I got involved in a discussion on the Talk Photography forum about the merits of the photographs of Martin Parr this week. There was a faction dismissing them as snapshots in the usual way anything modern is dismissed, that their granny/child/cat could have done as well. The photographs I placed a link to were criticised for mostly technical 'faults'. Bad use of flash, intrusive objects in the frame, and so forth. And for being no more than snaps.
This brought home to me something I've picked up on from a couple of intelligent websites/blogs I visit to read about gear. There is a considerable cadre of photographers for whom technical perfection is an over arching must.
I'm not a gear head, but I like to know what's going on. For example Nikon are about to introduce a replacement for one of my most used lenses (which I recently read has appalling distortion - that I hadn't noticed...). It's a cheap, variable aperture zoom that I have already seen described as 'pointless'. It adds a feature I like in a lens - a focus ring which doesn't rotate when the lens is autofocusing and which can be used to over-ride the autofocus motor. Sometime I like to focus manually, and that feature means I don't have to flick a switch. That doesn't make the lens pointless for me. But for someone who has to have technical perfection in their images I guess it's not up to snuff. It's also smaller and lighter than the equivalent 'good' lens. Another bonus for someone like me who would rather stick a spare lens in a jacket pocket than trudge round with a camera bag over one shoulder.
What interests me about gear is how it handles. I want my gear to let me work fluidly in the way that suits me. That's why I do the opposite of what all the forum experts tell you to do. I use cheap lenses on expensive bodies a lot of the time. Cheap bodies mean lots of menu diving to change functions. Expensive bodies have the buttons and switches on the outside. And when looking at my photos (even pixel peeping) I often surprise myself when I check the lens info. I can't tell the good lenses from the bad a lot of the time!
Which brings me round to this afternoon's jaunt. Midweek the forecast was for sunshine today. But that gradually changed and drizzle arrived. I did some work in the morning and by lunch time I was bored. I checked the website of the gallery in the local market town and it looked like there might be something to look at. The market would be on and the rain would mean umbrellas would be up. They can make for interesting shapes and I find an urban environment more suitable for shooting on overcast days than the flatlands.
As it turned out the exhibition wasn't too bad. The artist statements were cringeworthy, but some of the pictures were okay. There were even some photographs which didn't make me angry!
The drizzle was quite heavy at first which meant keeping the camera under my jacket. This looks a bit furtive, although it's only done to keep the rain of the lens. However, after a visit to the bookshop the drizzle eased up. Unfortunately it was getting on and the streets were rather empty and the market stalls starting to wind down. I took a few shots of goods on various stalls. I don't know where this fad for fake-fur animal headgear has come from but it makes for colourful pictures. The one at the top of this post I like for the complimentary colours and the lines. Is it a snapshot? It's a single frame that was taken quickly, although carefully. Where's the line drawn?
The shots below were, obviously, taken more slowly. The pictorial device being used is to split the frame in two with the main subject on one side and some contextual content on the other. The first frame could have worked if the woman closest to the camera had been wearing a darker jacket - a row of three dummy heads with areal one tagged on at the end. As it is the light jacket sort of gets lost in the background. The second frame works a little better because the distant couple add depth, and the polythene covered trestle adds some context. One thing's for sure, pictures with people in them are far more engaging, even if they are out of focus in the background.
It's a funny old world. As I was walking along one row of stalls I heard someone call my name. Turned out it was a chap I know through fishing who has taken up market trading. I stopped for a chat and a few 'snaps'.
I ran off an A4 of the above picture which I'll give to Matt when I see him again. I can just about read the small print on the Twinkie box if I get the magnifying glass out. Not bad for a lens that's small and light but isn't supposed to be up to much towards the corners...
No comments:
Post a Comment