Wednesday, 29 January 2014
Monday, 27 January 2014
It's been raining again
Although we have avoided the flooding which has afflicted other parts of the country the low lying fields round here are holding a lot of water. The continual battle to keep the land dry is one of the subjects I keep returning to. It's interesting to note that to the west of the region's little river, where the drainage system was originally installed to drain the mere (the then largest lake in England according to some sources) the ditches flow rapidly, whereas to the east they back up almost to overflowing with little or no flow.
This afternoon I got the light to make a reasonable picture of the pumping station in action and showing it in it's wider context. In trying to build a bigger picture of the drainage of the land I also try to show details. In the past this has been channels dug in field edges, today it was a plastic pipe overhanging the edge of a drain.
Yesterday, when the rain eventually stopped, I'd popped out for a look around and saw this recently dug ditch. The contrast between it's straightness and smooth, but already crumbling, sides with the ploughed earth softened by weeks of rain and the curving tyre tracks struck me as symbolising the ongoing human intervention in the landscape.
Today was drier, and after doing what jobs needed doing I managed a little longer scouting the area for other scenes of minor flooding. Again I spotted a contrast. This time it was one of the increasing number of field tracks which are being laid with hardcore to enable machinery to access the land without churning the soil as in the picture above - or the machinery becoming bogged down, as it has in the field below in the past. The sodden trail leading off this track to the left is a visual reminder of the need for the rubble.
Elsewhere, where another such track ended, there was a large pool of water, and more lying in ruts beyond. Thinking back I should maybe have approached this scene differently and concentrated more on the track and the piles of rubble by its side in preparation to extend the track. Even so I was starting to get ideas for how to begin to pull this all together with other pictures I have made previously. Unfortunately the light was beginning to fade beyond the point when photography would be practical for my purposes.
It's at times like this, when my head is buzzing with plans for making photographs that I wish I was a man of independent means so I could get one with putting the plans in to practice! Especially so as this morning I formulated ideas for a couple more small series of photographs to take around the village.
It's at times like this, when my head is buzzing with plans for making photographs that I wish I was a man of independent means so I could get one with putting the plans in to practice! Especially so as this morning I formulated ideas for a couple more small series of photographs to take around the village.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Little things matter
Right place, right time... wrong lens. Isn't it always the way? This guy walks into the tackle shop with a red tailed hawk on his arm and I have a camera with me. Everyone else had their phones - even my mate, Martin, who has recently acquired a bridge camera that he can take everywhere with him but who forgot it this morning!
While it might have been nice to get some close ups of the bird my immediate thought was to get shots with the the owner and bird, preferably interacting. Just as well considering the lens I had on the camera was a 35mm. To be honest I'm not sure this was the wrong lens. Slightly wider might have helped some shots, slightly longer others. A zoom that went longer might well have made me take boring 'bird perched on arm' pictures and head shots of the hawk. At least I had a camera that could handle the light available without flash. What a boon digital is over film in this respect. ISO 1000? no worries.
The biggest problem was the jumbled background. At least I could get some background blur by shooting wide open - which was good for keeping the shutter speed up too. Getting low also helped avoid the darkest of the clutter too, so the bird would stand out against a light background. I'd be interested to see how the phones' small sensors handled the depth of field
When the hawk began to make a noise it was clear that a wide open beak would make for a good picture. The frame below left had that, plus the owner is looking at the bird. The niggle is the beak - it gets a bit lost in the collar of the jacket behind it. The lesson I learned when photographing at the poultry show was that small details can make or break a picture - a bird's eye needs to be sharp with a catchlight, and the tip of the beak has to be clearly defined. The frame below right has both of those factors right. However the owner is looking out of the frame and the bird has its beak shut - which isn't bad in itself as the profile is good.
The same again for this one except being more tightly framed (none of these pictures have been cropped) the lack of talons isn't an issue. The mirroring of open mouths is a nice bonus which, with the angled framing, gives the picture some life.
Studio photographers have it easy. They can control the light, the background, and their subjects. Even informal portraits where the subject can be directed give the photographer some control. Trying to make pictures of people and creatures acting naturally needs a lot faster thinking and a big heap of luck. It does for me at any rate. I enjoy it though - trying to pick the right angle and the peak of action when they coincide to capture a slice of life. That's what photography is all about for me - showing what the world can do on its own, rather than creating some idealised version of it.
While all this was going on the shop dog had been tied to a chair. I could make out that the final frame shows it hiding from the hawk. In actuality I'd taken the shot before the bird had arrived while doing my usual 'photographing anything' routine in the shop. An example of how sequencing images can bend the truth!
While it might have been nice to get some close ups of the bird my immediate thought was to get shots with the the owner and bird, preferably interacting. Just as well considering the lens I had on the camera was a 35mm. To be honest I'm not sure this was the wrong lens. Slightly wider might have helped some shots, slightly longer others. A zoom that went longer might well have made me take boring 'bird perched on arm' pictures and head shots of the hawk. At least I had a camera that could handle the light available without flash. What a boon digital is over film in this respect. ISO 1000? no worries.
The biggest problem was the jumbled background. At least I could get some background blur by shooting wide open - which was good for keeping the shutter speed up too. Getting low also helped avoid the darkest of the clutter too, so the bird would stand out against a light background. I'd be interested to see how the phones' small sensors handled the depth of field
When the hawk began to make a noise it was clear that a wide open beak would make for a good picture. The frame below left had that, plus the owner is looking at the bird. The niggle is the beak - it gets a bit lost in the collar of the jacket behind it. The lesson I learned when photographing at the poultry show was that small details can make or break a picture - a bird's eye needs to be sharp with a catchlight, and the tip of the beak has to be clearly defined. The frame below right has both of those factors right. However the owner is looking out of the frame and the bird has its beak shut - which isn't bad in itself as the profile is good.
The fact that the verticals aren't vertical seems irrelevant here. These are not formal portraits shots and the balance of the composition is aided by the way the angle places the elements in the frame.
In all I took 34 shots, some of which were out of focus or blurred, some bland, and others suffering from minor niggles like those mentioned above. I didn't manage anything I was 100% happy with. My excuse being that I was ill-prepared and had limited time. The two I'm happiest with are the ones below where in both the owner is looking at bird, the bird's beak is clear, and there's a nice cacthlight in its eye. I'd prefer to have got more of the hawk's feet in the shot but it'll have to do.
The same again for this one except being more tightly framed (none of these pictures have been cropped) the lack of talons isn't an issue. The mirroring of open mouths is a nice bonus which, with the angled framing, gives the picture some life.
Studio photographers have it easy. They can control the light, the background, and their subjects. Even informal portraits where the subject can be directed give the photographer some control. Trying to make pictures of people and creatures acting naturally needs a lot faster thinking and a big heap of luck. It does for me at any rate. I enjoy it though - trying to pick the right angle and the peak of action when they coincide to capture a slice of life. That's what photography is all about for me - showing what the world can do on its own, rather than creating some idealised version of it.
While all this was going on the shop dog had been tied to a chair. I could make out that the final frame shows it hiding from the hawk. In actuality I'd taken the shot before the bird had arrived while doing my usual 'photographing anything' routine in the shop. An example of how sequencing images can bend the truth!
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Sunday, 12 January 2014
That's more like it
What a difference a day makes. Gloomy grey skies and I'm inspired! Not massively so but seeing potential for pictures almost everywhere again. The ability to cope with low light makes digital so much more versatile for the dedicated hater of tripods than film ever was. I thought I'd take a look at how the reclamation of the old mill was going prior to the housebuilding that is planned. Not much had changed since my last visit, just a bit of tidying up. If I was of an urbex bent I'd have climbed over the fence to explore. I'm not that way inclined, and urbex photos don't do much for me on the whole. I stayed outside the fence, but included it in my pictures. I think that puts things in context as well as making abstract formal elements in the pictures. The photos aren't part of any plan, just record shots really - but using differential focus to try and put across a sense of place and context rather than being used for the sake of it.
It seems to me that the obsession some people seem to have for fast lenses so they can use a shallow depth of field fails to understand what fast lenses are for - light gathering. Back in the days of film they both made focussing an SLR easier and allowed slow films to be handheld. With digital they allow autofocus to work better in low light. Of course they provide more control over what is in and out of focus, but I can't help but feel that using the extreme shallowness of focus they offer at maximum aperture is largely a matter of style over content.
Another such affectation is the use of slow shutter speeds to freeze water movement to the extent it becomes a detail-less blur. I visited the pumping station again. This time I had a wider lens with me and made a better stab at photographing it. I varied the angle and the shutter speed. I much prefer the water to be only partially blurred. We don't perceive flowing water to be blurred. As with fast apertures historical background if we look back to the early days of photography water appeared as blurred due to the same limitations of the equipment which meant that human subjects had to be restrained when having their portraits made. It wasn't an artistic choice!
Overcast skies might not be great for dramatic landscape photography, but they certainly suit me for the sort of landscape pictures I like making.
It seems to me that the obsession some people seem to have for fast lenses so they can use a shallow depth of field fails to understand what fast lenses are for - light gathering. Back in the days of film they both made focussing an SLR easier and allowed slow films to be handheld. With digital they allow autofocus to work better in low light. Of course they provide more control over what is in and out of focus, but I can't help but feel that using the extreme shallowness of focus they offer at maximum aperture is largely a matter of style over content.
Another such affectation is the use of slow shutter speeds to freeze water movement to the extent it becomes a detail-less blur. I visited the pumping station again. This time I had a wider lens with me and made a better stab at photographing it. I varied the angle and the shutter speed. I much prefer the water to be only partially blurred. We don't perceive flowing water to be blurred. As with fast apertures historical background if we look back to the early days of photography water appeared as blurred due to the same limitations of the equipment which meant that human subjects had to be restrained when having their portraits made. It wasn't an artistic choice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)