Speaker Clive Haynes FRPS led the evening on Topaz and it is as well to reiterate that this isn’t just an Adobe compatible plug in, but that there are a number of editors that is designed to work with, and there are fourteen or so different plug-ins Topaz offer. Adobe, of course dominate the market, but all the plug ins are available at a discount via Clive’s website. From the afters this was one of those presentations that hit home at some fundamental beliefs about photography.
On the Facebook Group there was a lot of talk about what is worth editing, reflecting last week’s theme of editing and how much of it can a photograph have before it becomes a piece of graphic design. This week we are going to look into who owns an image, and this is linked to last week’s discussion on editing and on the Mighty Book of Face discussions from this week.
A year ago a San Franciscan judge decided that, under American copyright law, a monkey could not own the rights to a picture it had taken because it was not human, even though it pressed the shutter. A new definition for “Chimping” this was not (the practice of taking a shot then reviewing it on live view and going ooh and ahh and pulling faces. Another reason to go mirrorless). It is, under English law (and not a few other jurisdictions), a question of personality, and though “Naruto” the Black Crested Macaque in question certainly seems to have bags of it in the way most of us think of personality, in law it is the capacity to hold legal rights and obligations within a legal system. This is what enables firms to go to civil law over disputes in contracts and so on.
Now you’ve seen the picture in question, I am sure, it became known as the Monkey Selfie. David Slater “took” the picture, in that he provided the materials, set up the shot and patiently waited for the Macaques to partake. Macaques have no legal personality and therefore cannot give their consent, nor withhold it to be photographed, nor profit from doing so. If the Macaque was owned by a person (it couldn’t in the UK by members of the general public, there are legal issue preventing this) or other body that has a legal personality then that animal would be their property and the prudent photographer would be careful to get a property release.
Now this isn’t the time nor the place to go into the pro’s and con’s of this case but it does illustrate something that most of the internet (i.e. the people who use the internet) is either blithely indifferent to or unaware of. Someone made that picture you are looking at. When someone makes their living from that, copyright has particular weight. Unless they give you permission to use that photograph, either directly or through a Creative Commons License, or other form of explicit license deal then we do not have the right to own their and/or use their property.
Without turning this into a Politics lecture (for that you’d have to pay me) this actually goes deeper than a feeling of “Mine”, it is an absolute foundation of our society. Let me quote from Wikipedia (Academics look away now): “Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) . So regardless of opinions on Social Media (fancy that) demanding the right to exploit others work free of charge isn’t what the law in England and Wales licenses. Whether you agree with Pierre-Joseph “Property is theft” Proudhon or not is, as far as the law allows, irrelevant. We make property by mixing our labour (intellectual and or physical) with materials and by doing that create something that didn’t exist before and over which we have title (ownership free of valid claims by other parties). Then we can consume, alter, share, redefine etc etc it as we see fit within certain boundaries.
Fairly straightforward, at least until the lawyers get involved. There is a concept called fair use and there are questions of when others take your property as a starting point but make art of their own from it, such as sampling in music. Whose art then is it?
Artist Richard Prince was doing this with other people’s Instagram feeds and making $90,000 a pop out of it, a couple of years back (maybe still is) by altering the originals by posting a couple of words as comment underneath and then printing the whole thing. This did not please a lot of people, particularly those whose Instagram feeds he had mined for images, though others were quite accepting of it. No one sued of copyright infringement this time so its legality has not been tested. Civil law really is for the rich or otherwise well funded. Especially as he started “Rephotographing” other people’s work in 1975 and some of his work has gone for $1m or more, he would probably be in a position to afford to defend it. Indeed in 2008 he did just that and his defence of fair use (see above) was not accepted. Obviously this has not deterred him.
In fact this whole idea of other people’s stuff is quite problematic. An image can spin an idea, we might try to recreate that image or give it a new spin, either intentionally or through technical short-comings. We have in the UK the idea of freedom of panorama, which was under threat from the EU in its bid to harmonise European commercial law but was finally decided in favour of having one. If what you are taking is a view taken from common land it is not subject to copyright (though the manner you do it in might be in breach of other, criminal laws) and we have covered this before. If it involves street photography then you must not conduct yourself in such a way as to cause alarm. If it involves minors it is always best to get a responsible adult’s consent – first. If it involves making money from someone’s image or an image of something that they own you can save yourself endless by getting a properly formatted consent (you can get them as a phone app these days). Ditto if you are profiting from the image of the property of another person (it all goes back to title).
So, editing our images, well silk purses and sows ears metaphors aside – or why are you wasting your time in the first place? judgements – is a matter of personal taste, at least as far as the amateur goes, but how much, really, is it your image in the first place can be a complicated problem.
N E X T M E E T I N G
19th Jan 2017 19:30 – The Chairman’s Evening: I believe a camera will be required. Maybe a tripod too. Bring yours.
Tony Worobiec FRPS made welcome return as guest speaker at the last meeting and spoke on the subject of composition. Tony’s opening was to challenge the idea of “Rules”, not in an attempt to throw them over, but in order to put the ideas of “The rules for composing a photograph” into a useable perspective.
A rule, as we generally perceive it in a photographic sense, can be defined as: “An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure”. In the photographers case this means following what books and tutorial videos tell us to do with the objects within our frame. For frame read viewfinder. Mostly these carry the caveat that “Rules are meant to be broken”, but as with most clichés it is one that is too often lightly worn and frequently lazy – especially when not referenced with analysed examples. What we actually mean by rule is “A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases”, emphasis on the most.
As there are at least a half dozen different interpretations we can put upon the idea of a rule, Tony put forward the sensible suggestion that we should, like an image that is not quite working in the viewfinder, reframe. He offered “Principles“. We can define that as “A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behaviour”. This works better for us as photographers, because it carries a useful hint as to the nature of a photograph that has a lasting impact. It has interest in the subject. We talking directly of those photographs that are “Technically proficient but subject deficient”. You can follow every rule in the composition handbook and composition is simply the arrangement of objects within a frame, remember, but if the subject is soulless, if there is no hook, no emotion, then it’s just a record. A colonoscopy image may have an emotional hook, especially if it’s your colon and even more so if there is something there that says “Get your affairs in order”, but to the general viewer not imbued with a morbid fascination, it’s just a record.
If the “First Rule of Photography club” were “Do not talk about photography club” then this blog would be a lot shorter. You might consider this a mercy. If there is a first rule of photography club, aside from pay your subs, then it is, possibly, The Rule of Thirds. Tony hinted that it has an interesting if, relative to the golden ratio and so on, short history appearing sometime towards the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Actually 1797. I don’t know about Tony’s assertion that John Thomas Smith was a “Failed artist”, (he was an engraver for at least part of his career) conjuring as that does the slow death of the young Chatterton, but “Antiquity” Smith wrote a book “Remarks on Rural Scenery” that included the following:
“Analogous to this ‘Rule of thirds’, (if I may be allowed so to call it) I have presumed to think that, in connecting or in breaking the various lines of a picture, it would likewise be a good rule to do it, in general, by a similar scheme of proportion; for example, in a design of landscape, to determine the sky at about two-thirds ; or else at about one-third, so that the material objects might occupy the other two : Again, two thirds of one element, (as of water) to one third of another element (as of land); and then both together to make but one third of the picture, of which the two other thirds should go for the sky and aerial perspectives ….
…. This rule would likewise apply in breaking a length of wall, or any other too great continuation of line that it may be found necessary to break by crossing or hiding it with some other object : In short, in applying this invention, generally speaking, or to any other case, whether of light, shade, form, or colour, I have found the ratio of about two thirds to one third, or of one to two, a much better and more harmonizing proportion, than the precise formal half, the too-far-extending four-fifths—and, in short, than any other proportion whatever.”
If Smith’s view from posterity is that of a failure then he certainly got his revenge in first, a revenge that is built into every modern DSLR/CSC even if we can turn it off. As a precept, “A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct”, it has certainly got a hold.
The basic fact of the matter is that the Rule of Thirds works, as Tony amply and beautifully illustrated. Tony’s point is that it works to the point where we allow it to dictate contrary to what the viewfinder is telling us. The best is the enemy of the good, especially when the good is good enough, and pursuit of perfection comes at the price of other missed opportunities. Not just the rule of thirds, of course, but this blog would be about the length of a PhD thesis if we examined all of the possible principles and Tony has already written a book on the matters of composition (and a good few others on different aspects of photography). What we are looking to deliver, in the words of Steve Schapiro, is an image that gives us “information, emotion and execution” (see link immediately above). Time to rewatch “Crush the Composition” I think.
Last words (yeah, right) on this blog at least, go to Antiquity Smith:
“I should think myself honoured by the opinion of any gentleman on this point; but until I shall be better informed, shall conclude this general proportion of two and one to be the most picturesque medium in all cases of breaking or otherwise qualifying straight lines and masses and groups.”
Mac Bouchere FRPS was the first speaker of the season and his aim was to prompt us to look at things a little differently, sometimes new things sometimes the same things, in his talk “Bending the light”. Mac presented us with a wide range of examples and he talked about the differences that prompted him and the importance to him of pre-visualisation. Not invented by him but certainly popularised by him, Ansel Adams made pre-visualisation a way into getting the feelings behind what he photographed.
In essence what Mac was putting across was the next step from getting the camera off Auto. Auto is great at getting good results from a number of situations, but it is not particularly discerning and it’s not really what we shell out all those readies on. The other settings give you increasing flexibility before you ever get to post production and given the minimal marginal cost there is very little to stop us experimenting. What Auto does is make decisions based on the algorithms derived from the analysis of many, many thousands of images to derive a set of averages that can be applied within the dynamic ranges of the chips that are bought or manufactured by the camera makers so as to provide us with acceptable images in those situations. Putting a random, but nonetheless convincing number on that, let’s say 80% of our pictures. There comes a time, as our own Gerry Painter pointed out last year, when those acceptable images are just that. Acceptable. But with something missing. Not quite what we visualised.
We can move on to programme modes, that give us a little more control in what we accent and prioritise in terms of light and dark in our images, also in terms of chroma all the way to how much and how intense is black and how much and how intense is white within certain narrow boundaries. In order to truly exploit that we have to explore the more manual options that affect the exposure triangle all the way through to full manual and, of course, post production. Mac’s point was that it doesn’t have to end there and we can, through digitising our print and slide collections, give those a whole new lease of life too. We can push, pull, stretch, colourise, monochrome, blur, merge stain, grain, crop to our hearts content, not just on the images that we take now or have taken relatively recently. Also, and I think most importantly, Mac urged us to get the images we want.
He was quite open about the images he showed us, the ones that would never get anywhere in club competitions to the ones that had won medals. The point he was telegraphing by doing this is that, certainly as amateurs, but it extends to professionals too (they just have more limited opportunities to do it and he is one of those), is that we should use in camera and post production techniques to craft the images we have in mind. There will be glorious failures and successes along the way, but those will be our expressions and our learning opportunities. If we also curate our back catalogue, by which I mean actually go back and look at our “keepers” critically and with a fresh eye, then post production also provides us with opportunities to craft new work from old. Over time tastes, techniques and skills change and grow and we have a useful basis to go back and re-work some things.
You can do this now. Go back, pick a frame from, say two years ago (you really must get round to freeing up that disk space), and rework it. Better yet randomise your choice. You do not, absolutely do not, have to have advanced photo-shop skills to do this. Use something like Google’s Picasa, re-crop, play with the shadows and highlights, darken/brighten it, apply some of the filters, and start to think what it is you like/don’t like. Find some ready-made effects on the internet or in editing programmes like Smart Photo Editor or, as Mac used, Topaz. Just, if it’s a treasured possession, make sure that you are working on a copy. We will revisit looking at photos critically and how to use the results later on in the season, the blog has been there before, but there is a lot to be learned from just messing about with what you already have from time to time. It’s not just a walk down memory lane we are talking about here, we are also talking about the opportunity to use editing software (including the Adobe Suite, Gimp and the other “Grown up” editors), to actually learn and develop from a historical, personal perspective by looking at how our style, techniques and competencies have evolved.
Back on the camera there are other perimeters besides the exposure triangle and filters and presets that can be employed. Techniques such as free-lensing a.k.a lens whacking, DIY Macro, or just exploring the in camera effects, for instance help to mix it up. That, I guess is really the basis of Mac’s message. You already have a catalogue of images, go back and have a look at them, they represent an opportunity to educate yourself using your own materials. And maybe even make a better go of it? Mix it up helps you to not keep taking the same sort of photograph each time you take the camera out, or helps you take the same sort of photograph differently because you have a better idea of what you want to see in the finished image, thereby giving you the chance to control the important elements to that vision. You get more of it right in the camera. In Stephen Covey’s best seller “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” one of those habits is to “Start with the end in mind“. Sound advice because it also helps with those days when nothing seems to work and you end up pointing and shooting in that hit and hope manner (had one of those yesterday at Woodhenge), because I didn’t really know what I wanted to show. What I did think I wanted was a drone but that’s not in my price bracket. What I should have done is concentrate on details, probably very small ones in what is a big landscape. Still, live and learn. So, thank you Mac Bouchere, lots to think about.
N E X T M E E T I N G
Mini groups presentations.
Ann Cook FRPS was our speaker Thursday last and her reflections of over two decades as an accredited photographer at the Glastonbury Festival, entitled “Granny goes to Glastonbury”. Ann has a fine sense of humour as well as a sharp eye for the photogenic and both were exhibited to a good degree in what was an enjoyable evening. You can always tell when a speaker hits the spot with her audience with the buzz thereafter and thereafter there was quite a buzz.
Ann talked of what she regards an anthropological endeavour using what social scientists would call a longitudinal study, that is the study of human beings’ similarity to and differences from other animals that repeats observations over time, in this case 23 years. She is undecided about the 24th as she feels that there has been a disconnect between what it was and what it has become, a price, if you will, of its success. Or maybe when the Glastonbury Festival became Glasto. Whatever the decision, Ann has amassed a very interesting collection and just as importantly she has a tale to tell. If that sounds like ground we have touched on before then you would be right, but it is ground that, this week, we are going to look into a little deeper, highlighting some of the themes that Ann put across.
The picture is about the subject, not the photographer. Well it should be, sometimes I am not entirely sure as there comes a point when this gets forgotten, when the name attached to a photograph automatically lends it a credibility that otherwise might be lacking. Everyone takes poor frames once in a while, indeed probably most of the time, well no probably about it, just some people are better at not letting the poor ones see the light of day. You have to get through a lot of shots to get “The Shot” or as I like to call it: “The Principle of Frogs and Princes”. Sounds much better than “Glasto” anyway. So lesson one: The picture is in there somewhere, find it.
We have flogged composition pretty much to death over the last couple of months, but the rules of composition still apply. There are not just one set for portraits, though there are common rules, the differences between the corporate PR mug shot and the fine art portrait are quite profound based on perceptions of end use, just as the similarities are grounded in the same principles of connection and composition. All the portraits that Ann showed had a connection. Again there were two sorts of connection on show: The performer with their performance and the festival goers with the photographer. Again these are based on perceptions of difference. The performer may be performing with you but they do this by connecting with something elemental in themselves that they share with us the audience. It isn’t just visual, Ann commented several times on the quality of the voices, the Bassey’s, Williams’s, Winehouses’s, the Tony Bennett’s verses the rest. That individuality is pronounced and is what got the performers on stage in the first place, dare I say it, the X-factor. That factor is in everyone, sometimes it is because they are charismatic, sometimes because they seem “Odd”, sometimes it is forced upon them by circumstance (like the Glastonbury Mud, for instance), often it is an incongruity, I would call it the poetry. Ann’s pictures of festival goers reflected their own poetry. Lesson 2: Photograph the connection.
In Round 4 of the ROC judge Tony Byram was most insistent on the value of “Boarder Patrol” (what’s going on at the edge of the frame) and Ann certainly had her own answers to this. On stage of course there is very little choice and metering, to which we shall return, is difficult. Ann pointed out that you have to be aware of opportunities for backgrounds, as they tend to be clashing and messy and full of cables, generators and detritus and in the case of the performers, not necessarily a great deal of cooperation. She described the dilemma with the festival goers as slightly different. The choice of backgrounds is somewhat limited to the tents, skips, toilets, screens erected around the site. The dilemma comes in the shape of do you go looking for interesting characters to photograph and seize upon the nearest (hopefully close enough that you don’t lose your subject through navigation error or boredom) or as the Press who cover the Magistrates Courts call it, “Stalking”, or do you find your background and wait for your subject to come within range, or as the Press who cover the Criminal Courts call it “Sniping”.
Part of that is going to be kit related. As far as artists are concerned you are going to be shooting in low light most of the time and you are going to be shooting at very high ISO’s. Therefore the wider you go and (generally) the bigger the sensor in your camera (noise related issues tend to be lesser with larger sensors) and depth of field is going to be minimal compatible to the lens you are shooting with. Potentially expensive, for sure, the ideal being wide aperture and high ISO on a big (full frame) sensor. You are going to have to crop tight and post process. The festival goers question is really a matter of personal choice, both, in this case, are functions of your preparedness, the more prepared you are, the luckier you get. Again be prepared to crop tight either in or out of the camera. Lesson 3: “Time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted” N. Bonaparte.
Of course there is the question of who wants to be photographed. As part of the ticket purchase most people don’t realise that in the terms and conditions for Glastonbury they agree to also include distribution rights to photographs of them. Read the small print. Always read the small print. Ann could only recount two occasions in 23 years where people had said no, part of the festival spirit, I suppose. All in all a good thing, but Ann also related that that could well be part the way she goes about asking. She is not festooned in lenses, nor aggressive and possibly not being male has its advantages. So does age. And the accreditation as an event photographer. And experience. Photographing children? Always, ALWAYS get the parents/responsible adults permission first. Especially in these paranoid times. Don’t be pushy, always smile and do take no for an answer. Lesson 4: Play Nicely, it pays dividends.
Finally there are the technicalities. We have partially touched on these already, but especially in the matter of photographing performers on stage in poor light you give yourself, Ann reckons, two opportunities to come away with useable shots. The first is to meter for the face, as at Glastonbury in particular there is always a spotlight on the singers face at least, and secondly shoot in RAW to give yourself the most opportunities to make or recover an image in post processing. If you know what you are after, know your equipment then you have a good idea of what you will get. Lesson 5: Photograph. Criticise. Apply. Repeat.
So ended Ann’s excellent overview of “The Evolution of an anthropological, longitudinal study of the Genus Festival Go-er in their interpersonal and tribal settings within the 1,000 acres of the village of Pilton, Somerset, England and the application of lessons for photographers” – there is a reason she calls it “Granny goes to Glastonbury” after all. The current update of this study contains five conclusions: 1. Find the Picture. 2. Photograph the connection. 3. Be prepared. 4. Play nicely. 5. Practice, practice ,practice.
A N N O U N C E M E N T S
Reminder: _ May’s Flickr competition GREEN!
Andy Beel FRPS (Blog) was the evening’s judge in the Reflex Open Competition Round 2 2014/15 for which there was a high number of entries for both the Digital and Print Sections. The club extends our thanks to him for his time and considerations. Andy is a confirmed monochromatisist and it was his observations on dark and light that suggested the topics of this week’s blog be contrast, extending the conversation started last week by Mark Stone, and framing.
Before we get to the results I just need to clear up the matter of dimensions for the digital images and the digital version of the prints being entered in the competition, as there was some confusion about this among members.
As it says on the competition page the maximum dimensions are 1400 by 1050 pixels. Now to expand on what this doesn’t mean before moving to what it does. What it doesn’t mean is that the maximum landscape (width) dimension is 1400 pixels regardless of height, nor does it mean that the maximum portrait (height) is 1050 pixels regardless of width.
What this does mean is that the maximum dimensions are 1400 pixels AND 1050 pixels and that the image submitted MUST fit within, or under, these dimensions. To put it another way, the maximum of either width or height must not exceed either 1400 or 1050 for any single image – they are viewed as dimensions together regardless of whether the image is framed landscape or portrait.
IF your image is not in the ratio of 4:3, and APS C and Full Frame are not (width to height a.k.a. the Aspect Ratio) then it is possible that one of the dimensions will fall outside of the 1400 and 1050 pixel limits. Look at both and scale it back as necessary. If your image is 1400 x 1051 or more or 1401 or more pixels x 1050 then it must be resized down to within the competition limits. It does not matter what that does to the other dimension as long as it is at or below the stated maximum. Check both to be sure. This is also the rule for most club and salon competitions elsewhere, I am lead to believe.
If you don’t know how to do this with any existing editing software you have, may I suggest pic-resize on the net for an easy to use and free solution.
And so to the meat of this blog – the Reflex Open Competition 2014/15 Round 2.
There was a lot of close competition here, the quality of entries continues to improve across the spectrum, which can only be good thing. Entering these competitions is a sound way to improve through valuable feedback and I think it show signs of working for the majority of us. If you haven’t entered anything yet, give it a go – you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain!
“1925“ – Wendy O’Brien
“Economy“ – Steve Halam
“Feeding“ – Ian Coombs
3rd “Religion” – Eddie Deponeo
2nd “Dancer in the final pose“ – Julia Simone
1st “Abandoned“ – Mark O’Grady.
“Vampire in the wind” – Julia Simone.
“Dark Ages“ – Ian Coombs.
“Unearthed Beauty“ – Mark O’Grady.
3rd “Lost But Not Forgotten“ Ian Coombs.
2nd “Hospital Nightmare“ Suzanne King.
1st “Vacant Stare“ Mark O’Grady.
Congratulations to them and thanks to all the entrants and of course Mark and Mark for getting it all together and making it happen on the night.
Andy was very specific about using dynamism within an image, concentrating the viewers eye using lightening and darkening. This brings us onto the role of contrast. The eye tends to move from light to dark and Andy pointed out that stray bits of light, especially on the edges of pictures, makes the eye wander and the story of that image can lose some of its narrative integrity. Light, of course, is everything, but without a counterpoint, the darker bits, it is nothing. So far so much egg sucking. In black and white the control of contrast along with the control of composition are the major factors in organising the image (OK in colour too but in a different sense as discussed last week).
"Contrast is the difference in luminance and/or color that makes an object (or its representation in an image or display) distinguishable. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view. Because the human visual system is more sensitive to contrast than absolute luminance, we can perceive the world similarly regardless of the huge changes in illumination over the day or from place to place. The maximum contrast of an image is the contrast ratio or dynamic range". Wikipedia
There is, of course, a wider and equally as pertinent meaning to contrast in photography, that of the relative positioning of objects but this post is more about the light and dark of it. Practically and to us this means practising Ansel Adams dictum of exposing for the highlights and processing for the shadows, regardless of whether we are talking black and white or colour, RAW, TIFF, JPEG or anything in between. This is simply because we can recover detail that is in shadow by selective processing. If it is blown out, i.e. rendered as white, there is very little to recover. What is there will run over a very narrow spectrum that runs from “Virtually nothing” to “Nothing” in a very short space. We thereby give ourselves the best chance to have something to work with at the extremes, the blacks and the whites (which are at opposite ends of an evenly distributed histogram, blacks to the left and whites to the right) by exposing for the whites. Sort of. Detail is also absent in pure black. This of course has an effect on the shadows, mid-tones and highlights, but these (five) in turn can be adjusted – Ye-Acolytes-Of-Photoshop will be aware that there is a slider for each of these in Lightroom. These five “Zones” bear a relation to Adams and Archer’s 10 zone system, but let’s not stretch a point too far, suffice it to say they are different ways of talking about the same thing, Adams and Archer for Print and Adobe for digital. Each of these can be adjusted to taste or requirement to affect an overall impression.
That impression, though, can be lost or diluted if the framing allows for distracting detail and in passing judgement on more than one of the entries. Andy indicated that this held them back from an award. The frame or crop, he posits, must be tight. Extraneous detail starts to water down the story or introduce a new one. There is only room for one story in each photograph.
There is a three dimensional layering to the two dimensional photograph created by the perception of foreground, middle ground and background and the story is often revealed through how these interact. What is going on in relation to these three layers is the story the image is telling. Look at what is in the corners can you use it to make it more dynamic? was Andy’s tip. Andy suggested that the strongest stories use this dynamic to keep the attention which generally goes directly to the brightest and or largest object in the frame. This is usually (not always, not even preferably – you know, all that thirds, fifths sevenths and “Golden ratio” stuff) centre mid-ground, where, if you follow what has been said above, it most likely loses impact. Impact comes from filling the frame and from the juxtaposition of elements within it. From his long experience with monochrome Andy related that in Black and White especially, but in colour too, light surrounded by dark works best and so several images fell by the wayside.
It was a very successful night and thanks to everyone who attended, judged, administered, entered to make the whole thing possible. Next week is the clubs Xmas celebration. See you there.
Time is running out but there are still places on the WOODLAND shoot. See Myk.
December 11th – The second round of this year’s Reflex Open Competition (ROC) will be judged tonight.
December 18th – Christmas social evening. To quote Mark S (again):
” Thursday 18th December is our Christmas Social. We’re planning on doing an American Supper style evening which means we’d like you to bring some food & drink. So that you don’t all bring in a pack of Scotch Eggs we’ve created a list that will be on the sign in desk each week up until the 18th. If you’d like to take a look at what is on the list just peek at the PDF attached to this post.
8TH January 2015“What Christmas Means to me” & Mounting Prints
See everyone’s images from our Christmas Challenge of “What Christmas Means to me” followed by a demonstration on how to mount your photographs.
I bet your wondering what this “What Christmas means to me” thing is as you’ve possibly never even heard it mentioned at the club before. Well now I’ve had it explained to me with a handy infographic I can explain it all to you. Well actually no I’m not instead you can follow this link and read all about it as that’s exactly the same way I found out what it was!
15th January 2015: Club Battle, Bristol Photographic Society (Away).
22nd January 2015: Colour Space Editing. Tutorial (part 1) Practical (part 2). Bring your Lap Top!