Where was I?
As I mentioned in my last blog entry, I've just returned from a trip to Iceland. I sent off my transparencies for development on Wednesday and Keith the Postie duly brought me back my latest images on Friday. A number of things occurred to me whilst looking at my new images, chief amongst them the question, how can a photograph that I have taken transport me to somewhere that is somehow more than the place that I photographed? But first a digression...
Whilst I've been enjoying experimenting with that new-fangled digibal (sic) phonography I must admit that one aspect of it leaves me feeling (perversely?) dissatisfied; namely, its immediacy. I know, I know; the instant feedback is one of the great things about digital! It speeds up the learning process and helps people to correct mistakes there and then that might otherwise have resulted in a fruitless expedition. But, but!... I like the butterflies in the pit of my stomach feeling of anticipation that I get when I send off some film. The feeling returns, redoubled, when the postie brings me some shiny new images. I experience a heady mixture of high anxiety and the overwhelming desire to rip open the packet to see whether I have any "bastards" or whether I've cocked them all up. The delay between making an image and seeing it, something that is inherent in using film, has once again brought a frisson of excitement and, I'll admit, a certain smugness that I don't feel the need for the instant gratification open to users of digital. Psychologists talk about the habit of delayed gratification – the ability to wait in order to obtain something that one wants – as a sign of sound mental health. I suppose most people would experience this as the habit of leaving their favourite portion of a meal until last; not eating the bacon or chips until you've stuffed down the healthy green bits that you don't really like. If delayed gratification is good then the reverse is surely a sign of dire problems. What a state all those fans of digital must be in! ;-)
Anyway, back to my point... When I opened the packet there were the usual mix of failures (3), adequates (10), successes (10) and very successful images (just 2). (Images in this latter category are sometimes also known as "bastards", though strictly speaking I feel that this classification can only be awarded by a committee of my peers and it is presumptuous of me to classify my own images in this way!) But, what makes these latter two images so special to me?
There are numerous reasons why an image might resonate strongly with the photographer that made it, and most of these might also be shared by an audience. But some belong uniquely to the individual photographer; the image may resonate simply because it reminds them of the time and place when they made the image or because it reminds them of particular difficulties encountered during its making or because they feel it to be a great artistic or technical success. As a practicing photographer these reasons all come quickly to mind but another one is, I think, a little less obvious: it may resonate because it surprises them. The two images from Iceland that I classed as "very successful" also fall into the category of images that surprise me.
I've been struggling to think why this is. It's not simply that they came out better than I expected (that would only make them at the high end of the "success" category) and it's not simply that the image looks different from the reality; that happens to an extent every time anyone makes a photograph. Looking at them I was taken to places that were somehow different from the physical locations. Even though I had been there, the place in the image was somehow somewhere else, somehow different and/or more than what I had expected. Obviously the image was transcribed by light and hence is bound to the point of its creation but I almost got the feeling, "Where was I when this was made?" I don't think that this dislocation is just due to the transformation of perspective or colour. As I wrote above, these are the commonplace transformations present in every photograph that I make and I'm used to them. I suspect that the answer to "Where was I?" is "there!" but that the most important part of the creative decisions in these cases were made by my subconscious. So, although I performed all the physical tasks necessary to make the image, my conscious mind didn't register the significance of why I was striving for the composition or even fully realise how the final image would look.
Looking back at the few older images that I still like the one thing they seem to have in common is that they all surprised me when I first saw the film and that they still surprise me. I think that this quality of surprise might also be a more universal indicator of a successful image as the "surprising" images of mine have generally been the ones that have received the greatest acclaim. A conversation I had with Eddie Ephraums, during work on my last book, seems to support this theory. He was describing the work of another photographer and said that although the images amazed him they didn't surprise him and consequently he felt that there was a limit on his appreciation of the work.
I suppose that the quality of surprise might merely be another way of talking about the quality of mystery that I discuss in Landscape Beyond. But I also wonder if it might relate to something that Ben Maddow wrote in Weston, His Life;
But photographs become something more when they are a record of the interaction of photographer and subject. It is arguable that all great photographs... have this quality – that what we see, what we respond to, is the dialogue between subject and artist, unspoken, unspeakable.
On a superficial level what we're attracted to in a photograph is the subject, and in many images this is all there is to connect to. We might like or dislike an image because of something trivial, like the dominant colour, but when we really love (or hate) an image it is the photographer's vision of the subject that we are responding to. Surely the vision of a(nother) photographer can only really grip us when it surprises us; when it makes us see something as if for the first time, when it makes us see in a new or different way. The image can amaze us with its technical quality, masterful use of composition or the way in which the photographer has captured a moment of beautiful light but these factors will eventually pall. Perhaps only surprise, in some senses the most evanescent of emotions, will endow an image with lasting appeal.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/07/2008, 12:13
Does an image surprise us if it tells us something we didn't know? A ship looks like a helmet is something I didn't know – so that's surprising I suppose. Is this possibly why we see a lot of sunrises/sunsets and wide angles in photography? I'm thinking that I lot of people might be saying "I didn't know the sky could look like that!" or "I didn't realise the sky could look so big!" (for wide angles)... Does this surprise element explain why we have photographer's photographs, in that what surprises non-photographers or neophyte photographers quickly becomes unsurprising once you've been exposed to a lot of photographs?
The cliche is probably explained as a 'pre-canned' surprise that is known to succeed in many cases.
The transformation you talk about when you receive a picture and it represents a location that you don't remember is interesting and supports my thinking that when people say "I just want to represent the place I was in" what they really mean is "I want to represent the a vision of the place I had when I was there".
I would be interested in seeing some of the other pictures that you have received that were successful but that you thought didn't surprise ..
Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker23/07/2008, 17:15
I know that excited feeling you mention from getting a film back, especially when it’s a few months old and forgotten images are brought back into the present. But as so often in life the same feeling changes and when I get back to my computer and see the day’s digital shots in full resolution, I do get a similar feeling. Like the food analogy (I thought I was the only person who left the best bits of a meal till last?) why does the king prawns in the madras taste better for having waited for it? I think it's because you build up to it, look forward to it, savour it, you slow down the process and squeeze out every essence of pleasure. You know it will taste best and you want to extend the experience. Does this delayed gratification actually increase the pleasure? I think so.
When you break down things and focus on the elemental, do you really appreciate them for what they are? Learning to gain pleasure out of the very simple, the smallest things surely must be a small key to unlocking part of happiness? Over the years I've come to appreciate more (even misty cloudy weather) because it offers me some new experience to try and capture and represent. Simple pleasures… and I think this is true photographically. Seeing and appreciating, the subtleties, the less obvious the more refined (kind of like a good wine or classical music or the texture in a painting) add so much more to a photograph.
Images that are special to ones self are the most rewarding ones in my experience. Sometimes having the confidence to like something, that others (no matter how experienced) don't, leaves you with a great feeling that cannot always be explained. I think this is the best place to be creatively, as you're setting your own path, not being overly influenced by others… (Much more rewarding and creative process) Don’t get me wrong, it's of course valuable to gain feedback on ones work to knock you into different spheres of thought, but knowing how to use that feedback is key. Personally I find feedback that mirrors my own unresolved thoughts the most productive.
Anyway I wonder if the most important part of the creative decisions in these ‘special’ cases you mention were made by the subconscious, the gut feeling at seeing something to capture, hard to explain but interesting to try. A moment in time can surely only be taken in subconsciously (my conscious brain anyway, cannot process all the information in front of me) but a photograph can be analysed, reflected upon, digested and even grow on you. It slows down moments in time and almost makes you meditate on the moment. Maybe that is where your subconscious and conscious meet? Maybe that is the delight you talk about?
Highlight this Comment Adrian Hollister24/07/2008, 06:49
For years I have been asking myself (and others) why would anyone want to use film when digital allows such immediate feedback. I have just returned from Arizona where I took a new film camera together with my digital. The transient nature of the beautiful light in places such as the Grand Canyon encouraged me to use what I know (digital), and of the 10 rolls of Velvia 50 I emptied hotel mini-bars to save from the stifling heat, I used only one! I had the film processed on return to Pheonix, and I must confess awaited the results anxiously. I could feel the excitement building as I approached the lab to pick up the film, and the thrill of seeing the (mixed) results on the lighbox was something I have never experienced in years of digital photography. I give in - you strange film lovers are right!! Delayed gratification, a rare experience in this fast moving world, is an emotion we should cherish!
Another experience in Arizona brings me on to surprise. Surprise is totally dependent upon ones experience. As photographers we experience beauty in the world and in objects that many other people simply never imagine. If surprising ourselves is the key measure of "bastardness", it explains why we are such hard judges of our own work. On two mornings this trip my wife got up at 3.30am to experience the early morning golden light ("God's light" as an American photographer I met described it!). She was surprised at the light and the sheer beauty of what she saw. To her, a fairly common light (to us), coupled with an area of scenic beauty was a huge surprise. I may have dismissed my image that morning as "yet another vista", but to her the image rates as a "bastard". If surprise is so relative, so is "bastardness". As photographers, do we need a more objective measure of a successful image than surprise?
Highlight this Comment Jason24/07/2008, 07:06
“Looking back at the few older images that I still like the one thing they seem to have in common is that they all surprised me when I first saw the film and that they still surprise me”
Just an after thought David, I was wondering if you’d mind trying to explain why a particular image resonated so strongly with you over time? I personally would love to see an example and then the reflections. (I know it’s a big ask and you can always tell me to sod off (o: )
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook24/07/2008, 09:53
An interesting thread that had me thinking for a while. While I partly agree with your comment, "Perhaps only surprise, in some senses the most evanescent of emotions, will endow an image with lasting appeal." I find in general it's the opposite with me, if I see an image for the first time that surprises me (in the way I think you are referring to) then I find that after a few viewings that surprise has worn off (that’s the problem with surprises, after the first surprise its no longer a surprise) and unless the image can also grip me with its quality and other attributes (which is of course personal), then it fails to hold me. Sometimes an image that surprises me can also do the other, but so far I have found that more often it does not. Surprise alone does not quite cut it for me (in most cases).
Also I find with food, that eating the best bits with the other bits is the way to go, as in general a good meal is a good meal because all the elements work together and become more satisfying when enjoyed together. Is this not the same with an image?
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews24/07/2008, 11:33
Perhaps "marvel" would be a better word than "surprise". My dictionary (always a useful asset to have for this blog!) says it is a combination of surprise and wonder. Maybe after the surprise has worn off you are still left with a sense of wonder.
For me, the biggest marvel is when I get an image back that I can't believe that I have taken, knowing all too well the limitations of my capabilities and how easily things can go wrong (just don't mention Montana to me). I just look at some images and wonder how on earth little old me managed to produce something that beautiful.
Highlight this Comment David24/07/2008, 11:41
Hi Adrian,
"Bastardness" is definitely relative and I have never pretended otherwise. I think that it's philosophically impossible for there to be an objective basis for judging a photograph so something as subjective as "surprise" is as good a measure as any to assess an image and to help us explore why it might excite us. The appreciation and response of an individual to an image is necessarily individual hence your wife's response to images that you felt were just another vista. There are no absolutes in art; no best, no neatest, no most moving, no least interesting. Images fit within a range but their exact position within that range is unknowable.
It is therefore also always going to be the case that appreciation of an individual photograph relies not only upon the individual's general life experiences but also upon their appreciation of the visual realm. This appreciation may have been achieved by personal exploration, e.g. by making photographs, or have been acquired through exposure to the images of others whether they be paintings or photographers. As we explore the visual realm so we become more adept at finding beauty in unexpected places or in the mundane. New things excite and surprise us and so we in turn are able to surprise others with our discoveries. If it surprises someone who is highly attuned to the visual realm surely it will have a stronger effect on someone not so attuned.
Highlight this Comment David24/07/2008, 11:54
Hi Peter,
I'm not really talking about the "Boo!" or "Wow!!" kind of surprise, more of an epiphany or revelation. I think that the reaction I'm describing is multi-faceted; it begins with an exclamatory feeling but that this softens into one of wonder. There are definitely images that have an instant but transitory appeal – usually ones where the light is extraordinary – but I want to assure you that this is not what I'm seeking, imperfectly, to describe.
David
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook24/07/2008, 12:28
David,
I did wonder if I was interpreting your use of 'surprise' correctly. Perhaps Chris Andrew's got it with 'Marvel' , I can relate to what he says about the times you get an image back and think 'did I really take that?' It happens to me rarely, its more the 'Oh God, did I really take that!?' (I hope you get the difference). The problem I find (which my wife confirms) is that I am often too hard on myself, which is why I show them to her as well as often she will 'see' it for the first time and often give it a higher rating than I would have myself. I find it hard sometimes because having worked for an image and waited for the slides to come back, my anticipation has perhaps grown too much and I feel deflated when I finally get to see the image. This is sometimes balanced by the times you get an image that unexpectedly turns out good.
But anyway I think I understand more now you use of the word ‘surprise’.
Highlight this Comment Jane Goodall24/07/2008, 13:04
I think one has delayed gratification with the digital medium too, it was only when I printed off an image of the Callanish stones that I appreciated the beauty of what had been before me all the time. I didn’t see the uniqueness of these monoliths above others I had visited, or the photographic potential in front of me. I was on a Light & Land tour with David, the atmosphere of the place was crowded and bustling with other tour members… but I made a few images.
On returning home I saw the image on the screen, it gained an okay response... It was only when I printed it out large that I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the image. The stones were incredible, the soft light had picked out the beautiful rutilation, more to the point the stones were standing in a quiet world with no apparent onlookers which made the scene more timeless... Why hadn’t I seen the potential of what was before me? I was surprised indeed and even a bit humbled by my lack of foresight.
Highlight this Comment Adrian Hollister24/07/2008, 13:07
Struggling with the depth of the debate I went to Monty Python for inspiration but found that "fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency" did not help!
Inspiration-less, I continue: there was never a suggestion that we need an absolute measure, but on a scale from absolutely subjective (?) to absolutely objective, I find surprise too far to one end of the scale, and would find other measures helpful. Of course there will never be an absolute or objective measuring tool, but a greater number of subjective measures is likely to produce a more consistent or reproduceable means of assessment.
Is that important? Well I certainly value your assessment of my images and would like to produce more "bastards". I am sure that there are many photographers who aspire to the dizzy heights of CUB status, membership of which I understand to be related to the ability to consistently produce bastards!
Have the CUBS ever attempted to define what the factors are that contribute to "bastardness"? (Do simplicity, ambiguity and beauty feature highly?)
How consistent and unanimous is the election of an image to "bastard status"?
Adrian
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews24/07/2008, 15:33
I count getting a CUB response from David for one of my pictures as one of the highest achievements in my photographic journey so far. I guess it's a bit like getting a Michelin star for your restaurant. It shows you've done good stuff, but you still need to strive to get that second and third star. And I'm not sure that one CUB picture gains you entry to the CUBS, perhaps just a drink at the bar.
I'm struggling to see a human face in the picture, although the narrow head, closely set eyes and long beak does remind me of Big Bird off Sesame Street! Sorry to point this out David, but it is uncanny! :-). Or perhaps more flatteringly, something like the shoebill would be more appropriate.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin24/07/2008, 18:06
Good job I didn't implement a profanity filter on the blog :-)
Highlight this Comment Nigel Simmonds24/07/2008, 20:25
Hi David,
Your idea of being surprised at the "very successful" images is one of pleasant surprise (I hope). Isn't there a converse to this in that I assume you were disappointed, or rather, surprised negatively by your "failures" (which are only failures for you, perhaps not for everyone)? Perhaps you could ask where was the subconscious when you made them? I think that there may be more to be learnt from failed images than from (very) successful ones, when one asks why the failures didn't make the grade.
Have you considered that a 5"x4" screen may be too small to adequately realise the possibilities of a scene?
Highlight this Comment Elizabeth Davis24/07/2008, 21:28
Those of us still at the Single Parent Family level of images have been practicing deferred gratification for rather a long time - speaking from personal experience that is.
I'm not too sure that I'd agree with Jane that she was experiencing deferred gratification of a digital image. Surely the term deferred gratification infers a degree of anticipation of pleasure and while you were more than a little pleased with the printed image of your digital one this was completely unexpected. So I suppose in one sense your gratification was deferred in that it was delayed. To me the two are different!
Highlight this Comment David O25/07/2008, 08:47
Hi David
Very impressive Iceland images (am certainly tempted for next year) - either by phone (I was very "surprised") or by the 5/4. The abstract at Go∂afoss certainly reminds me of Kandinsky.
The Death Skulls also drew my attention and I hope you can indulge me in some light entertainment..........it is Friday. I was wondering whether Alan......you know......TATPTS.......had re-surfaced.....The Alan That Placed The Skulls!.....:)
The image now known as the Helmet is my personal favourite though.
All good stuff......cheers.
David
Highlight this Comment David25/07/2008, 11:39
Hi Adrian,
I don't think that there is any formula for "bastardness", it's more a question of an image "surprising" a CUB member!
Highlight this Comment David25/07/2008, 11:52
Hi Jason,
I've put a list of my Top 10 Surprisers! below. All of these images still surprise me after a few years. I'm not sure that I can describe why in all cases. I'll think on...
Bracken and snow
Figure in the Rocks
Strangles
Wave #1
Saltwick Blue & Gold
Brighton
Budle Bay
Blue cones
Empty Sea
Poverty Flats
Of course if you asked me tomorrow I might think of some different ones!
Highlight this Comment David25/07/2008, 13:12
Hi Chris,
I can't see either Big Bird or the Shoebill... perhaps it's all a matter of interpretation!
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson25/07/2008, 17:38
Hi All,
As a hunter gatherer of images were no one else thinks of looking, the surprises I encounter are many by the way of seeing subjects for interesting images.
My images also have the effect of surprise on the persons who view them.
Photography to me is a voyage of discovery even after pursuing my hobby for over thirty years, and that is no surprise to me.
Regards
Sandy Wilson
Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker28/07/2008, 09:06
Hi David,
So after all, no ‘sod off’ necessary! (o:
I can see why the images you presented move you and retain elements of energy when viewing, as there are inspirational qualities in each one. As a set they show you to be heavily inspired by natural form and texture, (sorry for stating the bleeding obvious) but digging a little deeper, the vistas are almost mini shapes themselves. Its almost as thought ‘at the moment’ you seem to favour simplification of the scene, the isolation of shape form and detail, to a vista. Now I wonder why this is? Forgive my speculation but I think it shows a propensity for the elemental. It's as though you’re a painter and the vista is the pallet and you are showing us the beauty of the different elements. Choosing to show us the ‘primary colours’ seem to offers us the opportunity to ‘really’ appreciate just how beautiful our world is.
My personal conceptualisation on your choice of subject, (in this set anyway) is that of throwing out everything else (big vistas), rejection of the wider harsh world, the destructive human elements, but that probably highlights more about me and what I bring to the set, than it does about your choices. I would go on but I don’t want to look stupid over analysing somebody else’s work, I can quite comfortably do that with my own.
I personally was moved by the images that offer (me anyway) something unique. (Possibly the surprise you mention) ‘Strangles’ is the first one to make me turn my head sideways and scratch my chin. It has the initial form of a dead fallen tree. With tangled branches woven together. But then the black shiny background offers us a way into an alternative direction. Personally speaking, it is this change of direction that gives this image special qualities. You have to look deeper, and study the detail to overcome the initial misdirection. The viewer has to work at the image and overcome their own assumptions and I wonder if it’s this that keeps the spark in the image?
Anyway my personal favourites in this set (and this is probably because they most resemble the kind of shots that I find myself taking) are Wave #1, Empty Sea and Brighton. I would go into some detail about why I like them (and probably will later) but this is already turning into a long enough ramble and secondly my kids have begun to argue making it difficult to think.
I’ll be back, Jason.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist28/07/2008, 22:40
Hello David,
I am going to use the word "surprise" in two different contexts, so when you try and answer, don't presume I am using the same definition:
(i) Do you consider a surprising picture to be a picture that has realised its potential to be a transcendent picture? If so, why not call it that?
(ii) Considering that the view camera permits far more care in its setting up than, say, a phone-camera, do you think that LF is less likely to produce a surprising picture? I realise that you did say that you didn't mean "surprise" in the sense of surpassing expectations, but that is a common usage of the word, so I feel my question is legitimate.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson29/07/2008, 13:39
Jane,
It is very interesting your comment that you had not seen the potential of the stones as an image. However, hidden away in your subconscious you had seen an image as you had taken upon yourself to make an image. When in the post-visualisation phase of studying your image, on your computer screen, it was revealed to you. You do not state if you use film or digital, so as a digital user I can only state my experiences.
There is no way of telling as to how good an image will be by looking at the screen on the back of digital camera. I never delete any images in my digital unless they are seriously flawed or drastically out of focus with no hope of ressurection at the digital editing stage. This is why we as photographers must always delay the action of deleting images in the camera. We must hold fire and reassess them on the computer screen to deduce their full potential – or otherwise. This a form of post visualisation.
Sometimes I make images, even after asking myself why I am making this image – and can give myself no reason for making the image in the first place. Only to be surprised when the full potential of the image is revealed.
We also can learn from our failed images and this is another reason why we should never delete our digital images in the camera.
Good light and luck in your image making.
Regards
Sandy Wilson
Highlight this Comment David29/07/2008, 15:42
Hi Charles,
I'll "try" and do my best to answer your questions...
I guess that a "surprise" might also be a transcendent image but I was really trying to convey the visceral reaction I get when I see such an image – as I wrote elsewhere on this blog – comment posted by me on 25/7, emotion is a key part of art for me.
I would say that the LF camera allows more scope for a "surprising" (according to my emotive description) picture than other formats. This is because one's subconscious has more opportunity to work on the image; partly this is because the time necessary to set up the image allows one to fine tune it in a way that other formats dissuade and partly because of the abstraction that comes from viewing the image rotated through 180º.
David
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews29/07/2008, 17:01
Charles
Attempting to answer your second question, yes you would expect less surprises when using LF because, in theory, you have seen the final image already on the ground glass screen. And yet I have found on several occasions that you get so hooked into the process of making the picture that there is an element of tunnel vision at work. Your subconscious has no doubt seen the images, but you may not be fully aware of it. I have one such picture from the recent Iceland trip, taken at some hot mud pools at Viti. I was aware of what I wanted to do with the image, having found the composition using the G9. It required some strange camera angles and a bit of 3D geometry to work out how to get the thing focussed, which meant my mind wasn't really on exactly what the picture looked like once I knew I'd framed it correctly. When I got the trannie back I was truly surprised by the beauty of the picture in its final form. My memory of the picture was all about the struggle to set it up, not what it looked like, but obviously I had made that decision at an earlier point. Maybe I'm just getting old and my memory is going, but sometimes one memory overrides another so strongly that you can still be surprised.
Chris
Highlight this Comment Bob Parslow30/07/2008, 11:47
Hello
Where was I?
Tempus Fugit, David. Soon it will be "What did I do yesterday? Where did I leave my exposure meter? Where are the car keys?" and so on...
Bus pass eligibility is 60!
Bob
Highlight this Comment Guy Aubertin05/08/2008, 09:06
Budle Bay in the rain - was a CUB at the time and remains so today...bastard!
And yes being given a CUB merit (note the term merit for us pretenders) by David / Joe is a chest swelling moment.
Highlight this Comment David07/08/2008, 07:17
Hi Guy,
Well, it's perhaps not your average incentive scheme to be told that you've made a bastard but it does seem to work... And being told by you that I've made a bastard is a pride inducing moment for me too.
I sometimes fantasize (sad bastard that I am!) about a time when there is an annual television transmission of "The Bastards" that ranks alongside the "The Oscars". I wonder what the statuette would look like...
David
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!