1) I don’t need to have my work validated by anyone. If people like it, well, that’s fantastic, in fact, it’s a privilege. If they don’t, Oh well! That’s just too bad. I have a particular vision in mind, and selfish as it may seem, I want to pursue that vision, I photograph for me. It’s a deeply personal affair. Intimate even. It’s something in-built. I just have to do it. I need to express myself creatively. Always have done, always will. (Perhaps this paragraph should say ‘I’m not really good enough’).

2) For me, photography finishes as soon as the shutter button is pressed. It seems, for many, that’s where it begins. I would like to class myself as a photographer and not a photoshopper (please forgive the invented word). Now coming back to competitions, I was looking at the results of the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition. What struck me was the amount of winning entries that are obviously photoshopped beyond the real. It seems more time is spent working on an image than was actually spent taking the bloody photo. The hours spent making these pseudo faux images is not photography. Now I have no objection to people producing imagery and calling it digital art (or whatever), I do object it being passed off as ‘photography’. Have a look at www.1x.com and see what I mean. It’s a land of make-believe and pseudo intellectualism.

Perhaps you don’t care!

Perhaps you don’t give a toss at seeing images that really don’t belong on this planet because they are so fake they could not possibly be taken on this planet. Perhaps you don’t care at seeing virtual, unreal images that really beggar belief (I’m still talking landscapes here).

I think that this is totally destructive to photography in the long term. I think this computer and gadget driven fetish will wear off one day. I think people will become sick of pretend imagery and sick being sold new gimmicks such as blink detection, smile detection etc. How about having a gimmick on your shiny new 20 mega pixel camera called ‘crap photo detection’. Now THAT will be worth having!

I just wonder what Photoshop CS 7 will offer YOU! and how Adobe will flog it to you. Instead of the ‘magic removal tool’ how about a ‘crap photo detection’ filter. Now THAT will be worth having! Cameras and Photoshop can only be developed to a finite degree. They must, at some time come to a point where they can not be developed further. This must give the R&D teams at Adobe and the camera companies sheer NIGHTMARES.

Do I photoshop my images. Yes I do. But I do so with restraint. Levels, contrast, sharpening, toning, exposure, de-spotting, dodging, burning and that is it. I am only prepared to spend 20 minutes on a picture. A bad picture is a bad picture is a bad picture regardless of relentless photoshopping. I would like to see an end to photography competitions that are also photoshop competitions. I would like to see an image judged on the basis of the RAW file as well as the finished picture. That way the photographer’s photoshop skills can be judged independently from his/her photography skills. The finished result should still look realistic – and that’s the point.

Now coming back to the original start point, one of the judges of the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition (UK) is Charlie Waite. I admire Mr. Waite’s work. I have a couple of his books. He is the standard to which I aspire. A man who shoots largely on film using 6×6 Hasselblads (I believe). I am quite shocked that he accepts the degree of photoshopped entries to the competition. Brilliant images they are, without doubt. Photographs they are not.

When is a Landscape not a Landscape? -When its not photoshopped into being unreal. It’s the extent to which Photoshop is used.

Dark Pool. Leica M2, Kodak 125PX in Moersch Tanol. Exposed using 'Sunny 16' near Betws Y Coed, North Wales.

]]> http://angryskies.co.uk/blog/?feed=rss2&p=293 0 http://angryskies.co.uk/blog/?p=250 http://angryskies.co.uk/blog/?p=250#comments Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:28:42 +0000 Wye Photography http://angryskies.co.uk/blog/?p=250 [...]]]>

Y Gribin and Beyond Bristly Ridge - Canon Powershot G11

Most mountain photography, as you know, is taken from a nice safe position at the bottom, looking up. The view looking down affords you a different perspective, especially if the weather is good. At least, I’ll come back with the typical tourist photos. I’m happy with that! Part of the satisfaction is making it to the top, fear of heights and all. Making a few good exposures is icing on the cake. Part of my motive is inspired by Mr. Poucher’s book ‘Welsh Peaks’, of which I would like to emulate and produce a more up-to-date version in colour. Part of my mission is to photograph the route up the mountain and to produce a guide of safe Snowdonia walking. Too many people are needlessly killed or injured because of ignorance and sheer stupidity.

Here’s to a good weekend!  Yours as well as mine.

The view from Tryfan summit.

Now before I move on to some actual photos, perhaps a little history may be of interest. Morris is often viewed as one of those quintessential British occupations. Dressed in white, bells, sticks (or kerchiefs), music of sorts and with the the occasional ululation. Often it is viewed as quaint, queer and with pagan over tones. In fact, the origins are Spanish and the dance originated from when the Spanish kicked the Moors from out of the Iberian peninsula. The original was called the Moresco and still survives in some parts of Spain. The dance was exported to France, Italy and, of course, to Britain where, in the late 15th century, it was known as the Moorish. Moorish became Morris. It’s a war dance where swords were used in stead of today’s sticks and kerchiefs. Over time it has developed into a small number of distinct styles and perhaps the blackened faces of some dancers represents the dark skin of those very cultured Moors.

So, here’s the pix, and if you’re interested I used my EOS 40D with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in aperture priority at f1.8 or f2.8.

In the background I have been quite busy, what with the work commitments work as well. I have trundled over the Carneddau (Snowdonia, North Wales) taking in four of the fourteen Welsh 3000 peaks. The legs hated me. I am still processing the pix, the light was good for scrambling/hiking, not good for photography. It was very diffuse and hazy, there is also a strange reflectance from the rock. Its hard to explain, but it does effect the quality of light. On the Snowdon massif itself there’s no problem, that’s a different sort of rock. On the Glyders and the Carneddau which share the same kind of glaciation erosion the light can have this certain quality. I don’t like it myself. Anyway, I’ll process a few and see what happens. Incidentally, on the 13hr hike (yes! That’s a long story) I took my Canon G11 and EOS 40D.

I am still working on the wedding and portrait gallery, I hope to have that completed in the next few months. And finally, cyanotypes. Yes, I have been producing some of these quite fascinating easy-to-do prints. This is part of my long term plan to bring ‘everything’ in-house, just in case film goes the way of the Dodo, or becomes more expensive than I think is economically viable.

Right, my finger aches (I’m a one fingered touch typist, with an amazing rate of ten words per minute), it needs a rest and a coffee.

All the best and ciao for now.

I have committed the cardinal Sin of every monochrome photographer, I have decided to start a colour gallery. I feel like a heretic. Unclean. I don’t really see things in colour and the new gallery consists of photos taken from my trips to Snowdonia over the last four years. In fact, I have found that a good number of the pictures taken lend themselves to colour. I am quite pleased with result, but the acid test is knowing what you think, please take a few minutes and let me know.

To go to the Gallery.
http://wyephotography.zenfolio.com/thecword

Leica M2.
I had to flog some gear, but, finally, I bought an M2. I love it. The smooth film advance, the solid feel, the bright rangefinder, easy to use with glasses and that wonderful shutter sound. Heaven! So superior to the Barnack cameras but many of the sentiments are the same. I do love the finder. It feels as if you are looking right through the camera and directly at the subject. In fact, the camera melts away and become an extension of the eye. It is, without doubt, the best rangefinder I have used. Like the IIIc mention below, the M2 is so tactile, the milled metal, the vulcanite. Love it! The M2 is a huge leap from the Barnack cameras. One word of caution, the 50mm frame on the M3 and the 35mm frame on the M2 are difficult to use if you have, what Leica succinctly calls, ‘defective eye sight’ (1950′s manual). To the rest of us that means you are a genetically inferior glasses or spectacle wearing specimen who should not really be using a Leica in the first place. Can I conclude that only perfect Human specimens can use the perfect camera? Sorry, Adolf, I didn’t quite catch that…

Leica IIIc
I have wanted one of these cameras for years and when one was offered at a very good price, well, mine it became, and disappointed I am not. It came with a 1936 un-coated heavily scratched and slightly hazy f2 5cm Summar. It just had to be replaced and this was with the f2 5cm Summitar (1949). The venerable Summar still has its place, it’s soft and it flares. Some would call it the Leica glow, and yes, the lens has character. It has low contrast (Hello photoshop), but, even so, the sharpness and resolution isn’t that far behind the Canonet (below). I just love it. The IIIc is so tactile, the milled metal knobs, the satisfying weight, the feel in the hands, it’s so right. It says shoot with me. Even the separate VF and RF is just brill. No light meter, no plastic, no battery, no electronics, no controlling micro computers. REAL PHOTOGRAPHY – YOU in control. It’s slow, it forces you to THINK, to STOP, to ANTICIPATE.

Of course, both have no light meter so either an external meter or the use of the Sunny 16 (or Overcast 5.6 if living in the UK) rule will have to do. I would recommend becoming practised at the Sunny 16 rule as it does liberate you from inherently misleading light meters.

So, briefly, how does it compare. I can only make a comparison with my Canon Canonet GIII QL17 and Fed 3 rangefinders and quite a number of Japanese and Russian SLR cameras. Mechanically, the Leica is way ahead. Solidly built with very smooth gearing. You can not only tell by the physically smooth action but also by the sound. The Leica just sounds indescribably smooth. On the other hand, the Japanese and Russian cameras just do the job. Inherently, the horrid and ratchet sound to their mechanism is indicative of an inferior design, build, materials and mass production. My Yashica Mat 124G sounds like its about to make an espresso.  The Japanese and Russian cameras feel functional in the hand, whilst the Leica (and to the same degree the Rolleiflex) feel reassuringly pleasurable.  The Japanese and Russian cameras just get the job done, the Leica adds to the pleasure and experience.

Optically the same thing applies. I have had 5 Leica lenses, 4 from the R system and 1M. All superb, especially the 50mm f2 that was on my R camera. The bokeh was so good it gave some images an almost 3D like quality that seemed to pop from the print. My M Summarit is a 1949 screw lens with an M adapter, it performs slightly behind the exceptional lens on the canonet. I put this down to the fact that the Summarit, being a 1949 vintage is showing its age with some internal markings. I think when I have a more recent lens on the M2 I will be able to produce a better comparison. One characteristic I find among my Japanese lenses is the fact that they commonly have a very sharp centre and a soft edge (which improves until you reach equilibrium at f11). The Leica lenses on the other hand are much, much more consistent in sharpness across the frame. I actually prefer this.

To conclude I would say that the Leica is a status symbol, its an elitist trade mark, you buy into the culture and the elitism, the feeling. The cameras are better quality than the ‘compitition’ beyond doubt and together with the best lenses available for the 35mm format make an irresistible allure. BUT, their price point, even second hand, is BEYOND their worth. It is this fact that makes the Leica the afore mentioned elitist rich man’s toy. Should you buy one? Perhaps! I suppose it depends for what reason you want to buy. Is it to own a piece of camera history? or the simple pleasure of use? or to join that exclusive club? or is your ego so weak you need to feel better than everyone else by the power of camera bling? or perhaps you feel your photography is so inadequate that owning a make used by Cartier-Bresson or Salgado will somehow make you feel better? One thing for sure, no matter how good a camera it won’t make you a better photographer!

When I started photography in the early ’80′s with the Praktica MTL5 things really didn’t change much for years. That all came to an abrupt end in 1999 with the launch of Nikon’s D1. I think the last decade has see more camera launches than the previous 3 at least. Perhaps more.

I bought my first digital in 1997, I think it was the Casio QV-10. I was hooked. The fact that I was also hooked on Macs made it even sweeter. I think the QV-10 had a resolution of 640 x 480  – something like that. The results were – well, pretty interesting. I have distinct memories of the camera getting really hot and draining the batteries very quickly. How things have changed! I purchased my first professional digital camera in 2003, the Canon EOS D60. Of course, it revolutionised my small photography business, even better, my beloved Mac became part of that business. I was in paradise. Computing, designing and photographing all day. It was a happy obsession – for a while.

I used the D60 for all my personal work as well. Following a discussion with a fellow wedding photographer I switched to a Fuji Finepix S2, mainly for the wonderful colour and skin tones so vital to wedding photography. Finally, the S2 was joined by a Nikon 1Dx and then later, an S5. I didn’t use film for quite a few years.

Yet, there was an intense dissatisfaction with digital. On the professional commercial side, yeah, no problems, very happy there. It was in my personal work where I was suffering. There I am a monochrome shooter and I was rather sick of ‘converting’ to monochrome, or people commenting “that’s a nice ‘conversion’ “. It felt ‘impure’. So I started shooting film again. Out came my favourite film cameras, my Leica, my Fujifilm GA 645Zi, my XA, my Canonet QL17 GIII, my Rolleiflex and my Yashica Mat 124G. Oh! and a few others recently added.

What I had missed was the gorgeous tones, the subtle way film renders light, that wonderful grain structure, the texture, the dymanic range, the bokeh, the incredible resolution and sharpness of medium format. So film has been fighting back over the past few years, especially in MF. I think I shoot more with film now than with digital. I have nothing against digital. It clearly doesn’t suit all applications and tastes.

It’s nice to know some things haven’t changed though. Amateurs are still obsessed with ‘tech specs’ and data charts ‘immediacy’ and all that crap. It is an insecurity fueled by amateur photography magazines and manipulated by the subtle language they use. It is a bit like a carpenter obsessing about his lathe or chisels. No! The carpenter focuses on the finished result. In our case it is the picture be it produced by a Box Brownie, a Holga, Pinhole, Large Format or a Nikon D3.

Another thought struck me as we ended the decade. And that thought is that I feel sorry for the Research and development departments of the camera companies. It must be an incredible pressure to come up with the next gimmick that will make you guys rush off to replace your month’s old camera. Remember how reviewers derided the first implementation of ‘Live View’ in the Olympus E330? OK, fledgling technology now De facto. What will they try to sell to you next? Remember! The purpose of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus etc. is to MAKE MONEY.

It makes me laugh when people say, as did a work colleague did recently “I can shoot all day and it doesn’t cost me a penny”. The fact is, I have spent more money on digital than I ever did on film. Take into the count of the cost of your computer (and its upgrades) the associated software (and their upgrades) the camera (and the upgrades). How much?

My Mac cost me (and I am rounding figures for ease) £1000 plus £250 for a 22″monitor, software £600, printer £300, camera £750, lenses (10-20mm, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 all Sigma) £1300. Total £3900. That doesn’t include the number of upgrades over the last ten years or consumables or my back-up bodies. OK, I’m a pro and I had to buy the kit that does the job (portrait, social, but mainly wedding), you are probably an amateur and probably have spent less. You may have bought a EOS 5D, in which case you may have spent a good deal more. Why not calculate your expenditure for the decade right now! I won’t tell your wife! We’ll keep that secret! For convenience we’ll use a contemporary figure of £3000. Neither can you say you don’t upgrade at some point. You all do. I do. I’ve spent like you wouldn’t believe. My income is less than £20,000.

So that £3000 equates to 600 rolls of colour film or 1000 rolls of B&W. Half that if you have, say 7×5 prints as well. 300 rolls of colour film is 10,800 prints. On just some very rough figures that is an incredible amount of film/prints for all your current digital ‘stuff’. Take into account that to manufacture your digital hardware is incredibly un-un-green. A computer has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture. Shockingly so in fact.

So, film is cheaper, greener and has better all round quality than digital.

So why digital? Yes, its very convenient. The hardware/software companies have you locked in a perpetual upgrade cycle. They are making more money than ever. This is not an argument against digital, I use it exclusively for all my commercial work. These are my thoughts of the decade. So, to conclude, I would like to leave you with the thought on the next 10 years. What cameras will we be taking about at the end of this new decade?

And finally. Despite the computerised control device (aka camera) you may be using, what goals have you set yourself. For me, it is to improve the portfolio, sell more prints, get more visitors, build up a reputation.

All the best.