Showing posts with label X10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label X10. Show all posts

Sunday, 15 December 2013

Beets and beasts

Although I had intended to go look for the scenes I had in mind to use the X10 to photograph something sent me off in a different direction. The light was pretty dull and the wind chill made me wish I'd put gloves on.A few weeks ago, just as the light was fading, I saw a beet clamp being covered over with straw. It was too dark to get any shots at the time, but the clamp looked interesting.

Today I passed by it and spent some time trying to make pictures. Some worked better than others and I think the sixth frame in the slideshow below is the most successful at showing the structure of the clamp and making an abstract composition. The others are reasonable enough in documentary terms.

The vaguely orange and green theme carried over to some cud-chewing cattle

I continued on my way making more pictures as I covered what Google maps revealed to be a five and a half mile walk.

One problem with small cameras is small batteries. Before I had completed the walk the one battery I had with me was flat. Usually I carry a couple of spares, but this time I forgot them.

There's something going on in the picture of the flag that I like but can't pin down. It's a simple shot, with subtle tones and limited colour palette.


While it's great to have a camera which fits in a jacket pocket I still struggle to get on with using the rear screen for composing pictures. It's all a bit too wobbly and somehow imprecise for me. I much prefer bracing the camera against my face with my left eye to the viewfinder.


Bigger here.

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

A bad workman

Sunshine after rain can make for great light and opportunities. It was the flash of lime green which caught my eye initially, followed by the dark and light verticals. Or that's how I assume it must have happened. It was certainly the light.


The chap down the side street could have been a useful element but didn't fit my vision for what might be possible. As people walked by the window I realised there was a pool of light falling near the kerb corner when the elderly couple came into the frame. I tried to fire off three shots to time their placement and the dratted focus lag on the camera let me down.

A split second sooner and there would have been more of the guy in the alley visible which would have been disconnected to the main seen, but possibly adding a counterpoint. The imaginary gaze of the 'young' mannequin directed towards the couple placed in that shaft of light almost makes an interesting picture. The light, colours (green and maroon) and the dark and light verticals create a visually interesting stage for the action. I guess I should have stuck around to see if any other players set foot upon it.


The focus lag annoyed me and I moved on in the direction of the camera shop to see if there is such a thing as a small, fast focusing camera. I tried out one which seemed good on paper in the shop but it was slower than the X10. I tried a second, which I had handled before, and it seemed snappier so I stuck a memory card in it and took it outside. In practice it wasn't much better than the X10. The quality of the files didn't seem much better than those from the X10 either. Nicer than my Panasonic, which actually performs quite well, but not worth the price tag to me - not even at used prices.


If I didn't already have DSLR gear such a camera would probably be appealing. It felt good in the hand and the files are certainly good enough. Maybe my logic is flawed, but a smaller camera ought to offer a considerable cost saving over a larger one in my mind!

There are two more cameras I have in mind as 'walkabouts'. If neither of those perform as I'd like then I'll have to stop blaming the tools and work at using the one I've got differently instead of trying to make it work the way I wish it would. If that fails I'll give up and stick to what I know works. I just wish it was small enough to fit in a coat pocket.

Monday, 23 September 2013

Not taking photos

The next best thing to taking photographs is looking at them. Which, apart from taking scenic shots when fishing, is pretty much what I've been doing of late. I did take my X10 along to a fishing show at the weekend, but I'd forgotten how to use the thing and most of my efforts were messed up. Still, I did manage a couple of 'snapshots' which made me realise that even when I'm framing quickly with no conscious thought of making a picture I sometimes manage to get some sort of composition starting to work. Of three 'portraits' I snapped all have the subject's face off centre and approaching the dreaded 'third'!


The photographs I've been looking at have been in books I have added to my collection. After missing out on the first edition of Pentti Sammallahti's acclaimed Here Far Away I made sure I secured a copy of the second edition when I saw it announced on The Online Photographer (TOP). When it arrived I was excited to open it up. Alas I had that feeling of dissatisfaction I've mentioned before of finding myself admiring the cleverness of the pictures rather than what they have to say. I had that feeling looking at the print offer on TOP too. As if these are photographs made to appeal to photographers. It's all a bit too much like jazz to me. Stuff you can only appreciate if you are in the loop and thoroughly tedious if you are not.

But perhaps that's how the sort of photographs I find I get more out of appear to others. Two more books arrived a few days after the Sammallahti. Two books of boring photographs of Britain: Pierdom by Simon Roberts and Strangely Familiar by Peter Mitchell. Neither book contains obviously 'clever' pictures. They are both quiet, unassuming collections of pictures which benefit from quiet, considered perusal. Maybe I connect with the subject matter better. Pierdom is about the British seaside and Strangely Familiar about the North. There's an element of nostalgia in both books, even though some of the pier photographs were taken as recently as this year.

One thing that Pierdom (and, just yesterday, this article) has done is stop me worrying about the white balance issue I thought I was having. The colours of the sand and sky look pretty similar to those I was getting before I started having doubts.

The Reuters piece made me think again about how clichéd photographic representation of the British seaside has become. Did it start with Tony Ray-Jones and get continued by Martin Parr and his followers? Is it the way the British really see their seaside resorts? It's always the tourists who are depicted by outsiders. Middle class outsiders photographing the working class holiday makers always brings with it a suspicion of the sneering which Parr was accused of. Photographs aren't neutral and people always read into them what they want to.

For all I have reservations about Parr and Ray-Jones I still admire their work. If it wasn't in London I'd go see the exhibition which brings some of their photogrpahs together. I'll no doubt be adding a couple more books to my shelves soon - one of Ray Jones's colour pictures and one of Parr's black and white (the reverse of what they are both most noted for).



Friday, 22 March 2013

Odds and ends

Much as I like the size and form factor of the X10, and much as it makes excellent prints, I still can't come to terms with it as a 'street' camera. Even composing using the screen is hit and miss. I seem to need the isolation of subject a viewfinder provides. The picture below had to be cropped to get the framing I'd wanted.


On the other hand the next, hastily grabbed, shot has worked well in it's formal construction of lines leading the eye into the frame. That's all the picture is about really - an arrangement of shapes and colour. Increasingly that is something I'm finding less satisfying for its own sake. As dissatisfying as the masses of photographs I look at which are full of content (and/or comment) that lack any formal composition to them.


It is possible to put the two crucial elements of content and form together, and in a 'straight' uncomplicated way to produce compelling photographs which stand repeated viewing. I stumbled on some such photographs the the week while surfing the web and tracked down the book they were from. Rhodri Jones's black and white photographs of his native land are pretty straight documentary pictures, even the ones made with a panoramic camera. The way they are presented in diptychs and triptychs is perfectly logical and unmannered to my eye.

Following links can lead to unexpected gems like that. Another random trail lead me to On Landscape. Mostly the site didn't appeal, and the threat of having to pay to view the content was even more scary, but there was mention of an interview with Jem Southam in the site's/magazine's (I'm not sure which it is) was intriguing. What little I have seen of Southam's landscape work on the web I like (and have probably been influenced by to a degree), even though it fits exactly (and might have initiated) a style of art-landscape photography which seems all pervasive these days. Large format work made on overcast days of seemingly boring places. Southam's stuff does have more lyricism and romanticism to it than most, though. Anyway, I signed up for the site and was delighted to be able to download the PDF containing the interview for free.

An interesting read it was too. It made it clear to me that people choose their working processes to suit their personalities. It also made me think about something written on The Online Photographer about taking just a handful of pictures a year versus taking thousands. The theory being that each methodology results in a similar number of 'good' pictures per year. I'm sure this is true. I'm not so sure that the reason is as suggested - that deliberately taking few photographs ensures that you take more care over each one. I reckon the reason is (photography being a medium entirely based on selection - of subject, framing etc.) you pick out the same number no matter how many you have to choose from. It is possible, after all, to make bad photographs when you take great care over them.

Southam cites cases of setting up his laborious equipment and waiting for ages only to not take a photograph. More fool him. There are times when photographs don't reveal their worth until time has passed. One of the benefits of digital is that you can take these photographs without great cost. Given the price of sheet film I can understand a reluctance to waste a sheet. What I can't understand (because it isn't in my nature) is knowing what you want before you get it.

I have thought up a number of photographic projects which I'll never take anywhere because I can visualise the results in my mind's eye. For me they already exist. Turning these projects into hard copy would be a chore. This is probably why the river project withered on the vine. If I had thought up the Gone Out series in advance it would never have been made. As the idea occurred to me on the spur of the moment, when I had a camera with me, it got done.

My other ongoing projects have come about because they sort of grew out of what and where I was photographing. I have feelings of what they are about, but no fixed ideas. The quarry photographs have coalesced into a format quite quickly. Nonetheless putting the best images together on the computer this week has revealed a few holes which need filling. If the sun ever shines again I'll go and fill them. I know the sort of pictures I need, but not the precise images. This is what photography is all about for me. It's an excuse to go looking around the world, even if it's just my parochial part of it.

Seeing, looking and recording. That's the essence of my photography. It's as much as to make me ask myself why I took my photographs as to show other people what I have seen. I guess this is why I take more than a handful of photographs each year. I like looking and seeing.

Saturday, 9 March 2013

Digital sketchbook

I've been neglecting my little camera of late so I thought I'd give it some love by taking it round town when I went to buy the latest copy of the BJP. It had been performing rather better for me of late, and an A3 print from one of its files had demonstrated how capable it is. So long as you acknowledge its weaknesses.

The colours where what drew my eye to make the picture on the right. Alas it's not as sharp as it could be. Fine at this size but there's definite motion blur that detracts at a larger size. It's the difficulty of checking settings quickly that flummoxes me. In shutter priority the aperture disappears from the screen, and vice versa. You only get to see both settings when the shutter release is half pressed. And if using the viewfinder there's no information at all. So I either use programme mode or set the widest aperture and cross my fingers the shutter will be fast enough. More oftren than not it all goes Pete Tong for quickly grabbed shots.

The second shot is sharper. I was struck by the animal prints and the way they are looking through a grille. Maybe a little obvious play on the caged animal theme. The square crop is to get rid of unwanted clutter.


I actually got sidetracked in town and forgot to buy the magazine I'd gone for... So after lunch I headed for the market town, it having cheaper parking and a bit more to photograph, to make sure I got a copy. Again I blew it with the shots I thought had most potential, while the so-so shots were technically better. I'm still not sure if that pair of boots has feet and legs in them in the first shot!


 This next one is okay as a picture of a handbag stall, but there's nothing much else to it.


It was the absurdity of a hidden display of wares that appealed to me when I framed the picture on the left. That and the way it reminded me of the wrapped bodies often shown in documentary pictures from scenes of conflict. It's just a slightly absurd image.

My friend had his stall up this week, so I handed him a print of the photograph I took last time, and made some more. One of Matt serving a customer was sort of all right but the one I was trying to make of him serving with a young woman stood talking on a mobile in a pub doorway behind the stall simply wouldn't fall into place. Win some (few) lose some (many).

By chance I spotted a book in a charity shop window that looked interesting. 'Memories of Britain Past' is an illustrated look at life in Britain in the 20th century. I've yet to read or look at it all yet, but there is al ot of nostalgia as well as photographs by John Bulmer and an uncredited Tony Ray-Jones. Not all the pictures are of that standard, many were probably stock images at the time by the look of them. However it should give an insight into how Britain has been pictured over the years. Which interest me greatly.

With book and magazine purchased (the book for less than the magazine!) I headed for a little river I'm thinking of making some photographs of. My intention was to use the X10 to take some quick snaps as sketches of potential pictures. It was raining and I turned back after a few hundred yards after making a few snaps. I say they were snaps simply because I didn't bother checking any of the settings, so focus was likely to be awry. It was purely an investigatory visit. I came away with enough to give me some ideas. Waders might be required for one thing! The biggest problem will be that access is along the north bank only, meaning the sun (at this time of year) is going to be in my face in a lot of places, although the river does twist and turn a great deal. If the rain holds off tomorrow I might take another trip there.

I'll admit that it is Jem Southam's 'The River Winter' which made me think of visiting the Yarrow. Not that I have the book, although I have seen some of the pictures in it. It'll be interesting to see what I make of this new project. If that's what it turns out to be. It could be worth pursuing it as spring turns to summer if it does start to bear fruit. I have it in mind that a series of pictures working downstream as the seasons change might be one way to approach things. Maybe that's a little pretentiously conceptual!


While the files from the X10 are capable of rendering detail, the colours on dull days always seem to be lacking something which I can't pinpoint. They are prone to a magenta/purple cast, but I have learned to remove that. They still not right though. What I have come to realise, after a few people on the Talk Photography forum mentioned it, is that the jpegs are better to work with than the RAW files. They are more malleable than those from my other cameras. They also seem to require less processing than the RAW files. A tweak of the tone curve, a nudge of vibrancy and clarity and that's pretty much it unless some highlights need reducing or the exposure is slightly out. Very counter-intuitive given how RAW is usually best.

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Unexpected benefit

Being busy with work my photo-time has been limited of late. With a sunset in store I managed to get out just too late the other day and was stuck with the afterglow. Despite having a DSLR with a fast lens and great low light capability the most successful shots were taken with the X10. The reason being that it's small sensor delivers a greater depth of field at a wide aperture. This means less need to stop down in low light, faster shutter speeds and lower ISOs.

The more I sue this small sensor the more I come to think that it makes sense for landscape photography. Certainly if ultra large prints aren't the aim - which they are not for me.


A day later and I again had just a short time spare before dark. And it was raining. I called in at the sandplant knowing that one of the barriers had been broken down so things would have changed again.

Something else I like about the X10 is the sweep panorama function. It can be easily overused but there are times and places it serves a purpose. Out on the flatlands is one instance that springs to mind, but there are others.



Inside the sandplant the rain had created large puddles and there were new things to look at. I spent a little while playing with new ideas but lacked the time to pull them off before the light went completely.


Larger here.

Sunday, 11 November 2012

Autumn tints

Afternoon light and autumn leaves are all but irresistible to anyone with a camera. Indeed, I wasn't the only one out trying to convert the scene into pixels today. In 'boring landscape' mode I eventually managed to frame the shot below. I'm not sure if I'd like the figures to be a little closer/larger or not. This one follows a lot of the 'rules' of formal composition. It has leading lines, a partial frame and the touch of red to set off the other colours.


All a bit easy really, So I tried out some 'tricks'. The fisheye came out, and I had a go at some zoom blur in an attempt to capture the feel of being in among the beech trees.



Then I stumbled on fungi on a stump. Without a macro lens and flash gun I did what I could with what I had available - the camera's flash and my 'cheapo' wide angle zoom. A lens which I've neglected but am finding more and more useful, and not too shabby in the performance stakes.


I also had a try with the X-10. Alas I couldn't get the right amount of flare for the effect I was after.


Probably the least clichéd shot I got which I like a bit was the final one of haws in a puddle. As too often I rushed it. More depth of field might have improved things. Still, the red and green work well for me


Sunday, 29 April 2012

Candids, 'street' and stuff

Yesterday I was at a lure fishing show and bumped into a few people I know, including Eric Weight who commented on my colour and monochrome versions of the portrait in my previous post. Eric said the colour version looked more like a snapshot. Which is one of the problems of colour portraiture noted in the quote I found on the internet some time ago: "When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!” ― Ted Grant.

 It's difficult to explain this condition. I think it's to do with the removal of one layer of verisimilitude from the image, something that paintings do by the nature of being made from paint and thus not being affected by the colour. A portrait painted in colour works the same way as one drawn in charcoal. Unless it's painted in a photorealist manner in which case it is likely to seem as superficial as a photograph. That's the best explanation I can come up with.

These two photographs were made in my usual way of photographing people. By talking to friends and poking a camera in their face! There's no attention to at composition, and I need to work on the conversions. But they have something going for them. I took plenty more that didn't.



The shots were taken with the X10. Perfect for days when a larger camera would be an inconvenience. Another friend of mine, a professional photographer turned plumber, was interested in the camera. As soon as I handed it to him I was amused to see he instinctively put the viewfinder to his eye! Cameras need viewfinders. They help isolate what is being photographed and concentrate the mind.

One of the benefits of small cameras that received wisdom tells us makes them perfect for 'street' photography is their size. We are told repeatedly that a large DSLR makes people nervous and it's noise alerts them to the photographer's presence. It makes sense. It's reinforced by the Leica school of photographers who maintain that only a rangefinder camera can make great street photographs.

Today I found a link to a video that reinforces this prejudice. I was starting to believe it all. However, this last week I've been using my full frame DSLR while revisiting my old photographs - simply because I can use a 50mm lens to give the same coverage and get me close to the original viewpoint. Naturally I've been making other photos while out and about, and I've found people react no differently to that camera than they do to the compact. It's not the camera that people notice, it's the photographer. The way the person with the camera behaves is what people notice, or don't notice as the case may be.

One of the 'recreations'. Not a fantastic 'street' shot, but nobody in it seems perturbed by the presence of a goon pointing a big camera at them for the few minutes it took to get the shot right.

This got me to thinking about the 'street' genre as it is now carried out. The way there are zealots who say it must be done one way. Before 'street' was a trendy photo-genre nobody mentioned what kind of camera was best, people used what they had. The icons of 'street' used Leicas because there were no SLRs back in the 1930s. They used 50mm lenses because there were no zooms.  It made me titter when it was mentioned in one of the linked to videos that one good reason for using a rangefinder is that artists buck trends and so use Leicas in preference to Canons and Nikons. So they uniformly use Leicas!

Saturday, 14 April 2012

More scans

I've just about finished my scanning-fest and made a stack of quick prints. The majority of the photographs are no more than snaps, but snaps that have become records of a time past and a place that has changed.As I mentioned before, some of those I had never printed at the time, and had subsequently forgotten about, now look reasonable. If nothing else they illustrate that I still have the same sort of vision.

More about how this episode has made me think about photography at a later date. My next task is to sort the prints and put them in albums ready to revisit the locations and rephotograph them as they are today. Not every single photograph, only selected ones from each location. That's the plan for now. In the meantime here are some I think are more than simple records, but actually have something going for them as pictures.











And one from today, not so good, shot digitally.



Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Going round in circles

It was probably looking back at the negatives that made me take a look at where I've come from digitally. It's just over two years since I bought my first DSLR and started photographing things for their own sake after using cameras solely to make illustrations for articles and slide shows about fishing. You might think that it would have taken a while to get into the swing of things and find my 'eye' again, yet the icy picture below was taken on my second outing with the camera and what many would consider a low quality lens.


I had a large, almost A3, print made from the file at the time but only recently got round to framing it and hanging it on a wall. Two years down the line I still like it and think it works. And do you know what? The print looks pretty good. Better than this JPEG here. The camera was left to its own devices to sort out the exposure. Well, pretty much.

Two years and too much money later and I'm starting to rethink things. Do I need the wide aperture lenses to do what I like doing? Given the amazing capabilities of the cameras to perform in low light I'm not so sure. I certainly don't need them to enable me to focus manually now autofocus is so reliable. Do they make nicer looking pictures? Sort of, in a hard to define way. Not that I'm obsessed about shooting wide open to get dreamy, creamy out of focus areas for the hell of it. Are they heavy, cumbersome and attention attracting? Certainly. I could carry two light zooms and maybe two fixed focal length lenses and still be carting less weight than one of the fast zooms!

I'm sure I could live with the older, slower, lenses. The results they give are good enough for me, but I'd find it difficult to forgo a full frame body. Not because the 'crop sensor' cameras don't shove out great quality files, but because it's exactly the same way of seeing as when using 35mm film. Same aspect ratio, same big viewfinder, and the lenses don't need a conversion factor to enable me to visualise what they'll do on the camera.

What I'm getting at is that I feel like I should be using the stuff that will help me make more pictures rather than stuff that will help my pictures be sharper. At normal viewing distances pretty much any half reasonable lens is going produce images that are good enough. Just as the average viewer of photographs doesn't care what camera was used, they don't inspect pictures with a high powered loupe to check for critical sharpness!

Of course, if the X10 was more user friendly in the all important (to me) framing department I could probably get away with using that on its own. I missed a shot today because I wanted a precise frame and to capture a cloud before it blew past. By the time I had got near to the right framing the cloud had gone. I could have framed wider and cropped, but even that might not have worked out. Hard to fault the output though. It handles contrast scenes very well for such a little camera. What I'm really looking for is a set up that suits my way of working a camera. I think I know what that is. Time will tell.


As well as the above, boring, picture which has plenty of indicators of perspective I used the X10 to take the photograph below. I'm not sure if the focus point, which logically should be on the word but isn't, is what makes it difficult to read, or the lighting. To my eyes the perspective is out of whack. This is a result of the lighting, the local colour of the surfaces, and the lack of any of the usual clues to a vanishing point such as those evident in the picture of the steps above. The image is not only flat but flattened (in part by the slightly telephoto lens), yet the colours and shading which are providing the only hints at recession are conflicting with what is expected. I wasn't aware of any of this when I framed the shot, but it is that framing - as much what it excludes as includes - that gives the picture its ambiguity.



Saturday, 7 April 2012

Dog fight

These photos are posted for amusement. They're all cropped, a result of using the pitiful viewfinder of the X10 for framing. There are a few aspects of this camera that are beginning to drive me nuts: the viewfinder (I can't get on with framing using the rear screen), in part because the information it displays (which you can't find anywhere else) obscures part of the image;  the aspect ratio - which I like for portrait orientation but find 'wrong' for landscape; the focus/shutter lag - if the camera is moving when you half press to focus the image freezes then unfreezes and the framing is out.

Image quality is fantastic for a compact, and for static shooting (as in the photographer is stationary) with plenty of time to get a shot the camera is great, but for action like this encounter with two dogs it all adds up to frustration.




The same frustrations had driven me nuts in the tackle shop today trying to get some deliberate motion blur. Trying to get an off centre focus point quickly was beyond impossible and the automatic focus point selector did what it should and focussed on the closest object. I guess I should have enabled face detection, but it's so much easier when using an SLR to simply turn the focus ring to shift focus. For a camera that can be carried in a jacket pocket I'm beginning to think I might as well get a smart phone.

As chance had it there was someone in the camera shop today who had his shiny new X-Pro1 with him, and he was kind enough to let me handle it. Like the X10 it felt like a 'real' camera. Better still, the essential controls were just what you need - a shutter speed dial on the top plate and an aperture ring round the lens barrel - you can check the settings without looking at the rear screen or through the viewfinder. Turn both to 'A' and exposure is fully automatic, shift one or the other and you get that priority, shift both and it's manual. Just like the old days!

I was interested to see what the electronic/optical viewfinder was like, and it was impressive if a little small. However it has no adjustment for poor eyesight, requiring the purchase of a screw in dioptre lens. It's a highly tempting camera, but unfortunately it is both new and expensive. New, these days, tends to mean 'not quite finished'. The lens selection available isn't what I'd like either. I bought a roll of film and left to continue considering if I'll ever find my ideal digital 'street' camera or whether I should spend what one might cost on film and processing instead!

Friday, 6 April 2012

No sunshine

True to form the Great British Weather turned 180 degrees from yesterday and there was no sun, only grey skies and low contrast clouds. Out of boredom I took a walk along the canal from the old mill to the boatyard and back. The results surprised me and with careful editing made a reasonably coherent set with a couple of pictures I think work rather well. In fact the flat light helped to eliminate the harsh shadows that the cladding would have cast on itself, which worked in the pictures' favour. I'll be printing some off to stick in frames for a longer consideration. As usual the gallery looks better larger.



Sunday, 26 February 2012

Pigeon fun




If the photo above left wasn't a crop I'd be very pleased with it, but there is a good third of the frame missing. It's a shame the pigeon in the  bottom right picture is out of focus as it's very close to the sort of picture I'm trying to make. It's also one that shows how people think I'm daft!

The compact certainly makes getting low, and close, to the pigeons without scaring them a lot more successful than using a noisy SLR - a part from using a longer lens, which is where it all started back here.

These pigeon photos are now trying to be as much about people as about pigeons. A wider view placing the birds in the context of their man-made, and human populated, environment.

As usual, if you click on the first image you can scroll through the set to see them larger.

Monday, 13 February 2012

Hacked off

It was a bad day at 'the office' this morning, so when I was free in mid afternoon I took myself out for a couple of hours to chill. The upside was that I finally decided to call it a day on chasing wildlife around with a long lens. To do it well it takes the same level of commitment, and a similar level of patience and determination, as is required to catch big fish. That sort of investment I'll save for the fishes.

What I realised is that I'm an opportunistic photographer. I like to go about observing the world and making pictures of little bits of it that I find interesting. No matter what they are. I also realised that I am getting a handle on seeing landscape pictures. This is not easy in the flat world I live in, and it means not making pictures that follow most of the tropes of landscape photography. So boring landscapes is what I have to make do with.

Today I was aided by an elevated viewpoint walking along a flood-bank. Although I had taken a DSLR and long lens to look for birdies I also had the X10 round my neck. It makes a reasonable job of landscapes. There is detail, but it's not as smooth or crisp as a larger camera would produce. Good enough for the web and A4 prints though. Straight out of the camera the RAW files look rather bland. However the information is there.

Before
After
I think I'm still tending to go overboard on the processing. I am also wondering where the 'truth' lies in pictures that are manipulated like this. Does it matter so long as the information was there to start with? If I was painting the picture I'd surely try to paint how it felt to experience a place rather than get involved in a futile chase for strict verisimilitude.

One thing I will not be doing, ever, is removing pylons and suchlike from my landscape pictures. They are part of our world, so should be left in the frame. In fact, I often deliberately chose views which include man made 'intrusions' into the natural world. You can call it a cultural commentary or something if you like. It's just the way I see things. Even the marks made by a tractor working a field can become part of the subject matter and composition.


The picture above was tricky to process. I haven't made the best of it. I'm thinking now that's because it would have benefited from the use of a polarising filter. Not to mention different light.

I can understand why people photograph landscapes. There is always a willing subject. It requires no interaction with other people. However, it mostly seems to be about making pretty pictures. For me it's more about the spirit of place and man's manipulation of the world than an idealised, nostalgic, romanticised vision. Unfortunately I can see how, to really get to grips with this, it could require the same depth of commitment that wildlife photography does. It could also require a similar investment in equipment. Although it may not need wildly expensive telephoto lenses, I am not convinced that even a high resolution DSLR is suitable and think that to do it true justice it would require a view camera and a set of lenses. Then again that kind of smacks of a romanticised nostalgia for a way of working!

Monday, 6 February 2012

Mist


This is probably less than two hundred yards from home. I can't see the need to travel the world to find pictures. They're all around if you look with an open mind.

Sunday, 5 February 2012

Owl mania

When word gets out there's a rare or photogenic bird around 'wildlife photographers' descend en masse at the location these days in a photographic twitch! I'd found out, accidentally via the web, that some short eared owls had been showing about five miles from home so I thought I'd go and see what the score was.

I hadn't taken my long lens because my primary intention on heading out with the camera was to get some misty landscapes, but the mist had cleared a little too much, and I had also had it half in mind to shoot any photographers I might spot.

Sure enough there were seven or eight people around, most with cameras and long lenses. Why they were all stood out in the open and not making use of available cover I don't know. Still, the owls showed. And the frenzy commenced. So I snapped the snappers!
Spot the shorty
Quick, there it goes!
The big advantage of the X10 is that I can sling it round my neck while carting a DSLR around and hardly know it's there. As I had the 70-200 attached to my full frame body, which I find suits my way of seeing landscapes in the flatlands, this gave me a good coverage of focal lengths.

Although I still can't take to the 4:3 'compact' format for landscape orientation shots, I find it works well used vertically. 3:2 can be a little narrow in this orientation.


I'm getting more into manipulating images to get a look I like. This is partly because the raw files from the X10 can be kind of 'flat'. Partly because I'm finding my way around Lightroom more.  I think I might be overcooking things a little in my new found enthusiasm. However, this has made me realise how much work people do to the images we are accustomed to seeing.

Contrarily, when it comes to landscapes, as a subject, I find myself drawn to the 5:4 format. Maybe it's time to start taking this landscape lark more seriously and take a tripod along. I still can't help thinking that a DSLR isn't the best tool for the job.

I must ease off on the neutral grad in Lightroom