Blog

While feeling uninspired about what to write here next, the thought eventually occurred to me that inspiration itself might be appropriate. Where does inspiration come from? For photographers, it can derive from many sources: art, the photographic work of others, visual media from which we are constantly bombarded, our environment both natural and man-made, books, magazines, the internet, music, etc. The list is endless and I'm sure you could compile your own extensive one. We are not only influenced by our own thoughts and those of others, but everything in our environment. Photographic opportunities are wherever we go, so being inspired by something is really a matter of becoming attuned to and exploring such possibilities. What at first glance may appear to be a boring subject and not worthy of photographing, could easily prove to be otherwise. In a world where instant gratification and throw away products have become the norm, it can be worthwhile sometimes to pause to 'smell the roses'. I take many photographs of varied subjects but am not always feeling inspired at the time and an idea may only emerge later as to what to do with a particular shot.

Old buildings are a rich source of subject matter for photographers. Not only are they usually full of character, but they exhibit skills and methods of construction that are virtually lost in the modern era. Although I like some recent architecture for its sleek lines and good design attributes, buildings from the past remain one of my favourite subjects. Unfortunately, with the rapaciousness of contemporary developers and general apathy and lack of forethought from the powers that be, much of our old and worthwhile building stock is being destroyed. It is the wise and thoughtful developer/architect/owner who can find a way to restore and give a new lease of life to our building heritage. Photographers can also have an important role in recording them for posterity.

That probably seems like a contradiction of terms. Not so, because even an abstract needs composition to be visually effective. One dictionary definition of abstract is given as ‘difficult to understand’. With any form of abstract art, we sometimes need to be told just what we are looking at and only then can we begin to comprehend what was previously a mystery. The artist knew what was meant because he/she was the creator. Denying the viewer any sense of scale in an image can add to its abstract quality - so can removing a subject from its environmental context. That isolation whether done in-camera or by editing, can serve to make the subject, its detail, pattern, texture, etc., more apparent and poignant by drawing attention to something that may not otherwise be noticed. The possibilities are endless and are limited only by one’s imagination.

Perspective is usually an important consideration in architectural photography because it helps create and represent three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface. Wide angle lenses can be used to advantage to accentuate perspective and although the photographic results are not always realistic in appearance, can often enhance and dramatise an otherwise ordinary view. The old master painters knew all about perspective and often drew horizons, perspective lines and vanishing points on the base canvas as guides.

I'm referring to deliberately leaving the camera home and going out to shoot with the mind's eye. In a word, visualisation. My best shots have been the ones I haven't taken. How may times have we clicked the shutter button, only to be disappointed because the results haven't matched what we saw, or thought we saw? Shooting without a camera allows time for contemplation, to study the effect of light at certain times of the day and year, to freely compose and to generally open up the mind for future creativity. I've missed some great shots because scenarios were momentary but have filed those memories away for possible future action. Hopefully I will be on the ready next time such opportunities exist. Visualisation in photography is all about what happens before the shutter button is pressed. I tend to view most scenes as potential captures and holding back from shooting all the time has been a good discipline to get used to, helping me to be more selective. Sometimes I go out for the day with my camera gear, fully intent on utilizing it, but return without even taking it out of the bag. That's never a waste of time though because it's all good experience.

Photography really is all about images painted with light. To state the obvious, without light present there would be no image. Light falling within the camera is the single most important aspect of photography. Its direction, colour, quality and intensity can assist the photographer in creating mood/atmosphere, emotion, special effects and also the illusion of three dimensionality in an otherwise flat medium. Whether natural or artificial, obtaining suitable light for any given situation is one fundamental requirement for a successful result - an image of a striking subject can be rendered ineffective by poor light. For outdoor photography, being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the prevailing light is often very challenging. I have returned to some locations several times to obtain a suitable lighting condition. Reliance on strong light and shade is not always necessary for definition though - shooting on a dull, overcast day can yield acceptable results because the even, diffused light is capable of producing a softer, less harsh appearance. There are many aspects of light that can come into play – its strength, direction, the atmospheric conditions effecting it and the time of day. Sometimes it can be variable within a short period of time and can also be subtle or unpredictable. Understanding how a camera will respond to different light conditions takes lots of practice and patience, so visualising how a landscape for instance could appear in various lighting scenarios can assist in making decisions about the best time to capture it.

Film photography was unforgiving and that's what I liked about it. Some things could be improved in the darkroom during development and printing stages but most times it was a case of WYSIWYG. Since having SLR, DSLR and mirrorless cameras, I've never used AUTO and don't intend to, preferring to change combinations of settings to suit the purpose. Although that can be hit and miss at times, with digital cameras the results are immediately apparent and shots can be re-done if necessary. You might ask why not use AUTO - well, the simple answer is because better results can be gained. AUTO settings cannot be overridden and they are general ones based on what the camera sees and according to what a camera designer/engineer thinks is best for any given situation.
Shooting in RAW mode requires conversion and editing software applications because RAW files are not usable until converted. My RAW files look dull and lack sharpness, tonal adjustment, vividness, contrast and saturation. That's what I've set because I want to 'make' a photo, not just 'take' one. For me, taking a shot is purely to get the composition and lighting right. RAW files with null settings is how the camera perceives the image without adjustments. Many people shoot JPG images which require little or no editing - the problem with doing that is the lack of image information for proper processing.

Making a photograph is opposed to taking a photograph. The perfectionists attempt to get everything right in-camera, as true to the subject and prevailing conditions existing at the time - maybe they achieve that but they are the only ones who know it. They are 'taking' a photograph and they miss the opportunities of carrying their images further by shunning post-tweaking. The pseudo-perfectionists do a bit of tweaking afterwards if their results fall short of their expectations. Others snap with little or no consideration of the outcome and rely solely on their camera's automatic settings. Each to their own. My preference is to 'make' a photograph - although I no longer have a darkroom or use film, the making aspect is still an important consideration because it allows for more creative input after shooting, with better results often being achieved.

It has occurred to me that being a photographer is a bit like being an alchemist of times past. In an image, one needs to extract and distil the essence of a subject then present it, with or without context. The main challenge is to establish just what those characteristics are in any given instance - not an easy task for a photographer on the fly. Visualisation and instinct play a large part in discovering the magical ingredients and how they react together. There is no formula for this because every situation is slightly different and that is where trial and error though experimentation is important. A successful image is one that imparts a certain something to the viewer - I call this the 'essence' and when applied to photography it's more than words and images - it's a feeling projected to the viewer.

Many online photography competitions require a fee to submit images and for that reason alone, the organisers are suspect. I have realised that such competitions are purely money-making ventures that generally cost very little to run, just a web page or two and the opinion of a judge who is often the organiser. With that in mind, I have ceased entering competitions demanding a fee. The prizes offered are an important consideration also if that is a motive for entering. I ask myself if the prize is something I want or need - of course money is a big motivator. If it's self esteem, kudos or publicity one seeks, then maybe there are more meaningful reasons for doing photography. Just my opinion.