http://www.into-the-light.com/ Comments Feed for David Ward's Blog http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/back_on_track#comment-2492 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:46:58 GMT (Hello :) Perhaps a thought for you: if a person were to call themselves a videographer rather than a photographer, that would not (yet) carry the air of superiority; would it provoke the same defensive reaction? Bear in mind that the things a photographer does once - using composition and camera controls to convey meaning - a videographer does at 25fps. I think it's a legacy of technicality-centric discourses about photography, myself; one might obsess about the numbers (f/22! no, f/32!) but it's the picking-up and wielding of the camera as a mere tool that slots it into a larger picture of art. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2439 Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:50:43 GMT As so often when reading your articles, David, I can feel some of the "photographic muscles" inside my head getting a bit of a workout as I consider how I might bring some of these concepts more to the fore in my own work. Isn't it, ultimately, about making informed choices before releasing the shutter? Sometimes the desired effect might best be achieved (and communicated to the viewer) by allowing an element in the photograph to "penetrate" beyond the confines of the frame, whereas at other times the desired effect might be better achieved by "containment". I guess it's analogous to some poetry which gives you the feeling that the poem has begun some while before you started reading it (and may continue even after you've turned the page) and that the reader is merely "dropping in" for a while. Seamus Heaney is a master of that kind of thing. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2438 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:58:24 GMT Hi Sandy, I share some of your frustrations with digital technology but think that many of them spring from a generational perspective. You and I (and hundreds of thousands of other photographers) grew up in a world where photography was a mechanical or chemical process. If something went wrong we would probably be able to _see_ where or why and, the chances were, even figure out how to fix it. Unfortunately, in the digital era we don't have the reassurance of this physicality. So much of the photographic process now relies on software, either on our desktop machines or embedded as firmware in the cameras. When this fails - as any complicated process is bound to from time to time - it's much harder to figure out why. You can't see a screw loose (what are you looking at me for?!) or that the shutter has jammed. But somewhere in an invisible realm a byte has got out of order and now the damn thing won't work! The frustration, therefore, stems not from how complicated the equipment is but rather from the fact the what's wrong is invisible or at least not readily apparent. Of course that's why we have Google search! I know the Stephen Shore book well and it is, as you say, a very interesting work. Thank you for your kind words about my blog, I hope that you'll be pleased to hear that I'm working on the next post... David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2437 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:45:57 GMT Hi David, In reply to your comment that large format cameras do not come with a manual, this does make things simpler. I think today that modern cameras, particularly digital SLRs, are too gizmo packed. You only have to scroll their menus to realise that. In the past two weeks I had a problem with my camera's RAW converter, which suddenly ceased working. I then had to go through all the nausea of downloading the new software. You certainly do not have all that sort of hassle when you are using an analogue large format camera. I also think that the struggle to master all this electronic wizardry stifles the artistic and aesthetic approach to our photography. Having met me on more than one occasion, you know that I am not stupid as far as my knowledge of photography goes. It is just that computers and technology can be such a pain when they go wrong. Not only can they go wrong but they are so unreliable as well. I only gave up film photography because I became allergic to the chemicals. I know I could have got a lab to process my negs but I always felt that I had more control printing them myself. I have this control when I print my own images digitally using pigment inks and acid free paper. Oh, by the way, there is also some interesting information on the frame and other things in the following book [The Nature of Photographs](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Photographs-Primer-Stephen-Shore/dp/0714859044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322581420&sr=1-1) by Stephen Shore (ISBN 9780714845852). If you have not read it it is worth getting a copy from the library. So far both these articles have been very interesting and enlightening. It is nice to be able to have an intellectual debate on various aspects of image making and photography. Regards Sandy http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2434 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 19:29:56 GMT Hello David, Forgive my late reply but this post appeared while I was away trying to improve my craft :) On returning to work the conversation inevitably turned to how my pictures had come out with the usual gales of laughter when I explained that I needed to send off my films for processing. A colleague then said he had heard of this new camera that “started to take photos before you were ready”. He was very excited by this because it would help him to avoid missing the moment – he felt he was always late and that the subject had long gone from the frame before “the camera took the picture”. I realised that this was a complaint about the shutter delay in older digital cameras. Things have improved, but with the new Nikon perhaps the snap shooter has a greater chance of capturing the person or pet in the frame before it runs off. That, with the camera selecting the best-of-five or whatever, there is a reasonable chance that a decent snapshot will result. So my conclusion is that whereas this new camera will not help me to make better pictures it will help Joe Average to get a greater proportion of decent results from his snaps. That has to be good. Certainly the N1 or J1 will not produce better composed images from a bad start, though it might encourage and perhaps even train people to follow the Rule of Thirds. I also doubt that such a camera will foster people taking up photography to a higher level. I do believe that whether your favourite subject is people, architecture or Nature in the broadest sense, good photography does need the photographer to connect with the subject and that connection must be made irrespective of whether he/she has a camera or not. Final point, until that connection is made and until a snap shooter works hard at creating a crafted image (rather than a lucky snap) Joe Average will never understand the work that goes into making a beautiful picture. It will always be a case of “you must have a really good camera”! Rgds., Adam http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2431 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:13:53 GMT Hi Sandy, Perhaps it's instructive that LF cameras don't come with a manual? ;-) http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2430 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:11:42 GMT Hi Nigel, I didn't mean to imply that _you_ thought that LF was the only format in which craft was present. I just wanted to point out that it could be found in any format. And just because there are _Oceans of Instants_ doesn't mean one shouldn't be careful about framing them... but that's quite a long title, don't you think? ;-) http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2429 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:41:56 GMT Hi David, I hadn't intended to imply that LF was the only format on which one can craft images, simply that it is my chosen method of expression. Indeed I love my mobile phone camera and that gets used far more (at present it is my only digital camera). As you say a great image is independent of the format. Just a thought: your original title for the blog is _Oceans of Instants_ which seems to mesh perfectly with the light-bucket concept. Do you think you need to qualify it further with a reference to framing? Nigel http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2428 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:50:28 GMT Hi Nigel Simmonds and Andrew Stannard. The quote that the painter has the advantage of starting with a blank canvas gives the impression that the painter has the advantage over us photographers, but this only applies to analogue photography, not digital photography. You can also start with a blank canvas in most image editing software enabling you to put anything anywhere in your blank canvas. However you have to be pretty well familiar with editors like Photoshop and a bit of a computer guru to achieve your aims effectively. However a lot of us, I am afraid, do not have that breadth of knowledge and expertise. Painters paint pictures using additive composition photographers make images using subtractive composition. In other words photographers eliminate the unnecessary image elements and simplify the remaining elements in the viewfinder frame. This is the core strategy to more creative and superior image making. David, I have also read your books and I advise everyone else to read them as you can learn a lot from these books written by a real photographer. Continuing the line of auto everything cameras, I am the sort of person that cannot resist spending time in either book shops or camera shops. Some people may think that I am a very sad person being unable to resist the temptation of the goodies that lie within these shops. However to get to the point I picked up a brochure on one of the latest digital SLR cameras. On reading it I was reminded of the sales line put out by Kodak a hundred years ago, "You press the button we do the rest." To list some of the auto settings incorporated in this camera - or should I say computer with a lens on it - are as follows: focus, flash exposure, ISO, white balance, sweep panorama, bracketing exposure, bracketing flash, bracketing contrast, face detection, enhanced picture effects, auto high dynamic range... and the list went on. A friend of mine has just bought one of these cameras and I asked him how he was getting on with it? He said, "When I learn how to work it I will let you know." To hear that sort of statement coming from an experienced photographer certainly makes you think. He is currently reading the manual supplied as a download, all four hundred pages of it. To make a further point the brochure also gave the impression that this super camera actually had a brain, and was able to think for itself. No wonder the snapshot photographers think that creating great photographs is easy. It is like the question I was asked recently, "How do you take a photograph using Photoshop". For I moment I was speechless. When I regained my composure I said, "You need another very important piece of equipment, it is called a camera, to make pictures first before using Photoshop." The mind boggles when you get asked things like this. However I think these situations are due to all the hype put out by the manufacturers of these products. To get back to the camera brochure, my reaction - on reading all this - was does the camera do anything manually or have manual settings? With I sigh of relief I found that it did. So there is still a glimmer hope for us real photographers in this auto everything age. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2427 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:16:39 GMT Hi Andrew, You have read that in one of my books (or at least words to that effect) but I'm not the first person to make that observation. I do think that the distillation process that photographers undertake has many deep consequences for the final images. Apart from anything else I think that it encourages photographers to try and exclude anything accidental from their work, to try and attain technical and artistic mastery. I don't mean that photographers aren't happy to capture the chance event but that in some fields (and I think landscape is particularly prone to this) they can try a little too hard to make things perfect. And digital editing tools represent a great temptation to 'fix' things that ain't broke! Yet, I know a number of painters who are happy to embrace the accident - paint running, a misplaced brushstroke - and incorporate it into their work. Might this 'organic' approach also bear fruit in photography? Just a thought... http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2426 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:31:52 GMT Interesting article David. I can't remember where I read it (and it could have even been in one of your own books!), but I've always liked the idea that _a painter starts with a blank canvas and adds everything he wants to the scene, whereas a photographer starts with the entire world and selectively removes items from the scene._ Andrew http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2424 Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:39:43 GMT Hi Nigel, Good to hear from you again. I basically agree with your analysis of the points I was trying to get across i.e. that perhaps the most important craft of photography lies in the way an image is framed and that this can never be automated. Automation can make it easier to overcome some technical hurdles (exposure and focus being the most obvious) but it won't ever be responsible for a great image without the intervention of a human mind. Capturing the moment, for instance, is something the lightbucket approach can do almost effortlessly. This is obviously an important part of the making of a great photograph but it's of little value if the selection (the frame) hasn't been carefully chosen. I was also attempting to show how framing was more crucial in photography than other visual arts, precisely because (as you point out) the image is drawn directly from reality. Of course there are genres of painting - portraiture for one - where the subject is already there, although it is likely that it will be distorted or transformed during the painter's rendering. _Perhaps I should have saved myself all those other words and just written the preceding two paragraphs!_ One final thought... As a lover of LF I approve of your continuing struggle ;-) But I would say that the craft is always present in a great photograph no matter what format is used. David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2423 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:26:22 GMT Hi David, Thank you for 2 interesting and thought provoking posts. I have to say that I'm struggling a bit to see how the two are related, at least in a direct form. I was expecting something along the lines of, technology has done this but as photographers we do that. For me you've made a leap in post 2 and I missed the connection. Here's how I see it, from your 2 posts. Technology has made enormous strides in terms of combining what is technically achievable with ease of use. I'm assuming (yes, that's extremely dangerous) that the end object of all the technology is to make a "good" (however that's defined) photograph. So, is there a danger of confusing ends with means? The craft element of photography is being sidelined (I tempted to say, sacrificed) for convenience i.e. the end has become more important than the means (craft) of getting there. This is surely a dangerous meme although perhaps it's only human. For example Bach or Beethoven didn't become great composers with their first piece of music but it required constant practice. I've no doubt that they had innate talent but it required refining, that is a way of thinking and a skill which make up a craft. Was Cartier-Bresson talking about this in his decisive moment? In the second of your posts you talk particularly about the importance of the frame and what is excluded as well as what is within scope. Is this the skill/art/craft of photography that is missing from an automated capture (for want of a better phrase)? However, it seems to me that you've also brought in another theme here by comparing photography with other art forms and especially painting. For me the main difference is that with photography the subject matter is already provided and is essentially immutable so perforce the principal remaining element is the framing/composition i.e. the framing becomes in some ways more important than the subject. With painting it is possible to compose anything starting from a blank canvas so the content becomes more important than the framing In photography of course timing is also an essential component and is much lower in priority or absent in painting. I agree that an automated capture may overcome the latter but not the former and yes, despite the technology there is still room for art and craft. I think it's the reason why I struggle on with large format. By the way, I love the picture of the kelp that you attached to this post. Nigel http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2419 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:46:28 GMT I agree with what you are saying about the image elements being contained in the viewfinder frame. This in my opinion only applies to none abstract images. In the abstract images I make I often have the images elements breaking into the edge of the camera viewfinder frame. If you allow parts of the image to penetrate the frame this gives the impression of the subject matter in an abstract image extending beyond the confines of the frame. Doing this is just me stamping my way of seeing and point of view on the image to create my own personal style. One has only to look at Aaron Siskind's images to see that he let the image elements breach the frame edge. The painter Edgar Degas, who's work was influenced by photography, painted individuals that cut into the edge of the canvas. Was this because he was copying from photographs to make his paintings? [Clyfford Still](http://www.clyffordstill.net/), the American Abstract Expressionist artist, painted round the edge of his canvases. Some, dare I say it, digital images printed on canvas allow the image to extend round the edge of the canvas. It is like adhering to the so called rule of not letting dark and light tones or colours break into the frame edge. Why should we follow such so called rules? In your pre-check list you might ask your self the all important question before triggering the shutter, "Why am I making this image?, but that is another line of enquiry for another blog entry. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive_2#comment-2417 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:29:01 GMT Both very interesting and thought provoking articles David. Keep them coming. Hope you can expand on your feelings about a 'body of work' in the near future as it is of particular interest to me. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2407 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:45:57 GMT Hi Peter Cook, In answer to your question six years ago I unfortunately became allergic to the photographic chemicals, so with great regret I had to give up my darkroom after 30 years use However not being one to dwell in the past with a bit of struggle I embraced the future and got to grips with digital technology. I also agree with you that computer software is very complicated - it is bad enough sometimes just using Office far less using Photoshop. I do miss the excitement of hibernating in the darkroom in the glow of the red safe light and getting a real kick out of seeing the image appear in the developing tray. It is not quite the same as seeing it on the computer screen. Being an OAP it took me a long time to save up for and make the decision to purchase a full frame DSLR, but I will not be buying a new camera every couple of years. Who can afford that unless the lottery comes up? I still have my film cameras I could not bear to part with them. Silly, is it not, how we cling on to the past. What I find really great about digital cameras is that you are able to see the recorded image immediately without any extra cost like in the days of film. See what I have written in my previous posts on how I feel about photography and image making. So good light and good shooting. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2406 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:42:25 GMT Interesting stuff as always David. I have not changed/upgraded my main digital slr or lenses for 3 years now - does that mean that I have graduated from being a gadgetman to being a photographer at last ? The future appears complex whilst a good still image is often simple. I doubt that the bucket approach will be able to simplify the complexity of scenes that the camera is waved at. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2402 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:53:14 GMT Hello Sandy, I do get where your coming from but it may not be because Canon/Sony etc. are trying to rush things to market but more to do with the fact that cameras are driven by very complicated software (and I mean really complicated) so much so that its often not until us masses get our hands on it that bugs and issues come to light. After all there is only so much testing you can do in a limited time frame with limited numbers of testers, yes they could test for longer (but how long is a piece of string) and with more people, but when we get to purchase the product it would cost more and from a marketing point of view be more out of date. Being out of date may not bother all of us but given the rapid rate of change and improvements I am sure it would have an effect on sales, and lets not forget these guys are in it to make money. And at least they do sort the issues (most of the time) and release updates rather than leave us with the faults! On reliability, I think that considering what is going on inside they are incredibly reliable. As to film cameras then no we didn't have so many issues but they were less complicated, though I am sure they still had issues as they were still quite complicated. I guess its only the large view and older non-electronic cameras that did not suffer in this way (though they may have had different issues from time to time). But I guess there is a reason why you use a nice Digital Full Frame camera, and I guess you love the remarkable quality and flexibility that it gives you. Would you go back to film to ease your concerns? I guess not as you easily could but haven't. That remarkable quality and flexibility comes as a result of manufactures pushing the boundaries and we should thank them for that. As a final point I would like to say that I am not one for buying a new camera every year, far from it. I like to get good use from my gear and wont buy new kit for the sake of it. But I know that when I do I will get something that will offer some of these "better quality/ease of use/better value/better build/better features" than I got for my money last time I made a purchase, and that has to be good. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2400 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:42:28 GMT Hi David, good to see you're back with your very engaging blog. Just a slight contradictory thought... You say, "I can honestly say that a purpose for the image "in camera" never enters my head when I make a photograph." Some context first... I attended your Lulworth workshop earlier this year whose very objective was to return from the workshop with a complete body of work in the form of a book, slideshow, series of images etc. etc. A couple of days into the workshop I had decided that I was, a) going to make a book of the photographs taken that week and, b) that book was going to be in portrait format. My point... I found that this 'portrait' format influenced all the photographs that I subsequently took. Indeed some of my images taken prior to the 'portrait' decision would have looked good outside the book but not within the confines of the book. I sort of felt that I'd learnt a lesson here that having some idea of what you'll be doing with an image actually helped me in the composition stage. I know that this is a bit of a tangent to your 'Over the Couch' treatise but a slight contradiction to it nonetheless. Best wishes, Rog http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2397 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:32:22 GMT Holy cow! I am only just getting used to digital capture, histograms and live view (all good I think). How about a drone camera that can be sent out by remote control into the rain and snow whilst the photographer stays nice and snug back at base with coffee and cake? If the military can use them to blow up terrorists on the other side of the world, surely they can come with a camera that can nip over the hill and take a few pics. Anyway, as I have only just caught up with the return of Oceans, I really just wanted to say it's nice to see you back in the saddle, so to speak. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2396 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:40:16 GMT Hi Peter Cook, I use a full size sensor DSLR with top class glass attached to it, and manage to get great results. However my camera can be used completely manually, the thinking photographer's mode for those especially tricky occasions. What is really quite intriguing is that in the rush to put on the market the latest all singing and dancing digital cameras the software always seem to have some little bug or glitch. It seems to be the case more often these days. It happened with Canon and is happening with Sony to name just two. Camera comes on the market, followed by a stream of firmware up dates. Surely it would be better to iron out all the glitches before the camera is released into the retail sector. It only goes to prove that anything that relies on computers and computer technology is not completely reliable. In my opinion the only reliable thing about computers is they are not reliable. Or is just bad software design? We never had these problems with film cameras, or am I just being cynical? I agree it is an exciting time as far as camera development is concerned, but there is a slight dampening in one's excitement when the technology does not work properly! http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2395 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:22:56 GMT Hello all, an interesting bunch of responses so far to David's post. I think that we have to get clear on a few points though. 1. Photography **needs** technology, it exists because of technological advances, be that film chemistry or lens science or electronics. We must not forget that technology got photography where it is today and we owe a lot to that, whatever type of photography you participate in. Where we are in photographic technology terms is pretty amazing these days, it’s never been better. 2. Don't be scared by new stuff, a few responses have the tones of 'technology is trying to take away the skills of the photographer etc. etc.' But look at it another way. If we went back in time to when digital sensors first appeared I suspect that if David had posted a blog entry around that time (lets pretend he had one going back then) the responses would have had a similar tone to now, but look what those advances have given us, the photographic world is so much better for it (if you don’t agree then, sorry, but I think your wrong!) 3. Cameras may or may not ever be able to think like a photographer (I doubt they truly will be able to do that) and they may or may not ever be able to have a David Ward mode or a Charlie Waite mode **BUT** we will always be able to switch it off and continue as normal. (I for one doubt that cameras will ever be truly capable of creative artistic decisions, they might appear to be able to make them, based on an algorithm or program, but this is different from true creativity. Besides which, unless they give a camera legs it can never even start to pretend to be creative!) To sum up, it's never been such an exciting time to be a photographer, I can't wait to see what tools technology will give us next, I may not want to use them all but I am sure some of them will be amazing. Technological advances just give us tools that we can decide to use or not. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2394 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:39:02 GMT Hi Chris, I fully agree with you that photography still requires the input of a photographer - despite any claims to the contrary! The manufacturers have been selling us gear on the basis of how easy it will make our lives for as long as there has been a marketplace for cameras. There was a camera called the [Facile](http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/facile.html) in the late 19th Century that was trumpeted for it's speed of use - this despite the fact that it used glass plates - hardly 10fps! And how can we blame the manufacturers? Almost everything is sold to us on the basis that it will improve our quality of life in some way, that's the nature of capitalism. The advances in technology have made it much easier to achieve consistently good technical results but I would argue that we haven't seen an accompanying increase in the level of artistic quality... More of this in _part two_ where I'll look in more detail at the human input and why a 'light bucket' isn't the panacea for bad photography that it claims to be... http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2393 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:21:44 GMT Very interesting article David. There's no doubt that technology has advanced beyond belief and it's amazing what cameras can do these days. However, it also goes to prove without doubt that humanity's integrity and willingness to strive, learn, persevere has not kept up with these so called advancements. It would be bold to say that humanity has become so lazy and lacking in honesty, that any kind of "gimmick" to make life, and photography easier - rather than to rely on one's developed skill - is preferred. No electronic device can replace a photographer's human ability to create, design and think. This is a true measure of a good photographer - photographer being the word - not digital artist or technologist. Engaging in landscape photography is essential to be successful, and it's this that makes the pursuit of image making so enjoyable and rewarding. I couldn't think of anything more boring and dull than a camera that can do everything. Unfortunately these days, photography is heading towards this type of dependency more and more. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2391 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:54:00 GMT Hi David, Your right, photography is not about having and using the latest gear. In photographic circles all the talk seems to be having and owning the latest gear and if it is not gear being talked about it is other forms of digital techno-babble. Frankly I get really fed up with all this oneupmanship. You must have the latest camera, you must have the latest version of Photoshop etc. To me photography is about how you relate to the subject matter with your personal response to your chosen subject. How your images communicate to your audience. How you feel about making the images you make as much how you see the images you make. No amount of technology can replace your own vision, perception, enthusiasm, inspiration and intuition when seeing and making images. To me one of the most important factors in making any image is viewpoint and camera angle position. Where you stand, sit, kneel or lie down makes the difference from an alright image to a good image. Deciding what viewpoint and camera angle position is the outcome of using your thought processes. It is thought that separates the snap shot photographer from the serious photographer. Photography is not about simply the act of picking up a camera, pointing it at something and pressing the shutter. It is really about making discoveries, taking choices, decisions and seeing photographically. It is also a process of thoughtful consideration of your own view overlaid upon your chosen subject. This requires creative thinking and hard work, which is not easy. To me, it is more important to ask oneself the following question before making any image, "Why am I making this image?" This, to me, is the hub of good image making, not a load of fancy gear. The camera does not think or make decisions, the photographer does. The camera only aimlessly records everything in its field of view. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2385 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:21:03 GMT Hi Sandy, I've been looking at the Red cameras for a while. They look very impressive but then so is their price tag at around $40,000 just for a camera body. I suppose this compares pretty favourably with the likes of a Phase One camera or a Leica S2 until you look at the resolution. The sensor on the Red is only 35mm size and 4,500 pixels on the long side, so it's not in the same league in terms of quality as the alternatives. But then 'size isn't everything' except when it comes to the weight of the Red body, a hefty 5lbs. This makes my Linhof TK seem a very reasonable weight. A few years ago they were proposing making a number of exciting stills cameras including a 6x17 digital with a full frame, single-capture sensor. I'm not sure why that idea died but I suspect that the development costs were just too high compared to the likely market. Exactly the same reason why single-capture full frame digital 5x4 isn't likely any time soon... Shame because I would be tempted if I could work on a camera that wasn't as cramped as the Techno. David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2384 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:00:06 GMT Hi Paul, The thought of people using a profile of my brain whilst making photographs really is scary! (Though a regular income stream from Canon etc. would be nice... do you think it would be run on the iTunes model with the photographer receiving a few pence for every image made using the profile... that could be quite lucrative with the tendency for profligacy in the digital era! ;-) My main worry would be about the boundary of the profile; would downloading a JC profile - for instance - not only influence your photographic approach but also your choice of shirts (Paramo please!), food (cooked breakfasts, nom, nom, nom) or car (make mine a Toyota...)? And Joe's much more 'normal' than me so my profile might cause all sorts of problems for the user if there were any leaks from areas not related to photography! ;-) To be serious for a moment, isn't this what's already happening in the sense that most professional photographers that I know regularly pass on their expertise about making images through photo tours and workshops. I much prefer this method to the idea of somebody rooting around in my grey matter... and I hope that my clients would prefer it too! David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2383 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:37:59 GMT Hi Craig, I couldn't agree more that great photographs still require a human, I'll write more about this in _part two_ but basically all the clever gizmos do is make it easier to overcome some of the technical issues of photography. They can't help a crap photographer become anything more than technically competent. And I'd rather be on a wet and windy beach in Lewis too... David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2382 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:06:07 GMT Hi All, On further investigation into being able to pluck still images from the motion stream there is a company called RED that manufactures and supplies cameras that do just that. If you look in their [web site](http://www.red.com/) you will see images shot by a photographer called Greg Williams for Vogue Italia produced in this way. However despite all the hype I still think that the thinking camera is still a long way off, even if the blurb put out modern camera manufactures may lead us to believe it is true at this moment in time. The human brain thinks and sees. The camera merely records what is in its field of view. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2380 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:15:23 GMT Hi David, I hear Canon has patented a technology capable of recognising the photographers' holy trinity of Beauty, Simplicity, and Mystery! Keeping on this fantastical train of thought, my old cybernetics professor conducted experiments a few years ago with subcutaneous implants which picked up signals from his brain and communicated with simple electronic devices around the home (useful for switching on lights when entering the room apparently). Surely it's not a huge leap of the imagination from there to the hardwiring of our brains to a Hasselblad which is triggered whenever our brains register scenes of adequate beauty, simplicity and mystery. But what if some of our brains simply can't respond to such scenes, or what if we aren't able to frame the image in the first place? All of this will open up a new revenue stream for our leading photographers who will be able to create and licence to camera manufacturers 'profiles' of their brain's response at the time of making a great image. We will of course be able to select from a range of 'profiles', including the David Ward BSM profile, and the Joe Cornish TLC profile which will trigger our trusty shutters in response to how _your_ brains would react to the image presented to the sensor. Not to mention the possibilities of applying said profiles in video post production to isolate still images that correspond to the style of our favourite photographers. Scary! http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2379 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:12:32 GMT Hi David, I think we have all been "mulling" about where next. The introduction of cameras that also take video has started to change the way some approach photography. Just as some of us still want a vinyl LP, others stream, download, etc. I guess the same will be true with photography. There will be room for all sorts. For me, the choice of getting soaked on a Lewis beach and waiting for that magic moment of light, is still preferable than point a thing at a landscape and then playing on a pc. There will, of course, be those that will love this. A box of tricks will still not make a great composition and no matter the box of tricks, it will still require the "eye" of experience and skill to take a good photo. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/I_used_to_be_decisive#comment-2378 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:45:46 GMT Hi David, I was speaking to my friend Paul Genge, the technical person at Sony UK, when I was at Focus this year, and I made a prediction to him that in ten years or even less the DSLR camera would be obsolete. It would all be video and when you are able to pull still images from anywhere in the video steam you will no longer need a still image digital camera. The main problem would be getting the resolution to a high enough quality to do this. Genge was not suprised by my prediction and he also said watch this space, interesting don't you think? http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2366 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:05:56 GMT Hello Sandy, Thank you for taking it calmly. Yes framing can be expensive. I had a show and made sure it was sponsored by the Arts Council - something like £100 per hand-made, carefully finished frame. Many of the folk who buy my work cannot afford that, so I make sure my material costs are low enough that the main cost is labour, ie my time. It is doable without compromising on quality (relative to a £40 A3 frame - you can email me for details). There are homes and households who have the room and income to display and acquire trophy prints, but most people don't have that lifestyle, which isn't to say that they don't appreciate art. It may not be your or anyone's else's idea of art, but variety is to be feted. While a well executed print of a beautiful composition in an expensive frame gives great pleasure to behold, one must accept compromises if it's unaffordable to the vast majority. It's all well and good producing great images but I believe art is as much as anything about communication. I don't think there is much point producing long-lasting frames and prints which will then go in to storage in some warehouse or in a Cheshire salt mine. Art must be about display to fulfil its communication remit. I agree that occasional exhibitions are a good means of communication. But isn't it better to have your work on permanent display in a variety of homes? To accelerate the enrichment of culture, lowering the cost of entry is a good thing. Beyond that, where is the boundary between display and decoration? I sense that decoration is frowned upon in some quarters, like a cheapening of the work because it is serving a purpose rather than being an end in its own right. Considering that most buyers don't live in a museum with one solitary print on the wall - your print - I suggest a little less pedestalism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the work is always serving a purpose: a museum shows off its learning and leanings, a home enlivens a space. Does it matter if your work gets used in these ways or others we hadn't foreseen or desired (outside of copyright issues)? I see it that the work is to the buyer what the subject is to me. It's simply something to interact with and create new connections. What's funny is that 100 years ago, painting was transgressive if it wasn't figurative or allegorical, but instead traded on its decorative values. As for inks, I wouldn't know: I get all my printing done locally. I get excellent quality from people who know all the ins and outs. I don't have the maintenance problems / expense. The difference in price per print is great in terms of percentage but not that much in terms of absolute cost, especially relative to the sales price. Regards, Charles http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/back_on_track#comment-2364 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:35:05 GMT Hi David, This is a welcome return to form. I enjoy reading your posts and all the comments although I seldom take part. A while back I acquired my first mobile phone with a camera (or should that have been a camera with a mobile phone?). I've been enjoying making use of that as well as occasional outings with the big camera, being inspired by one of your previous postings, [Iceland by Phone](http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/icelandbyphone). One of my interesting findings is that the sort of pictures I'm currently making digitally aren't that different from the single-use media. I still haven't the foggiest whether I'm now becoming an artist, a craftsman or a photographer (or none of the above)? I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this forum. Nigel http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2363 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:21:21 GMT Hi Charles and Peter, Charles, If I sell a photograph/image I take it to my local frame shop to get it properly matted and framed. although I can cut my own mats, which is a skill in its own right. My local frame shop has a computer mat cutting machine which can cut a mat quicker and with greater precision than I can doing it by hand. The cost of this absorbed in the final price of the framed photograph/image. Hence peace of mind. Also absorbed in the final price is all the other materials paper, ink, matt board that go towards the final photograph/image. Charles have you looked at the price of Epson pigment ink lately, an 80ml cartridge for my printer now costs in the region of £50.00 to quote a round figure. So you will see what I am getting at here. The last purchase I made for a complete set of cartridges for my printer cost me £400.00, not cheap by any means. There is very little discount on Epson large format printer cartridges today. The last quote I got from my local frame shop to mount and frame 40 A3 photographs/images was £1500.00, and that was with a discount. A professional photographer friend of mind mounted and exhibition of 40 framed hand printed 20"X 24"colour prints made from colour negatives printed in a darkroom on colour paper. He exhibited prints in a Cornwall gallery and the cost alone to have them matted and framed was £2000.00. Admitted he had them framed in a particular non standard type of colour wooden frames. I really enjoy the opinions expressed on this blog as they are honest and genuine and give one food for thought. Peter, Thank you for your supportive comments they were appreciated. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2361 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:41 GMT You are right, Peter. Sorry Sandy for having been robust in my comments and not respecting your wishes. You are also right in your interpretation of my comment in that artists can please most folk some of the time. I think there is an over-insistance on superlative framing. I see too many photographs which don't deserve the treatment (in my very narrow, opinionated view). At the end of the day, if Joe Bloggs sees a picture he loves and _he_ thinks is art, but he can't afford it, why not help him? The frame might not last as long as the print, but then the frame is not the precious part - it's the picture. I am prepared to compromise on the presentation (including the size of the print) but I'll do all I can to make sure the picture is spot on and the print of high quality. That isn't to say that my frames aren't nicely finished. It's rather that I know that the glass is not museum glass, that the frame is not hermetically sealed, etc. As I said, it's not gold-plated, just honest, solid, good ol' fashioned plumbing. Best regards, Charles http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2360 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:02:22 GMT Charles, I don’t see why Sandy is being pretentious in his comments (and perhaps you have been a little impolite in yours), he knows his work better than anyone and has the right to decide on how he would like that work displayed and presented. I agree with him on the presentation point as well, I recently looked at artwork displayed at Bamburgh Castle and a large majority were very poorly mounted (framed and unframed) which always puts me off any purchase as it gives the feeling of lack of attention to detail, which to me is not good (I know they can be re-framed or re-mounted but to me that’s not the point). As for plumbing, not sure who has mallards on the wall these days ;-) and if you go cheap you may not end up with a level bath, gold plated or not! I do feel you may have been picked on a bit on one point as I think your not saying that the only role of an artist is to please 'most folk' but more why can't an artist also please 'most folk' some of the time (I may be wrong in that assumption). However I also agree with David W that an artist should be true to themselves as much as they possibly can (as I said in my earlier post). http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2359 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:48:35 GMT Hi Charles, I don't think that I am pretentious person. The point that I was trying to get over was that if you take a pride in making and producing photographs/images for sale you have to guarantee the quality of the product. The prints I produce are made with best quality Epson pigment inks on acid free paper, so they deserve to be framed to archival standards. By following these standards gives me peace of mind when selling these photographs/images to my customers. This guarantees that the print will last and not change within the person's lifetime, of say 70 to 80 years. To settle for anything less I feel would damage my reputation and integrity. This is not being big headed, this is about giving the customer a high quality product, and myself peace of mind. I am sure David and Joe Cornish will agree with me on the matter. http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2358 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:05:05 GMT Hi Charles, _Why not please them? Or isn't that the artist's job?_ Really, is that what you believe? That the artists' role is just to give people a nice warm fuzzy feeling? I'm really surprised if that is the case. Art can work on that level but can also be intellectually challenging, moving, disgusting, and downright terrifying. Why limit it to being pleasing? _I sense that what you mean by importance is actually something that challenges you, that surprises you. And that is a very subjective thing, not the objective parameter to which you aspire. _ Well no, that wasn't what I meant. As you know from previous pieces I have written, I believe that there is no objectivity when it comes to assessing art. What there can be is some consensus of opinion on how important an artist's output is. This consensus necessarily changes with time but that doesn't make it worthless it just means you have to think about an historical perspective. The true greats - e.g. Leonardo or Michelangelo - achieved their status because they laid some foundations for the art that we find important today and that can't be taken away from them. Whether there is still scope for anyone now to have such a lasting effect is perhaps a moot point... It is inevitable that we will look for something in an old piece that _chimes_ with our current outlook, though social mores may have changed many aspects of the human condition remain relatively fixed within cultures - at least over a few hundred years. But our attitude _now_ to the work of a photographer such as Ansel Adams is quite different from how it was perceived for most of his life. In one way we hold him in more reverence, because we recognise that his work was seminal for the shift in approach to landscapes that it represented. But on the other hand it can seem a little starchy and 'old hat' when compared to the work of his artistic heirs. Only by referring back to an historical perspective can we appreciate how important it is, even if the images don't speak to us in quite the way as they once did. This is the kind of consensus I'm suggesting, it's a muddled range of opinions not objective facts because humans aren't machines. Some people love his work just for how it moves them, others like me realise that he was important but don't find much of his work moving. But whatever the reasons there is a widespread consensus that his work is great. Adams built his reputation in a more subtle way than the one you suggest, by enlisting the help of the Newhalls who were effectively up-market, intellectually admired publicists for his photography. In contrast, Weston was great at beating his own drum and saying how wonderful and important he was. But in his own time not many actually took notice - he never sold out an edition of his prints (if that's a relevant benchmark!) - but many people now recognise that his work was as innovative and in some ways more important that Adams. Which artist does the lens of history favour? Well I'd have to say Adams at the moment, but who knows how opinions will shift. The point I was trying to make is that we can't second guess what history will see as significant and I don't think we should even bother. We should just be true to ourselves, because only by truly believing in something will we make work of any lasting value - even if that value is only to the maker. If you're happy to make commercial art that's fine. If you want to make something personal that's also fine. Looking at the history of art the most commercially successful artists in their own lifetimes are not necessarily those who made the most lasting impression. Nor are the ones who lived in a garret. It's complicated and messy - like people! David http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/Over_the_couch#comment-2357 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:23:52 GMT Hello Sandy, That's a little pretentious, isn't it, assuming your art is so good it deserves the best, most archival framing? You might be right (I don't know your work), but I see no need to treat my own work that way. Plenty of old paintings have only recently been treated with that kind of reverence. Indeed the artists themselves quite often reused canvasses when they were short of cash. As for the plumber parallel: not every plumber insists on gold-plated, roll-top bath tubs to match the mallards on the wall. They cost a bomb and most folk are just happy to have something level that doesn't leak. Why not please them? Or isn't that the artist's job? Hello David W, It's not easy knowing what's important and what's not. I still feel that hanging a "re-discovered" old master is very close to decoration. I mean: we're looking for something in the piece that we are hanging, that chimes with our values. It may be old, it may be new. To say that an old piece is important simply because it chimes with something today that it didn't in its own time, is again pretentiously lending too much weight to our own views. Sadly a lot of old stuff, unrecognised at the time, will have been permanently archived in the bin. So what survives is quite rare. But that does not lend importance to the survivors either. And the other thing that doesn't lend importance is PR. Many artists nowadays are keen to blow their own trumpet, describing their workshops as "prestigious" etc. Galleries and academics will champion some forgotten artist. And the public and the peers lap it up until they see through the smoke and mirrors. However in that time, the work will have gained attention and is more likely to be ubiquitous. But that's not importance. I sense that what you mean by importance is actually something that challenges you, that surprises you. And that is a very subjective thing, not the objective parameter to which you aspire. Regards, Charles