I'm flying to Zurich on Monday. Tuesday I'll be visiting Michael Kenna's exhibition opening at the Birgit Filzmaier gallery in Zurich. Got the invitation today. Cocktails at 7pm by the looks of it.
Michael Kenna is a very nice chap indeed. Off to visit a friend near Zurich for a short trip, and also cram in time to see a personal hero.
It doesn't get much better than this I reckon.
When Andy Gray balances stones to make his beach sculptures, he says he listens to the stones with his hands. I feel I know what he means. He becomes very focussed on the weight of the stone in his hands and how the balance moves and rolls around, until eventually, he finds that magic spot where the stone will balance all on its own.
I see a symmetry with composing images. When I look for compositions, I feel when the composition is just right. A step to far forwards, a slight movement of the tilt of the tripod, a millimetre adjustment, is often all it takes to make something feel right.
Andy Gray's sculptures are the best analogy I can come up with, on how one should know when a composition is right. Your attention to detail and to a gut reaction, are essentially all you need.
In 2008 I wrote an article on this blog regarding how to place ND grads on a rangefinder camera. I've since then had the occasional email from someone about how to correctly place them and I'd like to add some additional things to my original posting about this issue. I'd firstly like to start by saying that I like mistakes in my photography. I like the surprise element so I'm not too bothered whether the grad placement is exact. If I like the results, and they're pleasing to me, then that's all that I'm bothered about.
Here are a few examples of images where I really got the grad placement really wrong, and yet the images (in my opinion - which is really all that matters) are a success because of the wrong placement:
I was aware when shooting the Calanish standing stones, that placing the grad half way across them would cause the top parts of the stones to be black and the bottom parts to be correctly exposed. I wanted to make sure the sky was the same luminance as the ground so I placed the grad right above them and hoped for the best. The final image you see here has an almost halo like effect in the sky - this has been caused by the natural light fall-off that the lens exhibits being compounded by the grad. Yes, my Mamiya 7 lenses exhibit light fall-off. It is quite pronounced in the wide angles and I love the effect very much. I really like this image and felt it worked very well because the top 1/3rd of the sky is similar in tone to the lower tones of the grass.
I think one of the biggest mistakes folks make when using grads is to assume they should always go over the horizon. They don't always have to be.
And with this image taken on the Isle of Eigg, I can't quite remember my justification for keeping the grad so high - perhaps I just forgot to adjust it when I'd changed composition (this is a common mistake for a lot of photographers - rangefinder or not). Anyway, I love the effect that the grad caused and I feel it's added a lot of mood to the shot. Now imagine if I'd placed the grad correctly - would the image be as dramatic? I don't think so.
But what if the grad is just slightly too high, just not quite right? Well, in the next image, I managed to place it in the wrong place:
I think my reasons for leaving the grad a little high above the horizon was that I was worried that I'd perhaps compress the tones in the Isle of Rum on the horizon - and therefore under-expose the island. So I opted for moving the grad slightly higher, but managed to move it just a bit too high. Does it kill the image? Well, it's a personal taste question, but for me, I prefer when grads are just slightly above the horizon, as I kind of expect horizons to be bright. It gives a sense of presence to an image, so in that way, I don't think the bright horizon is too much of an issue. But now that I've pointed out to you that the grad is in the wrong place - you'll probably feel the image has an issue. If that's true - it's your problem and not mine. I feel that I'm able to take a step further away from the image and just see it in its entirety. And when I look at it, like someone would who is viewing it for the first time - I don't notice the grad placement - there's simply far too much else of interest going on for me. So I think the lesson with this is to be able to not focus on something too much. Once you notice a problem, you tend to stare at it..... once you point out a problem, everyone notices it. But if you hadn't pointed it out, most folks I reckon, wouldn't see it. What others see and what you see are two very different things.
But I'm sure there are images where the grad placement is critical. I certainly get emails from folks who tell me the grad placement was very noticeable, and for that, I'd like to suggest that the reason it is so noticeable, is because they've used too strong a grad in the first place. The tell tale signs for too strong a grad are usually overly bright grounds and dark skies. Sure, it looks dramatic, but it also suffers from being extremely sensitive to where the grad is placed. So maybe this is a lesson in easing off the strength of grad you use, and learning to tell which lighting conditions and times of day will require a 1 stop rather than a 3 stop, or a 2 stop rather than a 3 stop.
Ultimately, I don't think grad placement is really the problem. If you use the right strength of grad, over a subject which doesn't have such a dramatic change in light levels, then a little bit of bad placement shouldn't really be a problem.
Lastly, If you still think grad placement is a real problem for you - then Lee Filters now have a Rangefinder ND grad set, with a special holder with markings on it, to aid in the correct placement of the filters. I'd give that a go, if my advice doesn't help you in any way.
So I'd like to discuss objectivity a little further.
I'm sure that most of us, when we first buy a camera think that we just need to learn to use it. We think that what we need to do is learn what apertures do and what shutter speeds do. We think that technique is the most important thing.
Once we're familiar with the equipment, the second stage, I believe, is that we start to look at scenery and think 'oh, how do I convert scenery into good photographs?'. So we start on the life-long journey to improve our composition, and to gain a better understanding about light. We feel that this is where the real art is. Two stages, that's all there is isn't there to making good images? Learn the technique and then learn to 'see'.
But it's only still the beginning.
Well, what could there possibly still be to learn? The answer is - yourself.
So here are some questions I'd like you to ponder.....
Q. Do you have a tendency to narrow your view to one thing, and find it hard to see other potential images around you?
If you are close minded about your subject, then you are effectively walking past or through some great scenery and therefore great potential for images. You're walking around blinded by your desire to create something specific, rather than to create something from what is being handed to you.
Q. Do you notice how you feel when you make good images and when you make bad images?
I know when I'm making a good image because I feel it. I also know when I'm going through the motions, because my gut tells me that too. It's just up to me to listen to myself more.
Q. Do you notice small changes in light, shade and tone?
I'm not talking about whether you notice them, but whether you notice when they change. In effect, are you in tune with what is presented to you?
Q. Do you have a good sense of anticipation?
Developing a good feel for what is happening in the landscape and where it might develop, is key.
Q. Do you react badly to your photographic failures?
Being too hard on yourself kills photographic creativity.
Q. Are you impatient?
Blasting off several shots instead of letting yourself connect with what is there, is a form of photographic blindness.
Q. How do you deal with never being happy with your results?
Again, being too hard on yourself kills photographic creativity.
Q. How do you approach your projects?
Planning, patience, emotional involvement, letting things flow naturally, are all important aspects of a successful project.
Q. Do you listen to your intuition?
Your gut tells you a lot about how good the image is that you're making. It also tells you when it's time to take a rest. It also tells you to go for a stroll somewhere without any reason for doing so, only to discover that you've found a great location. Being able to let yourself flow freely and go with what your intuition is telling you - is a very powerful attribute to possess.
The above questions are really there to make you consider if you know your strengths and weaknesses when it comes to your approach to making images. What I'm really trying to do is make you consider if you are objective about what you do?
What you think is a great image today, can, as your photographic ability develops, become a poor image in a year or two. But are you aware of your progression? Do you take stock from time to time and notice how you're moving forward as a photographer?
I'm not asking if you are progressing with your work, I'm asking if you're self aware. There's a big difference.
You may learn and progress with your technique, as too, with how you 'see', but you should also be developing skills to listen to yourself, so that you know where you are going with your art.
I've noticed in my own work a simplicity that has evolved over the last 4 years or so. It's almost as if each major photographic outing I do, brings another advancement in my style. My recent trip to Iceland is a perfect example of that. I found perhaps the most simplest of landscapes to date in my own work. Black sand and white ice make for striking images, and I'm now going back later this year, because I've tapped into something I have to explore more. But this has come about, because I'm in tune with where it is that my art (myself) wants to take me - and that's only happened because I've learned a lot about myself and how I tackle my photographic projects.
If you're not so self-aware, then I hope my blog entry has given you some ideas or thoughts about how you approach your photography. It really is all in your own hands.
ps. FYI - I write a lot of e-books about photography. Some of them, like the Simplifying Composition ebook are very popular, for obvious reasons. But the ones I really value personally, are the 'approach' eBooks like Lofoten - a Photographer's Approach and Taj Mahal - a photographer's approach. These eBooks really cover the thinking processes I've gone through, rather than the 'what technical decisions' I choose. I get the occasional email from someone who tells me they find these the most useful... it's really what I want to hear, because I feel they are the most useful.
I'm in the middle of looking into setting up some printing workshops for next year. The way I see it is that i've had a lot of participants over the past few years who, if they've mastered the editing on a computer side (otherwise known as the digital dark room in my book), few, actually print their material out. For the select few who do, there seems to be an endless disagreement about what is the right way to do it. Some find their prints too dark (a common mistake), or when viewing them, I find there's a lot more that could have been done to optimise them.
What I find very interesting is how we 'read' a print. If you've been fortunate to seen the work of Ansel Adams in the flesh for instance, you soon realise what a great print is. It's very easy to think that most prints are good. Most prints are mediocre. Like your first photoshop edits, over a few years, you come back to your first prints and realise they weren't very good at all. It takes a long time to master the final print. Like I say on my workshops - there is no good-taste button in photoshop. You can go too far, over saturate, over sharpen, completely kill the image and not realise it at the time. That's where experience comes in.
I know there's a lot of technical stuff to cover, and most get very bogged down in that region. But shouldn't the final print be the final statement? How do you convey what you were feeling in the final print? Many suffer because they can't get their prints to come out in a consistent way.
Printing requires an understanding of , and adoption of colour management practices. Just how do you make sure that what you see on your computer screen - matches exactly what you anticipate in the final print? I've had so many emails from people who tell me they have their colour management 'close enough'. Well, it shouldn't be 'close enough'. That little statement suggests that it's not consistent and they're sometimes surprised by what pops out of the printer.
I'd love to give a workshop on making prints. I thought it would be great to cover some of the principles of colour management right through to digital dark room techniques and then the preparation for final output. Lastly, accurate print evaluation is really important.
I'd like to run some practical hands on workshops in my office, in the centre of Edinburgh next year. At the moment, my idea is to limit each workshop to a group of four, each with a computer, Eizo display and screen calibrator - for over a weekend. We'd go through setting up our environment for colour management, editing in the digital dark room, and producing high quality prints in a repeatable - expected way on an Epson printer.
Please don't ask me any specifics about it just yet - as I'm in the middle of trying to work it all out, but I'll let you know when I do have a more concrete syllabus for a weekend workshop.
I had a cancellation due to ill health for my Assynt workshop this October. So there is now one space available for anyone interested.
The trip originally sold out early May, but there is now a free space for anyone who would be interested in coming.
More information here.
Just a wee reminder that I'll be doing two talks this weekend (Saturday and Sunday - 11am - 12) at the Scottish Nature Photography Fair in Battleby near Perth, Scotland. More information and prices for tickets for the fair can be found at www.snh.gov.uk/snpf
In 2009, I wrote an entry on this very blog about creative procrastination. In it, I expressed a view that when one is procrastinating, it's often a sign of something else, and in this entry, it was about lack of drive. There are those that do and those that talk about doing. The people who carry through with a project are driven to do so by something deep within, while those that think about doing something and never carry through lack drive. That lack of drive can stem from a number of factors: either they're not really that interested in it, or perhaps they're suffering a form of writers-block. But what if perfectionism is the culprit?
I bought the Brooks Jensen 'single exposure' series recently. They're small A5 booklets containing small, easy to digest articles by Brooks on many subjects related to photography. One that got me this week was his article about perfectionism. I've written about this a few times in the past myself, and I entirely agree with his viewpoint that perfectionism is a form of procrastination. Except, that I think that what perfectionism does, is create a form of creative constipation (otherwise known as writers block).
By setting the bar too high, your abilities are no long able to keep up with your own standards, and ultimately, everything you do, is found to be wanting, lacking in some way. This causes severe dissatisfaction in what you're doing (which kills the whole point in why you started photography in the first place), and before you know it - the whole thought of going out with your camera to do anything, fills you with dread.
In my previous posts about Perfectionism, some of the replies indicated that Perfectionism is ultimately a destructive attitude. I completely agree. But what we need to do instead, is strive for Excellence. There is a subtle but major difference between Perfectionism and Excellence. Perfectionism is the act of striving for something that is not possible while striving for Excellence allows you the freedom to reach the best of your current abilities.
Being too much of a perfectionist, means that you may never actually finish anything, because it's never good enough, or because you feel it's not reached some unobtainable standard - and it never will.
In my own photography, It would be all too easy to look back at some of my best images, and worry that any new work will not be as good, or will not be an improvement. I think measuring yourself in this way is dangerous to your creativity. For creativity to flow, you need to let go and see what happens. By placing no constraints on yourself when you are out making new images, can you possibly create some new work. It is only when you return from a shoot that you should allow yourself to be critical and strive for excellence, but don't strive for Perfectionism, because you'll never get there.
Which reminds me, that next time I'm out shooting, not to beat myself up so much, when I feel things aren't going the way I hoped - this is a reference back to my recent trip to Iceland in June, where I just so happened to create a body of work I'm extremely pleased with, but didn't feel it was coming together at the time of the shoot.
Today I received the last batch of proofs from the printer of my book, and I'm very happy with what I see.
They are printed on FOGRA approved paper. Which basically means that the paper is certified to be within a certain ISO colour standard. The have also been printed using one of the best CMYK simulation RIP's available (GMG). In a nutshell, the proofs give a very accurate simulation of what the final press output will be like.
It's been a very exiting and interesting project, working on this book, and I feel I've learned a lot in the process too.
Once I've approved the proofs, the next stage will be onto printing the book. I'll give you all more details about the expected arrival date of the book once we're past the proofing stage. Until then, I can't really say for sure just when the book will be here, but I'm hoping for sometime around October or November.
Today I'd like to write about something that has nothing to do with photography, but everything to do with how the social-networking thing is panning out. Last week I logged into my facebook account to find out that it has my personal landline and mobile numbers on full display to everyone who is linked to my account. I remember a month or so ago being asked to provide them as a matter of security, and once I'd given them, kind of hit my head and thought - duh - why did I do that?
The thing is, why am I so mistrustful of Facebook?
Well, there are a few reasons:
1. Most of it is invasive. Did you know by default, it sends out invites to folks in your email address book?
2. Their user interface makes it hard to switch stuff off, which by default, should be off anyway.
3. I deleted my personal account several months ago. Oh, I think it was March I did it. Friends told me that it would be deleted after 2 weeks anyway, but I was able to log back into it a few weeks ago, and it was magically re-activated.
The same with Linked-In. I deleted my linked-In account, because I felt it did not represent me anymore, and I'm more aware of public profile than I ever have been. Yes, we all have a public profile whether you know it or not. But I still get 'invites' to Linked In. I don't think they're 'Invites', because an invitation has the option of saying 'no'. Linked-In Invitations give you the option of accepting, or waiting for a reminder to accept, and if not, a reminder later on to accept, and then another reminder to accept......
So I'm a little tired of the invasion. It's invasive. There is no etiquette.
When I worked in IT years ago, you had a choice. There was a way you could decline, but I feel these companies are giving you one choice: sign up and be on their records forever.
If you have a facebook account, go in and check if your mobile number and landline numbers are available. You can also check who has given their numbers out for the public. Here's how to do it:
Go to 'Account / Edit Friends'. Once there, you will see on the far left hand side a 'contacts' list with a mobile phone icon. Clicking on this will give you a list of everyone who has given you public access to their phone numbers.
I would so love to show you a picture here of all the people on my facebook account. Every one of them has given their phone numbers, and I could show you a screen shot of it - but it's not appropriate for me to do that.
I'd like less invasion, and I'd like these companies to stop treating me as some form of information that I have no right to decide how I am represented or recorded.
By the way - I just logged in again, and I see that I have Steve McCurry's phone number. Brilliant. I'm sure he'll be really pleased to hear from me :-)
Why work with something like Facebook, if it can't be trusted to work with your details and keep your information private?