Another book given to me as a Christmas present. Have worked my way through it over the past couple of days. Immediate impressions are that there is an advantage living or being able to travel to Scotland given the number of selections from that area and that there is a range of images some of which where it is difficult to see the element of 'landscape' (see the image of the wheelchair competitor). As ever in such selections there are those that you are immediately attracted to and think that really is good and those that you just think 'yeah alright' and occasionally the ones where you wonder what the judges saw that you are not seeing.
I went back over them trying to work out why I reacted as I did and whether there was any discernible pattern in my reactions. Perhaps not surprisingly I reacted positively to those that reflected my own views about what makes a great landscape picture and negatively where I was left wondering why it was in a landscape competition. For example I would not question the competence and vision of the image of an 'English Breakfast' in the foreground with our eye taken through the window towards an urban scene including a train but it left me cold (although feeling hungry!). My conclusion is that we are attracted to those images that confirm our view of the world in the same way that we choose the newspaper we read where we look for confirmation of our opinions and taste. Few of us like to step outside our comfort zone in most aspects of our lives and photography is no different.
These thoughts led me to thinking about what I gained from looking at the work of other photographers. If I am pre-disposed to choosing a particular style of photography that I enjoy and tend to concentrate on is there any real benefit from looking at different styles? Whilst it easy to suggest that one should approach all styles of photography with an open mind it is very rarely the case that this happens. As I proposed in an earlier blog photography is fashion led and styles move in and out of popularity. Those for whom photography is a way of making a living or are encouraged by their success in exhibitions and competitions know that they have to adjust to the latest dominant fashion in order to be successful. I once attended a talk by a well known landscape photographer who showed his work accumulated over a number of years. His early work was of landscapes of a quality that one could only aspire to. His later work was more 'creative' and less impressive and he told the audience that he had found it necessary to make the change because his work was no longer being accepted for exhibitions as landscapes were no longer fashionable. I was left wondering why this was the case. The problem was solved for me within a fortnight when a competition judge made the remark "not another one of the Tuscan landscape". From that and subsequent remarks heard at competitions and exhibition selections it became evident that the eye and mind become jaded and alights on something different even if of a inferior quality with a sigh of relief.
I conclude that whilst looking at the work of different artists and photographers may provide me with inspiration it is most likely to do so in an area with which I feel most comfortable. It may suggest a different venue or an area that I have not visited but in improving my work I am less than sure. If I want to be good or better at photographing mountains or urban landscapes the best way for me to do that is go and photograph them. Each time I should be critical of what has been achieved and work out at what I was less successful aiming to improve each time. A second opinion and some 'tricks of the trade' based on my work is one of the reasons I am following this Course. I will only be able to judge my success at the end when I have learnt sufficient to be awarded a degree.
Saturday 31 December 2011
Tuesday 27 December 2011
Velvet Water
Got the book The Landscape Photography Workshop (Ross Hoddinott & Mark Bauer, Photographers Institute Press 2011) in my stocking at Christmas. Lots of useful information about landscape photography and tips for getting it right. As you would expect from a book based on workshop teaching it is overly prescriptive that offers the methodology and approach of the authors with only passing reference to other methods by other photographers that are as equally effective. However it does have the advantage of being well constructed and I was left feeling that I had gained a great deal from it.
My pet hate is 'velvet water' the effect created by a long exposure when photographing moving water. The authors go as far as to add Neutral Density filters to lengthen the exposure. I realise it is all a matter of taste but personally I think it is gimmicky and gives the image a wholly unrealistic look. Granted it works in some situations where the structure and texture of the water is not a key element but in other shots it simply looks ridiculous (for me the best example of the latter is the image on page 102).
My hope is that, in common with all so called 'creative gimmicks', there will be the natural reaction, when something has been flogged to death, of returning to photographing nature as we perceive it. Fortunately or unfortunately photography is fashion dominated (think about landscape photography and its demise) and it requires a great deal of courage to fly in the face of fashion particularly if you wish to be recognised and exhibited so fashions last longer than what one would see as their natural life. It is interesting to go back and follow these fashions through a period trying to identify the trigger that created them (e.g. colour film, digital cameras and the availability of increasingly sophisticated software) and what brought about their demise.
I sometimes think that it would be a useful exercise to give a box brownie to the 'greart' photographers of our present era and ask them to produce a portfolio of say 10 images (no post processing allowed)and see what they come up with. Too often one gets the impression that success lies in the competence and skill of the post processing staff (frequently not the photographer) rather than the image captured in camera. (I personally will continue to use the best camera I can afford and the latest software available!!)
My pet hate is 'velvet water' the effect created by a long exposure when photographing moving water. The authors go as far as to add Neutral Density filters to lengthen the exposure. I realise it is all a matter of taste but personally I think it is gimmicky and gives the image a wholly unrealistic look. Granted it works in some situations where the structure and texture of the water is not a key element but in other shots it simply looks ridiculous (for me the best example of the latter is the image on page 102).
My hope is that, in common with all so called 'creative gimmicks', there will be the natural reaction, when something has been flogged to death, of returning to photographing nature as we perceive it. Fortunately or unfortunately photography is fashion dominated (think about landscape photography and its demise) and it requires a great deal of courage to fly in the face of fashion particularly if you wish to be recognised and exhibited so fashions last longer than what one would see as their natural life. It is interesting to go back and follow these fashions through a period trying to identify the trigger that created them (e.g. colour film, digital cameras and the availability of increasingly sophisticated software) and what brought about their demise.
I sometimes think that it would be a useful exercise to give a box brownie to the 'greart' photographers of our present era and ask them to produce a portfolio of say 10 images (no post processing allowed)and see what they come up with. Too often one gets the impression that success lies in the competence and skill of the post processing staff (frequently not the photographer) rather than the image captured in camera. (I personally will continue to use the best camera I can afford and the latest software available!!)
Saturday 24 December 2011
Photographer John Pfahl
One advantage about lousy weather (cold, wet and miserable at the moment) is that you get the chance to study the work of other photographers. I had never heard of John Pfahl so visited his web-site at johnpfahl.com.
The site has examples of many of his works from 1974 onwards. You also have the benefit of the his comments so that you have some idea of the driving force behind his photography. His early work is a reflection of his environmental concerns that are part of all his subsequent work. One of his early series entitled 'Altered Landscape' is, for me, the least impressive. Landscape shots that are 'ordinary' are altered by the addition of such things as representational 'lightning' that have either been placed in the landscape by the photographer or added later in post processing. They presumably are some sort of message but are so contrived as to make the whole image appear artificial. Why Pfahl felt the need to add these artefacts is not clear and although they appear in some later work he lets the landscape speak for itself in the most recent.
There is a series entitled 'Power Places' (1981-1984) where he photographs power plants such as nuclear facilities but places them within the landscape so that they are but a small part. I thought these were very powerful images that, by hinting at the intrusion of something that is almost anti nature in its conception, his message is that much more potent than a simple shot of the facility where it dominates the surrounding area. There are close up images of the grid network that whilst interesting do not have the impact of the others. On a personal level I have photographed nuclear facilities at Sizewell and Dungeness in the UK but these were close ups and I now realise that the impact was much less than if I had stepped back and shown the surrounding landscape.
There are other series such as 'Bali Suite' that is an exercise in the variation of the colour green perhaps taken out of the ordinary by the man made crop patterns and 'Smoke' that is literally what it says - photographs of smoke. I could not decide whether my indifference to this latter series was created by the sameness of too many images presented one after the other or simply disinterest in the subject matter.
If I had to choose a favourite series it would be 'Luminous River'. It is the sort of landscape photography I aspire to. My personal choice would be:
Fisherman at Shamokin Dam (Aug 2002) - the combination of the soft ethereal light with the buildings and shoreline in silhouette and the placement of a gap in the shoreline that has been placed top left draws the eye into the picture and on to the distant shoreline that is barely visible inviting the viewer to ponder what is there.
Morning light on RailRoad Viaduct (June 2004) - The arches caught by the sun that is low in the sky form a strong diagonal of repeating patterns the effect of which is increased by the reflection in the water. My favourite.
Morning Mist near Owego NY (August 2003) - The quite beautiful light, the threatening sky that provides just a glimpse of the sun, the curve of the river emphasised by the silhouetting of the river banks and the tree that dominates the left side of the image makes for a memorable and striking image.
There is a noticeable difference between his early work that seems contrived and tries too hard to put across a message and his later work where the use of light on the landscape and the relationship between the elements of the image offer a much more subtle but nevertheless powerful message. It is fairly obvious where my preference lies.
The site has examples of many of his works from 1974 onwards. You also have the benefit of the his comments so that you have some idea of the driving force behind his photography. His early work is a reflection of his environmental concerns that are part of all his subsequent work. One of his early series entitled 'Altered Landscape' is, for me, the least impressive. Landscape shots that are 'ordinary' are altered by the addition of such things as representational 'lightning' that have either been placed in the landscape by the photographer or added later in post processing. They presumably are some sort of message but are so contrived as to make the whole image appear artificial. Why Pfahl felt the need to add these artefacts is not clear and although they appear in some later work he lets the landscape speak for itself in the most recent.
There is a series entitled 'Power Places' (1981-1984) where he photographs power plants such as nuclear facilities but places them within the landscape so that they are but a small part. I thought these were very powerful images that, by hinting at the intrusion of something that is almost anti nature in its conception, his message is that much more potent than a simple shot of the facility where it dominates the surrounding area. There are close up images of the grid network that whilst interesting do not have the impact of the others. On a personal level I have photographed nuclear facilities at Sizewell and Dungeness in the UK but these were close ups and I now realise that the impact was much less than if I had stepped back and shown the surrounding landscape.
There are other series such as 'Bali Suite' that is an exercise in the variation of the colour green perhaps taken out of the ordinary by the man made crop patterns and 'Smoke' that is literally what it says - photographs of smoke. I could not decide whether my indifference to this latter series was created by the sameness of too many images presented one after the other or simply disinterest in the subject matter.
If I had to choose a favourite series it would be 'Luminous River'. It is the sort of landscape photography I aspire to. My personal choice would be:
Fisherman at Shamokin Dam (Aug 2002) - the combination of the soft ethereal light with the buildings and shoreline in silhouette and the placement of a gap in the shoreline that has been placed top left draws the eye into the picture and on to the distant shoreline that is barely visible inviting the viewer to ponder what is there.
Morning light on RailRoad Viaduct (June 2004) - The arches caught by the sun that is low in the sky form a strong diagonal of repeating patterns the effect of which is increased by the reflection in the water. My favourite.
Morning Mist near Owego NY (August 2003) - The quite beautiful light, the threatening sky that provides just a glimpse of the sun, the curve of the river emphasised by the silhouetting of the river banks and the tree that dominates the left side of the image makes for a memorable and striking image.
There is a noticeable difference between his early work that seems contrived and tries too hard to put across a message and his later work where the use of light on the landscape and the relationship between the elements of the image offer a much more subtle but nevertheless powerful message. It is fairly obvious where my preference lies.
Thursday 22 December 2011
Richard Billingham
Bought Richard Billingham's book "Landscapes 2001 - 2003". I first looked at all the images without reading the introductory essay as I find that being 'told' by someone else what they see in the images impacts upon my impressions. There is an inevitable conflict between what I see and what the writer sees that I find necessary to try to resolve.
My first impression was not positive largely because I was hearing the 'judge's voice' in my head that is probably the outcome of attending too many competitions. I found myself thinking "I would have cropped the sky out because it adds nothing to the overall image" or "It is too fussy there is no 'centre' to the image" and similar phrases so favoured by judges. Recognising the problem I re-visited the images consciously trying to see the whole and the way that the elements combined to produce the overall impact. Although in one or two cases there still remained the questions ( Hollybush 2001 and Hedge 2001 are examples) I found myself having a greater appreciation of the whole image.
The 'flat' landscape is one that I know well living in East Anglia close to the Cambridgeshire Fens and the Norfolk countryside so that the cover image Gates 2002 and Pond 2002 are types of landscape I have photographed often. There is always the the need to resolve the problem of the amount of land and sky in the image, the latter being a dominant element in the flat landscapes of East Anglia. Including the sky can emphasise the 'emptiness' of the area but also can be 'dead space' such as the sky in "Dyke 2003" where it is a featureless mass that occupies almost half of the image and does not, for me, add anything to the image.
The images I had the least liking for were the intimate landscapes such as "Sunflowers 2001", "Tree Boles 2001" and "HollyBush 2001". I found myself having no emotional response to them and wondered why they had been included.
What will I take away from this book. Certainly an appreciation of another person's approach to a subject that is one of my favourites in photography. There are some images that I would not have dreamed of taking (Storm at Sea 2001) previously that I would now attempt. Perhaps I will also be braver in breaking the rules that I seem to have imbibed by osmosis rather than consciously such as the presence of the sky and other elements. It will be interesting to review my work in a few months time to see what impact my knowledge of this book has had on my approach.
My first impression was not positive largely because I was hearing the 'judge's voice' in my head that is probably the outcome of attending too many competitions. I found myself thinking "I would have cropped the sky out because it adds nothing to the overall image" or "It is too fussy there is no 'centre' to the image" and similar phrases so favoured by judges. Recognising the problem I re-visited the images consciously trying to see the whole and the way that the elements combined to produce the overall impact. Although in one or two cases there still remained the questions ( Hollybush 2001 and Hedge 2001 are examples) I found myself having a greater appreciation of the whole image.
The 'flat' landscape is one that I know well living in East Anglia close to the Cambridgeshire Fens and the Norfolk countryside so that the cover image Gates 2002 and Pond 2002 are types of landscape I have photographed often. There is always the the need to resolve the problem of the amount of land and sky in the image, the latter being a dominant element in the flat landscapes of East Anglia. Including the sky can emphasise the 'emptiness' of the area but also can be 'dead space' such as the sky in "Dyke 2003" where it is a featureless mass that occupies almost half of the image and does not, for me, add anything to the image.
The images I had the least liking for were the intimate landscapes such as "Sunflowers 2001", "Tree Boles 2001" and "HollyBush 2001". I found myself having no emotional response to them and wondered why they had been included.
What will I take away from this book. Certainly an appreciation of another person's approach to a subject that is one of my favourites in photography. There are some images that I would not have dreamed of taking (Storm at Sea 2001) previously that I would now attempt. Perhaps I will also be braver in breaking the rules that I seem to have imbibed by osmosis rather than consciously such as the presence of the sky and other elements. It will be interesting to review my work in a few months time to see what impact my knowledge of this book has had on my approach.
Sunday 18 December 2011
Joe Cornish
Had the opportunity to watch the DVD "With Landscape in Mind - a photographic trip with Joe Cornish".
Not overly impressed although there were some good(i.e. those that I liked) images. Far too much time devoted to getting to the destination and watching and listening to Joe Cornish set up his expensive looking camera. I assume that the end result was worth it (though not evident from the end result on the DVD) but in one particular part of the commentary he mentions the speed with which the light is changing whilst at the same time is trying to get the settings on his camera correct. It occurred to me that the facilities on the camera were getting in the way of getting the image. Sometimes trying to get the perfect shot means that it just passed you by.
Although composition at the end of the day is a matter of personal taste I found his shots of the limestone pavement did not work. In two of the shots the limestone blocks the image and the far landscape and the pavement do not appear to be part of the same scene. Also some of his 'close ups' lacked any meaningful structure (not in the sense of a building but in an awareness of the pattern(s) within the trees and foliage) so that I found my eye failing to find anywhere to settle.
I visited his web site to see other examples of his work. Within the limitations of the size at which the prints could be viewed there were some stunning images and I presume that it is on the basis of these that his reputation is built. I knew of his reputation and this was the reason that I purchased the DVD. Do I think it was worth it? Not really. As a tutorial it lacks real direction and as an example of landscape photography it left much to be desired.
I would stress that this is my personal opinion and it is probable that others will take a different view.
Not overly impressed although there were some good(i.e. those that I liked) images. Far too much time devoted to getting to the destination and watching and listening to Joe Cornish set up his expensive looking camera. I assume that the end result was worth it (though not evident from the end result on the DVD) but in one particular part of the commentary he mentions the speed with which the light is changing whilst at the same time is trying to get the settings on his camera correct. It occurred to me that the facilities on the camera were getting in the way of getting the image. Sometimes trying to get the perfect shot means that it just passed you by.
Although composition at the end of the day is a matter of personal taste I found his shots of the limestone pavement did not work. In two of the shots the limestone blocks the image and the far landscape and the pavement do not appear to be part of the same scene. Also some of his 'close ups' lacked any meaningful structure (not in the sense of a building but in an awareness of the pattern(s) within the trees and foliage) so that I found my eye failing to find anywhere to settle.
I visited his web site to see other examples of his work. Within the limitations of the size at which the prints could be viewed there were some stunning images and I presume that it is on the basis of these that his reputation is built. I knew of his reputation and this was the reason that I purchased the DVD. Do I think it was worth it? Not really. As a tutorial it lacks real direction and as an example of landscape photography it left much to be desired.
I would stress that this is my personal opinion and it is probable that others will take a different view.
Sunday 11 December 2011
Ansel Adams
I have mixed feelings about the value of studying the work of other photographers. On the one hand you can get a great deal of inspiration from the work of others but at the risk of becoming a copyist rather than a photographer. On the other hand is the best way to encourage a photographer to take great pictures of Yosemite to tell him to study the work of Ansel Adams or to go to Yosemite and take photographs. There is also a risk that famous photographers reach the point that what ever they take is seen necessarily as 'good' or even 'great'. The images are judged by reference to the photographer rather than there intrinsic qualities.
There is no denying that Ansel Adams produced some stunning images and a trawl through his work finds many examples. I visited the web site www.ansel-adams.com.. There can be seen such images as Yosemite Valley Thunderstorm (1945); White House Ruin (1960); Golden Gate Headlands (1950) and Moon and Half Dome (1960) plus my particular favourite Jeffrey Pine (1940). All show Adam's sense of composition and drama and his use of the whole range of tones in black and white add an almost magical quality. The 'Jeffrey Pine" is, for me, the best example of his skills. The texture of the tree in the photograph is such that you feel that you can reach out and feel its roughness and age.
In 1941 the National Park Service commissioned Adams to create a photo mural for the Department of the Interior Building in Washington, DC. The theme was to be nature as exemplified and protected in the U.S. National Parks. The project was suspended following America's entry into the Second World War but was never resumed. The photographs that Adams did take are in the National Archives and can be seen at www.archives.gov/research/ansel-adams. They include many landscapes from the National Parks but also some close ups of the Boulder Dam and surprisingly, for me anyway, some portraits of Native Americans.
Many of the images are of the high quality that we expect from Adams but others are less impressive and some are poor by modern day standards. In the first category there is The Tetons - Snake River (archive no 79AAG-1) that is perhaps one of his better known works. Whilst in the latter is Death Valley National Monument (archive no 79AAD-1) and Church Taos Pueblo New Mexico (archive no 79AAQ-2). His portraits suggest that he was more comfortable photographing wide open spaces than humans. The portraits have a woodenness that suggests that there was little rapport between photographer and subject.
What is my personal learning from looking at the work of a great landscape photographer? I am not sure at this stage because I need to think about what I saw. The exceptional element in Adams work is the creation of texture and depth through the use of the whole tonal range and this is something that I would wish to emulate in my own monochromatic work. His composition and use of space is good although sometimes you are left feeling that there was a better shot there somewhere. Yosemite Valley Thunderstorm, for example, leaves me with a sense of being 'blocked in' by the solidity of the mountains either side and this feeling is not helped by the lighting on the two opposite faces. I feel as though I want to be further away so that the thunderous sky is more dominant in the image and to give a sense of the grandeur of the scene that we are being shown.
There is no denying that Ansel Adams produced some stunning images and a trawl through his work finds many examples. I visited the web site www.ansel-adams.com.. There can be seen such images as Yosemite Valley Thunderstorm (1945); White House Ruin (1960); Golden Gate Headlands (1950) and Moon and Half Dome (1960) plus my particular favourite Jeffrey Pine (1940). All show Adam's sense of composition and drama and his use of the whole range of tones in black and white add an almost magical quality. The 'Jeffrey Pine" is, for me, the best example of his skills. The texture of the tree in the photograph is such that you feel that you can reach out and feel its roughness and age.
In 1941 the National Park Service commissioned Adams to create a photo mural for the Department of the Interior Building in Washington, DC. The theme was to be nature as exemplified and protected in the U.S. National Parks. The project was suspended following America's entry into the Second World War but was never resumed. The photographs that Adams did take are in the National Archives and can be seen at www.archives.gov/research/ansel-adams. They include many landscapes from the National Parks but also some close ups of the Boulder Dam and surprisingly, for me anyway, some portraits of Native Americans.
Many of the images are of the high quality that we expect from Adams but others are less impressive and some are poor by modern day standards. In the first category there is The Tetons - Snake River (archive no 79AAG-1) that is perhaps one of his better known works. Whilst in the latter is Death Valley National Monument (archive no 79AAD-1) and Church Taos Pueblo New Mexico (archive no 79AAQ-2). His portraits suggest that he was more comfortable photographing wide open spaces than humans. The portraits have a woodenness that suggests that there was little rapport between photographer and subject.
What is my personal learning from looking at the work of a great landscape photographer? I am not sure at this stage because I need to think about what I saw. The exceptional element in Adams work is the creation of texture and depth through the use of the whole tonal range and this is something that I would wish to emulate in my own monochromatic work. His composition and use of space is good although sometimes you are left feeling that there was a better shot there somewhere. Yosemite Valley Thunderstorm, for example, leaves me with a sense of being 'blocked in' by the solidity of the mountains either side and this feeling is not helped by the lighting on the two opposite faces. I feel as though I want to be further away so that the thunderous sky is more dominant in the image and to give a sense of the grandeur of the scene that we are being shown.
Friday 9 December 2011
Project 13 Throughout the Day
Completed this exercise during Art of Photography See http://cdsherwood.blogspot.com/2010/09/light-through-day.html
Project 12 Contrast and Exposure
The image was captured in RAW and processed in ACR. The shadows cast by the trees were dark although detail was visible whilst the Church in the background, catching the direct sun, on first examination had very little detail visible. Using the adjustment brush I reduced the exposure on the Church to bring out the detail. I also applied the same settings to the large tree on the left that too light for the balance of the image.
I converted the processed image to black and white using Silver EFex Pro2 using the neutral filter giving the above result.
Again the image was captured in RAW and processed in ACR. Here the contrast was caused by the very bright sunlight at the end of the path. In the RAW version the sky was completely blown out and there was very little detail in the trees in the patch of sunlight. I reduced the exposure for the whole image to emphasise the brighter area so that the eye is led not only by the path but would also be drawn towards the brightest area. I then used the adjustment brush to reduce further the exposure to bring out the detail in the tress that were in the sunlight. There was very little detail in the sky that had been captured so any further reduction in the exposure was fruitless.
The conversion to black and white was achieved in the same way as the first image.
The darkest areas in this image were caused by the ditch one third from the bottom of the image and the large tree to the right. Again shot in camera RAW there was virtually no detail visible in the ditch area. After processing I increased the exposure in the ditch by the use of the adjustment brush. I carried out a second reduction of exposure in the sky area as, although detail was visible t appeared washed out.
The conversion to black and white was achieved in the same way as the first two images.
I am not sure what this exercise achieved. It is probably the case that the use of film that there is reason for comparing the different results. Digitally the processing of the RAW image if carried out properly the 'result' should be when the maximum amount of detail is captured in the final image. The conversion to black and white does not alter the amount of detail captured initially and use of the available software ensures that this becomes visible.
Monday 5 December 2011
Planning
Spent part of yesterday reading through all the Course material. I had assumed that the projects would have some sort of sequence but had I thought more carefully about it I would have realised that 'opportunity' is one of the key elements. On more careful reading this is evident in the material as it is made fairly clear that each would in some way depend upon the elements. Blindingly obvious I know.
I have decided therefore that whilst I will tackle the Assignments in the order that they are set I will create a set of cards containing the projects key elements so that I can carry them in my camera bag. That means, I hope, that whilst I may set out to meet the demands of a particular project I can quickly scan through and see if I can combine the particular with other projects. My aim will be to complete all the projects by the time that I wish to make my submission for Assessment. To quote "they are all there, not necessarily in the right order" (with apologies to Morecambe and Wise).
I have decided therefore that whilst I will tackle the Assignments in the order that they are set I will create a set of cards containing the projects key elements so that I can carry them in my camera bag. That means, I hope, that whilst I may set out to meet the demands of a particular project I can quickly scan through and see if I can combine the particular with other projects. My aim will be to complete all the projects by the time that I wish to make my submission for Assessment. To quote "they are all there, not necessarily in the right order" (with apologies to Morecambe and Wise).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)