactly that - a jumble.
St Francis Church Ranchos de Taos New Mexico c. 1929 (p. 91)
It may be the limitations of the equipment used or difficulties with developing the image but this image is a massive disappointment. The most appropriate treatment would, I suggest, lie in deepening the shadows to emphasise the shape of the church and to bring out the texture. There is also a need for the introduction of a human figure or other marker that would give the viewer to make a clue to the size. As shown it could be a child's sandcastle shot from low down.
Old Water Tower San Francisco California 1961 (p. 159)
There is nothing about this image that attracts me. It is badly composed and the domination of the tower created by its central location in the image does not allow any judgement on its size and its relation to the surrounding buildings.
Winter Sunrise Sierra Nevada from Lone Pine California 1944 (p. 163)
A four layered 'cake' that fails to impress. The black mass in the middle of the image where there is virtually no detail gives the impression that there is a hole in the landscape upon which the sun lit mountain stands. A real disaster.
Graffiti Abandoned Military Installation Golden Gate Recreational Area California 1982 (p. 167)
One is left wondering 'Why?'
I believe there are three main elements of the book - the images chosen; the references to the technical elements and, for me the best part, Adams' views on photography. I decided to look at these elements separately across three blogs. I realise that this imposes artificial barriers between the separate elements that should really be considered as a whole but it does allow for, hopefully, greater clarity. To this end I have used the following headings - Choice; Technique, and Philosophy. The first element will be presented in this blog and the remaining two in two further blogs.
Choice
Of the many thousands of photographs that Adams took over the 50+ years of his photographic career it is not obvious why he chose these 40 and perhaps he does not know. In many ways it is a fruitless exercise to try to explain and it is not my intention to try. In looking through these photographs I found myself responding in a number of different ways some of which were surprising given the attitude of mind I brought to the exercise. The more I studied the images the more I found myself asking where I would place the individual images in a simple classification of 'Wow', 'Great', 'O.K,' and 'Nope' which led inevitably to me asking myself why I had made those decisions. In what follows I have used the titles used by Adams. The page numbers refer to the edition of the book that I have read [Adams A (1983) Examples The Making of 40 Photographs. Eleventh paper back printing 2013. Italy: Little, Brown and Company]. It is important to stress that the choices are solely mine and record my reaction to the individual prints and a brief analysis as to why I think I reacted as I did.
Wow
Monolith, The face of Half Dome Yosemite National Park 1927 (p.3)
The overall impact of this image is enhanced by the capture of the detail in the various elements. Apart from the sky everywhere one looks there is texture and form . The grandeur of the scene and the way that it is composed draws strong emotion.
The Golden gate before the Bridge San Francisco California, 1932 (p. 19)
This image has almost everything - the cloud formation, the light on the water and the framing provided by the headlands. There is detail and texture in all parts and the eye is drawn into the image by the composition. One of those images that make you wish that you could be half as good.
Sand Dunes, Sunrise Death Valley National Monument, California 1948 (p. 57)
An image with real impact that draws the viewer in. There is just sufficient sense of texture in the brightly lit dune front to retain the interest.
Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain Yosemite National Park 1948 (p.79)
Everything about this picture is right. It is wonderfully composed; light has been captured at its best and the printed result is breath-taking.
Church and Road Bodega California c. 1953 (p.137)
It is the simplicity of the image combined with the capture of the various textures that makes this a 'wow' image. The composition with the church above the natural eye line adds a dynamic that contributes to the picture's strength.
Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn Yosemite National Park 1939 (p. 141)
One of my favourites. The capture of the light and the detail offered in a busy but well composed image makes it outstanding.
Georgia O'Keeffe and Orville Cox Canyon de Chelly National Monument 1937 (p. 153)
Given Adams' other portraits it is something of a surprise to come across this image. The composition cannot be faulted and the drama of the sky with the two figures set against it with only their faces and one hand in the light makes for a classic photograph. The strength of the image lies in the expression on their faces and the sense of an unposed picture adds to the appreciation of a 'wow' image.
Sand Dunes, Sunrise Death Valley National Monument, California 1948 (p. 57)
An image with real impact that draws the viewer in. There is just sufficient sense of texture in the brightly lit dune front to retain the interest.
Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain Yosemite National Park 1948 (p.79)
Everything about this picture is right. It is wonderfully composed; light has been captured at its best and the printed result is breath-taking.
Church and Road Bodega California c. 1953 (p.137)
It is the simplicity of the image combined with the capture of the various textures that makes this a 'wow' image. The composition with the church above the natural eye line adds a dynamic that contributes to the picture's strength.
Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn Yosemite National Park 1939 (p. 141)
One of my favourites. The capture of the light and the detail offered in a busy but well composed image makes it outstanding.
Georgia O'Keeffe and Orville Cox Canyon de Chelly National Monument 1937 (p. 153)
Given Adams' other portraits it is something of a surprise to come across this image. The composition cannot be faulted and the drama of the sky with the two figures set against it with only their faces and one hand in the light makes for a classic photograph. The strength of the image lies in the expression on their faces and the sense of an unposed picture adds to the appreciation of a 'wow' image.
Great
Base of Upper Yosemite Fall Yosemite National Park, c. 1950 (p. 15)
My first reaction to this image was 'wow' as I saw the detail and light in the upper part. It is quite remarkable and one is left with a sense of awe not only because of the power of the fall but also the talent of the photographer. Unhappily this is an image very much of two parts where the lower half is a disappointment that fails by a long way the majesty of the upper half. The inclusion of the rock face does nothing to the overall impact of the image and the tree, bottom left, seems totally superfluous.
El Capitan, Winter Sunrise Yosemite National Park, 1968 (p. 45)
A similar reaction to the image of Yosemite fall but the ethereal nature of El Capitan above the mist/cloud rather spoils the image as a whole. The detail in the valley floor and trees is exceptional.
Clearing Winter Storm Yosemite National Park 1940 (p. 103)
This is a powerful image particularly the upper half. The two large trees in the right foreground are an unnecessary inclusion but it is impossible to say whether Adams was in a position to shoot without including these trees whilst at the same time retaining the composition of the rest of the picture. One wonders whether Adams, with today's technology, would have removed them post capture.
Arches North Court Mission San Xavier del Bac Tucson Arizona 1968 (p. 107)
A very powerful image that, one presumes, captures the essence of the building. The composition is really good and it may be pernickety to wonder whether it was possible to get a similarly powerful image without the central pillar which cuts the church building in half.
Still Life San Francisco California c. 1932 (p. 113)
My least favourite of all the images in the book but this should not be allowed to detract from the quality of the work overall. The capture of detail (the pressure marks on the egg in the slicer and the reflection of the egg in the grater) is remarkable.
Jacques Henri Lartigue Arles France 1974 (p. 117)
I am not a great admirer of Adams' portraiture. However this image has everything going for it. It is well seen, powerful and the print very high quality.
El Capitan, Winter Sunrise Yosemite National Park, 1968 (p. 45)
A similar reaction to the image of Yosemite fall but the ethereal nature of El Capitan above the mist/cloud rather spoils the image as a whole. The detail in the valley floor and trees is exceptional.
Clearing Winter Storm Yosemite National Park 1940 (p. 103)
This is a powerful image particularly the upper half. The two large trees in the right foreground are an unnecessary inclusion but it is impossible to say whether Adams was in a position to shoot without including these trees whilst at the same time retaining the composition of the rest of the picture. One wonders whether Adams, with today's technology, would have removed them post capture.
Arches North Court Mission San Xavier del Bac Tucson Arizona 1968 (p. 107)
A very powerful image that, one presumes, captures the essence of the building. The composition is really good and it may be pernickety to wonder whether it was possible to get a similarly powerful image without the central pillar which cuts the church building in half.
Still Life San Francisco California c. 1932 (p. 113)
My least favourite of all the images in the book but this should not be allowed to detract from the quality of the work overall. The capture of detail (the pressure marks on the egg in the slicer and the reflection of the egg in the grater) is remarkable.
Jacques Henri Lartigue Arles France 1974 (p. 117)
I am not a great admirer of Adams' portraiture. However this image has everything going for it. It is well seen, powerful and the print very high quality.
Nevada Fall Yosemite National Park c. 1947 (p.121)
Really borders on Great/Wow but it does not make the 'Wow' category because of the blown highlights at the top of the fall. There is also the rather strange shaft of light that crosses from the left hand side of the image and catches the base of the trees on the right. It is difficult to decide where it has come from and seems unreal. There is also the trees on the right of the image that detract from the overall composition because they tend to 'block' entry into the image and they make the image unbalanced.
Really borders on Great/Wow but it does not make the 'Wow' category because of the blown highlights at the top of the fall. There is also the rather strange shaft of light that crosses from the left hand side of the image and catches the base of the trees on the right. It is difficult to decide where it has come from and seems unreal. There is also the trees on the right of the image that detract from the overall composition because they tend to 'block' entry into the image and they make the image unbalanced.
White House Ruin (no other information) (p. 129)
The dramatic striations on the cliff face lead the eye towards the main element of the picture. Unfortunately the 'white house' itself fails to retain interest. The development has created a bland, poorly contrasted main subject that is dominated by the area in which it is located. One would also question the decision to include the foliage at the bottom of the picture that seems to be unnecessary in portraying the overall message.
O.K.
Alfred Stieglitz, An American Place New York City 1935 (p. 7)
For me the face of Stieglitz, surely the primary subject of the photograph is too small a part of the overall image. There is also a lack of definition on the left hand side of his face so that there is a sense of imbalance. One has to take into account that this was a 'grabbed' image as Stieglitz walked towards Adams but I only know this because of the script of this section. In the Introduction (p vii) Adams writes: "I cannot, and will not, attempt to describe, analyze, or define the creative-emotional motivations of my work, or the work of others. Description of the inspiration or the meaning of a work of photography, or of any other medium of art, lies in the work itself." Whilst an approach that has a great deal to commend it to all photographers it does leave open the door to mis-interpretation by the viewer.
Boards and Thistles San Francisco c. 1932 (p. 29)
If the image had been of the boards I would have rated the image higher, given the texture and lighting of this element of the photograph. It is the inclusion of the thistles that fail the overall impact of the image as there inclusion is difficult to understand. The structure and detail of this part of the image strike a jarring note.
Rose and Driftwood San Francisco, California c. 1932 (p 33)
The combination of the two elements of this image does not work. The sworl pattern of the driftwood does not complement the structure and texture of the rose. It distracts and the eye flits from one to the other. It is a brilliant picture of the rose, one can almost feel the softness of the petals. The background, provided presumably by the driftwood, is fussy and inappropriate.
Carolyn Anspacher San Francisco c. 1932 (p 37)
I think that it is the strange lighting on the face that detracts from this image particularly the shadow under the eyes.. There is loss of detail in the back of the hair although this is of less importance.
Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 (p. 41)
Described by Adams as his most popular single image it fails to impress. The moon is a relatively small dot in the black sky and the eye.
Aspens Northern New Mexico 1958 (p. 61)
An almost abstract image apart from the brightly lit tree in the left foreground. Does not quite work for me because of the presence of this tree which drags the eye back rather than allowing it to explore the right hand side of the image which is far more interesting. There is a second image in this part of the book that is just the right hand side of the first shown image which, for me, is a far better image.
Mount Williamson (no other information) (p. 67)
The rocks in the bottom half of the image dominate whereas the interest and better part of the image is at the top. It is almost as though Adams had taken to heart the common advice to have something in the foreground but in this case it has become an almost impenetrable barrier.
Mount McKinley and Wonder Lake Denali National Park Alaska 1947 (p. 75)
There is very little to commend this image with the blocked out shadows and the lack of any real detail in the water of the lake. Mount McKinley (I assume that is the massif in the background) appears surrealistic because of the way it has been exposed and developed. It reminds me of a meringue (Baked Alaska).
Rock and Surf Big Sur California c. 1951 (p.87)
The large rock in the foreground is superfluous (the rock on the water's edge provides an ideal foreground point of interest) and diminishes the far outcrop by comparison. Having said that there is a large amount of detail of interest in the picture including the clouds and overall the print is very good.
Farm Family Melones California c. 1953 (p.95)
My initial idea was to place this image amongst the 'Greats' but on further thought there was something about the composition that does not quite work. The figure in the foreground dominates the image and the other figures are (literally) in shadow. Had the image been entitled 'Patriarch' the portrayed relationship between the four people would better fit. The actual composition does not suggest 'family'. As a technical piece of work it is almost faultless.
Silverton Colorado 1951 (p. 99)
The placement of the houses against the backdrop of the mountain does not work. It is difficult to decide context and the geographical relationship between the two elements - how close is the mountain to the houses?
The Black Sun Owens Valley California 1939 (p. 125)
The only redeeming feature in this image is the stream and landscape elements in the right bottom corner of the image. The 'black sun' is just distracting and seems more like a mistake in development but as the accompanying notes explain it was a deliberate decision. The tree that dominates the left hand side of the image together with the ground upon which it stands is too dark and whilst texture is retained one cannot help feeling that concentration on this part of the image would have produced a much better picture.
Moon and Half Dome Yosemite National Park California 1960 (p.133)
An image that is possibly one of Adams' most famous images. For me the image is not 'great' because of the large black blob that dominates the left hand corner. One is left wondering what it is (could be someone's arm) and why it was included in the image. There is also the problem of the blocked shadows on the right hand side. Of course it is easy to criticise from the comfort of one's armchair as one does not know how much leeway to move was available.
Edward Weston Carmel Highlands California c. 1940 (p. 145)
The balance between the subject and the surround is not right. It is difficult to decide what we are seeing - the image of a tree with the human figure there to provide scale or an image designed to illustrate the puny nature of man in nature. Much is revealed in the accompanying commentary but to take Adams at his word and to see the image as presented means that it is just confusing.
Sand Dune Oceano California c.1950 (p. 149)
An image that does not quite make it. Take away the title and it could be almost anything.
Nope
Frozen Lake and Cliffs Sierra Nevada, Sequoia National Park 1932 (p. 11)
The image could almost be an abstract but we are told in the title what we are looking at. The image fails on a number of fronts. The blocked out shadows at the bottom of the picture leads us to a layer of snow that is devoid of detail. The snow at the bottom of the cliffs with what appears to be a rock fall within is a strange grey with a texture that may be real but which looks decidedly odd. Shadows on the cliff face are blocked out and overall I found it to be a very unsatisfactory image.
Surf Sequence San Mateo County Coast, California, c. 1940 (p. 22)
It was only by reading the accompanying notes that I could make any real sense of this image. This is largely due to being used to seeing the sky where the surf is in this picture. Even knowing what it is there remains a sense of unreality. The composition leaves a lot to be desired and the three main elements (shadow, scree and surf) are in disharmony and fight for ones attention.
Lodgepole Pines Lyell Fork of the Merced River, Yosemite National Park c. 1921 (p. 49)
Reading the accompanying article one supposes that this image is an experiment in soft focus. The result is poor by any standards but this may be due to the lightness of the rocks and trees in the middle of the picture.
Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn Yosemite National Park c. 1950 (p. 53)
The eye finds it difficult to settle on any particular spot and the overall impression is of an image that tries to provide too much information. The is no doubt about the very high quality of the printing and the capture of detail and texture overall but as a composition it fails.
Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman Orderville, Utah c. 1961 (p. 71)
The subject of this image is Martha Porter but the dominant feature is the porch support on the right of the picture. Brightly lit and textured it immediately attracts attention and further study. The presence of the woman seems almost incidental. The portrait element fails to do justice to the subject and greater attention to lighting and developing to emphasise the character and life history etched into the face of this woman would have led to a much more striking image.
Buddhist Grave Markers and Rainbow Paia, Hawaii c. 1956 (p. 83)
My initial response was - this is awful. On further examination I feel I was being too kind. The rainbow could be anything. The jumble of grave markers with the white one on top is exactly that - a jumble.
St Francis Church Ranchos de Taos New Mexico c. 1929 (p. 91)
It may be the limitations of the equipment used or difficulties with developing the image but this image is a massive disappointment. The most appropriate treatment would, I suggest, lie in deepening the shadows to emphasise the shape of the church and to bring out the texture. There is also a need for the introduction of a human figure or other marker that would give the viewer to make a clue to the size. As shown it could be a child's sandcastle shot from low down.
Old Water Tower San Francisco California 1961 (p. 159)
There is nothing about this image that attracts me. It is badly composed and the domination of the tower created by its central location in the image does not allow any judgement on its size and its relation to the surrounding buildings.
Winter Sunrise Sierra Nevada from Lone Pine California 1944 (p. 163)
A four layered 'cake' that fails to impress. The black mass in the middle of the image where there is virtually no detail gives the impression that there is a hole in the landscape upon which the sun lit mountain stands. A real disaster.
Graffiti Abandoned Military Installation Golden Gate Recreational Area California 1982 (p. 167)
One is left wondering 'Why?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)