Bells, baubles and glitter balls

click photo to enlarge
I'd hate to be a professional photographer. The idea of taking photographs to order would, I am sure, remove all pleasure for me from the act of photography. In fact I revel in the ability to point my camera at whatever I like, whenever I like, and compose pictures just as I like. My photography is entirely selfish.

However, now and then I do take photographs to order though not for money. I once shot a wedding for a couple who couldn't afford a pro. I've photographed events for people as a favour, and I've done some portraiture on the same basis. My wife likes us to send birthday cards that feature one of my photographs, but I generally select these from my stock of existing shots. And, she likes our Christmas card to have one of my photographs on it too. But, selecting something appropriate for this purpose is much harder. It's on the run up to Christmas that I experience a hint of the external pressure to perform that I would resent were I a full-time photographer. The fact is, a few snow scenes and appropriate stained glass windows excepted, my photographic output doesn't usually include many shots that sit easily on the front of a Christmas card. This year's card was, once again, a stained glass window; rather a  nice one as it happens, featuring "The Flight into Egypt". It was only when we had produced and distributed the card that I came across the photograph above, a shot that I took in early December as I sat waiting for a meal. The centrepiece on our table was a basket with lots of metallic bells, baubles and small glitter balls in a variety of colours. When I filled the frame with the subject I quite liked what I saw, and I'm rather glad that I unearthed it from my pile of rejects. Maybe it will do for next year's card and save me the anguish of the frantic search for a suitably festive subject as 2014 comes to its end. Merry Christmas!

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 10.4mm (28mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f1.8
Shutter Speed: 1/30 sec
ISO: 640
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Photographers and the sun

click photo to enlarge

Photographers love the sun. Look at any gallery of outdoor images produced by a group of amateurs or professionals and you'll usually find the majority (often a big majority) were taken in sunlight. The colour, contrast and feel that it brings to a photograph are clearly the qualities that attract us. So alluring is the visual "punch" that sunlight brings to an image, many are given to boosting the saturation to make their shots even more eye-catching. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether a photographic equivalent of the arms race has begun in the past ten years or so, as photographers push the boundary of what is deemed acceptable saturation ever further, perhaps responding to the glowing colours of competition-winning images, and those that are feted in magazines, newspapers and online.

I was thinking about this as I processed a few shots of Lincolnshire's South Forty Foot Drain, a watercourse with origins dating back to the 1630s, that I took during the recent hoar frost. The top photograph was taken after I'd walked a little way along the bank. I was captivated by the way the frost subdued the colours, giving them a blue/green/grey cast that I found very attractive, so I used the sharp outlines of the fence, gate and stock-pen as a middle-ground point of interest and composed this image. Then I walked on, through the open gate, and started to compose another shot using a piece of eroded bank as foreground interest. As I looked through the viewfinder a shaft of sunlight passed across the area in front of me. It worked its magic on the exposed soil, giving it a deeper, redder colour, made the frozen surface of the water more reflective, and changed the colour of the grass and frost that it rested on - it transformed the scene.

I imagine that if asked to choose which of the two images they liked best, most people would nominate the one that is partly sunlit. I like it for the qualities that I cite above. Yet, to my mind the first image is preferable for reasons that are both photographic and personal. I like the muted colours that stretch completely across the image of the first shot and the way they support the feel of the coldness of the day: they tell the story better. The sun, I feel, brings an unwarranted lift to the scene in the second shot: a note of gaiety where none is required. You might argue that both are accurate reflections of the scene as it presented itself to me, and that is of course, true. However, my recollection of the time I spent here is better reflected in the first image. It says "cold" so much better! I'm aware that this is an unfair comparison: the same shot, both with and without the sun's presence would be better. But, hey, sometimes you have to work with what you've got!

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Photo 1
Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 70mm
F No: 7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/320
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Enthusiast photographers and camera angst

click photo to enlarge

The general public seems to believe that a "better" camera produces "better" photographs. It's a view shared by many enthusiast photographers and quite a few who earn money by selling images, two groups who should know better. It seems to be forgotten that one of the reasons for the tiers of cameras produced by manufacturers, and for the frequent renewal of their model ranges is the desire to feed on the belief that as far as producing finer photographs goes, newer equals better. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. It is usually the case for enthusiasts that the camera is the least important element in securing higher quality photographs. It's true that if you specialise in particular areas of photography - for example wildlife, aviation or even weddings - you are better served by one model rather than another, but for the generalist photographer there are many cameras that will meet their needs. And therein lies the problem: too many photographers don't identify their own needs, but instead believe what they are told in online forums, magazines and the like. A new camera will, they convince themselves, allow a step forward in their photographic development. The holy grail for many seems to be an increase in "sharpness". Others fret about "noise". Then there are those who fixate on dynamic range, bokeh, burst rate, and a plethora of other technicalities. When I read such things I'm reminded of the hi-fi buffs who spend their time listening for the flaws in their equipment rather than to the music!

It occurred to me a while ago that there is a fairly easy way for the enthusiast photographer to remove the angst of camera ownership: simply look at the recommended models that produce output acceptable to a large stock agency. Here's the list for Alamy, one of the biggest, updated for June 2010. It shows most of the DSLRs that have been produced since sensor size commonly reached 8MP, and quite a few other models as well. If your camera is on that list (and in many, if not most, cases it will be) then it is, by a definition that should be acceptable to the majority of people, a very capable machine. So quit worrying, enjoy using it, and start working on the important aspects of photography such as subject, visualization, tone, colour, light, composition, etc. If your camera isn't on such a list (or is one of Alamy's unsuitable cameras) then, before you think about scrapping it, think about whether or not it provides for your photographic needs - these are all that matter - and if it does, then carry on using it.

Today's photograph shows a carrion crow sitting on a building surveying the throng of people below on the promenade at Skegness, Lincolnshire. He (or she) was perhaps hoping for a discarded chip, hot dog or burger fom the early evening crowds. What caught my eye, and pleased me, was how the crow was not deterred by the anti-bird devices fixed around the building's edge. I decided to try a shot that heavily emphasised the bird by framing a composition that is mainly cloud.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 150mm (300mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6 Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO: 200
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Why do we take photographs?

click photo to enlarge
I'm currently reading Photography: A Middle-brow Art, by Pierre Bordieu and others, a book first published in 1965, that was reprinted in the 1990s. Despite its age, and the changes and growth in photography since the genesis of the study, it remains a thought-provoking work that encourages us to look at photography from a different perspective.

The book is quite densely written, in the way that is typical of French sociologists. During my reading of it I've frequently stopped, re-read a section and then pondered what was said: always, I think, a sign that a book challenges one's thinking. On the question of why amateurs take photographs Bordieu identifies "motivations" and "restraints", and has this to say:

"...the fact of taking photographs, keeping them or looking at them, may bring satisfactions in any of five areas, 'protection against time, communication with others and the expression of feelings, self-realization, social prestige, distraction or escape'. More precisely it could be argued that photography has the function of helping one to overcome the sorrow of the passing of time, either by providing a magical substitute for what time has destroyed, or by making up for the failures of memory, acting as a mooring for the evocation of associated memories, in short, by providing a sense of the conquest of time as a destructive power; secondly, it encourages communication with others by enabling people to relive past moments together, or to show others the interest or affection that one has for them; thirdly, it gives photographers the means of 'realizing themselves', either by making them feel their own 'power' by magical appropriation or by the recreation, either glorified or caricatured, of the object represented, giving them the opportunity to 'feel their emotions more intensely' or allowing them to express an artistic intention or demonstrate their technical mastery; fourthly, it provides the satisfaction of prestige, in the form of technical prowess or evidence of personal achievement (a journey, an event) or of ostentatious expenditure; finally, it provides a means of escape or a simple distraction, like a game. On the other hand, 'financial restrictions, the fear of failure or ridicule and the desire to avoid complications' constitute the main obstacles to the practice."

Once you've cut through the academic language what we have here is pretty much every conceivable reason for engaging in the hobby. I think most people would recognise in their own pursuit of photography, some, if not all, of the motivations that Bourdieu lists.

Photography: A Middle-brow Art has probably received less attention than it deserves, partly I suspect, because of its title. The potential audience for this book among photographers probably take exception to the phrase "middle-brow", seeing their activity as one that is capable of high art. Back in the early 1970s, during part of my higher education, I was sitting in the countryside learning to paint. The lecturer looked over my shoulder at the landscape I was working on and said, "Mmm, a photographer's composition." There was no audible sneer or condescension in his voice, and he didn't speak of his view about the place of photography relative to fine art painting, but I heard it nonetheless. And in fact, he was right about my composition. It was one that had been popularised by photographers, though they had taken it from painters in the first instance! So, is photography low-brow, middle-brow, high-brow, or an endearing mixture of some or all of these things? Is it capable of of high art or not? I have a view on this, but for once, you may be pleased to hear, I'm keeping it to myself!

Today's photograph uses a composition, popular amongst photographers, of a tree acting as a frame for a view. This device is also one that is found in paintings that pre-date the arrival of the upstart medium. It shows my wife sitting on a bench at Easton Walled Gardens, Lincolnshire. The country house of which the gardens were part was demolished in 1951, and the remaining buildings are the very grand Victorian stable block that have been converted into living accommodation. As the umbrella held by my wife suggests, the shot was taken on an overcast morning when rain seemed likely.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 18mm (36mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/100 seconds
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.7 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Magnolias and shooting

click photo to enlarge
When it comes to photography are you a gangster or a sniper? Do you handle your camera like a MAC-10, spraying your target at a high rate of fire but with a low degree of accuracy in the hope that at least one shot strikes home? Or do you approach your subject like a soldier equipped with an L115A3, considering each subject long and hard, making sure that every shot you fire will be effective, with few misses?

I ask, because I recently read of an amateur photographer who took 3,000 photographs on a single weekend. 3,000! He was using a DSLR, and what's more each image comprised a RAW file and a medium quality JPG. When I read the forum chatter that ensued I came to the conclusion that quite a few people didn't think this was particularly unusual, though many did question, as I did, why you would approach photography in this way. Let's leave aside the obvious issue of just how much time someone who photographs at this rate is giving to shot selection, composition, lens selection, camera settings, etc., and think about the logistics. How many cards or devices must that fill? How much computer storage space is involved? How much time is devoted to sorting the mountain of dross from the few "keepers"? How much Photoshop time is needed for photography at that rate? And how frequently does he replace his camera? Someone in the discussion poo-pooed the idea that obviously bad shots should be deleted in camera because you might accidentally delete all the shots on the card by mistake. Well you might if you aren't very familiar with your camera, and perhaps someone who shoots at this rate and changes models every couple of months falls into that category.

I spent 4 days away from home recently and took 185 shots. My 4GB card holds 232 images when I shoot RAW+SQ, so I had 47 left, and I was carrying a further 3GB of cards. Leaving aside the family snaps, out of my 185 I garnered only 10 or so that I considered better than average. But I can't believe that if I'd shot 3,000, I'd have maintained that hit rate, and the number would have risen to 162. After reading about this person I think I must be a very sluggish photographer. Or perhaps not. Maybe, like most other people who pursue photography as a hobby, I think a little more before I press the shutter. So, to return to the original question, I'm not a gangster, and probably not a sniper either. Perhaps, as far as photography goes I am like most amateurs - and this is maybe extending the gun-based analogy a step too far! - more akin to one of the "poor bloody infantry" trying to make every shot count with the basic equipment and limited supply of ammunition at their disposal.

Today's photograph comes from a churchyard and shows a magnolia in full bloom. I took three shots of these flowers - one against the deep blue sky, another with a flat area of grass as the background, and this one where I used the shaded side of a yew tree as a dark backdrop against which to show off the shape and subtle colours.

photograph & txt (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 150mm (300mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -1.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Using the sky

click photo to enlarge
The other week I gave a talk about garden and flower photography to the local garden club. During the course of the presentation I talked about whether or not to include sky in shots of gardens. My view was that, in general, better photographs of gardens result from compositions that exclude the sky unless including it adds something positive to the image. So, I said, I favoured a blue sky broken by clouds, or a sky with interesting clouds, but I would strive to eliminate from my photographs, or at least minimise, flat, grey stratus, or a boring, clear blue sky.

In a country that is known for its clouds, where the changeable weather is a favourite topic of conversation, and where many choose their holidays on the basis of how clear and blue the sky is, that last phrase bit to be a little controversial, and so it proved. So I was careful to make it clear that I was only disparaging flawless azure in photographic terms - for other purposes I recognised that it had its uses.

Much the same might be said of whether or not to include the sky in a landscape photograph. I think it's true that for the landscape photographer an interesting arrangement of clouds can be the difference between an average image and a good one. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that a beautiful sky can be the star of a landscape photograph, and what appears below can be merely the supporting cast. An image like today's illustrates that point quite well. It isn't a wonderful shot, but what good qualities it does possess rely heavily on the colours, patterns and tones of the sky: the silhouettes of the wind turbines, the electricity pylons and wires are the nominal (and necessary) subjects, but are secondary to what is happening above.

Regular visitors to the blog will note another image where the sun has been deliberately included (see here).

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 14mm (28mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/2000
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

The wind that shakes the barley

click photo to enlarge

What are the most frequently photographed subjects. Well, if we're considering the average snapper, then it's probably babies and children, closely followed by holiday views. Amateur photographers have a fascination with sunsets, though people are also popular, as are landscapes. Birds and insects have gone from niche genres to mainstream, and some men (it's always men!) seem to photograph nothing but cars or motorcycles. All of these are perfectly reasonable subjects for the camera, and it's possible to take a perfectly good (or great) shot of each.

There is, however, a subject that attracts the casual snapper and the amateur in equal measure, and which is quite difficult to photograph well. I refer to running water! Many are seduced by the twinkle of light on a moving stream and try to capture it in a still image. They never do. Some place a neutral density filter over the lens and blur the water, making it look like fog flowing along. It creates an odd effect that some like. But the fact is, that what people see and like about flowing water just can't be captured on still photographs. To do the subject justice requires video.

A field of barley is another subject that also needs moving images to show the shimmering beauty of eddies of wind as they move across its silky green surface. However, that didn't stop me trying to get something of that flickering quality recorded on my camera sensor! In the absence of neutral density filters, on a dull day I selected a small aperture and low ISO, and photographed the barley as the strong wind whipped the seed heads back and forth. It took several shots to get something I liked. Does it capture that ethereal quality? Of course not. But it suggests it, and I'll make do with that!

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 22mm (44mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f22
Shutter Speed: 1/5
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: +1 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

The subject often isn't important

click photo to enlarge

There seems to be an inverse correlation between the number of TV channels that we are able to view, and the quality of the programmes that are broadcast. I say "seems", because it probably isn't the case, it just feels like that! Unlimited air time has led to so much of it being filled with cheap, populist drivel that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the pieces of fruit in this doughy pudding. So, many people, including me, have pretty much given up trying.

This situation is, in some ways analogous with photography. The spread of digital cameras, combined with the rise of the internet, has led to an explosion in the number of photographs being taken, and the quantity available to be viewed. It sometimes seems that photography is becoming flooded with snaps, and that the more considered images of enthusiastic amateurs and dedicated professionals are being buried in this deluge. In fact, I think there are more good photographs being taken today than at any time since the invention of the camera; it's just that they're so much harder to find amongst the avalanche of images.

I get the feeling that as photography increases in popularity we are seeing a smaller proportion of shots that are thoughtfully produced, and more that are the result of a subject interest, hobby or technical fascination with photographic equipment. For example, bird photography has increased exponentially in recent years, cars feature much more heavily than formerly, macro shots of insects proliferate with the arrival of spring, and holiday shots burgeon across the warmer months. For many the interest in a photograph is inextricably linked to the subject that is depicted. That isn't a problem in itself, but it can limit photography to a supporting role in the pursuit of another pastime. So, this is a plea for people not to forget what painters discovered a few hundred years ago - in a good image the subject is often less important than the treatment it receives. Many of the still-life paintings that proliferated from the seventeenth century onwards are living proof that imagery, lighting, composition, colour, texture, contrast, etc are not only the tools of much art, but are often the end in itself, and the vases, flowers, fruit and skulls that are the nominal "subjects" are only convenient means to achieve this goal. If photography (and photographers) aspire to the status of art then this is a truth worth remembering.

I certainly don't claim today's photograph is art. However, it is a considered image in terms of composition, colour, light, contrast and materials. I processed the shot to achieve something of the feel of a pastel drawing. It was working on this still life featuring Viburnum opulus, apples and plums, that sparked the mangled thoughts set out above.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f16
Shutter Speed: 1/8
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: Off