Film is dead

I know I've said this before but... This is the last roll of black and white film I'll ever use!

A number of things struck me while scanning and processing these pics. The 'look' that grain gives film shots immediately makes the pictures look old. Wishing to retain this look is, to my mind, an affectation. It does nothing to get the message of the images across.

I'm also pretty sure that part of the film look that people find appealing is down to the 'sensor' size, and the depth of focus that gives in combination with the standard lens. Take away the grain and this shot could just as easily have been shot with a full frame DSLR.

Because I left the film in the camera for months before finishing it off I have no idea where I came across this tumble drier!

Being limited to blacks and whites means that when you find something that needs colour you're stuffed.

Next time I get tempted by Ilford's wares I shall resist. Honest...

---

It doesn't have to be art

Taking a walk by the canal today I was reminded how easy it is to ignore recording things that we take for granted. Things which have been there for as long as we can remember, which we assume will be there for evermore. When I took some photographs down there back in April things had changed since I was younger. Some of the mill buildings had been demolished.

Not long afterwards I read of plans to redevelop the site for housing. But that went out of my mind until today when everything looked much different.

Working from memory I couldn't make  picture from the same viewpoint. But that's not necessary when the purpose is to record change rather than make pictures which lean towards expression. Photography isn't just about making striking images, it also has functional value. It is a many faceted medium, which is its attraction for me. The same tool can be used to make art, to document, to make comment and to sell. Amongst other uses. Used well it can combine two or more of its attributes.

The way things, and light, change can (when ignored) lead to photographic opportunities being missed. Far too often I have driven past something and thought it would make a good picture, intending to return at a later date. Often this has been repeated. Sometimes in order to wait for the right light, but usually through laziness. The other day I drove past a tree I had in mind to shoot and saw a new road sign had been erected right in front of it. The lesson I doubt I have learned is that when you see something to photograph, that's the time to get the camera out. Although Sod's law will most likely come into play.

Yesterday I took a walk to the village an hour before dark. Not planning on making any serious pictures, so taking just the X10. On my way home, in a spot I have passed many times before, something made me notice a view that appealed to my banal preferences. Maybe it was the light that made me stop. I took a shot, which I knew would be technically flawed as the light was going. It would serve as a sketch though. I could go back any time and get the same viewpoint. In fact I planned to do that today.

Not only did I venture out earlier, but the weather had changed dramatically. The mood had changed with it. So I took one shot as another note and reminded myself that I must strike while the iron is hot in future. And to take a print with me of a view I wish to replicate so I can get the framing closer.

Some good has come from this failure. I have got an idea of the kinds of pictures I would like to make of my locality. It's been a long time coming, but I think I now have some inkling of how I could put together a set of local views. The trouble is I'll run into the old problem I have of not carrying out these well formed plans. The pictures I have already made in my head are much better than any I'm likely to make with a camera!

---

The danger of book buying

There's a strong temptation to start collecting photobooks. The internet makes it so easy to find titles which shops in provincial towns are unlikely to stock. So easy to become aware of books that you might never otherwise of heard of if you don't read the right publications. My temptation is to collect books of British photography.

While it might be the case that American photography and latterly European and Japanese photography has been influential on 'current practice' I find myself drawn to photographs of the land I was born in. The avant garde would call me parochial and insular, I prefer to think of myself as deeply rooted!

Niall McDiarmid's Crossing Paths project, which I have mentioned before, has become a book which dropped through my letter box last week. It has a lot going for it. Not only are the photographs worth looking at, it's of a size which doesn't make your arms ache. Not too big, and not too small.

There are many things I like about the pictures, and their Britishness is one of them. I can't really define it, but there's a warmth and affection in the photographs which strikes me as essentially British in it's quietly understated way.

After seeing the Tim Hetherington show at the Open Eye Gallery a few weeks back I ordered a copy of Infidel. As I had expected the book made a much better job of showing the pictures than the exhibition had. This is another small book. Which goes to show that photographs don't have to be printed huge to make an impression. Having them small enough to hold in your hand can make you study them closer. The number of images also build to form a bigger picture. The whole being stronger than the sum of its parts.

Although the photographs are of Americans fighting (or mostly resting) in Afghanistan, they again share the British reserve and are not as gung-ho as most conflict photography is. There's a quiet compassion in the pictures.

More British photography books are tempting me at the moment, but they are mostly retrospective publications. Martin Parr's The Nonconformists and Bert Hardy's Britain. However, I'm trying to avoid the lure of nostalgia so it might be The New English Landscape that I purchase for next. One thing's for sure. Whatever books I buy they will not be poncey, hand made limited editions with hefty price tags. Call me an idealist, but I still believe that the first infinitely reproducible medium of visual expression should be widely available and affordable. Although I can, and do, appreciate books as objects of desire, I still think they should be books first and foremost. It's the content, the information, that matters. Postcards before mahoosive prints, paperbacks before 'artist books'.

---

Turn everything up to eleven

Is it my imagination or has this internet thing and digital cameras created a new definition of how photographs should look? It seems to me that unless photographs are contrasty and sharp with saturated colours they don't meet the acceptable standards in this screen-viewing age.

Maybe it's the screen-viewing experience which has created this trend. Maybe it's the quick hit mentality that is prevalent in the current times. Maybe it's the ease with which the controls in processing software can be shoved over to max. It's easy to be seduced into making images look this way. Perhaps subtlety and naturalness have had their day. Or it could just be that this is the way digital looks.

Certainly contrast and saturation give images impact - think National Geographic and Kodachrome, so it's not really a new thing. It can, however, all too easily detract from the picture. Viewers being impressed by the effect rather than the content.

I got to thinking about this while struggling to make the files from the G2 look less harsh and garish (which was why I took the shot above to mess around with the greens and blues). And later when perusing a photographer's blog which was full of carefully composed, sharp and contrasty black and white pictures. I could see why the blog is popular. The pictures looked stunning...

---

Weatherproof cameras

The mentality of people on photography (or should that be camera?) forums baffles me.I guess it shouldn't. Hobbyists of all sorts spend a disproportionate amount of time fretting over gear instead of using it. Mostly they don't use it for the simple reason of lack of time due to family/work commitments. A decent camera is also a fair financial investment for people too. So it's a little unfair to knock them when they worry about getting their gear wet.

If you are taking photos as a hobby then there's really no need to stay out in the rain all day getting wet. Never mind getting your camera wet. The fact of the matter, from my experience, is that you can get cameras wet in the rain. If you take sufficient precautions to keep water off the lens (which will bugger up your photos and is to be avoided) then you'll be doing enough to keep the camera's innards dry in light to middling rainfall in the UK. If you're in a real life monsoon, that might not be the case!

Tuck the camera under your waterproofs when not in use, wipe it down if the water looks like it's getting near anywhere it could get into the electrics. Stand under cover. Use some common sense. 

The fact is that rain makes for great street photography opportunities. Especially so if the light is either changeable or failing and artificial light beginning to take over. The problem I had yesterday was that the rain was just too heavy for me as I'd left my waterproof jacket behind. Otherwise I'd have stuck at it for longer. The colours were nice even if the pictures were run of the mill. The rain forced most of the people off the street anyway!

For a change, and to see if it still works, I dug out my currently underused 50mm lens. For taking photos from under cover it proved more useful than a wider lens as it now feels like using a moderate telephoto to me. I keep coming back to the notion that it doesn't worry me much what lens I have on my camera. I'll find some photos to fit it one way or another.

What using single focal length lenses most of the time lately has made me think about is how zooms tend to make you do just that. Zoom in to make a tighter framing. This might make for photographs with immediate impact through isolation, but it can lead to picture which lack context, fail to tell a story. Using a wider frame means you have to get in close to make a subject as large as you would with a longer lens from further away, but that width can include background which helps inform and explain the picture.

There are no set rules, of course. I find it interesting how my ways of thinking about making photographs is changing all the time. And how it makes me re-evaluate pictures by photographers whose work I haven't fully understood in the past.

Sometimes you see something which you have to take a photograph off simply to remember it. The skip on next door's drive will be gone soon and the Easter Island head I saw in it will be gone too. us humans are born to react to the features which we understand as faces even when they are made from bright red plastic.

---