It’s been more than a couple of weeks since I last posted. This is because I have been rather busy and I apologise for the omissions. What do you mean by “I hadn’t noticed?”
We are now on the summer break which means we go out to the club to various locations around the city and sometimes outside of it. Next meeting is at Colliters Brook Farm on the A38 between the layby and the golf course just past the Towns Talk and it is American Cars that are the subject of the evening.
We have done two shoots so far in our summer Programme, the first being the M Shed photoshoot (well outside it to be precise) with models from the local area most of whom have worked with the Dream Team that have been blocked about before. Many thanks go out to all those who participated in what was a very successful evening and was generally enjoyed by all I talk to.
Then we went for a stroll around Bedminster (Bristol not New Jersey) which is where the annual Upfest is held which for those of you unfamiliar is an urban art festival using local buildings as canvases around the North East and West Street areas of Bristol. It is Europe’s largest street art festival and it always leaves me astounded at its imagination and its breadth. This was probably the first time in ages I actually took my camera along specifically to make a record and if you can I would suggest that you pay a visit.
Both events have been very successful and we’ve even seen some members we don’t normally see when we go out joining in so that is really good. Our thanks to the Programme Team for putting these things together, A lot of hard work goes into it, and it is appreciated.
At least part of that success for us as individual photographers is turning up to something where, if we don’t know the exact details, at least we know the outline of what is going to happen. This is more important than sometimes people give it credit for, because we have many opportunities that we can shoot, but we don’t always see them when we are not focused.
I forgot who it was said that in Street photography there are two basic methods, fishing and hunting. In fishing, we go select a background and wait patiently for our subject to wander through it and because we already set up to eliminate things like lamp posts bins and what have we that can get in the way, We have a very good chance of getting a memorable photograph. Please may I did not say guaranteed as there are no guarantees. What we can do is eliminate much of the problems we get with clutter and with things like not having level Horizons through the process of pre-planning background.
When learning it is often said that the best way to do this sort of thing in the street is to use the fishing method. That is not to say that the Hunting method, where one goes around with the intention of seeking out subjects and prizing them out of their every day with the lens, is better or worse. It is the result that counts. Sorting out the background is a basic skill for any photographer who wants to progress, “Border Patrol” as it is sometimes called. This is because there is a difference between looking and seeing. But what we are hunting and fishing for is light. What we need to be looking for are the things that will draw the viewers attention to what we want to capture in the frame.
The hunting method is often seen as a more aggressive of the two and saying that there can be problems with permission and people leaping out with wide angle lenses to poke in the faces of and promoting reactions from startled passers-by, but this is very much in the minority. Could also get us locked up in some countries. Then “Easy ain’t worth nothing”.
So if we started out taking photographs of models and street art why are we talking about street photography? Basically, because we have to remember, if we are not going to miss some interesting things that we could possibly capture, we need to be aware of our surroundings. People will, in urban situations, be part of the scene. We need to see the opportunities before they turn into something we can capture that has something to say. But we need to be aware of that one detail that we need to tell the story. A photograph can only tell one story, our job is to make it a strong one. It is as much about what we leave out as keep in.
The WCPF travelling critique was our last evening, and as ever there is something to be got out of sitting down and critically discussing the works of other photographers, especially if we then extend that to our own work. Some photographers get too caught up in the notions of developing a style or shooting a particular way thinking that their body of work will evolve through consistency alone.
That is like braking going uphill, sometimes it is necessary, but it involves a great deal of wasted energy. It is understandable though when the idea that photographic style is a filter we apply to an image. No this is not an anti-Instagram rant, and if that sounds like something we use to combat the symptoms of hay fever then now is an opportunity to catch up by clicking here.
But Instagram is a good place to start. Kevin Systrom, who was a co-founder of Instagram and who did very nicely, thank you, when it was sold to Facebook, had the idea seeded for the app when a Professor in Italy introduced him to the Holga camera, a cheap everything-you-pay-thousands-for-your-glass-not-to-do sort of camera that produces very retro looking pictures on 120 roll film. But that quirkiness actually forms the basis of the Holga’s modern-day appeal and yes, you can get filters to modify your everything-you-pay-thousands-for-your-glass-not-to-do to do Holga-esque images, just make sure you are well braced when you do because the weight of the irony of that is going to hit your wallet pretty hard.
The fact is film had/has its own look. Each brand would have their own unique ways of capturing and processing the light. Just in slide film: Kodachrome went through several “looks” over its life; Fuji was noted for its blue tones; Agfa was something else again; ditto Scotch, the list goes on.
Then there are/were the options/limitations in printing. Papers, inks, chemicals, sizes, frames, viewing options and conditions all have an impact. What they cannot do, however, is cover for lousy composition. Poor lighting. Wrong exposure. Unengaged subject. Surely filters / looks / processes / post-production can lend atmosphere to an image but unless the style is “Never mind the quality feel the width” they are not going to do much for our artistic integrity.
What we are looking for is a quality of the imagination, showing our individuality by drawing with light (Greek: photo – light graphy from graphe making lines or as we would call it, drawing). Style in the literary sense is about how the tools of language, clauses, spelling, grammar, punctuation and the like are put together to make an impression on the reader. We use light and shadow, directionality, the tools of composition and a photosensitive surface capable of recording the fall of light and dark on a subject in the same way. We fashion a statement on a subject.
What other people are doing is a start, but it is only a start. Copying what others have done, making a re-interpretation of something that has gone before, making our own statement, is a great way to learn but it is a means to an end. However, it is not the reason we pick up the camera (at least before we disappear up our own dirt pipes like the voice over on any given perfume advert). Understanding the technicalities by replicating the image is a learning tool, not an end in itself.
That said there is a notion that we can move between taking snapshots to making photographs. In so doing we develop, through habit, a photographic style. Whether it is a conscious statement or not. Perhaps we keep making the same mistakes, is that a style? Broadly yes but it is the elimination of the incidental and replacing it with the deliberate that makes a difference. It is that interpretation that is the seedbed of the individual’s style. That is when we start bothering less about what everyone else is doing.
Defining our style is one thing. Refining it is something else. Technical skills matter, you have to be able to apply the rules before you can start breaking them successfully. Purpose is the key. And lots of lots of practice. Lots and lots and lots.
Longtime sufferers of this blog will know that the world is divided into two. The Get-It-Right-In-The-Camera-istas and Ye-Accolytes-Of-Photoshop. I err towards the former, but that is a personal thing. The fact is we need skills in both, but that we are probably better at one than the other.
That said there is a lot of time effort and money to be spared in getting the thing you have in your head onto your computer file (that is what we are creating until the image is printed) in as close to finished form as we can in the place where most of the important elements and all the results of those irreparable decisions are made. The camera. Just don’t let it get in the way.
Having the camera and lighting skills gives us the option to manipulate what we see in the fashion we want it seen. Post-production then tidies up and polishes. That sequence is the one that lets our style evolve and show through. Is it the only way? I doubt it. Having the confidence in using the materials we have to hand to make our statement makes for a stronger more assured one. When the “rules” are broken it is to a deliberate effect. Style thus evolves through confidence.
Apologies for the lateness of this post but I have had a very hectic weekend. If you are a club member and fancy having a go at the blog you are more than welcome. Have a chat with Mark Stone and he will bring you up to speed on the do’s and don’ts.
A 10 by 10 last Thursday, I always enjoy these as they are the personal choices of the photographers involved and we get a little insight into what makes their unique brand of photography. We are the sum of the choices we make in more ways than one. I also think that sharing things helps by showing different subjects, selections, interpretations, frames, focal lengths, angles, perspectives and everything else that goes to make up a photograph and provoke us to try something different next time. Well maybe. But, if we joined our club to improve then, logically, this is part of the process. So where do we get this sense of style from? One of the biggest boons of the digital age, I find, is the ease with which people can share their shots with the world. Flickr, 500px, Picasa/Google+, SmugMug, Phanfare, Instagram, Imgur, Deviant Art and alike, plus newspaper sites like the Telegraph, Guardian and Independent who pay attention to promoting photography, all have their pluses and minuses but all have an essential ingredient – the sharing of efforts to whoever puts the effort in to finding them. There is, I would say, a process of osmosis we get from deliberate exposure to the efforts of others, their stories and how they choose to tell them and how we choose to interpret them. How many of their users have this as core to their plan to share with the world I have no idea and for sure some will take it more seriously than others. But it is important, just as it’s the picture not the camera that is important.
Neither style, nor consistently good images, come from slavishly trying to copy the “Greats”. There has already been an Ansel Adams, a Diane Arbus, a Cecil Beaton, a Robert Capa, you are not going to be the next one because the world moves on and because they were/are unique coincidences of time, place and talent. Yet we can be inspired by them and by the efforts of other lesser mortals like ourselves. Style is a development, a series of halts on a branch line rather than a single big city destination of its own. Consistency plays a part, of course, but in the way the elements are handled, that is how a signature develops. Repetition, going out and doing the photography thing with a purpose, repeatedly, examining the results, determining improvements and going out and doing it again, better, plays a part too. That way sound results can be obtained. Take this as an invitation to look at your own back catalogue and see what themes, subjects, objects, views, treatments, come to mind. It’s a start. You might use one of the frameworks we’ve discussed for critiquing to really nail what makes these themes tick for you? Try Anthony Morganti as starter-how-to. When you have identified these streams then you have the basis to do some further research, maybe bring it to the next 10 by 10? Or with the club on Thursday when we meet off site at the Jolly Sailor, Saltford. Practical night (yeah right).
See you there.