David Ward - Landscape Photography - Into The Light

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson24/08/2008, 16:06

Hi David, I don't think I will be buy the Technika digital camera from TESCO, as it does not have any shift and tilt movements. Anyway it does not have the offer, buy one get one FREE. Every little HELPS.

Also I would have thought that someone of your standing would shop at Waitrose.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Alice Strange28/08/2008, 00:05

Of course! There's a long tradition of DIY stores stocking artists' supplies: Marcel Duchamps' plumbing supplies, Jackson Pollock's paints, Carl Andre's bricks ....

Highlight this Comment Jason29/08/2008, 17:43

I think its great that you can get cameras so cheep... my kids love taking shots (8 and 6) and it’s a fantastic way of learning. I also think it offers many more people the opportunity to experiment before they graduate to much more sophisticated controllable kit. There is unfortunately too much misinformed snobbery in photography these days, bring on experiments....

Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 10:29

Hi Alice,

Congratulations!!!

I've decided to give a monthly award for the best comment on my blog. The good news is that, in honour of making me laugh out loud, you are this month's winner! The bad news is that the award is purely an assignment of kudos and nothing as "grubby" as money or a prize... sorry! Of course this is entirely for your own good (starving artists are better artists ;-) and nothing to do with my own parsimony...

Please keep posting!

David

Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 10:37

Hi Jason,

I couldn't agree more about the misinformed snobbery. Much as I love my Linhof I know that it's only a tool and many other cameras could do the same thing. Some brands of "tool" are better made and designed than others but ultimately what matters is the craftsman (or woman) not the make or type. Great images can be made on any camera, from the humblest "point & shoot" to the most expensive photographic jewelry such as an Alpa. Vision is what matters!

David

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews01/09/2008, 18:14

Give a bad photographer a good camera and they might just take an OK picture. Give a good photographer a bad camera and they'll still produce interesting images. I still think there is merit in L&L doing a course where you are only able to use something very basic - a Holga or something like that. It really helps to develop your compositional skills.

Highlight this Comment Robert Teague02/09/2008, 08:50

Not to worry David. If this is the future for Technika, you can always do what I did - buy a Chamonix 45N-1.

Highlight this Comment Jason02/09/2008, 18:09

David…“Vision is what matters” yep-in more than one-way (o:

Chris, sorry I don’t agree with you,”Give a bad photographer a good camera" and they will take a BAD picture.

"Give a good photographer a bad camera" they will complain, but know how to make it do what they want and I suspect if they are really a good photographer, I believe they will make a good picture.... (I feel it all depends on how you classify 'good', technologically or creativity).

A truly creative person will work around the problem regardless of the camera. It is a pure technical photographer that will struggle in this scenario.

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews02/09/2008, 22:21

Jason - I was being charitable... sweeping generalisations will always get you into trouble! By "good" camera I guess I meant something that takes care of focus and exposure for you. Although for me a TK is a "good" camera... but are there bad photographers out there using TKs? If not, does this mean that all TK users are by definition good photographers? I don't think so. The measure of the photographer is the images created, not the camera used.

Highlight this Comment jason03/09/2008, 13:51

Well Chris I'm glad that's sorted (o:

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson05/09/2008, 14:05

Could somebody please explain what a bad camera is. I agree that there are bad photographers out there, but what make and type of camera is a bad camera?

Some years ago a friend of mine was always complaining that I had a better camera than him. So I gave him all my gear and he gave me his gear and we went out and took pictures. Guess who's pictures were better; mine.

It is a pity that I cannot get any film for my beloved Ilford Brownie 127, it was my first camera...

It is all gear ego and snobbery these days, but what ends up on the paper as a fine print is what counts at the end of the day.

Ooops I nearly dropped my 40 million pixel Hasselblad...

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin05/09/2008, 16:38

Hi Sandy,

I think a bad camera is one that gets in the way of your artistic intent. If what you use doesn't get in the way then it's a good camera. The corollary from this is that you can improve your camera by learning how to use it or changing your vision.

Tim

Highlight this Comment jason05/09/2008, 20:43

Sandy,

A bad camera is one that is used by a bad photographer...

Highlight this Comment Jason05/09/2008, 20:47

Tim

We must go for that walk soon and debate these fascinating subjects.

P.S. Cheers for posting your views today, I very nearly didn’t get any work done thinking about what you said.

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews09/09/2008, 09:57

These throw away lines always cause trouble... I guess in my mind a "bad" camera is something like the disc cameras from the 80s, where the image is tiny. I'm also reminded of Joe's attempts to take pictures on a camera phone for the BBC series with Tom Ang, where the focussing couldn't be controlled and the shutter delay was horrendous. And yet he still took a fine image.

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson09/09/2008, 19:15

Tim,

I agree with you about learning to use your camera. If anyone asks me about a camera, my answer is always, "Have you fully read your camera manual?" The funny thing is 99% always reply NO. I then say, "Please go away and read it and then come back to me if you are still having a problem." If they come back to me I help them out resolving their problem I then jokingly say, "My consultancy fee will be in the the post".

I do not find that any camera, analogue or digital, restricts my vision, but I do find that all the fluffing about with colour management, resolution, white balance, colour spaces and all the other technical aspects of digital imaging does.

Not to mention anything about raw conversion and file management. We seem to spend more time in front of the computer pixel processing these days.

I must repeat here there are no bad cameras only bad photographers. But they can be helped to be good photographers, by other caring photographers.

To me the weakest link in the whole system these days is the computer. The only thing reliable about computers is they are not reliable.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment jason10/09/2008, 07:52

Hi Sandy

Computers can indeed be a massive source for frustration, but what they can do for you is remarkable. They open up many more creative options and when used with care, can be a wonderful tool to assist the artistic vision. Yes, granted, you have to know to use the tool effectively (which take time and patience) but like any tool when used well can help the piece of work shine.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist10/09/2008, 07:53

Hello Sandy,

I am completely off-beam so if David wants to intervene, please just speak, but… One thing I have been wondering about is our relationship with perfection. In days BC (before computers), photographers would brag about their spotless trannies, superb lighting and generally all the things which go into making the tranny as perfect as possible. Now obviously, all that is superannuated. But our obsession with perfection isn’t. We now have a new way of measuring colour balance, a way of quantifying blown highlights and blocked shadows, which all lead to pictures being technically flawless according to a very particular scale. And the big question is whether that is a desirable scale or whether we have forgotten to appreciate the results for what they are, to let the eye do its work. Combined with high-latitude sensors, a lot of the food adverts for instance (in the kind of supermarkets that sell mini-Technikas) now look more sterile than appetising. Or is it just me?

Secondly on your other point, surely the fact that we have no means of saying what is a good photograph or a bad one, would imply that we have no means of saying who is a good photographer or a bad one.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews10/09/2008, 08:32

Sandy - your comment about Hasselblads reminds me of the Iceland trip earlier this year. We were all taking pictures - I think it was in the volcanic area - and were doing the whole tripod/filter thing. A guy came along with one of those 31MB Blads around his neck, peered over someone's shoulder, took a shot (handheld) and then moved on. Either a creative genius or a bad photographer with too much money. I know which one I think it is...

Highlight this Comment Elizabeth Davis11/09/2008, 20:14

Excuse me, but since when were trannies superannuated?!

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson12/09/2008, 15:35

Hi Charles

I do not think that my 10.000 transparencies are superannuated, as I am constantly resurrecting them with my film scanner.

Maybe we should not talk of good and bad photographers but of inexperienced and experienced photographers, ones who either lack or have vision.

These days I do not reject any of my images old or new until I have actually scrutinised them on my computer screen as a 16 bit file.

Chris,

How true your "blad" comment is in our fast moving society today. It would be interesting to peer over his shoulder to see what his image is like when it meets his computer screen. Maybe it was envisaged as camera shake abstract. Chris, yes I saw Joe using the camera phone and I agree that a master craftsman (oops, or should I say craftsperson) like him could be given any old camera and still manage to produce the goods

Jason,

I agree with you that you can do wonderful things to your images with your computer WHEN IT WORKS and is not having a tantrum.

Funny thing, someone asked me lately how you take a photograph with Photoshop.I wonder what Photoshop book they got that information from. My answer was you need an essential piece of equipment called a CAMERA.

David,

To get back to the main topic, the Technica digital camera. They must be selling like hot cakes as I could not find one in my local Tesco. I guess I will have to buy the new Sony 24 million pixel DLSR after all. Tesco aren't very popular here in Andover as they are trying to build a giant distribution shed on the outskirts of the town. Forty foot container trucks in and out 24 hours a day, BAD NEWS.

Regards Sandy

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist12/09/2008, 16:20

Dear Elizabeth & Sandy,

Excuse me, but since when did I say that trannies have been superannuated?? I was saying that perfection in the tranny is no longer needed thanks to Photoshop (to a large extent), and therefore it is something no longer bragged about.

I hope that one clears that up before everyone else accuses me of anti-trannyism.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin12/09/2008, 19:07

Hi Charles,

Interesting you should mention that perfection in a transparency is superannuated as David was talking about the closest thing to perfection in his photography being the tranny! I don't think he was bragging though.. he was just pointing out that the tranny is the goal and the 'scanned photoshopped print' an unfortunate necessity.

Tim

Highlight this Comment David O12/09/2008, 19:19

.........and I thought that a tranny was somebody I would meet in Thailand and that superannuation was only something to do with my pension?

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist12/09/2008, 21:47

Dear Tim,

I believe we are talking about two different things here - I am referring to achieving perfect trannies (spotless, superb lighting etc), whereas you are referring to David's belief that the tranny is the ultimate goal in his photography. One is the faultless tranny and the other is the embodiment of David's vision. They are not the same thing.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment David13/09/2008, 07:41

Hi Tim & Charles,

Perhaps it's time for me to clarify what I feel about the relationship between perfection and transparencies. Salvador Dali allegedly said, "Don't worry about perfection, you'll never reach it!" This is probably true, I certainly wasn't boasting that some of my images might be perfect. I can tell you exactly what is wrong with every image that I've made, including any that others might feel have come closest to perfection.

But for me a 5X4 image that I make that both excites me visually and is technically good is as close to perfection as anything that I will encounter in my life. It is also the most direct translation of my imagination. That is why I feel that the tranny is the embodiment of my vision; it is both a near-perfect object in its own right and the closest I will ever get to a perfect realisation of my vision. Not perfection but damn close.

Of course many others in my position wouldn't choose to stick with the tranny (or "plain" digital file) but rather choose to use the tools offered by Photoshop or similar programs to enhance their original. This is part of a long and noble tradition and I can't criticise anyone for wanting to do this. It is in the same vein as Ansel Adams' well known opinion that "The negative is the score and print is the performance." I choose only to use these tools to ensure that any digital prints are as close to the original as I can make them.

David

Highlight this Comment Julian13/09/2008, 12:43

Hi David,

Speaking as someone whose inferior skills almost require that the transparency is merely a transitional stage in the image-making process - before my many errors of composition and exposure are 'magically' corrected by Photoshop - I wonder if your pursuit of the perfect transparency isn't something of a selfish pleasure?

Comparatively few people have seen your originals yet a much larger number come to your work via the (by implication) 'inferior' media of the Internet, published works or exhibition prints. Surely these people deserve an experience in viewing your work that is better than the pleasure you take when you view your transparencies on a lightbox?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate, of course, but it would be interesting to hear your views....

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson13/09/2008, 20:56

When I was a young and strutting photographer forty years ago, I had the privilege of viewing some 8x10 trannies on a colour corrected light box produced by a well known pro photographer.

All I can say about them was WOW. Apart from the visual content and composition of the subject, the colour, contrast and exposure was to say the least perfection.

The other thing I can say is these trannies left a lasting impression on me as far as my photography was concerned. We must alway strive for perfection. even if we never quite reach it.

I was speaking to a friend lately about analogue and digital photography. To quote him, he stated that "the colour transperancy, in it's un-manipulated state is the only pure form of photography these days."

All too often I hear the words, it doesn't really matter if the image isn't quite right, you can sort it out in Photoshop. You certainly cannot take that sort of attitude when making pictures using tranny film. Yes, I know you can scan them afterwards, but that is not the point I am trying to make here.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker14/09/2008, 08:03

Charles, anti-trannyism made me laugh out loud!

Sandy, I know your quoting your friend but I get the feeling you only do so to articulate your own feelings on this matter, “the colour transparency, in it's un-manipulated state is the only pure form of photography these days”. Wow, strong emotive words but are they true? Do the millions, (possibly billions) of people with other types of cameras, that don’t shoot transparency film, not fall into the ‘pure’ categorisation as photographers?

I do find this analogue / digital debate fascinating, as personally I see the use of any ‘tool’ to achieve one's goal as justified, secondary to the method be it historical or contemporary.

Yes, we all have different ways of achieving our own particular ends, but we also have all different photographic styles. (I’d love to see each of your shots, to connect your words to the artistic visions. I have goggled some of you that spark my interest, but I'm not even sure I should say that… (o: anyway)

Perfection is after all, a personal unique goal in each of us and it is not viewed consistently across us. So every way we choose to seek our own form of perfection is surely justified. Others imposing ‘their preferred way’ as the ‘pure’ method surely dampen down the celebration of difference and in my view this is sadness within the human state.

As an art viewer I want to be moved, I want my emotions to be sparked, I want to feel intrigued, challenged excited and calmed. I do not care for the process. But as a photographer I want to feel the sea spray, I want to hear the wind, I want to get my feet dirty and sit alone on that mountain. I suppose these value judgments that are enforced on photography depend on weather you are a creator or a viewer. Personally I'm both.

Highlight this Comment David14/09/2008, 16:55

Hi Julian,

Well, I'm afraid that you're right; my love of the transparency is a selfish pleasure. But I don't see what I can do about that short of shooting everything on 10x8 and exhibiting them on lightboxes ;-)

Might I ask why the audience deserve a better experience than I? I don't actually think that this is possible. I can see that it would be good to try and give them an equivalent experience but I can't see how I might give them a better one. No matter how great a print might be, an audience can never share my personal satisfaction in making what I consider to be a good image. Their experience must, for this reason alone, always be inferior to my own.

David

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson14/09/2008, 19:52

Hi Jason Theaker,

I can assure you the quote was his and not mine. Maybe he said it because he is a bit anti digital being a 35mm transparency film user.

Unfortunately I do not have a web site where you can see my images, but have a look at the two photographers work quoted below. Lately my main inspiration for subjects can be found in the gutter as shapes and lines, block colour abstract portions of buildings, water, and any other block colour objects with the scale removed removed.

You sound like a man who is on the same wavelength about photography as me. I can see by your reply that you have feelings and passion as far as your photography is concerned, the same as I do. As far as my feelings and passions on photography are concerned, "I like to walk where only the wind has walked before".

I too like to do unusual angles and out of the box abstract images as straight images, with no fancy Photoshop manipulation. My main loose influence on this type of subject matter comes from two photographers ,Keld Helmar-Petersen and Aaron Siskind. I was more than moved by Petersens colour abstract images, which were produced in 1947. I was, to say the least, gob smacked. Roll over Eggleston, Petersen got there first as far as colour is concerned. Petersen never got the recognition that he deserved in photographic history books, but that is another story.

I use to do analogue photography up until four years ago, but became allergic to the chemicals and had to switch to digital. Personally I don't care whether people are analogue or digital photographers. It is what ends up on the paper as the finished print that we are all judged on. Remember there are two people in every image the photographer and the viewer of the image.

It's really great sharing our thoughts, opinions and passions about our photography through this blog site.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment adamp14/09/2008, 20:43

Hello David,

My my, isn’t it interesting how a cheap camera at Tesco can spark off such a far reaching debate! David, you think that:

…...an audience can never share my personal satisfaction in making what I consider to be a good image. Their experience must, for this reason alone, always be inferior to my own._

But supposing that an image you did like only got a lukewarm reception? Does that necessarily mean that the audience has less satisfaction than you? Because if the reception did not match your own enthusiasm, doesn’t that automatically dampen your own satisfaction and raise questions in your own mind?

However, there are occasions where an audience could still have a more satisfying experience than the photographer. It depends on whether you are prepared to show an image that you are not so sure of – which is something that we amateurs do regularly when asking for critiques. If my mentor tells me, “Wow, what a wonderful shot.” I am of course pleased – though probably bemused as I did not expect quite such a positive reaction.

A nagging doubt remains as to why did I not see the goodness of the composition which my mentor sees in my image? But if the mentor had not been excited by my image, I would have been disappointed. What a conundrum!

Oh, the tyranny of trying to achieve the (perfect) tranny!

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist15/09/2008, 07:41

Hello Jason,

I like what you write.

Hello David,

I have asked you this before, but got no answer, so you might like to reconsider it: what is your opinion of Duratrans? I have never used it or even seen it hung, but would that not produce an impression similar to that of the tranny?

As for your comment on the audience's experience, I will leave commenting that to your new thread. However, I note that Sandy's comment about there being two people involved seems at odds with your selfish photography concept. If you disagree, please let me know.

Hello Sandy,

In my original post, I was just saying that spotting is easily done with a PC so bragging about a spotless tranny will fall flat these days. I wasn't suggesting more than that. In fact, I was questioning whether the computer can make things too faultless, or even faultless in a bad way.

I will not deny that it is better to get the tranny to be as faultless as possible in the first place. I think that it would be denying oneself a creative tool however to spurn the computer completely, as it can take the faultless tranny further and be the basis for yet more work.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment David15/09/2008, 08:03

Hi Charles,

I think that most art is fundamentally selfish, we make things to please ourselves first and (hopefully) an audience second. Art which starts from the obverse position tends toward being second rate in my opinion. One cannot possibly second guess an unknown public, you can only hope to catch the wave of the zeitgeist or to produce work that strikes a more universal chord.

I don't really have much experience of Duratrans, hence my lack of comment! I remember that we used one when I was an assistant to an advertising photographer about 20 years ago. It was about 12ft x 6ft and very impressive. The idea was to reflect a night shot of a city onto the side of a car. Oh, the days before Photoshop!

I would have thought that problems using them would include the cost of mounting an exhibition and people's aversion to buying something to mount on the wall that would need a power supply...

David