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.
Sunday, 27 April 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)