Chance

I rarely make plans, preferring to take opportunities. Spotting opportunities is the hard part. Tuesday afternoon I took an opportunity to go see what was happening around the pier. The day had 'gone off' and was duller than it could have been for the time of day, and hazy too. But I like being at the beach when the sand, sea and sky merge into one. I didn't expect to find much to photograph and had stuck the macro lens on one camera and my 'consumer' wide zoom on the other.

As luck would have it I think the lack of a lens that went any longer than 100mm actually got me a reasonable photograph. Had I been able to zoom in more I'm sure I would have made the returning coal picker larger in the frame. As it was I had no choice in the matter. The result gives a much better sense of scale and space than a closer framing would have done. I think the gulls also add to the scene.

That picture was made on my way back to the car after I'd spotted a metal detectorist working his way along the shore under the pier. Although it wasn't all that late the lights were coming on on the pier and I saw the chance to make something of them reflecting off the wet sand. If I could get a shot with the detectorist between the stanchions, and in a pose that shows what he was doing, it would be more than a nice picture of the pier. Perseverance and luck (I call it chance when something happens which I hope will) paid their part. I had to crop the shot slightly, but I'm getting over my dislike of cropping.

Getting an exposure that makes the picture look the way the scene appears to my eyes is problematic at the beach. Most of the time the big sky, pale and often reflective sand lead me to increase the exposure from what the camera' meter suggests. At dusk the situation is reversed and under-exposure is required. Although I don't consider myself a technically minded camera user exposure is something I do pay attention to. Being able to check things on a screen straight after taking a shot is revolutionary for an old fart like me.

Chatting to the detectorist I found out he was more interested in finding old things than valuable ones.While I was there he found neither. Just one ten pence piece! I made a few documentary type pictures and an environmental portrait for the developing series.

Friday afternoon saw me heading to Liverpool and taking the chance to visit the Open Eye gallery to see the current exhibition; North: Identity, Photography, Fashion. Having read the blurb and seen the promo pics I wasn't expecting much of it. I got what I expected. I get the impression that the gallery has lost it's direction. Purportedly a photography gallery this exhibition seems to me to be part art installation (upstairs), part fashion display (the small room) and part photography (the main room). An example of an exhibition by curators for curators. A trend I have sensed before at the Open Eye. As an exhibition about Northern culture it was largely an urban, youth culture which predominated.

I hope the Open Eye can get back to being a gallery that shows photographs because the photographs were worth a look. At least the ones that weren't either fashion or music photographs.

I usually take a look at what's on at the Tate when I go to the Open Eye and this visit was well worth it. Not only did I get to see Tracy Emin's infamous bed, which I love for the way it winds people up like Carl Andre's bricks used to do, but the Constellations exhibition included an excellent and varied selection of photographs. This was an unexpected surprise. I shall be trying to get back for another, longer look. Pictures by Brassai, Cindy Sherman, Gursky, Bruce Davidson  and others. It looks like photography is being taken seriously by British art galleries now. Maybe that's why the Open Eye is showing art?

Early Cindy Shermans

Art galleries are great places for taking photographs, but all to often prohibit it. This does seem to be changing. I assume because it's all but impossible to prevent people using their phones to take photographs these days. 

---

Culture

Sunday saw me heading to Liverpool to take another look at the photographs in the Tate, and at a small Auerbach I had missed first time round. While I was there I was surprised to see how many people were taking photographs in the gallery, with attendants looking on oblivious. All were using compacts or phones. So I fitted in nicely with the X10 in my pocket!

Then it was over to the Open Eye Gallery to check out the two latest exhibitions. The Edith Tudor-Hart show was interesting. I was intrigued by how many people in the crowd scenes were looking, or even waving, at the camera. I was prepared to be annoyed by the other exhibition of Mishka Henner's work. It's' hard to call it photography because it is mostly the currently fashionable 'appropriated' photography. Work done on or to other people's original photographs. That or word-art about photography. I have nothing against this sort of thing as art. I just don't think it should be shown in a photography gallery. There is little enough space given to photography as it is for some of it to be taken up with what I consider to be non-photography.

However, my visit wasn't wasted as I picked up a copy of the book I had gone to look at. rather than purchase it unseen on-line I wanted to have a flick through a copy. I liked what I saw and handed over my cash.

Although the understanding and reading of photographs has interested me for as long as I can remember, much of the modern writing on photography seems to be done by academics, rather than photographers, purely to impress other academics. Since I wrote my dissertation over 30 years ago there has been an explosion of texts about photography. But most of the books I have read from this period are littered with quotes and cited sources that seem to me to serve merely to show how well read the author is. It's as if they are frightened to proffer an unsupported opinion of their own. From Barthes on they make no reference to the act of making pictures with a camera. perhaps that's why they are frightened to comment on the practice as they have no experience of it. They know a lot about the cultural significance of photographs and psycho-babble though!

Tired of visiting the beach my experience of trying to make pictures today made use of the sunshine at the quarry. It's the play of light and shadow in amongst the trees and on the rocks that fascinates me there.

It remains a struggle for me to make pictures which satisfy me at the quarry - both from a technical and aesthetic point of view. That's probably why it interests me. My sloppy technique still lets me down at times, but the slower pace of working makes for a different way of thinking.

Once more I tried  to take two views of a scene - one wide and one close - a few times. More often than not this failed. I also shot into the light a few times but the flare was all but impossible to overcome. A large 'flag' was what I needed to shade the lens.

There are small signs of spring on the way, nettle shoots and leaf buds opening. As the year progresses the quarry will likely become impenetrable in places as the undergrowth regrows. Time will tell if it will still be possible to take photographs when the leaves are on the trees and the brambles and nettles are rampant!


Larger

---

This and that

Yesterday was another of my cultural visits to Liverpool. Despite there being a bitter wind with threats of snow causing me to refrain from dawdling I managed to snatch one shot that has something going for it in a minimal, graphic kind of way on my way to the Open Eye Gallery.
 

The exhibition I wanted to see was that of the landscapes of E. Chambré Hardman. The prints were a totally different experience to seeing the pictures on the web. Not so much because of the change of scale, but because some seemed to be printed in a fuzzy, painterly, way. I'm still not sure I liked it.Nor was I taken with the rustic romanticism of a few pictures. The quarry and cooling towers were more my kind of thing.

The other exhibition was in a modern vein. One piece that stood out as less contrived (although it was a composite panorama) was Tabitha Jussa's Eldon Grove. I guess when it comes to 'landscape' photography I lean towards a documentary style in my preferences. Which is probably why I picked up a book that was in the gallery's sale. I've been thinking of buying a copy for some time but having a chance to flick through the pages made up my mind. A Landscape of Wales by James Morris is a far from romanticised view of the principality, yet it isn't sneering either. The photographs are just what they are.

Talking of books, my printed version of the pictures of dry patches arrived today. I was wondering how the photographs from the X10 would reproduce in the laser printed form I assume is used by Blurb. I think they've turned out pretty well with none of the blocked shadows or lost detail I had feared might occur.

With using a tripod more frequently of late the ball head I have was frustrating me. Framing my shots is the only technical aspect of photography which I obsess about. Having a camera 'droop' after the head is tightened drives me nuts. I'd thought about getting one of the pistol grip heads but wanted to try one out beforehand. Luckily for me I bumped into a friend of mine who has one last week when we were both out with our cameras, so I gave it a whirl. I was impressed enough to get one for myself.

Me being me, however, I have swapped it round to operate left handed and back to front! I got to try it in anger at the quarry last time I was there and it worked a treat. I can grip both the trigger and the camera to line everything up just right. And there's no 'droop' either.

After posting the previous blog entry I made a larger jpeg of the first picture and set it as my computer's desktop. This has become one of my ways of seeing if I can live with a picture. In this case having it fill the screen completely changes it. The intricate details that drew me to make the shot are clearer, and it makes a lot more sense. So much so that it's making me wonder if an A3 printer might be a sound investment. There are times when I'd like to see a print that's larger than A4.

---

Unexpected pleasures

Today I had to take a trip to Liverpool and left enough time for a wander and a visit to the Tate.

I'd found out that there were some Keith Arnatt photographs on show in the Thresholds exhibition. The A.O.N.B series won't be to everyone's taste but it chimes with my view of the British landscape. Somehow I had missed the fact that there was other photography on show, so I was pleasantly surprised to see the work of Martin Parr and Sophie Calle exhibited.

What struck me was the different ways in which the works were presented. Arnatt's gelatin prints were mounted and framed in traditional style and hung in a row. Parr's laser prints were pinned to the wall unmounted in a grid. Calle's black and white pictures appeared to be printed as a grid on one sheet, framed behind glass, with a similar frame above of a colur picture and explanatory text. There was another work by Simryn Gill (who was new to me) consisting of 260 prints pinned to the wall in a large grid. I found that the least well presented as the prints were too small, detailed and numerous to be viewed or read easily. The lighting was also a bit dim at that end of the gallery.

None of these works seemed drastically different to viewing them in print or on the web. The image areas were no more than A3. The Arnatts a mere 8"x10". What was different was the Thomas Demand. At screen or book size the pictures of scenes recreated in card and paper look convincingly naturalistic. At the large size presented in the gallery the deception is clearly apparent. While this is no doubt a major part of the point, it made the exercise less interesting for me. I think I'd rather view the actual construction. Even so, as with much concept driven visual art, the idea is greater than the object. And when it's been done once, does it really need repeating?

The Open Eye Gallery has two new exhibitions opening on Friday, so I'll try and make longer cultural visit to the big city soon to visit that and revisit the Tate.

The rest of today's half decent stuff here.

---

Another eye-opener

Having to venture to Liverpool today I took the chance for a flying visit to the Open Eye Gallery to check out the two current exhibitions. What I'd read about the Richard Mosse show on the BBC photography pages didn't fill me with hope. It all sounded a bit pretentious. As with the Mitch Epstein exhibition, however, the pictures were different in reality than seen virtually on the web. This is something I'm coming to realise more and more. That physical photographs, actual prints or printed on a page, give a better feeling for what photographs are about than images on a screen do. Some of the prints were very large, the others just averagely large. This also altered how hey were experienced.

I've always though that using infra-red film is a bit of a gimmick, and still do, but the effect it had for the subject matter was in stark contrast to the images in the other exhibition. Simon Norfolk's carefully crafted prints of subjects relating to genocide beautified the images which in turn distanced them pictures from what was being pictured. The inra-red film had the opposite effect. By taking away our preconceptions of what things look like it brought the subject to the fore. I'll be going for another, longer, look when I get a chance.

One my way to and from the gallery I made a few pictures of my own. Although I prefer being in the countryside I much prefer taking photographs in the urban environment. The straight lines make it easier for me to find compositions. The natural world is all too amorphous for me, especially when the vegetation is lush and green. In winter the colours are muted and there are more clearly defined shapes from bare trees and the like.

So it was on this sunny morning I found myself framing architecture and shadows, along with a few more for the Stub It Out series. I was using the X10 again, and again being frustrated by my inability to easily frame accurately with the thing. The focus/shutter lag also lost me a couple of shots again. I must keep in mind that the camera is only a compact. It's a shame it doesn't handle like an SLR as the files really are fantastic, and it's so small and light.

If I had been properly ruthless in the editing of the selection in the gallery from today's wander there'd be two less. But it's not important in the grand scheme of things. Larger here.

---

Another look

I took another trip to Liverpool for a second look at the Mitch Epstein show at the Open Eye Gallery before it closed. Naturally I took my camera along with the versatile 28-105 attached. The first time I went I snapped a couple of shots of the tops of litter-bins designed for extinguishing cigarettes. I'm not sure why. There is something about words appearing in photographs that appeals in a Pop Art sort of way. It's akin to my fascination with road signs in the landscape. One of the shots is on the right here.

On my second trip I hadn't intended to use the bins as subject matter again but one caught my eye, then another, and eventually I went looking for them around the Albert Dock. Some sunshine would have improved matters and there's a degree of repetition but as an idea to explore it could prove interesting. The full set can be found here.

One good thing about the 'cultural centre' of Liverpool is that it is full of tourists with cameras. So no matter what you choose to shoot nobody bats an eye. Quite the opposite in fact, as after taking one of the Stub It Out shots a bloke with a camera moved in behind me and took a photo himself.

---

My eyes have been opened

Although I drive past the newly opened Open Eye Gallery in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis I never seem to have the time to stop and call in. Today I made time. The space is disappointingly small. Not cramped, just small. I suppose this reflects on the consideration that is given to photography in general. It's a nice space nonetheless. The lack of space limits the number of prints that can be displayed, which is a shame.

Although I had primarily gone along to see the Chris Steele-Perkins show it was the Mitch Epstein photographs that I took most away from. The Steele-Perkins photographs were all pretty familiar. Seeing them printed large and framed behind glass added nothing to the experience of looking at them in books or even on a monitor. If anything the glass made viewing them more difficult and to my eyes, even close up, the prints were nothing startling. The Epsteins were a different matter.

Being stuck behind glass was still troublesome for viewing the pictures, reflections are the problem. What I wasn't prepared for was how the scale affects how the pictures act on you. I've always been well aware that an image's size has an effect on how it is perceived, and that looking at prints in books isn't always the same as seeing the real thing. In the case of the Steele-Perkins prints they were not much larger than they can appear in books. Certainly not large enough to make a difference. Seeing a photograph at a size that fills an A4 page is one thing, but seeing the same photograph printed at six feet across (or thereabouts) is another experience altogether.

What seeing these very large prints did for me was explain the benefit of large format film. At something like A3 the level of detail that can be revealed from any size negative or digital file is limited. At six feet across small elements in a large scene can be revealed. It is this level of detail that sometimes attracts the photographer's eye. By standing close to the print this detail is revealed, by stepping back the full composition is revealed - yet the mind retains the information from the closer viewing. The overall impact is much different to seeing the same image printed small.

My two favourite prints from the American Power exhibition were the Hoover dam picture and the Martha Murphy and Charlie Biggs double portrait. Both benefit from being viewed large to show. The former as it reveals the intricacies of the power lines and so forth, the latter because it allows you to examine the items in front of the pair, and the tattoo on Charlie's arm. I had never understood the point of making very large photographic prints prior to seeing these. I left the exhibition contemplating how not only the aspect ratio of a format can affect the photographs you take, but also the scale of the negative (or sensor) and the size to which the final print can successfully be made. My eyes had been opened to alternative photographic ways of looking and seeing.

Restricted to an APS size digital sensor I tried making some photographs that suited it as I made my way back to the car park.

---

Liverpool circa 1979

Bold Street

Lime Street station

Liverpool circa 1979

Escalator