David Ward - Landscape Photography - Into The Light

Highlight this Comment joe Cornish25/05/2009, 21:49

Hello David,

Oh dear, I feel guilty to be the first to contribute to your correspondences here; I promise I will be brief (and I also promise that yours is the only blog thread I ever read; I just know the others would be such a disappointment!)

I am loathe to criticise anyone I don't know and can't discuss the topic directly with, but to paraphrase his own words, one problem that P Smith suffers from is lack of curiosity. I suspect that if he only looked at Outdoor Photography, their limited page space and editorial preoccupations could well bring him to the conclusion he reaches. But OP only publishes a tiny fraction of the photography happening out there. As we know from leading workshops, even that very small number of people bring in remarkable and varied prints and transparencies to share with us. Are they all standard views and locations? Of course not.

What about the 'repetition' of well-known views? Is there anything wrong with that? Or photographing Half Dome (since he makes that analogy)? I imagine that most serious photographers (OK, serious is not a word you'd really want to use here, but you get my drift) when making their photographs of well-loved places, wherever they are, do not think they are taking the same photograph as everyone else, but rather their own interpretation. While it is deeply satisfying to 'find' completely new landscapes, unmoderated in ones imagination by the work of others, that does not invalidate what may already be familiar. On the contrary, the familiar can provoke the creative challenge, 'how do I really make this "my own"'.

And isn't it exciting to see familiar places made new through someone else's eyes?

Personally, I feel that a healthy blend of the familiar and the new works best; the new keeps the landscape fresh for us, while the familiar allows us to deepen our understanding through repeated acquaintance.

As for colour, I would personally prefer to see balanced colour... at least that is what I strive for, but I absolutely defend the right of others to interpret colour through their own aesthetic judgment. I honestly believe we all see colour differently. To me the problem with some blog correspondents, and critics in general, is that they want to prove themselves right all the time.

I suspect P Smith's real problem is that he is more interested in playing the smart-arse critic than playing with light. Do please remove that last sentence if it appears vulgar!

There, I'll shut up now,

Joe

Highlight this Comment Paul25/05/2009, 22:51

Hmmm. Next time I buy a book I must remember to judge it by its cover! I wonder if P Smith actually got past the cover. It would be a great shame if they didn't.

I notice that you don't defend your image against the accusation that it is 'the exact same photograph as everybody else' takes. Maybe that's modesty, but I wonder if you really agree with P Smith on this point?

Cheers

Paul

Highlight this Comment Dav Thomas25/05/2009, 23:14

Well they do say you can't judge a book by its cover...

Interesting the comparison between British and American landscape styles - strings and woodwinds compared to bugles and trumpets – I think that goes well beyond landscape photography, it extends to its people and culture!

Of course it's foolish to lump a nation's work together, once you look beyond the popular press 'landscape by numbers' you end up with a pretty diverse collection of photographers, driven not by trends but by their own artistic interpretations of the landscape. The comments on the Online Photographer article suggest the British style is driven by our landscape and our weather - I'd suggest it's also driven by our cultural heritage, if our images are more 'Hay Wain' It may be because that's an aesthetic we're culturally engrained with.

The argument for and against using Velvia, Provia, Astia, T-Max etc etc will run and run – there is no right answer, if your vision of the landscape is Velvia saturation that's your artistic choice, I must say I'm quite envious of photographers who have chosen their film of choice and stick to it, it's a decision I'm unable to commit to. The great thing about film is that we've got the choice, digital users are stuck with one rather average film.

As for what you actually photograph, I do my best not to visit obvious locations because to be honest I probably can't come up with anything better than what's already been created, anyway I think it's good fun to visit these landscape icons and turn my back on them! That's not to say if the light is right and you can find a composition that is to your liking you shouldn't make a photo.

I am thinking of taking a trip up the A82 and burning that tree down, I can then be the first person to photograph the wonderful new tree free vista!

Dav

Highlight this Comment David26/05/2009, 08:30

Hi Dav,

Nice to see you posting here.

So what would you suggest should be done with the tree on Lochan na h'Achlaise... ;-)

On a more disturbing note there have been examples of remarkable landscape icons being destroyed in the US. A number of hoodoos have been knocked over following the publication of a guide with GPS co-ordinates for them. Most notably, the rock formation that Michael Fatali immortalised as "Back of Beyond" (real name "The Teapot"!) was recently destroyed by vandals. Radicalised landscape photographers who'd just had enough of seeing the same scenes again and again and again? Or just nutters... Either way it is a great shame that such an amazing piece of natural sculpture should have been destroyed to satisfy somebody's idea of fun.

David

Highlight this Comment David26/05/2009, 09:08

Hi Joe,

Good to see you posting here again! You should look at some other blogs though, I hear Mr Parkin's is quite good! ;-)

Although I'm not usually inspired by returning to the same view I can understand that others are. Certainly the challenge of trying to make something new in a well-known location can be a great impetus to creativity. I'm afraid that I tend to approach this in the same way as Dav; I turn around and look in the opposite direction or at my feet. It is therefore really quite ironic that one of the few occasions that I have shot the view has caused one person to extrapolate a general tendency in my work. Oh well.

David

Highlight this Comment David26/05/2009, 10:02

Hi Paul,

As you say, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. A lady once attended a large format workshop with Joe and I in Northumberland. I was my usual facetious self and, perhaps quite rightly, I don't think she was that impressed with me. But after a couple of days she borrowed a copy of Landscape Within. The next morning at breakfast she came over and, looking at me very earnestly, proclaimed, "There's more to you than meets the eye, isn't there?!"

Do I think that my version of the tree is exactly the same? No, obviously not. Is it sufficiently different to provide a radical new interpretation? No. I think that the light was very good and that my image is quite polished but it's not anything truly original. But then do all landscapes have to be truly original? Is this in fact possible?

Answers please...

David

Highlight this Comment Dav Thomas26/05/2009, 12:37

Hi David

I must say I was only joking, of course, about the destruction of photographic icons (just in case someone does take a blow-torch to the famous Rannoch Moor foreground interest and I get the blame!).

I didn't know about the destruction of 'The Teapot' – what a disaster, I s'pose that's humans for you, destroying this wonderful Earth for 5 minutes of 'fun'. This is a good argument for photographing obvious locations, documenting the environment, so future generations can see what a spectacular planet we've managed to cock up.

The tree of Rannoch Moor isn't quite up there with the wonders of the world, it's probably only photographers who care about its existence, maybe decorate it with fairy lights or paint it yellow?

Dav

Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks26/05/2009, 13:07

Hi David,

I think P Smith doth protest too much. For someone who professes disdain for taking the same view as someone else he/she seems to know an awful lot about that tree, which road it is on and how far from the road it is etc.. Maybe he/she is simply annoyed that they didn’t get as nice light when they were there. :-)

I like Dav’s suggestion for adding decoration but perhaps on this occasion, to avoid damage to the environment, that is something best done in photoshop. :-)

Jon.

Highlight this Comment KK26/05/2009, 13:53

Hello David,

Thank you for including my efforts amongst your examples of "less bombastic" work. However the idea that Joe's work is in any way bombastic, as claimed by one of those cited, can only be advanced when judgment consists of ideological posturing and ignorance. "Smart-arse critics" indeed, as Joe so eloquently put it! I have had the pleasure and privilege of discussing photography with various practicing photographers whose work is as diverse as their talents; they all share a refreshingly open minded response to the work of others. We don't always agree, I know this is a bit of a shock to you, but the disagreements are spurs to new thought and moving on.

As you recall I sent you (at your invitation) very extensive comments on the manuscript of Landscape Beyond. I think that my comment on the central point of your posting is relevant. Here it is (slightly edited to remove page references etc.):

Buachaille Etive Mor is, I suppose, a honey pot location but in fact hardly any of its possibilities (other than the three standard locations) have been explored. Even from the standard positions there is much that can be done, but it does mean being there in very inhospitable conditions; those are the times when I can pretty well be sure that I will be alone. I have yet to meet another photographer on the top.

I find the overall trend of what you are saying to be slightly misplaced. It seems to me that your point is against lazy copying, of course I agree with that. However I very strongly disagree with any suggestion that locations can be `exhausted;' that they can somehow be trade marked by the past and denied to us and those in the future. Landscape photography, at least for me, is exploration of the landscape with a camera. I will not let the past rob me of my experience and the expression of what I feel and have to say about a location. The caveat is that I must genuinely have something to say of course, which agrees with your point.

This is pretty much in agreement with Joe's posting. It does seem that people often want to react to an isolated image rather than look at a body of work. Regrettably, concentration on the single image is a tendency shared by many. To be sure some images have a stronger effect than others when seen in isolation. Put them in a sequence though and it is a different story. In any case the work of any photographer must be taken as a whole for a proper appreciation (no this does not mean we can only look at dead people's work, just in case there are pedants out there).

I looked at most of the comments posted on the review site and it is striking just how limited a notion of art they posit. For example, they seem to want images that reflect the familiar: "more like the Britain I know" as one person puts it. I appreciate that this does not necessarily mean familiar locations but as an aspiration for art it is depressingly parochial. The comments are also at odds with the general claim that familiar scenes should not be revisited. In addition, they are culturally blinkered. The traditions of China and Japan have long held it perfectly honourable to create work in the style of past masters or even copies (e.g., see Hiroshi Sugimoto's L'Histoire de L'Histoire). Art can be about quiet and even inconsequential things, the furrowed brow soon becomes tiresome if nothing else is on offer.

Well I started this with my morning coffee too early for comfort, then the day job got in the way. I see that there have been some more responses since. On the subject of cutting down trees this is too painful to contemplate. Several trees have been damaged (or completely cut down in two cases) in my favourite glen by so called "wild campers." These lost friends (the trees not the campers) were the victims of vandalism from people whose idea of wild is to park by the roadside and go all of 5 yards to pitch a tent. I'd better not go on about this any more though, I can feel the blood rising.

I will end with a point of possible agreement with the critics. It seems to me that the world of Landscape Photography can at times be a little too comfortable and foster rather conservative responses. Side swipes at digital and Photoshop being the most obvious, e.g., see the previous thread on this blog. Presumably those who hold to this position are making their own emulsion and keeping faith with wet plate collodion (oh hang on a minute that wasn't so traditional it should be paper negatives or is it bitumen?). Velvia, Provia, Acros, Astia, Phase 1 etc., who cares? For information, I use Velvia, Provia and Acros mostly; make colour prints digitally and B&W with a 5x4 enlarger. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. To the best of my knowledge there is no religion with a commandment regarding photography so let's not create one.

KK.

Highlight this Comment David26/05/2009, 15:49

Hi KK,

Wise words as always, somehow you manage to always show me the error of my ways! ;-)

We don't always agree, I know this is a bit of a shock to you, but the disagreements are spurs to new thought and moving on.

I'm assuming that your tongue is firmly in your cheek at this point! A debate is almost always helpful for clarifying one's ideas - as long as one is open to reasoned argument...

I was saddened, though not particularly surprised, to hear about the vandalism of trees caused by wild campers. Seems the world has more than its fair share of thoughtless bastards. :-(

I hate to agree with you yet again (that would make more than once in a single post!) but I think you're probably right about a conservative tendency in landscape photography. I'm not fussed one way or another what means of capture is employed as long as the resulting image has some merit. The point I was trying to make in my previous post related to my preferred method of working and wasn't simply a swipe at digital technology. But you already knew that.

There isn't a landscape photography religion but if there were I wonder who would be in the pantheon of the Gods and who would be the high priests? Plenty of opportunity for a spirited debate there, closely followed by deep schisms... ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment David26/05/2009, 16:28

On the subject of making new interpretations of well known places, I love this image of the Lochan na h'Achlaise tree by Tim Parkin.

David

Highlight this Comment Simon Edwards26/05/2009, 20:04

"But then do all landscapes have to be truly original? Is this in fact possible?"

NO!

Okay, one word answers don't get very far, let me qualify. I've only been a photographer now for 5 years and when I began to study the art of photography I was as guilty as anyone of looking for the tripod holes. A lot of the beautiful images I was studying were places I didn't know. With a short amount of time, and a lack of knowledge it's often safer and easier to look for the familiar - in this case an area seen in OP, or a book or whatever. However that's not always the way to satisfaction. Now I tend to view others work as a suggestion - if someone has produced a beautiful image from an area, there's a good chance there's another beautiful image there to find - a different viewpoint, a different time of day, a different time of year even.

However, as someone who is also trying to make a business from his art, there is also the problem of satisfying the general public - and this is where a lack of originality can creep in. Take the view of Buachaille for example, or Dunstanburgh, or a jetty on Derwent Water... now let's consider that currently I'm only as far as Craft and Art Fairs and local exhibitions. If I were to concentrate totally on making the sort of images I like - I would sell less than ten images a year. By producing my take on a well known view I can satisfy the general public...hopefully by creating my own interpretation of an area...but by it still being recognisably that area. Perhaps that's a mercenary viewpoint - but then I'm new to being an artist, whereas I'm not new to the business world. I've tested it so many times though. At the average fair I attend, the work I feel is my strongest and most obviously "mine", is the work I sell the least often - the general public often want "a pretty image" to make their house a nicer place...and who am I to criticise them for that? Perhaps I'll never make it as an artist because I think like that, perhaps I should throw all thoughts of business out of the window - I don't know.

At the moment I'm struggling with the idea of art as opposed to business...in art originality is often key, in business recognisability is often the prime importance...

One thing that does annoy me however is when a photographer finds those tripod holes, goes as far as copying the light...and then goes on to market the image as original. Case in point, Joe's image of Sutton Bank...that a year after it was the front cover of AP was copied exactly...and then chosen as one of their Portfolio images....and that's not the only example I've seen. Cliches should also be avoided. The last winter I was at Stanage Edge, I was there pre-dawn, catching the glow of the sunrise over the stone wall covered in snow, the reeds showing red against the snow - everything but bloody millstones covered in snow! After dawn had come and gone I was heading back to the campsite...and within 10 minutes I'd had two different carloads of photographers ask me the quickest way to get to the millstones before the snow melted. Original - no, interesting...mmmm debatable?

Highlight this Comment David27/05/2009, 09:56

Hi Simon,

Welcome to "Oceans", always nice to have new people commenting – so don't be shy those of you who are still lurking!

Commercial concerns can certainly play a part in choice of subject. I seem to remember Joe telling me that the majority of images sold in his gallery were of Roseberry Topping. I feel that the public are buying these images primarily as mementos, as reminders of places that hold personal significance for them and only secondarily, if at all, as works of art. I think Joe's example shows that one can make landscape photographs that can be classed as art and still make sales – it just means that their owners don't truly appreciate what they've got!

Now, Joe would be mad to stop making images of Roseberry when there's such a demand. The challenge for him, and one that he continually meets, is to make images of a familiar subject that continue to be original and interesting. The key here is to get to know your subject intimately. This intimacy will reveal new possibilities for images. The project that KK is undertaking with his favourite glen is a case in point. I doubt that there are many men alive who now know Glen Etive as well as he does and I fully expect the finished book to be an incredible body of work. Photographic insight comes from personal insight.

Personally I find it hard to work in the same way as Joe and KK. I return to subjects but not to viewpoints. Actually it might be better to say that I return to areas of investigation, not specific locations but classes of subject, types of approach. I try to make new images within these parameters. The subject often isn't as important to me as the process of finding some small, new wrinkle in the way I see. This is perhaps a subtle distinction – it occurs to me that KK might not think that there's much difference between his approach and mine. I'm still struggling to clearly define the differences but I do think there are some... One to return to another time.

A very minor motive for my choosing to concentrate on making intimate landscapes is that other photographers can't use your "tripod holes"; nobody can know where the image has been made let alone copy it. I know that Joe's work is often plagiarised by lesser photographers. Though, in my opinion, their work is never close to equaling his magazine editors aren't always so discerning. There's nothing one can do to prevent plagiarism when locations are as obvious as Roseberry Topping or Sutton Bank. Though it is irksome when someone gains spurious recognition for a copied composition, as in the Sutton Bank example that you give, I'm not sure that one should worry about it too much either. Magazine editors are hungry for content and aren't as fussy as they should be. Sadly I don't think anything can be done to redress matters after the fact.

David

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson27/05/2009, 14:22

Hi All,

While browsing the shelves of my local WHS bookshop (hope this does not constitute free advertising on this site) in the photo mag section there were no less than six digital magazines all with front covers of Buachaille Etive Mor, showing the small tree and the waterfall. It seems to me that there are a lot of sheep type photographers out there, all copying the masters. Maybe Mr P Smith was thinking of this when he stated that "there's was a lack of originality in British landscape photography." Talk about a subject being done to death, this certainly proved his point.

I suppose we all have done it; I have made my own representation of FH Evans "Sea of Steps". The important thing here is it is my interpretation of this famous subject and is not exactly the same as the 1989 poster of it that hangs with pride of place on my wall.

It also seems to me David that Mr P Smith did not appear to take the journey past the front cover image of your book, as by doing so he might have changed his opinion about you and your images. What a philistine he must be.

Your more intimate non vista landscapes are a breath of fresh air and open up new ways of seeing for us all to enjoy. My latest series of intimate landscapes are even more intimate than yours, as most of mine are taken with a 100mm macro lens. You certainly have changed direction in recent months and you are showing us all a new way of looking at the finer aspects of landscape photography.

The other point I wish to make is that when you pick up most photo mags these days the majority of the images are in colour. Maybe Mr P Smith thinks that there are to many colour landscape images being published these days?

Here is your opportunity to get back to your roots and try some Black and White landscapes. I am sure the UK edition of the Black and White magazine would be more than pleased to pubish them. You could always use, dare I say it, Photoshop and use the black and white dialog box, channel mixer or de-saturate to assess them on your computer screen. Although I shoot all my digital images in colour I never rule out doing a save as, and look at them as a grey scale black and white image. Some may surprise you as to how well they work in black and white.

So scan some of your 5x4 slides to see what they would look like. You mention Eddie's image of the self same tree, but the big difference as I am looking at it now in a copy of his book is, it is a black and white image that has been sepia toned.

We should be able to see more black and white, sepia, duotone, tritone and quad tone images in the popular photo mags. Perhaps the editors think they have they gone out of fashion. I don't think so, we just have to re-educate the editors of the popular photo mags that black and white is back.

I would be interested to your and others opinion on this topic?

Highlight this Comment KK27/05/2009, 18:26

Hello David,

Ah the fabled book, thank you for the confidence you show in it. Perhaps one day it will be a physical reality. Ah well we can all dream.

I must disagree (hooray) with any implication that I am motivated by subjects as such or viewpoints. My real subject is not the landscape nor myself but our relation to the world expressed through immersion in a place (and other things that are probably best consigned to pseud's corner). It so happens that I have chosen one particular area to explore in depth (perhaps to a nerdish extent) but it could have been some other place. This exploration rules nothing out, vistas, rocks particular stretches of water (some apparently unremarkable, but in fact far from being the case) etc. Constantly questioning my approach and finiding new ways to look at and present the world is part of the process. More recently I have added B&W to my means of expression not only because colour is useless in certain situations but more positively it can be the best choice even where colour is feasible (it took me quite some time really to understand shades of grey but at last the light has dawned).

I find the distinction between vistas and intimate studies rather over stated and ultimately irrelevant so far as I'm concerned. The only question that matters to me is if the resulting image has interest; whether due to composition, colour, texture, differentail focus etc. Let me emphasize that I do not argue against anybody who wishes to pursue one or other approach, but cannot go along with attempts to claim some sort of advantage (even moral superiority) of one against the other. There is no theorem to prove here. (Homer style thought bubble: hmm will he rise to the bait?)

On the question of others copying any compositions I might make, I am not particularly bothered (well I would be if they claimed priority falsely). The differences will show when the entire body of work (or an appropriate selection) is considered. In fact I can never be sure if a composition is really new, perhaps even for some that I believe to be completely new there is a glass plate in somebody's attic from which I could lean a great deal. It is true that my web site contains only a tiny fraction of my work but that is largely due to lack of time.

What does bother me is the dumbing down of so many magazines and their lack of genuine critical judgement or intellectual debate. I have put my money where my mouth is on this front having decided some years ago not to contribute any more work to a magazine that used to pay me a fairly decent amount for each article. It would be unfair to name the magazine as it is by no means the worst one out there. I must stress that this is a personal decision and one that I can afford to take since I do not make my living from photography. I am full of admiration for those whose livelihood is based on their art and who still produce truly remarkable work. The bills and mortgage have to be paid not to mention really important things like a new lens (of course holidays are for wimps). So the odd article here and there cannot and should not be turned down. Indeed those who are household names in our little world do a lot of good by pointing people who are willing to listen and think for themselves towards a fascinating and deeply satisfying direction.

KK.

Highlight this Comment Robert Teague27/05/2009, 22:34

As an American photographer, I am keenly interested in your, and Joe's, work. In fact, British landscape photography is greatly inspiring to me, in my own work. I never cared if someone has photographed a particular location before or not - I'm not them.

Keep writing, and I'll keep buying your books. BTW, when I travel there are two books I always take with me "First Light" and "Landscape Beyond" - they inspire me when I'm on the road.

Come to Hawaii sometime ... I'll show you some wonderful places, with inspiring scenery.

Highlight this Comment David28/05/2009, 08:06

Hi KK,

There is no theorem to prove here. (Homer style thought bubble: hmm will he rise to the bait?)

No, but Charles might if he's reading... ;0)

David

Highlight this Comment David28/05/2009, 08:33

Hi KK,

Actually I will respond to one point – there's a surprise! On the dumbing down of photographic magazines; I used to a write regular, monthly article for a well known UK photographic magazine. After I willingly passed on the baton for this series to other photographers I asked if I could write a monthly opinion column instead. I was told by the editor that "there isn't room in the magazine for your writing." A harsh judgement on my abilities or simply a commercial decision that talking about "why", rather than "how", didn't help sales? Perhaps it was all for the best(?!?) as part of my motivation for writing this blog came from that refusal.

David

Highlight this Comment David28/05/2009, 08:48

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your kind words about Joe's and my photography. It's very nice to think that I might inspire you on your travels.

And thank you for the invitation to Hawaii. You can be sure that if I ever manage to get over there I will take you up on your offer!

David

Highlight this Comment Jon Brock28/05/2009, 18:05

David.

Finally managed to get off my behind and contribute some thoughts to your blog. I am an avid reader, but get so little time to contribute. So here goes.

As you know I also joined the ranks of 'sheep like' photographers who have had a go at 'that tree' over the winter. In fact I had two goes at it, each in very different conditions. However I refuse to feel any sense of guilt. In fact, I think there is an inherent danger in starting to believe that particular subjects are out of bounds for us either because others have made strong images of the same subject or because one has managed to make one in the past. That way lies the constant search for the un-photographed, and fewer and fewer images. And then not practicing our art.

I strongly believe that when we make an image, we try to communicate something of what we feel about the subject and find a way of expressing that through the image - as Joe puts it, how we 'interpret' the subject. I think the key is our interest in the subject. If we get inspiration from our interest in the subject, rather than another photographer's images of the same subject, then I am convinced we are more likely to find something unique and worthwhile and at the least we will have developed and enjoyed our own photographic process. If the tree interests us, then it is right to try ones hand at it.

Just a couple of more points - posed as questions - just to show I have been reading your excellent last book!

Why is a place not a subject? Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

What do you really mean when you say repetition? Repetition of the subject or that particular interpretation of the subject? Is that what you mean by view point? (What's behind my question is that I think photographing a subject increases our knowledge of it, often our interest in it - at least in the short to medium term - and can increase the likelihood we will get a stronger image next time. Therefore I would distinguish between repetition of a one particular interpretation of a subject and taking multiple images of the same subject. However, as so much changes over time (light, weather, vegetation) and there are so many choices open to us even a similar interpretation can still be quite different.

Therefore, would you photograph the tree on the moor again?

Highlight this Comment David30/05/2009, 07:25

Hi Jon,

Welcome on your debut as a poster on "Oceans"!

Sorry that it has taken me a couple of days to respond, but in answer to you questions...

For me "place" is too wide a definition for "subject"; in theory one could make very many images from the same "place" or even a single camera position with different focal length lenses. So I don't think that a place is necessarily a single subject. For me, "subject" is that which is finally enclosed within the frame of a single image, be it a vista or a detail. I feel that as a photographer one works a "place". Subject matter, rather than subject, might be a better term for the object of any given photographic enquiry. Subject matter would cover the area of work where one mines for an image but also refer to a class of subject not limited to geographical location. I would consider reworking subject matter as an essential activity for all photographers. It teaches us about the world and about how we see the world leading us to new insights.

For me, a viewpoint isn't a nebulous area from which one makes an image; a layby with a camera sign or a stretch of stream or a closely circumscribed mountain summit or even a single tree trunk. Rather a viewpoint is a particular perspective from a very specific point in space or one so similar as to make little difference in the interpretation of the resulting image.

What I dislike is the repetition of a particular interpretation, or a strikingly similar version of a view of a certain subject matter. I don't have a problem with the making of multiple images (by one or more photographers) from the same place or a new working of the same subject matter as long as each brings some new understanding or aesthetic value to one's vision of that place. Questions of similarity are obviously fraught with difficulty as, for instance, to one viewer a different cloudscape will make a significant difference and to another a different sky will hardly register. And, as KK pointed out, even if one tries one's hardest to avoid repeating a particular interpretation there's no guarantee that somebody else hasn't already shot the very same perspective. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that there's no advantage to me in setting out to reiterate a viewpoint.

Was my interpretation of the tree on Rannoch Moor sufficiently different from Eddie's or any other to make it worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. There can't really be a definitive answer to this question; photographic appreciation is subjective not objective. It occurs to me though that the reason I've been criticised is because I've had the nerve to publish my version, not simply created it as part of some private enquiry or rite of passage and left it in a drawer. Was it wrong of me to publish it? I don't think so. But I do feel that it didn't suit the context that it was used for and on that point alone I'm happy to accept criticism. Would I photograph the tree again? If I thought that I had found a sufficiently different interpretation then yes, but not the same or a similar viewpoint just because the clouds were different or because it was a different time of day or time of the year.

David

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin30/05/2009, 20:56

Firstly, thanks for the link David! I have an internal battle going on between my love of the epic and my urge to create something original. Sometimes both sides win and it gets interesting.. Anyway I was thinking about viewpoints and originality and came up with the following..

Firstly, what are the negative reasons for possibly recreating/copying/interpreting a familiar location or viewpoint.

Laziness, can't be bothered or not capable of creating or looking for something original.

Theft. Perhaps people won't notice? Well some people who don't look at photographs often might not.

Want to win points on photographic social networking sites. Most sites don't score creative photography well and people vote for locations not photographs. This seems to have created a school of photography that rewards repetition and extremity.

... and some neutral reasons...

Lack of time? If you don't have much free time, you are more likely to get something if you go somewhere familiar - however this doesn't mean you have to produce something familiar. Homage? Unlikely, even if it's often quoted as an excuse.

Inspired by it? Yeah, up to a point; again you can be inspired and creative at the same time.

Finally I think these are the possible valid reasons for looking at familiar places and viewpoints..

Find it a challenge; can I get something better? How could I reinterpret? Wonder what you would have done in the same place?

Looking at photos as remote scouting.. For those that are short of field time, studying locations via photographs is a time efficient way of scouting out areas. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of self control not to repeat the obvious photograph and then even more self control to ignore those photographs when you come to editing them.

I must admit that I have taken the odd picture of 'classic viewpoints' - David has mentioned one Rannoch Moor tree but I have been to David's/Eddie's tree. I took this knowing that the tree was a popular subject but not knowing the original picture (never having seen Eddie's and not really consciously remembering David's). This is the large format picture I took (screwing up the sky exposure) that I like because it the river look clean and the fire grass is in full swing... (so pissed off about the sky!)

And this is one of the shots I worked on which I think has something original in it (although I imagine someone has one of these out there).

Here are a couple of shots from other people that have interpreted the tree differently (and these were hard to find!)..

Will I go back again? I might if the conditions are interesting, although I shall look for something different (possibly revisiting a couple of 'root' shots I saw whilst returning to the car last time..

Finally, I was reminded recently about a theory about perception and how our brain intercepts vision, processes the structures and patterns according to our previous experiences and discards the rest. Unfortunately, this means that most people who 'love' the classic viewpoints will arrive and be pre-programmed to ignore everything else (to an extent).

However, just like when you look at word long enough or say it enough times, it stops being interpreted as a symbol and becomes a collection of shapes or phonemes which can become meaningless, or it can start to trigger new thoughts or relationships. I am certain that this happens when you are out in a location, once you are immersed in a location for long enough, you stop seeing in symbols and start seeing the details. This is when you can really start to see the landscape rather than react to it; you can start to see new patterns and relationships and to construct new objects through composition. I think that with practice, the transition from interpreting your vision as objects to seeing the details can become quicker and I'm sure the great photographers can see in this 'mode' as a normal state but I would think more exposure to a subject should improve this mode of seeing. Does this sound familiar David?

Highlight this Comment adamp30/05/2009, 21:03

Hi All,

Once again a thought-provoking discussion. If it wasn’t OK to take very similar images, then photo-tour or photo-workshop organisations would collapse very quickly. Iconic places would not be worth visiting for photography, because they’ve all been done before.

But so what if they have? It seems that nobody here has said that one of the reasons we amateur photographers take pictures is to either simply record our visit to somewhere special, or (better still) hopefully to record our experience of that visit. Before I went with David, Nigel et al to Death Valley last year, I looked at lots of images on the Web from the locations we were to visit. Boy oh boy, what a variety! From the downright awful to the truly inspiring. I am happy that I came back with my view of those places, some “intimate” and some of the grand vista. But because my place on the ridge was a few yards from the others’ my take on the iconic views is just that – it’s mine.

When I look at someone else’s images from these locations, my reaction is good/bad depending on the image, and perhaps “oh yes I’ve been there”. But my photos remind me of the experience I had, of the feelings I went through in searching for my viewpoint and camera angle and reacting to the light as it changed. Whether my images convey my emotions, wonder, excitement is for others to say. But my image has a meaning for me that others’ images don’t.

That is not to say that others’ photos are in some way inferior. A good photo will inspire me to want to visit that place and to experience for myself its wonder, its attraction. And perhaps to record my enjoyment of the visit.

We had a coach load of Japanese at Mono Lake and a phalanx of tripods appeared in seconds along the shore. There were perhaps 50 almost identical shots taken of a small fraction of the view – point your lens here – in the space of a few minutes. When the Japs got home, each photo taken that morning probably had a meaning for its owner even though nobody took a truly original shot.

But if I ever go back to Mono Lake I would not hesitate to also take that view – because the sky and light will be different, my tripod will be placed at a different height, and perhaps I will be using a different focal length.

If this post seems very “Me, me, me!” then I would end by saying this: by also taking that same view, it will be my souvenir, my attempt to record my experience, not theirs. That surely is a valid reason to shoot what’s been done before.

Have fun, Adam

Highlight this Comment Sami Nabeel31/05/2009, 15:22

Hello David,

What makes an image unique, of the moment and an individual work of art is the prevailing light at the time of exposure, it is not the subject matter, obviously the marriage of existing light to subject needs to be sympathetic, this view I have always held, and has been a subject of discussion on this blog but I have been almost unanimously disagreed with – including by mighty David. I have recently been made aware by my very good friend, accomplished photographer and eloquent contributor to this blog KK of a correspondence by the prominent Belgian photographer Léonard Misonne (1870 - 1943), and I quote:

On a personal level, I have always been powerfully attracted to the beauty of nature, to rural or woodland settings: but I realize it is possible to go in the opposite direction. And if someone said: “I am inspired only by railroads, factories, and stations,” I would reply: “Go ahead, we render well only the things we love.” I am sometimes tempted to say that all subjects are governed by a common condition: they must be presented in a good light. The only beautiful subjects are those embellished by the light, when it contributes to the emergence of their character. For me, the subject of a picture is clearly distinct from the object it represents, in my view, the object is not important: it dose not matter whether it is a tramway, a heap of manure, a cathedral, or a herd of cattle: anything can give you a good picture. But if it is to become a subject, it should be dressed by the light. Light can turn the coarsest object into a dazzling picture. As I have already written on several occasions, if I had to summarize the fruit of my photographic experience in a few words I would say: the subject is nothing, the light is everything.

I find it very pertinent that Mr P Smith seems to look at the tree as an object and does not study the photograph as an individual work of art; probably he does not see the light.

Highlight this Comment David O31/05/2009, 18:00

Well, I'm with Adam P on this one. Although I have only been taking my photography more seriously for the last 3 years or so, my free time is very limited and I rely on the likes of L&L to (a) get me out and about with my camera and (b) to give me a holiday. My first trip - Tuscany - involved me (not knowingly) taking pictures that I only found out later were known (the particular view, that is) the world over - there was the Belvedere of course, the Clump (no, these are not dance moves!), the little orange chapel near Lucignano D'Asso and of course there's Charlie's green door (David' been there too). I took pictures. I was delighted at the results... but hang on, when I began to view the photographic press in more detail as my photographic bug mutated beyond all known antidotes, these pictures were everywhere. There was a tinge of disappointment and perhaps I was naive but the end results was something personal to me - this is where I gain my satisfaction from photography (how I made the images and what I felt at the time). Even during the holiday, I did find myself trying to find something different but this is my personal approach and may not be the intent of others.

I have been on a Glencoe trip with David and I duly put my tripod where others had - clearly - been before (including, as Tim puts it, the Flaming, Snowy tree!) - in some areas, there are literally craters (I may not be not be burning down trees but I may be using my tripod to dig out the earth!). The Lochan tree... I screwed up - thank god. Pulled the grad too far down. However, I knew exactly what I was going to get. Point here is I saw that this failed result as nothing more than good practice - trying to align a grad in freezing snowy conditions is not something one tries every day. The end result could probably be fixed in Photoshop but I wont bother - again, my personal choice. So, a failed attempt but I would go back.

In the end each image is personal and only I know what I felt when I took the image - on occasion, this might be nirvana but, if I struggle (and the week in Glencoe was very temperamental) it may just as well be the hearty breakfast at the Kings House!

A recent trip, tout seul, to the south coast - Kimmeridge, Durdle Door and Portland yielded no results. I didn't think I could add to what I had seen before of these locations. It may have taken me 3 years or so to become this disciplined but this has become my approach to photography. I will go back to these location I am sure.

So, no regrets, it's all down to personal experience and always will be but I expect that I will take fewer organised trips or trips to iconic locations (but I am tempted, David, by Iceland next year!).

Any chance somebody could post "Eddie's tree" or is it not available?

Regards

David O

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist31/05/2009, 18:42

Hello David and all,

I have been on the road for the last week, so have only just come upon this posting - and very interesting it is too! There are a lot of good points, and I won't take KK's bait, I am afraid David, since what he writes seems sensible.

The points made by Simon Edwards regarding commercial necessity are particularly important. There are many types of photography (commercial, artistic, personal, etc) and any debate should perhaps state the type so as to guide the comments. I have recently submitted landscape images to a renowned stock library and it is remarkable that in spite of the plea for new locations, the first image to sell was a view of the Giant's Causeway (Antrim). There is no doubt that recognisability is paramount.

However, where I disagree with Simon is that the same old picture of the same location is of less interest - not just to the image libraries but also to the generous members of the general public who support my photographic activities - and sells less well. I think it matters strongly to bring a fresh interpretation, without for all that being so arty as to lose the recognisability factor. It's a fine balance.

I will also say that going all-out arty/personal helps to keep the commercial photographer in me from going stale. I need an outlet for my creative juices - I need to have some fun. But I must restrain it as it is a financial dead loss (approx. 50 times less sales over the last year).

I think that the debate above ignores the important contribution of the equipment. As has often been said, the final image results from the photographer's contribution, but the kit also plays a large role. An LF camera will enable the photographer to produce pictures which an SLR cannot. It allows me to appear original and satisfy editors. I am quite certain that David W's pictures are heavily informed by his TK45, the way it works, the interface. Might it be that originality is limited by the equipment? I am not talking about minor differences such as the resolution or contrast of similar lenses made by different manufacturers, but rather the profound influence on which subjects can be recorded and the pictures which can be produced. Use of a macro lens, an LF camera, a very long or very wide lens - that kind of thing. Gear envy is not wholly unfounded. So: to what extent does the combination of Velvia 50 and view cameras in the hands of different photographers, produce similar images? You wouldn't be able to disagree on their similarities in one regard. This could explain in part the accusation of lack of originality. If this is all it is, then not guilty your honour, it was an accident.

Tim P attempts a list. I would add that some people go to the same location in order to learn. Reading KK, I am reminded that science bears (indeed depends on) the repetition of an experiment. Why shouldn't art?

There we are - just a few thoughts.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment David01/06/2009, 06:53

Hi David,

Thanks for another interesting comment.

On the point of photographic workshops; yes we do take clients to well-known places – not least because people want to travel to places that they've seen before. L&L's experience has often been that offering "new" destinations has led to disappointingly underwhelming demand. My view would be that there are always images to be made and that the quality of the leader is more relevant than the fame of the location. Roll on Charlie Waite's tour of Scunthorpe... ;-)

I certainly don't lead clients to well-known places with the sole purpose of encouraging them to mimic pre-existing images, and I don't know of any fellow L&L leaders who do either. We always encourage people to try and make new interpretations. On any given workshop or tour there will always be several people who amaze me with completely new interpretations of famous places. Given that I know some of these places very well indeed this surely proves that there's always the possibility for novel and distinctive perspectives.

I've had a quick look on the net and can't find Eddie's version of the tree. I'll ask the great man himself if he can supply it.

David

Highlight this Comment Jon Brock01/06/2009, 07:09

Hi David

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. This is a very interesting thread.

I do agree with you about repetition, that there is a line that every photographer needs to draw in the sand about whether to press the shutter or not. I think we would both agree (as would, no doubt, the majority of posters here) that to knowingly and deliberately to set out to recreate the successful image of another photographer (or even our own successful image) is on the far side of the line. The criteria we use to place the line might be artistic (e.g. the desire to keep making new, fresh, interesting art), but I also agree with Adams’s sentiment that there is the sense of enjoyment and interest to consider as well.

Over the last 12 months I have relaxed this line somewhat. A year ago, I would probably have sulked at a location like this one, convincing myself that I didn’t want to run the risk of photographing such a well worked subject at all and be accused of copying. I might have found a frosted leaf or something to do instead (as if that subject hasn’t been well worked as well). I virtually stopped making images. It took a chat with Joe to sort out in my head that I needed to concentrate on enjoying the process and let the results emerge. And also to realise that the act of making a successful image of a subject is not the same thing as the photographic equivalent of ‘getting up at 5:30am and plonking a towel on it’.

I called it ‘David’s tree’ on my blog (as I was ignorant of Eddie's image, perhaps I should have called it Eddie's tree? Or was it photographed before that? Does it matter?) but what I really meant was that the tree was key subject of your interpretation. On my first visit there I deliberately chose a very different viewpoint. On the second visit, I ended up with a fairly similar viewpoint to yours, though in radically different conditions, lighting and with a different lens and film emulsion. That was enough to be this side of the line for me (I admit just), though I understand for you and others it might not have been.

However I do have to take issue with you on the question of whether a place can be the subject of our image – isn’t that what a classic scenic vista is all about for many people? Depicting the place? Wanting to create a sense of desire in the viewer to be there? Perhaps to document the place? Or possibly just to remind oneself? I take your point that a location may have many subjects, indeed subject matter, but might it not also be possible for a photographer to be looking for a viewpoint that somehow sums up what being there means to them? After all (sorry to bring it up :-) ) that’s what you essentially did in those walking guide books all those years ago. Might it be more accurate to say that depicting a place through a photograph no longer has any or as much interest for you? (Maybe this is another line, as above, or perhaps I am getting too deep?! After all we are firmly in the realm of why press the shutter)

However we define the subject, I think our interest in it is the key and that is the main criteria I would use to decide whether I would have another go at a subject. For example, on the same trip, I had no interest in making an image at the Lochan on top of the moor. But that tree still fascinates me. I’ll probably visit it again next year.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist01/06/2009, 07:19

Hello Tim,

Your list is neutral or negative: I don't like thinking that people do things for a bad reason. Usually, they think they're right and they do what they do according to their own particular reasons - even if we don't agree with them. Your list ignores the pleasure borne of collecting: some people enjoying compiling a systematic album of classic shots, much as a Munro bagger or a twitcher will be happy to tick mountains or birds off a list. There is also the photographer who likes a picture and refuses to pay for a pretty print. He therefore goes out to make his own version. Why not admire the can-do attitude?

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2009, 07:22

Oh dear.. I'm going to disagree with Charles ;-)

Out of my recent pictures of Northumberland, all taken with a 5D (LF pictures in development) ,which do you think look specifically like digital pictures and which do you think will be 'transformed' by the use of Velvia and LF? (the results will be posted next week)

Personally I think the desire to work more diligently and to produce work that has more veracity informs the choice of camera more than the other way around - this does cause some statistical bias but self selection should not be ignored ..

The comment about British photographers huge depth of field, dramatic light, high contrast, high saturation view of the landscape is one I laugh in the face of in a sort of Spanish musketeer stylee... Having seen a lot of Joe's images (for instance) and also seen which ones sell well, get published or get copied I can honestly say that this 'filter' is in the eye of the consumer not the photographer.

Tim

p.s. One should remember that all of those people copying Joe don't realise that some of Joe's famous images are reinterpretations of locations that already had classic photographs taken.

As a side note David, does the hardback cover of your book have a certain photographic location that Richard Child's had previously taken?

Highlight this Comment David01/06/2009, 07:49

Hi Tim,

As far as I'm aware Richard hadn't photographed the boats before me but someone else , as I mentioned in an earlier blog, certainly had!

David

Highlight this Comment David01/06/2009, 08:38

Hi Jon,

Call me pernickety (many do!) but I don't feel that one can possibly hope to encompass an entire place within a single image – not even if one shot a 360º panorama. If one is very skilled and lucky (it needs luck as the audience has to be suitably receptive as well, something which completely beyond one's control) one might evoke a tiny proportion of the huge number of possibilities attendant in a particular place. Therefore a place is much more than a single subject or even a single subject matter.

By the way, the purpose of the walking book images, as far I was concerned, were simply to illustrate the route, to show it in (to coin a phrase!;-) the best possible light. At the time I had no ambition for making transcendent images. They may have achieved this status for a small proportion of the viewers but that wasn't what I was trying to do.

David

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2009, 09:18

Ah - Obviously I thought it was a different picture - I was thinking of the scoop but now I remember it was just offered as a print... sorry :-/

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2009, 09:22

oops.. I should have had a positive section as well but it went missing... collecting is a valid positive reason (although I'm not so sure it's totally about photography any more - mimeography perhaps?)

Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker01/06/2009, 11:53

Goodness me what a lengthily and fascinating read.

I have myself agonised about visiting popular locations in fear of being unoriginal and having to deal with the self-imposed guilt of possible plagiarism. I suppose the desire to be different forces some of us to attempt new ways of approaching these popular places, but let’s not forget they are popular for a reason. I do however feel that there is an element of creative integrity to be had, by exploring new areas and attempting a unique representation. It’s certainly a more tranquil experience for me anyway.

Sadly certain locations have become synonymous with landscape photography, and to be honest I tire off seeing some of them, (Antelope Canyon springs to mind). But I do wonder how places like Dunstanburgh and that Scottish tree can break free from the public’s preconceived representation when it comes to magazines and social networking popularity...

Regarding colour vibrancy, I think Tim is correct about the way we perceive it, the more widespread our neural pathways become the deeper the appreciation, just like good wine or classical music grows on you. When I was a teenager I wouldn’t touch anything but cheep cider and heavy metal, ‘ho’ how things change :o) I do however think it ironic that the current trend towards desaturation (or my perception of that trend from TV ads, to social networking forums) also seems to champion reality as a mantra. I suppose critics will always find something to have a go at, what matters is how your own work makes you feel and hopefully it will generate similar feelings in others.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist01/06/2009, 15:03

Hello Tim,

You're such a disagreeable fellow! ;-)) May I be disagreeable too? I believe you are missing my point. I was talking about different gear producing different images (which plainly they can do) while you are talking about different gear producing similar images (which plainly they can sometimes do). I am quite certain that your Ebony and Canon can mimic each other part of the time. Equally I am sure you have realised the relative merits of each system and found situations where one is better than the other. My point remains that being bound rigidly to one system can lead to apparent unoriginality.

This debate puts me in mind of parents who think their kids' music all sounds the same, even though the kids can easily tell the difference between bands (and songs even!). A lot of us here are very attuned to the differences between our respective styles, whereas it may well be much of a muchness for the lay public. Is anyone at fault?

Best regards, Charles

PS "Bronze and sand" will come out very differently as I presume you will have used tilt on the Ebony.

Highlight this Comment KK01/06/2009, 15:10

Hello Sami,

Thank you for your kind words. I predicted that you would find a good use for the quote, an invoice is on its way (all the talk about professionalism has given me ideas). As you know, I agree and disagree with you; this being in the finest Mediterranean tradition. The source of the quote is "The Impressionist Camera, Pictorial Photography in Europe, 1888-1918" (this superb book accompanied an exhibition and contains articles by many authors). The volume contains much astonishing work and is a timely reminder not to be taken in by the propaganda of a later generation, whose general stance I view with increasing distaste. Not so much received wisdom as received prejudice.

Returning to the main point of this thread, I guess underlying any sense of disquiet is the idea of originality and accusations of plagiarism. Of course plagiarism can never be condoned (I have, for my sins, been involved in writing guidelines to students on how to avoid it). But on the subject of art and the vast grey area between homage or influence as opposed to plagiarism consider Igor Stravinsky: "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal." Well "The truth is rarely pure and never simple" as I wish I'd said, if only Oscar Wilde hadn't beaten me to it. Discuss!

KK.

Highlight this Comment Dav Thomas01/06/2009, 16:09

Hey come on Jason, surely there's nothing wrong with cheap cider and heavy metal!?

Highlight this Comment David01/06/2009, 16:43

Hi again Jon,

On the following point;

Might it be more accurate to say that depicting a place through a photograph no longer has any or as much interest for you?

Hmmm... Yes and no! There are definitely still occasions when I want to depict a wider landscape. But I'll admit that it's not very often any more. This is a question of personal preference and nothing to do with proving any theorem, as KK suggested it might be. I generally find that smaller subject matter affords me greater freedom for my photographic explorations. I must stress that I don't feel that my approach is inherently superior. It suits me. I offered it in Landscape Within simply as an alternative to the more prevalent "big view" approach. I hugely admire photographers like Joe or Jack Dykinga, who I had the honour to meet at the weekend, who can make great images of the wider landscape as I find it increasingly difficult to do so. Perhaps that's just because I don't practice enough!

David

Highlight this Comment Dav Thomas01/06/2009, 16:46

This one could run and run because really, there is no answer is there? When you buy a camera you don't get a list of rules of use (thou shalt not take pictures of Dunstanbugh Castle unless employing suitably creative techniques, if using a 10 stop ND thou shalt not crop square and convert to black and white...etc etc).

When I set out taking landscape photos I pointed the camera at things I considered to look good and followed some simple composition rules, they looked OK really. It doesn't take too long to master the use of a camera, particularly a digital one, and make well composed, in focus landscape photos. Some people, most people in fact, are happy with that, they hang them on their walls, put them on flickr and show them to friends and families – they get wow comments and are happy. It doesn't really matter if they take pictures of obvious locations because the people viewing them aren't seasoned landscape photographers, they're just people who think it's a nice picture of a nice place. There's nothing wrong with that type of photography, they're not doing anything wrong.

Some photographers want to move on from this though – those people reading this blog are inevitably those types of people. For whatever reason we want to get more out of our photography artistically and possibly commercially. For folks like us there's a constant need to question our work, our style and the motivations. You have to move on from making 'normal' pictures, this normally means stepping back from nice pictures whilst making images that friends and family aren't going to get quite as easily (this isn't always the case I'm sure but I suspect it is often the case). There's still nothing wrong with sometimes using 'obvious' locations and view points if they fit in with our photographic direction.

As for making different images with large format or digital (or medium format, or 35mm), I think if you generally use large format as your main tool, when you use a digital SLR as Tim has shown you are likely to approach the making of photos in the same way as you do with the large format, so they are likely to have a similar look to them. Just because you can shoot 6 frames a second doesn't mean you're going to run around like a man possessed taking photos of everything and anything. OK, so I can't take photos of Bullfinches with my large format gear but I really don't want to.

Highlight this Comment Sami Nabeel01/06/2009, 16:50

Hello KK,

I remember our partial disagreement on the emphasis I place on light and recently, in very un-Mediterranean way, I was about to slightly turn my way of thinking until two incidents.

Firstly; your excellent article in the current Ag discussing, or better still studying, the colour work of John Blakemore and specifically his very daring images that attempt to capture light as the subject. This, together with the conclusions in the final chapter to his Black and White book, suggests to me that perhaps I am in good company.

Secondly, and more appropriately, the comments of P Smith about David’s image of the tree has made me dig in more in my trenches... David’s image in my view is very successful not because of the tree but the beauty of the light in the entire scene and the meticulous attention to details in capturing what the light is doing in the larger vista. I particularly appreciate the light on the right side of the image as it highlights the snow cap and the lovely echo of this light on the little cloud above that snow cap. All this make the image rewarding and well interpreted by David. To me if I block the view of the tree by my thumb the image loss is very minimal and I can very much live with this image without the tree.

Sami

Highlight this Comment KK01/06/2009, 17:28

Hello Sami,

...very un-Mediterranean way, I was about to slightly turn my way of thinking until...

Very relieved to hear that your momentary aberration is over. To quote my youngest "peasant blood runs thick" (on her triumphant purchase of a perfectly edible duck for 50p). Stay true to your roots or else.

I am starting to become somewhat embarrassed by the number of times I need to express my thanks for kind words. Yes you are right to cite John Blakemore as a very strong ally, though I do not know if he would be quite as entrenched as you are (an admirable quality of course). I'll have to ask him sometime and, if his answer is in full support of your position, that invoice will show a massive increase.

As I said, I agree and disagree with you (to quote Beethoven "sometimes the opposite is also true"). However I don't think it would be appropriate to reopen this thread completely here. Maybe David will return to the topic (or would that be unacceptable repetition?).

KK.

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin01/06/2009, 17:31

Hi Charles - if your point is that different gear can produce different images then, in the words of my 5 year old niece " well duh!!"... If you were saying that different gear will produce different images, then my photos were raised as a question about 'what is the difference' as I tend to produce similar images with both (as Dav points out)... If the only difference is 'adjustable focal plane' then, again... "Duh!" In fact I was intending to let the rear of the picture drop out of focus and have used f/11 and even f/8 for some shots on holiday (without movements!!)..

I think you are trying to say that gear is a straightjacket and will always make you produce different images. I'm arguing that this may be the case if you let it happen but that is very unlikely to happen with David, Joe, Sami, Jon, Dav, etc, etc.. In fact you should see some of Joe's shots on his mini Panasonic - still uniquely Joe's and you would probably say uniquely large format.

Responding to Sami, I don't think Mr Blakemore ever totally convinced me that he had 'captured light' but I think he realised that he wouldn't. However, I know that some photographs I have seen have been eminently successful in 'poor lighting' (non-directional, uniform) because of interesting subject and excellent composition. I can also imagine an interesting photo of a subject without composition (deadpan photography being so successful) and also a photo of a dull subject in poor lighting brought to life through excellent composition. We could play a little tennis Sami - you propose a picture that works through light alone and I will respond with a photograph that works through subject or composition alone and we can discuss the merits..

Tim

p.s.

Highlight this Comment David01/06/2009, 18:25

Hi Tim,

Well it seems Sami might be right! It works for me without the tree... in fact I don't know why I bothered to walk so far from the A82! ;-)

Thanks for the chuckle!

David

Highlight this Comment Sami Nabeel01/06/2009, 20:08

Hi Tim,

It is very refreshing to see that we still disagree, I do not think that John Blakemore was attempting to convince either of us and I do not recall that he ever claimed that he had captured light. As for the kind treatment of David’s image, you have re-emphasized the energy that David has captured in this wonderful little stream.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist02/06/2009, 07:16

Hello Tim,

Sorry to have piqued you by seemingly insulting your intelligence. I see where you're coming from now.

I don't like the term 'straightjacket' which implies rigidity. I prefer to think of a rate-limiting step: you can't go further than the gear, but there is plenty of scope for flexibility.

Of course we all realise here that there is a lot more to view cameras than an adjustable focal plane. However that does make its contribution and I felt your image is flawed as it stands (my personal feeling independently of your aims). To me, it looks like you're attempting an Ebony picture with a camera which is not up to it.

This leads me to the more contentious part of what you write. You say in a nutshell that Joe Cornish and by extension the other photographers you list, all have a very particular style, independently of the equipment. You agree furthermore with Dav that there is a general desire among regular LF-users to produce LF-style pictures with the SLR. Put together, I think you are answering in the affirmative my initial question asking whether "David W's pictures are heavily informed by his TK45". So what one could conclude from what you're saying is that there is a tendency to project the learnings acquired with one method into another method. While there is nothing wrong with pushing boundaries, I must ask whether that is not ignoring the capabilities of the other method(s). This raises a difficult question: is applying one's learnings across methods a sign of a definite style or a lack of originality? I don't fancy answering that one but I can guess P Smith's answer.

I know nothing of the Joe Cornish pictures to which you refer and therefore cannot comment further (could you please provide a reference?).

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment David02/06/2009, 08:13

Hi Charles,

OK, I'll bite!

This raises a difficult question: is applying one's learnings across methods a sign of a definite style or a lack of originality?

I don't see how you can contend that applying what one has learnt on one format when using another means that one lacks originality (by which I assume you mean artistic originality?). As far as I can see, at worst it may be a sign that the photographer in question lacks technical flexibility but at best it is a sign of an assured artistic stance. I feel that a lack of technical flexibility might well apply to me. After 10 years of more or less exclusive LF photography, I don't feel particularly comfortable these days making images on other camera platforms. But I don't think that's the case with Joe who seems equally at home using any format. Am I worried by my narrowed technical capabilities? Not particularly. Weston once said something to the effect that artists make of themselves a good enough technician to achieve their aims. That seems fine to me. If my aims change over time, as I'm sure they will, then I'll learn the appropriate techniques.

David

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin02/06/2009, 08:21

I agree that the image is still strong - but it has still lost something in the removal of the tree.. However, the tree on it's own isn't the whole subject. It's obvious from David's approach to the image that the stream was more important to him. So if, as you say, it is just about the light, then this should still be equally as strong (I couldn't remove the mountain and clouds without removing some of the light)...

My own take on things is that a good landscape shot is about Subject, Composition and Light where each must play their part. A picture that is weak in one area must make up something in another - obviously, like most generalities, this will breakdown on occasion but a picture taken with only 'light' and a weak subject and composition had better have some bloody amazing light...

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin02/06/2009, 08:28

I think we're veering slightly. What I was saying, in response to your suggestion that a single camera limits originality and gives a recognisable signature, is that I don't agree and that, having looked at these photographers works, I can't see a persistent signature to their photography that says "Large Format Limitation".

I think what happens when people start to use large format is that they are given time to consider composition. They have the opportunity to invest more into each photograph. If this rubs off when they use another format and their pictures look more like they did when using large format, then this could (and I think does) imply that the photographer has learned a transferable trait.

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson02/06/2009, 09:09

On the point of digital verses 5x4 film. How does the Hasselblad HD3 with a 60 million back compare to 5x4 Velvia film.

This well known picture of this now famous or infamous tree reminded me of an article in one of the Life series books on photography the volume covering Travel Photography. The article was "Cliches Revisited" which showed the standard picture post card type shots of many famous places such as Stonehenge, Taj Mahal,Statue of Liberty etc.

The point here is most people would have thought that as far as recording them by photography, these famous places have been done to death, so to speak. This is far from the truth as there is also another set of pictures shown in the book that proves that with a bit of vision images can be made and record these well known places in a completely new and different way.

This proves that it is your personal vision and style makes your images of any well known and documented site or landscape your own. For every image you make there is something of you in that image, due to your different social background and personal past life experiences.

This reminded me of an incident thirty years ago when a camera club in Stirling I was with were photographing some landscapes as a group. Another club member stood beside me and took the same shot (a bit of plagiarism here I thought) obviously thinking that I might have a "something special" picture. As it turned out when the pictures were displayed at a later meeting, he came over to me afterwards and commented on my picture, and also said "Well I never saw what you saw, when I made my picture." Even though he was using a 35mm camera with the same focal length lens and film as me.

He obviously did not take into account my previsualization of the image and how I would interpret my image in my darkroom.

I think the point stressed here is obvious.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Julian02/06/2009, 10:28

I think that with practice, the transition from interpreting your vision as objects to seeing the details can become quicker and I'm sure the great photographers can see in this 'mode' as a normal state but I would think more exposure to a subject should improve this mode of seeing.

I wonder sometimes that by concentrating on details we run the risk of losing a 'sense of place' that a wider view might provide. This was brought home to me at the weekend when I found myself chasing some of Paul Schilliger's locations in Southern Switzerland. Having found his favourite mountain huts and having paid due homage (they are rather lovely, it must be said) I continued along a remote mountain road. Towards the end, quite alone, far from any major settlement and surrounded by soaring snow-capped peaks, I made two images. The first was of some interesting plants which had colonised the run-off from a spring. The second featured some grasses which were hanging from bare rock in an intriguing manner. Although these pictures were very much of their location, neither could be said to have encapsulated that location, or even to have the merest sense of place.

Driving back down the valley, everywhere was suffused with a wonderful golden light - clear mountain air does amazing things to sunlight at dawn - but could I find a subject in amongst said soaring peaks? Nope. Not a single one. Somewhere along the line, after having finally taught myself to 'see the details', in amongst all the trees I appear to have lost sight of the wood.

Highlight this Comment David02/06/2009, 11:36

Hi Julian,

Somewhere along the line, after having finally taught myself to 'see the details', in amongst all the trees I appear to have lost sight of the wood.

Lost sight of the wood or lost interest in rendering the wood? For me it's generally the latter. I'm happy to stare at wonderful light shows in the wider landscape but don't generally feel the need to capture them in my camera. Perhaps this signals that my focus has shifted from the landscape itself to a photographic exploration for which the landscape provides raw material... Maybe?

David

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin02/06/2009, 12:28

Hi Julian.

When I said details I didn't mean to imply intimate photographs. I was more thinking that if you can see the component parts of a landscape instead of interpreting it as a whole, you can then reconstruct compositions from it. I can relate to some of what you say about not having context and, although I don't see it as a problem, I personally like to include some element of the large environment in my pictures; not so much an intimate landscape but more a "slightly friendly" one..

Highlight this Comment David O02/06/2009, 12:48

Just a minor point - there is much talk of finding a new interpretation to well-visited or image-saturated locations. When I visited Tuscany many years ago, I didn't have the "baggage" or "burden" of pre-visualised images brought to me by the photographic press and websites. The results I generated may well, therefore, have been the classic view - I wasn't looking to do anything "different". The important point for me was that I made images that appealed to me and very happy I was too. I am concerned that the perceived "burden" of image saturation in respect of a well-known location might force me to look for a new interpretation that, truth be told, would not have appealed ordinarily to me (e.g. 10 stop ND, B&W, square crop) - I need to keep focus on what appeals rather than look for something that possibly doesn't. I would hope that this will define my photography rather than me responding to what others may think. I think I may have just contradicted myself with respect to my last entry so, I may now have lost sight of not only the wood but also the entire forest!

Regards

David

Highlight this Comment Jon Brock02/06/2009, 21:33

Hi David,

Re your comment:

Call me pernickety (many do!) but I don't feel that one can possibly hope to encompass an entire place within a single image – not even if one shot a 360º panorama.

I take your point. However characterise might be a word that was closer to what I was meaning than encompass.

Perhaps it might be more appropriate to say that with a scenic image I aspire to making an image that characterises the place I am in. An image that shows a set of characteristics I really like, using all the skills of capturing light, composition, timing etc.

That's the sense in which I mean place is my subject.

I wonder if it is akin to your advertising photography days - you took images of cars primarily to sell them, to create a desire in the mind of the viewer to want one. In that sense the subject was the car even though one might make an image with a close up of the seat, steering wheel and dashboard.

Quite often, a major motivation for me for scenic images is to reveal the beauty I can see in a place I know and love. In that sense part of my aim is to sell it. I don't want it to be anonymous.

I don't have this aim for all images in a location. For example I might find a subject in a location, like a geological pattern or rocks in a stream that are much less about where it is and much more about... well, there are endless possibilities.

Similarly I could understand a photographer with a different motivation to mine approaching a scenic image with a different intent - perhaps they would want to emphasise enviromental issues or man's impact on the landscape or endless other possibilities. And maybe I would approach a location with a different intent on a different day.

Hope that clarifies what I meant.

Julian - good to hear your still out and about making images! It was the same sense of anxiety about not make images in fabulous light that made me re-evaluate my approach last year.

Highlight this Comment Dave (another one) Tolcher03/06/2009, 12:56

I think this is a fascinating topic that goes right to the heart of image making. It was interesting to me that when sorting through my piccies to put in a portfolio book of my work I initially rejected all of the pictures of iconic places. No Buch, no Whitby, no Quirang, no Rannoch moor etc because I felt they 'cheapened' my photography in the eyes of others who know. I have since relented and added a few different angles/light back into the selection but fundamentally I still feel the same. However I do love going to those places and capturing a 'scenic snap' in lovely light at just the right time, I just think those images are personal to me and those that I shared the ocassion with. They have no longevity.

Ironically it was a number of images of iconic places in magazines and books (the likes of David Noton, Joe C) that inspired me to take up photography more seriously in the first place. They were new to me then (however many times they had been done and published before) and drove my passion. As such I don't have a problem with them being so prevalent if it inspires a whole new generation as it did me.

Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks04/06/2009, 15:59

I was intrigued by Tim's photoshop work on David's image to remove the tree. This may be a little off topic but don't you think it has a huge impact on the emotional impact of the scene? I had myself been wondering what the image would look like without the tree. Maybe this is sacrilegious but I'm not, overall, a huge fan of the tree. It has a nice graphic quality to it, undoubtedly, but to me it is something of a sinister presence. Dark and foreboding, the dead tree seems gloomy and menacing. This is no doubt an intentional effect. But doesn't it prove a great illustration of landscape photography's ability to convey emotion?

It is interesting, given discussion elsewhere on this thread about the merits of photographing iconic locations, to note how one 'simple' compositional change can produce an image with an altogether different character to the original.

Jonathan.

Highlight this Comment James Paul04/06/2009, 22:38

Hi David and everyone else - this is a lively blog isn't it, good stuff, it's what a blog should be for.

I wanted to reply to Simon Edwards' comments in regard to copying the image on the cover of AP magazine. Funnily enough it was myself who had that image published in the AP portfolio magazine. So I thought, as I've been brought into this, I wanted to give you a few reasons to why the image was shot and ultimately submitted to the magazine.

I was born and live in Northallerton where, for those in the know, Joe's Gallery is located. I only started photography about 5 years ago after working on a photography based website project for the local council. That inspired me to go out in the countryside and see some of the great places that surround us. After I bought my camera and read magazines I began to realise the impact Joe had made on the landscape photography world and thus Joe's gallery became a huge source of inspiration and a place I'd visit a lot. I actually met David on a critique day at the gallery and although I didn't get a 'Ba*&^@d' rating his comments gave me a lot of confidence to go on and learn, so I thank you for that as you could have ended a career there!! At this point in time I was a complete novice, shooting on auto and sometimes with the lens cap on! Maybe the phrase 'all the gear and no idea' comes to mind. However I had the desire to learn, and for any one who knows me if I do something I do it 100%. I looked at those images on the wall and thought how has he taken this - what do you need to do to take images like that? Can I do it? I went to those places again and again until I got something similar; it was my way of developing, testing myself; can I produce images like that? If the answer was yes, I could apply all that I've learnt to my own images and build my image portfolio. If I'm honest I think this approach has helped me develop in photography far quicker than if I had gone through classes at school, college etc. There is no better experience than going out there making your shots, finding they haven't worked and exploring why. I think having someone's work that inspires you is a great way to learn in your early stages. You can apply that principle to any kid on the football field who wants to take free kicks like Beckham, he'll try and try again to get the technique right (the swerve, the power) and he'll be wearing his Beckham shirt as well.

Back to my photography; did I care if I was in the same tripod holes? Nope, I didn't for the reasons stated. I was there to learn. Sutton Bank is only a few miles from Northallerton and is one of my favourite places. It's somewhere I go often especially when I want some peace and quiet. Coincidently, Joe actually took us to Sutton Bank on one of his workshops and gave some assistance in taking shots at the gate. Like probably hundreds of others who've been on a workshop you return to the places you went to to see if you can get a good shot, see if you've learnt from your workshop. I actually returned a few weeks later to have a go and that was the shot I got on my first attempt. It was more timing than anything and to pose a question - if you were in a location the sun shining, an inspirational view at your feet would you not take the image because someone else has shot it before? I would certainly take it for the reason that I'm seeing something in front of me that is creating an emotion and capturing the image is my response.

Now in regard to the image submission. Imagine back in time, you are a novice, only just beginning to show signs of ability, you are keen to show people your work in the hope that maybe someone sees it who is going to transform your life. You want people to see the best you have at that time. I made the decision to include that image in the submission because that image was personal to me and I felt it was one of my best at that time, it was the image that I took that made me think I can do this and that is why it is special. There were ten images on that disc and when AP chose that to be published for me it felt as though it was a recognition of the image being good and not that it was a copy of Joe's image. In fact if you compare Joe's image to mine there are many differences - enough to say that even if the tripod was in the same place we saw different things. For me it was the clouds that made the image, not the gate.

I will say that in my collection I do have a lot of Joe Cornish inspired pictures and to be honest many will not see the light of day for exactly the reason we are discussing but also because they are not special. I rarely go into the gallery. Not because Joe caught me trying to prize one of his Roseberry Topping's off the wall (just a joke!), but because I feel at this stage I need to discover my own identity. This is important to any photographer, especially when you are trying to be recognised in a town that is home to Joe's gallery. It somewhat puts a stumbling block in your business plans! Joe still is a huge inspiration to me but I am now trying to put the skills I learnt into practice. That's the stage I am at now but what I would say though is if the same thing happened again and I captured a shot that was similar to someone else's work but it was special to me and I had an opportunity to have it published or sell a print then I would. There can be no copyright on what nature produces and just because someone makes an image at a certain location a commercial success does not mean they were the first or the only ones to capture it. I'm sure many commercially successful photographers these days are inspired by their predecessors and have shot at the same location.

Hope, I've not sent you all to sleep and a great site David!

Highlight this Comment David05/06/2009, 08:45

Hi Jonathan,

I'm not too keen on trying to pin down an interpretation of a specific image (especially not my own!) but for me the contrast between the stark, skeletal tree and the clean, bright light emanating from the mountains is one of the key factors that make the original image work. Contrasting pessimistic and optimistic elements can be powerfully expressive. Taking the tree away does diminish the image. The stream gives the image graphic force – and Tim's right, I did find this element very appealing – but I think that the tree is an essential element. It acts a little like punctuation, specifically an exclamation mark, guiding and altering the viewer's interpretation. Actually I think it acts more like a short sentence that completely changes the readers' view of a passage in a book, introducing darkness on a sunny afternoon.

David

Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks05/06/2009, 09:03

Hi David,

I totally agree with your point about combining the pessimistic and optimistic element and I can totally understand why you chose to include the tree. I guess the observation I was trying to make, though not fully formed, is I personally would probably have found a way of trying not to include the tree and that a picture without the tree would have been changed only slightly yet be very different not just visually but in its emotional impact. For me this is a strong justification for people who choose to photograph iconic locations. Seemingly minor changes can produce hugely different results is, I suppose, the point I was trying to make. Here the composition is slightly different but the whole 'feel' of the image changes.

All the best, Jonathan.

p.s. of course, given the fact I shoot mostly with digital I wouldn't have just shot a composition without the tree I would have rattled off about 100 different slightly varying compositions, with and without the tree and then spent hours in front of my PC deciding which I liked best. :-)

Highlight this Comment David05/06/2009, 09:26

Hi Jonathan,

I wasn't disagreeing with you just trying to express why the tree made such a difference. I'm not sure though that leaving out the tree could be called a minor change!

P.S. of course, given the fact I shoot mostly with digital... I would have rattled off about 100 different slightly varying compositions...

And removed the tree afterwards if you didn't like it? ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment David05/06/2009, 10:39

Hi James,

Firstly I want to thank you for your honesty in sharing your tale of the Sutton Bank image. It's really interesting for me to read about your motivations and I think that your explanation goes right to the heart of why people make images of iconic views. I can't and won't condemn you for copying Joe's compositions. I understand your motivations and, as KK pointed out, we all owe something in the work we produce to others who went before us.

When I left college and embarked upon a career in photography I made a conscious decision that I would, as much as possible, plough my own furrow. This seemed the obvious approach to me. But I now realise that I must be quite unusual in turning my back on such temptations. In fact I've spent a lot of my career avoiding looking at other people's renderings of landscapes as I didn't want to be unconsciously influenced by them. Photography's ubiquity means that some external photographic influence is inevitable; nor can a photographer cut himself off completely from wider visual and historic influences. So how successful my self-imposed exile has been is probably a moot point!

David

Highlight this Comment KK05/06/2009, 18:13

Hello David,

You state:

When I left college and embarked upon a career in photography I made a conscious decision that I would, as much as possible, plough my own furrow. This seemed the obvious approach to me. But I now realise that I must be quite unusual in turning my back on such temptations. In fact I've spent a lot of my career avoiding looking at other people's renderings of landscapes as I didn't want to be unconsciously influenced by them.

I find this a rather odd statement. You are, in effect, stating that originality is incompatible with influence. Yet when we look at any field of creative endeavour the greatest masters are ones who built on the past. To their contemporaries they often seemed at times to be going against tradition but in fact a longer perspective shows otherwise.

I do not believe that you are unusual in wanting to plough your own furrow. In fact it seems to me that this position is far too prevalent and can be damaging if allowed to dominate over all other concerns. If we are all doing this what chance is there to communicate? Every meaningful work of art takes off from some point of commonality and builds on it in various ways, some more challenging than others, but let's not confuse "challenging" with "value."

When considering a great deal of art we can discern influences. This is only of concern if that it the only thing to be found. Such work is then classed as derivative. However I do think that people are often too quick to do this because they want to sound clever ("smart-arse critics" to quote your eminent first contributor to this thread).

For myself I take every opportunity to look at other people's work and find no problem in learning from it. What I learn differs, sometimes it is a certain approach and at other times it is a certain way of thinking. I have on my walls a complete set of John Blakemore's "Wind Series II" and they are a continuing source of enjoyment as well as inspiration. I spent most of the last autumn and much of the winter photographing trees in a forest in ways that I had not before considered. The experience has been very liberating. More recently, I was looking at Lee Friedlander's book "Apples and Olives" when it occurred to me that I could present trees in yet another way. The few pictures I have made as a result of this are in no way copies of his style. Would I have made these photographs without these examples? Perhaps but it would have taken me a lot longer.

No researcher would embark on a topic without looking at the work of others. What is so different about photography? Come to think of it I have been running a big risk with my purchase of your excellent "Flowing On", any chance of a refund?

KK.

Highlight this Comment Simon Edwards05/06/2009, 19:23

I'd just like to thank James for posting his reply, without hopefully having taken too much offence at my comments. I will hasten to add that I was working from memory of both Joe's and James' images when I stated it was an exact copy. I do completely understand your reasons for having taken the image - I would question however, whether seeing that image in AP gave as much satisfaction as seeing an image that was totally of your own making, from vision to capture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your image - if I'd been there I'd probably have taken it as well.

In fact I have a similar problem, I discovered Scaleber Force from an old book on walking, and thought I was being totally original - imagine my disappointment to see an almost identical image in the JC calender (last year?) - perhaps he was influenced by me? (Okay, I can dream, that will NEVER happen!).

Seriously though, going back to the question of the Sutton Bank image, surely the editor is at fault for the selection of two very similar images? Perhaps this is why both KK and David appear much less often than they used to in the press? On a connected note, I can't wait for this years Landscape Photographer of the Year competition - how many pet photos are going to be entered with some landscape behind them...that's going to be a very interesting judging session!

Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker06/06/2009, 07:04

David,

The need to plough your own furrow is an interesting one. I too feel the same, trying very hard not to consciously repeat ideas that have been done before. But KK highlights a VERY interesting point about standing on the shoulders of giants.

In my humble opinion, the art world, or the critically acclaimed world anyway, does champion people who “plough their own furrow”, but I wonder if this is, indeed what they are doing? I wonder if Damien Hurst or Traci Emin are being totally original with their ideas? Yes, they may be very fresh with their work in the present culture (and as always that’s a matter of opinion) but the influences in their art production may not even be art, let alone their own. As you point out, the subconscious is complex and its influence at synthesising influences I’m sure powerful, if not consciously subtle at times.

I think this cultural subtlety, may be one of the driving forces for your (and everybody else who contributes in depth to this blog post) desire to analyse and evaluate it. As writing helps one personally organise complex thoughts, where as reading offers you the organised thought of others. This blog enables us all to be stimulated in ways that we wouldn’t have been able to with personal enquiry alone.

Highlight this Comment David06/06/2009, 09:33

Hi KK,

Well, it seems from what you write that it's a miracle I've ever made a half way decent image and that I have no chance of ever being a great artist! I'm a little surprised by the former (of course I might be kidding myself here) but not at all by the latter (though I doubt that I'm kidding myself here).

It wasn't my intention to imply that I didn't have influences – that's plainly nonsense – just that I tried initially to avoid looking to landscape photography for my primary influences and inspiration. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I was weak and would too easily be tempted to plagiarise (consciously or unconsciously) the style and approach of other landscape photographers. The land itself provided most of my inspiration and beyond that I looked to some of the many other sources available, both within the visual arts (including non-landscape photos) and within the vast realm of literature. As I have grown more confident of finding my own voice (not that I'm particularly confident as long term readers of "Oceans" will know) I have begun to look more often at other landscape photographers' work, no longer with the constant worry that I might nick ideas wholesale. Of course nothing is truly original, every image builds to an extent upon the work of others. My intention was merely to limit that extent. Perhaps that has also limited my creative potential, perhaps not. I am incapable of judging the degree of originality in my work, I leave that to others. I suspect that you would say that a quest for originality is irrelevant and possibly futile. All I can say is that it matters to me that I at least make an attempt. I suppose this may be a misguided attempt to hold on to an illusory notion of self-esteem.

I would disagree with your assertion that my attitude is common. My experience has been that most photographers initially, at least, borrow heavily from other photographers (and some never stop borrowing!) and that only a comparative few seek to find their own way from the start. Sadly even fewer seem to arrive at their own conclusions. You're right on one point though; my way definitely isn't the fastest route to achieving one's artistic aims.

I'm afraid I can't give you a refund on "Flowing On" as I'm not responsible for any plagiaristic tendencies you may have! ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment James Paul06/06/2009, 21:46

Hi Everyone again,

Thanks for your reply David.

In reply to Simon's comment; again, in a sense, I felt quite pleased that one of my pictures was actually remembered by someone and was somewhat surprised when it was mentioned in this blog. I didn't take offence, I think I've learnt in photography that you will never please everyone with what you do so as long as you keep yourself happy and motivated then that's half the battle.

In regard to the publication, I was ecstatic to have received the phone call. When AP said that they were going to publish a few of my images in the magazine as it was my first publication and, as I said before, when you are wondering whether you can be a photographer that phone call is very important. They also picked a couple of other images to go with it. Obviously we will never know their reasons for picking the Sutton Bank image but you know maybe they thought it was better than Joe's - lol!!!

I think the key thing to remember is that we are all different; we all learn in different ways and have different ethics, workflow etc. Some would remove the tree some wouldn't, some use filters some don't. Ultimately though we are all chasing the same dream; we want to take pictures the best we can. In the previous comment I made, I outlined my method of learning photography but I never really discussed the website project I worked on previously. I had to caption and keyword 10,000 images of 1890's-1960's North Yorkshire (including work by Sutcliffe and Unne) for placing onto a website - it took about 1.5 years. Having looked at every photograph, it wasn't hard for me then to realise where the beautiful places were to visit and this had a great influence on me. That was the project that actually encouraged me go out and see the sites - I didn't even own a camera then, but it was what I experienced at those sites that made me want to record them in the best way I can. It had to be photography as, to be honest, I can't paint for toffee - even the house walls have to have numbers on them for me to get the colours right! It was seeing the way that Joe took his pictures that took me a step further. But the key thing was that even Joe's photographs had parallels to the photographs on that project. I wonder if, and this is highly subjective, the emotion's Joe felt at certain locations could have possibly been the same emotions that say Sutcliffe had at Whitby. This is why I think it is just human nature to be drawn to the same locations and even to similar compositions.

As for influence in replicating work, I think that the photography world is experiencing a huge transition not just in the equipment - film to digital etc - but how we share and display our work. Having only been in photography for a few years I maybe out of my depth commenting but I can imagine that for most people you would only have discovered someone else's work if it was published in a magazine or shown in a gallery as part of an exhibition many years ago. Now thanks to the internet you have all those images on flickr, ePhotozine, photographers online galleries etc. I was a member on ePhotozine for quite sometime and was exposed to thousands of images. Again, it's not hard to be influenced by them. However this is where things changed for me. I would come to upload my pictures and look at others and I just felt I was looking at the same views over and over again. Of course they weren't all, but I just got the feeling we were all looking for the same thing and so I made a conscious decision like David that I would try and avoid looking at others work. Hence why I stopped visiting the gallery, stopped visiting ePhotozine etc and although I've probably taken less successful images when I get to a location I now am not looking for a certain composition. I'm going on my own instincts and trying to put into place what I've learnt. This is not to say that I don't still look at others images; I do and I buy the books etc. But I now look for locations not compositions. I try to discover the composition that nature provides when I get there. I'm not sure about anyone else but I think this phase has come quite naturally and is an evolution in my journey in photography. Its also appears to be a direct response to my earlier phase. As to what is going to come in the future, who knows!

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson08/06/2009, 15:19

Hi James,

First I must say I envy you as to having had the opportunity to view all of Suttcliffe's images, even though from what you say it must have been a mammoth task.

I am a great admirer of his work, he could certainly read the light. His images always seemed to have a beautiful, soft painterly light about them. A few years ago someone who I worked with gave me a calendar of some of his images. One springs to mind immediately, it was a picture of a chimney sweep and a miller together on the back of a cart. What a great picture it was.

I have some reproduction prints that I purchased a few years ago in the Sutcliffe gallery in York, they are good but not as good as viewing an original Sutcliffe image. One must always try to view original images by famous photographers if possible to see what master craftspeople thay were.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment KK08/06/2009, 15:59

Hello David,

Well, it seems from what you write that it's a miracle I've ever made a half way decent image and that I have no chance of ever being a great artist!

My contribution made no claim that there can be no exception to the practice of so many masters, simply that it seems a very odd approach. Since all my working life has been spent in education this is not a frivolous or ill informed judgement. Clearly I do think you have made more than half way decent images (Proof: I have broken with my peasant roots and forked out good cash for "Flowing On.").

As to influences, it is obvious that nobody who undertakes any form of study within society can be free of them. My statement here referred to the subject at hand, Landscape Photography. My puzzlement is why you would be happy to accept influences from so many sources (including non-landscape photography) but not the most relevant. It seems as though the only lesson to be learnt from a landscape photograph is how to make another such photograph, clearly I beg to differ.

To add to my reference to the masters of the past and explain my puzzlement, consider the case of Beethoven (1770-1827). Often brusque in both his judgements and manners, yet he revered Cherubini (1760-1842) and studied his scores avidly. He was more than happy to follow up ideas and techniques resulting from these studies. He did the same with composers before his time, e.g., Mozart, Handel, Palestrina. He had a more difficult relationship with Haydn, with whom he studied, but still learnt from him.

A quest for originality is relevant but over stressing it at the expense of all other aspects is a fundamental error. This was at its worst in many 20th Century evaluations of art and is still with us. I suggest that an attempt to define "originality" is by no means easy and fraught with pitfalls. For example Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" is certainly original but shouldn't some credit also go to African mask makers not to mention Cézanne amongst others? None of this diminishes it. As another example the composition of Manet's revolutionary painting Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe is a reworking of part of Raphael's The Judgement of Paris (known from an engraving by Marcantonio Raimondi). Manet's work is still original and usually considered as the start of the Impressionist movement. Of course these examples agree with what you say about originality, the point I want to stress is that these masters studied the work of others in their field. To repeat, I prefer to consider any work in terms of what it offers beyond any influences rather than regard influences as a sign of weakness.

So far as people ploughing their own furrow is concerned, I was separating means from ends. Your means were, as stated, to avoid influence from others in the same area by not looking at their work. The ends seemed to be a desire to be original in some pure sense, presumably only in respect to subject since you were happy to study non-landscape photographs. The same desire is expressed by many others, they want to "develop their vision" etc. They might not go as far as to avoid looking at other landscape work but instead of embracing and absorbing influences they seek to diminish or abolish them. I am not advocating art that is purely imitative, but art communicates best when it takes place in a context. Furthermore those engaged in any creative work are much more likely to develop their talents to the full by engaging with the work of not only the past but of their contemporaries. Finally am I not advocating art devoid of the self but too often it dominates and is, for me, a complete turn off. I shan't develop this further since I have written about it elsewhere at some length.

KK.

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin08/06/2009, 17:27

Poor mistake from Ward, who lazily prods at a forehand volley into the net, but a fantastic recovery shot from KK, whose defensive game is almost flawless. Ward is all over the place, he has lost his discipline as KK eases to three break points, converting at the second attempt when Ward thumps a forehand into the net. The volume inside the stadium has noticeably dropped. Ward to serve for the match.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist08/06/2009, 20:58

Hello KK,

I enjoy the rigour of your analysis. I am not sure that David W is strictly concerned about an outside influence on his choice of subject: I suspect that the way it is represented is also a concern, and maybe the greater one. I am curious to find out.

Manet's painting undoubtedly did borrow a compositional device but he elevated it too and added greatly in order to create a new story about pleasure (is the frog a reference to prostitutes?). To what extent is the compositional device irrelevant - a handy frame on which to hang a story, much as the canvas supports the paint, or perhaps a convenient composition on which to test his technique? If the artist sublimes the memory, who cares about the past (beyond students naturally)? I take it that that is, at least in part, your point. I fear however that modern-day critics would get hung up on the fact that he did borrow the device, rather than see the changes elsewhere. So perhaps it is natural to want to avoid any referencing nowadays, in order for the work to be judged purely on its own merits. Manet did not have to contend with the Internet and the ubiquity of instantly accessible and well-defined knowledge.

One thing I would be curious for you to bring your knowledge to, is the matter of technique and instruments. My impression of painting is that the way paint was prepared (often by the artist or his studio) and then applied to the canvas, plays a great role. To what extent do methods influence style (choice of subject and its representation)? To what extent does a change in method always bring about a change in style? What is the share of influence respectively from fellow artists and from technology? You can apply this to music too where some composers made unusual and sometimes demanding requests on performers and instruments in order to achieve a particular sound. Other composers embraced novel instruments (Mozart and the pianoforte, Varese and magnetic tape...) towards the same aims.

While I take your point regarding Beethoven's influences, I wonder to what extent a ground-breaking development in vision or sound is more likely to be widely influential if it is more noticeable. Is transgression or even shock a route to influence? Clearly the transgressive work will not always provide fertile ground, but conversely the fertile ground needs to be hyped up, if it is not to be forgotten. My feeling is that a lot of potentially influential work does get lost in this way. Which means that trangressiveness is actually a necessary if insufficient condition. Could this explain why more people have heard of Beethoven than Cherubini? Why should Cherubini be a greater influence then than now? Is it about artistry or PR?

The other problem (to which I alluded previously) is that progress is not necessarily obvious. The incremental steps are either one small step for a man or a giant leap for mankind depending on your viewpoint. I for one advocate tolerance in this respect, in spite of the smart arses, since influence is multi-faceted and works on many levels.

Thanks for the insights.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks09/06/2009, 09:44

Hi All,

The discussion around originality has so far focused on taking images of iconic locations. It seems this is the most obvious situation where it is possible to say one image closely resembles another but it can be true of abstracted images too. It can even be true of abstracted images taken of completely different subjects.

Note these two images boat, cloud. I can say for the boat that I avoided one cliche, in peeling paintwork, but being strictly honest with myself I have to say that once I was drawn to the bright red hull of the boat, the process of creating the composition was quite mechanical. It was almost as if I was following a simple algorithm, placing the lines on the basis of rules in my head, rather than any particular inspiration. The cloud on the other hand I can genuinely say was more creative. I thought much more about what I was doing and why. I had no reference points of previous images (consciously at least) that I was following.

My intention, with this example, is to highlight that originality is not simply a choice of subject matter. It is a mindset, a need to step outside of your comfort zone, to avoid the danger of simply repeating what you know works (whether you have learnt that it works by studying someone else's images, from attending a course, reading books or even by your own experimentation).

All the best Jonathan.

p.s. I appologise for linking to my own images here. I'm sure this breaches etiquette in some way and I hasten to add I am making no great artistic claims for either shot. I was conscious of not wanting to cause offence if I chose images taken by someone else and also could speak with absolute confidence that my thought processes on the boat image were mechanical rather than artistic.

Highlight this Comment David09/06/2009, 10:19

Hello All!

Given that this thread originally referred to a well known tree I would like to draw your attention to this version on ePhotozine and the comments that accompany it...

David

Highlight this Comment Julian09/06/2009, 11:13

An interesting link. Since it was awarded a 'highly commended', the question that needs to be asked is, did you have a hand in this particular award? And would you admit to it if you had? ;-)

Regarding avoiding cliché and trying to retain a measure of originality by shunning the work of others in the same field (no pun intended ;-)): how is one to know which approaches are clichéd and which original with only one's own work as a reference point?

Highlight this Comment David09/06/2009, 11:22

Hi Julian,

In answer to your question; no, I didn't have a hand in granting any award to this image.

I think your point about accidental clichés was raised by David O'Brien earlier in this discussion when he talked about his first visit to Tuscany and making images of iconic views, though he didn't at the time realise their status. Even with the widespread dissemination of so many images the possibility will always arise for an accidental cliché. In fact only one of the comments on the ePhotozine image seems to acknowledge that this is a well known view, so perhaps the rest of the audience are unaware... or just tactful.

David

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin09/06/2009, 13:52

Hi Charles,

Regarding technique and instruments; most composers or artists of prior centuries became obsessive about the materials used in order to increase the range of sounds or visual effects that they could use. However, when we reached a point where any sounds could be produced (i.e. digital synthesis) there was a brief explosion of weirdness (the seventies) and since then composers have really payed more attention to limiting the pallete in order to explore creativity in composition rather than creativity in sound production.

Sometime at the end of the industrial revolution, chemical engineering gave artists unlimited palletes and at that point, again, an explosion of colour occured, followed by a return to the artist making limiting choices in order to explore creativity rather than colour.

I think the same thing happened with photography with the birth of consistent colour reproduction. Beyond the almost perfect veracity that this can provide, any technological advance can only apply a distortion of some sort which would end up restricting the artists pallete to this new distortion (i.e. something like the Beth Orton effect or Ultra Wide Angle photography or HDR).

Technique is no doubt similar, perhaps we can have the ultimate depth of field camera at some point, where everything is in perfect focus - but would this give us a new creative opportunity? What limitations can be lifted now?

Artistic progression in landscape photography will be stylistically, not technologically driven. One of the next trends in photography will likely be a return to the 3D camera where TV screens will become the new picture frames (the latest TV technology has given use screens less than 5mm thick, reflective or transmissive displays, polarised light 3D capability and 4 megapixel resolutions).

However, the vast majority of art photographers will still use the camera lens to capture a 2D representation of the world in a way that appears visually honest to the audience (however, with intense HDR being mistaken for real life I wonder where this can lead).

I'd be interested in knowing what form of landscape photography you think can be classed as transgressive (perhaps a lopped Rannoch tree?).

Back on topic though... For me, it is the apparent intention of the photographer that makes appropriation offensive or creative and so reference to a portfolio of work is desired before dismissing any individual photograph as derivative.

Also Jonathon makes a very good point about stylistic appropriation as well as locational. Some well known photographers can make even new locations look derivative :-)

Highlight this Comment David09/06/2009, 15:10

Hi Tim,

Some well known photographers can make even new locations look derivative :-)

None taken! ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment KK09/06/2009, 15:52

Hello Charles,

Thank you for your posting, much to think about there. At your invitation, I'll comment a little bit on some points you raise.

The point about Manet (and the others) is that they, as practicing artists, found it fruitful to use other work as a starting point. Of course we would not be discussing them now if they had not added so much. I would be very wary of stating that any aspect of a work of art is essentially irrelevant (you posit the possibility that this is the case for the composition in Manet's painting). There are certain strands in art criticism that seek to identify the "real depth" of a work of art but they seem to me at best to focus on one important aspect at the expense of others (here I am echoing the composer Robert Simpson and his impatience with Schenkerian Analysis of tonal music). I don't want to start a round of "bash the critics" but in my view most practicing artists pay no attention at all to critics and rightly so. Here is an extract from what I wrote in my previously cited comments to David's last book:

...I think the position of good critics is not really to guide artists but to foster a general healthy climate of art appreciation. This is essentially ground covered on the blog (in connection with the Martin Dace article) so I will not go into details here. ... I do not know of any great (or even just good) artist who was guided by the critics; Ruskin (not too shabby a critic, though occasionally over confident in his dubious ideas) followed Turner not the other way round.

I very much doubt that Manet would have been in the slightest bit concerned if attention had been drawn to his original source (or more accurately sources). To quote Brahms on the then frequent observations on a passing similarity between a theme in his first symphony and one in Beethoven's ninth symphony, "any fool can see that!"

The question you raise about techniques and instruments is I think rather a large topic. I'll limit myself to some brief comments in relation to how my photography has been changing because here I am on very safe ground and going any further would make this far too long. I hope you will excuse me for not teasing out all the interesting questions that you raise, but perhaps this brief discussion is relevant (and i see now that Tim has addressed many points already). What I want to discuss is the effect of changing just one part of one's practice. For quite a long time I concentrated on colour transparency work largely because I wanted to understand this very thoroughly rather than dissipate my efforts. All my printing was done by third party using traditional methods. My ideal was the perfect transparency, that was the definitive work and the print just a (less than perfect) representation. Eventually I felt ready for black and white and attended a workshop by John Blakemore which led me to reevaluate many ideas. Not least was the notion that the print is somehow a poor relation. The result is that I bought an excellent printer and invested in all sorts of extra stuff (software, view-box etc.) to learn to produce colour prints and see them as the definitive end (work in progress). As if that wasn't enough I also set up a traditional darkroom. In terms of my practice in relation to colour, I am no longer so concerned about the "perfect" transparency but rather about one that will allow me to produce the print. In terms of style I would say that thinking across the possibilities has helped me greatly to loosen my approach and consider methods of representation that had not been in my vocabulary before. So a small change of materials can lead to large effects. On the other hand much has remained the same, especially in fundamental attitudes that drive me to spend so much time and money on this hopelessly uncommercial venture! I dare say this is nothing unusual.

Just one last amusing observation on technology, the artist and the audience. Stanley Kubrick used (without permission) a fair amount of music by György Ligeti in his film "2001: A Space Oyssey." I remember sitting in a cinema behind a bloke explaining at great length to his girlfriend how Ligeti used electronic instruments to produce all the unusual sounds (if memory serves the piece was "Atmosphères"). I do not know what effect or result this learned discussion earned him but thought it wise, even at my very young age, not to point out that Ligeti had decided against the use of electronics. Presumably Ligeti's previous experiments and disappointment with them led him to develop his technique, a good artist will turn anything to advantage.

On the Cherubini versus Beethoven point I rather think that if we listened to Cherubini's music now we would find that the innovations were done much better and taken much further by Beethoven. Harsh but fair. I think that talk of hype here is misplaced. Artists of the stature of Beethoven are very rare and it would take a deliberately philistine society for them not to be at the fore. I am not by any means an expert here but it does seem that Cherubini was a good example of a successful composer but one who was of his (and hence Beethoven's) time. He did influence the future of music but mediated through Beethoven. Perhaps it is rather telling that while Beethoven could appreciate Cherubini's good qualities the reverse was not the case.

Finally you mention progress. I'm not so sure that this is such a good notion in connection to art, it has after all led to the cult of the new at the expense of all else in some quarters. Maybe "development" is a better word but here I risk the accusation of a dreadful pun so had better stop.

KK.

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist11/06/2009, 07:43

Hello Tim and KK,

Thank you both for taking the time to reply. I am not going to respond to all your points, but be sure that I appreciate them all.

On the point of digital synthesis, that really came through in the late seventies in places such as the IRCAM. Before that, we're talking analog synthesis based around discrete electronic components. The reference to Ligeti is interesting: I know about Ligeti's Requiem and believe that the piece Atmospheres to which you refer is based on the same principles, Assuming this, I believe that he intentionally mimicked the results of electro-acoustic music by detuning the choir. The rejection of a key was common at the period, but he took this further by creating a layering of voices not unlike multi-tracking (which was still in its rudiments at the time). The insistence on polyrhythms could just as easily be influenced by the technical progress of the period (mostly magnetic tape) as by earlier composers. I think that his brilliance was in seeing the potential of electronics and then adapting the ideas to a traditional choir in order to create a sound that is unique (like Kubrick's 2001, Ligeti's future electronic sounds were not quite as they turned out in reality). To me, this demonstrates the importance of projection and importantly for our conversation, cross-platform influence, thereby giving weight to David W's approach. However, I do not know how much influence Ligeti's Kyrie has had and will have.

Transgression: I am guessing that most of the creative types on this blog would have no trouble being transgressive - breaking the mould, forging new links, navigating new waters, choose your metaphor. Transgression is again relative to the artist's and the viewer's (or listener's) cultural position and knowledge. I would say that colour landscape work would be transgressive for s/he who only experienced B&W. And vice-versa. Transgression in the absolute is theoretically possible, but I am guessing not in practice. I could return to my old jibe about the future being a blank sheet of paper with scribbled on it: 'this is a landscape photograph'. Would that be transgressive enough for you?

Finally, on the matter of progress, I admit I hesitated to use the word since it assumes that the artist knows where Art is headed - if it is headed anywhere. So I accept your point, KK, and the modesty that comes with it.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment joe Cornish16/06/2009, 00:09

Greetings All,

Blimey, the erudition of this Blog is eye-watering. David, you are indeed the agent provocateur par excellence of the Internet. Bravo! (as Charlie would surely say). How on earth do we ever have time and brain power for photography, when there's this blog to read (and errrrr, understand!)

So many brilliant points being made, and I can't add anything especially enlightening other than to say that, unlike David, I did indeed when younger seek influences from elsewhere, probably because at the time I had so little confidence in my own ideas and vision (for want of a better word). A better route than David's? I don't think so. Just different.

Responding to James' fascinating entries, you could easily say I/we were lucky, arriving in photography when we did, as colour films were improving, and when landscape in colour was still often sneered at by arty photographers. We (me, David, Nick Meers, Chris Jones, Andrew Butler, Will Curwen and others, the photo-Bratpack of our day!) were not then swimming (creatively-speaking) in an ocean of flickr/photo.net/ePhotozine etc, and with colour we genuinely did believe we were pioneering at the time (oh deluded fools...). In fact, we all were following in Charlie Waite's and Paul Wakefield's footsteps in one way or another. If there are any true 'originals' in British colour landscape photography, they have better claims than most.

For James' benefit I agree whole-heartedly that you can't and shouldn't try to copyright a place or an idea. We all inherit the Earth (although we will never see all of it, except from a space craft perhaps).

My first visits to so-called iconic location were by no means the first by a photographer.... Charlie Waite, Colin Prior and Paul Wakefield certainly got to many of them before me. Even David Ward did on a few occasions! In First Light I wanted to acknowledge these and other influences in a chapter entitled Friends and Heroes, and I am struck that I am still of that mind today. I know I am no pioneering original, and I never was. I am just a bloke who loves being outside and loves taking pictures. Recently I have had little time for expeditions, so have monkeyed about in the garden with a macro lens on a digital camera, and photographed flowers. Originality? I doubt it. Fun? Therapy? Stress release? Definitely.

One thing we have discussed in the past, and I think is true, is the amount of time it takes to develop your ideas and approach. I remember Denis Waugh telling me that he was not making pictures he felt really happy with until he reached his late 30s. I would echo that. OK, digital and the web, ePhotozine etc may appear to fast track the learning process hugely, but fundamentally the brain is still the same sort of device that our ancestors had. Isn't it? So to really develop the confidence to 'be yourself' in your photography is still a monumental act of work (of mostly getting it wrong and learning, rather slowly in my case, from your mistakes). There may be some 'natural-born' geniuses, but most geniuses I know of worked incredibly hard at developing their natural aptitude. So with luck, by the time we reach 70-ish we might be getting somewhere. Now I like the sound of that...

Anyway, what's fantastically refreshing reading everyone's entries is the commitment to improve, the dedication to photography, the openness of mind and (even among the intellectual heavy hitters (yes, you know who you are gentlemen!) a great degree of tolerance. Inspiring stuff.

Can we buy this blog as a book yet?

Joe

Highlight this Comment Chris16/06/2009, 10:06

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen so many replies to a Blog post before, not decent thought out ones anyway. Can anymore be said, don't know, but I'm going to have a go anyway...

I have never heard of this critic before, but I wouldn't be so judgemental on him anyway, we all have our own problems for sure. However one thing I would like to comment on is the fascination with photographing well known locations.

We are really but a small island, and by studying the topography of the UK, limited in what I would say are 'grand vistas'. I think we all love to photograph the dramatic, as well as the smaller intimate world. Many, myself included, are drawn to Scotland because of the landscape – mainly because it is such a contrast to living in Hertfordshire, where there is not one mountain or decent hill top view anywhere. When we go visiting a location that is not 'local' I think we all try and make the very best of our visits. And I think we all make our location choices based upon what has already worked for others, generally because of the short visits we often can only make. Local photographers can visit these places so often that they can afford the time and finance to visit many locations, and familiarize themselves and build knowledge of a wider landscape.

Repeating 'famous' photographs of infamous locations I don't think is a bad thing, if as I say time and finance is short, however, doing this with a lazy photographic attitude I do feel is counterproductive. How does this push and challenge us as photographers?

I think that is why searching for locations nearer to where we live is where a photographer should try and persevere. It really can push us to our limits. I for one know this from my own location. There are no big views, mountains, large boulders, sea, and yet I still manage to make photographs. I think we can all give up on what is local to us, in search of something supposedly bigger and more dramatic, however as lovers of landscape surely we should all be able to at least try and get out locally to photograph. I don't know what the square mileage of GB or the UK is, but there must be hundreds of thousands of views available that have not even been photographed? I often think, if a well known landscape photographer took an image of somewhere very unknown, how long would it be before that place became yet another photographic icon, it could happen to any of us, especially when winning an award or made known through the photographic press.

I for one cannot afford to go to Cornwall, Devon, Lake District or Scotland every month, so I have no choice but to make the best of what I find around me. Sure, it doesn't stop me visiting these places. But as a determined, passionate photographer I don't want to see in my own works, repeated views and well known locations, already photographed a million times. My own integrity depends upon me pushing myself to photograph the unknown, or the photographically challenged...it's what I think photography is all about! Hertfordshire is probably one of the hardest places to photograph. However, knowing that there are no famous views or location icons, is actually some what reassuring. I know that there will be no A82 line-up, or repeated photographs made, or that when I go out to photograph I'm not drawn to the "already done's". It keeps me very challenged. I love landscape, and I love photography, no matter where we live, there is a 'view' out there in anyplace...for anyone...so go take a look!

Highlight this Comment KK16/06/2009, 15:30

Hmm...

to improve, the dedication to photography, the openness of mind and (even among the intellectual heavy hitters (yes, you know who you are gentlemen!) a great degree

Two parentheses opened and only one closed, sloppy work Cornish this will not do!

The pedant strikes again.

KK.

Highlight this Comment David16/06/2009, 15:36

Hi KK,

Now's not the time, then, to point out that I corrected your spelling of memory in a previous post (3 'm's?!) ;-) Of course, as editor-in-chief, I should have noticed Mr Cornish's problem with parentheses so the blame is all mine really!

David

Highlight this Comment KK16/06/2009, 15:58

Hi David,

Now's not the time, then, to point out that I corrected your spelling of memory in a previous post (3 'm's?!) ;-)

That's just the legendary Mediterranean generosity bursting out, surely you knew that already.

K (demob happy) K.

Highlight this Comment joe Cornish16/06/2009, 21:59

To quote David in full, 'guilty as charged'; and can I politely suggest you restrict your pedantry to Gaelic speakers...

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson29/06/2009, 10:28

Hi, KK and Sami,

Yes KK, it was very interesting to see the John Blakemore article, in the AG mag, producing images on the theme of light in colour. He has already written on the subject of photographing light in his very good book "Black and White Photography Workshop", illustrated by some very delicate black and white images.

KK and Sami,

However, although we construct the elements of our images in the camera viewfinder frame, the camera can only record the light reflected from the subject we are photographing. So either making images by digital or analogue means,we are already making images of light. Or have I got the scientific theory of photography wrong. For without light there would be no photography.

While on holiday in Cornwall, my wife and I saw an exhibition on the subject of light in the Royal Cornwall museum. There was a very good selection of paintings depicting various aspects of light, and some sculptures as well, but no photographs. I put a cryptic comment in the comments book stating that the exhibition was incomplete through the absence of photographs.

Goes to show that photography is still seen as second rate to art in the country, which is a sad state of affairs in my humble opinion.

The rest of the holiday was partially taken up with making macro images of water abstracts, rust abstracts, fishing boat abstracts, other general detritus type subject matter and the odd landscape. All recorded by the wonderful Cornish light and sustained by the odd pastie and pint of Sharp's Special real ale... Magic.

Regards

Sandy Wilson

Highlight this Comment ColinM03/07/2009, 22:11

Tim,

I've come to this thread very late, but I really couldn't let you get away with this. It seems to me that you're missing the whole point of light and landscape here; you've taken the least important part of the light in David's photo, flattened the contrast, and placed it in a badly composed frame, devoid of subject. No wonder it doesn't look good!

My reading is that the important light in the original is across the middle, shaped by the grass and rocks, and this is the main subject. The tree is important as it anchors the composition and forms a rearward limit to the main subject. The background mountains and sky complete the frame and give context, but aren't as essential to the picture as the other items.

Speaking of light as the main subject of landscape refers to the quality and effect of the light; getting a pretty sky in shot is irrelevant.

(Nomex undies on - check!)

Colin

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin05/07/2009, 12:16

Ah you miss my point Colin. Your comment about the "shaped by the grass and the rocks" is apposite - why would changing the subject mean the light is changed. It doesn't! What you see as 'light' is just the transformation of light by subject. All I did was remove some parts of the subject. (OK, the jpg->photoshop->jpg lightened things a tad). If you say I took the least important parts, then the bits I removed were the most important and hence the picture was about subject. If David had spun the camera around on the tripod and randomly taken a picture he would have captured the same light - do you think the picture would have been as good.. ?

Highlight this Comment Dave Langan01/08/2009, 08:32

Hello David,

I often wrestle with the notion about getting a unique image and can only conclude that the only way to achieve this is through anonymity. A photograph without any discernible landmark or reference (or a radically different view to something familiar) may be daunting to the "Scottish layby photography" brigade but surely it will benefit them by challenging them to come up with a composition of their own? Going to BEM at the Coupal falls and creating a brilliant photograph shows you have good technical skills and perhaps paid attention to weather, season etc but shows no creativity or vision.

On the flipside however I do get the whole right of passage thing on the classic landscape shots which most togs feel they have to have in their portfolio.

Highlight this Comment Roger W22/08/2009, 13:34

Hmmm...

I too am late in coming to this thread which is certainly a very good read. I'll admit to being slightly ambivalent about taking photographics of well known sites but, being frank, living in Essex, plagiarism isn't such a big photographic issue (though I have a recollection of some shots of the Blackwater taken by Joe Cornish).

However, my real contribution to this thread was inspired by my sister (who got the original from Marcel Proust) so thanks to both.

She was asking me how my photography was going and, admitting to be going through a slightly barren time recently, I started to say that I'd been pondering over going away for a few days; Northumberland (Bamburgh castle etc.), Scotland (Rannoch etc.). I continued by saying that I'd decided against going away just yet as I felt that I needed to find my vision before going away to well known sites.

Her response (or rather credit to Marcel) was to say, "The true voyage of discovery, lies not in seeking new landscapes, but in seeing with new eyes".

Finally, David, I discovered your phonegraphs here, David's phone photos and was very impressed. I almost wanted to ping you off an email to ask where in Cornwall these had been taken but (out of respect for this thread) have resisted the urge so far.

Thanks for reading...

Highlight this Comment David24/08/2009, 16:10

Hi Roger,

I really like the Proust quote, one to add to my arsenal! It ties in nicely with sentiments expressed by Minor White, Bill Brandt and many other greats; namely, look at even the most familiar objects long and hard enough and you will see them with fresh eyes.

I hate to disappoint but the images you're referring to were made with an LX3 not a phone camera... In answer to your unsent email, they were made in a bay near Polzeath on the north Cornish coast.

regards

David

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson24/08/2009, 17:55

Hi Roger,

In my opinion you do not have to travel to exotic places to make great photographs. Explore your own local area first. Photography is all about seeing and discovering picture subjects in familiar places, like your own home town.

I live in Andover in Hampshire which is not a very inspiring place at first sight to make good photographs, but by opening one's eyes and looking there is a wealth of subject matter there.

It is a matter of looking at the familiar in a new way. Try it. I am sure David would agree with me on this point.

Good light and good shooting

Regards

Sandy Wilson

Highlight this Comment steve28/09/2009, 11:59

Hi David,

I've followed you for years, and I love your way of seeing. Personally, since starting photography a few years ago, I am constantly bored with the same images in photography magazines. There appears (and yes that is a judgement) to be no one out there who really wants to try and develop their own style and vision.

P Smith I think is right in regards to taking an image that many others have done, although it could never be the same image due to light and weather never being the same. But my bug bear is that although the digital medium has dramatically popularised photography, and has definitely made it more accessible to the public, including myself... there does seem to be a dumbing down of creativity.

And I'm talking again about vision and seeing the landscape yourself, through your own eyes and heart, not through Photoshop!

Like your commentator said about colour, no one needs to look further than the incredible over the top, non natural photographs that are everywhere today taken using digital cameras.

The amount of times I've been told my velvia 50 slide after being drum scanned lacks colour saturation amazes me. Natural seems to not be enough anymore.

People have been brainwashed to view a landscape that is totally unnatural and, alas, when an image is shown that represents normalilty people think it lacks contrast or colour.

Yes Velvia doesn't exactly record the natural, naturally, but it looks so much more 'real' than the off the wall, heavily curved, saturated images we see today.

Also, paying over 2k for a 5dmk2 - as I have for my wedding photography - that most of the time yields in RAW, fairly soft images, lacking the depth and tonalilty of film still quite frankly leaves me speechless. The only reason I do it is because of costs. If I could I would most certainly use film, as I do 90% of the time for when i want to take a landscape.

Going back to originality though, there are so many landscape shots that can be taken in GB, if people took the time to go out, and view the world through their own eyes rather than chase a Joe or Charlie classic. As photographers we should be artists, each blessed with our own way of seeing. And each of us should engage our hearts with the landscape personally and individually to really get as much out of it, as well as to keep this great art form from becoming dry and stale.

Although I don't win awards, nor get the most comments on critique forums, I'm trying constantly to develop my style and photograph creation the way I see it. I always feel blessed when someone reviews my work, or gives me advice. And I have taken it all on as I learn. But I can't see the way you do, nor as Joe or Charlie; but that's good. What makes an image work is a very subjective thing... and I think that is the best thing about photography.

People need to take a chill pill about getting on their high horses about others work, and should concentrate on their own vision and style.

I really do hope film loves forever. Using your brain, acquired skills and waiting for the light is photography; just snapping and coming away with 'something' isn't. The best thing about film is that there is no live view, or screen to review what you have just done. I really do believe people take their time, and think when using film. Without self control, its so easy to snap away. As I'm learning, the fun is in the planning and the waiting, as well as the finished print.

Keep up the great work David.

Blessings Steve France