My first serious foray into the world of photography was with a second-hand Minolta SLR and a couple of lenses. I stuck with 35mm film format for longer than most, eschewing the digital revolution in favour of rolls of Fuji Velvia and my trusty slide projector. What I liked about the pre-digital era was the importance of discipline. Unless you had the budget to waste endless rolls of film (and I certainly didn't) you made sure that you understood exposure, how to focus a lens correctly, and what made a strong composition. In other words, you learnt how to take photographs.
Eventually I succumbed to the inevitable ease that digital offered, particularly given the constraints of time and budget, and without doubt it is revelatory in terms of the ease with which images are readily available, at high quality. I am currently using Nikon's DSLR system which is more than adequate for my requirements. Has digital enabled me to create better photographs? Not at all - but it has made the process a little easier.
A good photograph should capture a moment in time and place, and have something to say over and above what you might normally see. With my paintings it is easy to embellish or create atmosphere - add a tree here, a few more clouds there. You don't have such creative latitude with photography , but that is all part of the challenge in creating compelling pictures. Taking landscape photography as an example (it is the subject of this blog after all) a strong image will convey a moment of dramatic lighting, or a new perspective on a familiar scene. No matter how complex your camera is you will not take good photographs unless you have the ability to 'see' a good picture. That is the photographer's art. Your ability to then translate that image to film or file is down to your mastery of technical considerations, and to a lesser extent the quality of your camera. I do not have the resources to splash £40,000 on a nice Linhof rangefinder and some razor-sharp German glass, but if I did I wouldn't necessarily capture a better photograph, just produce higher quality images.
Digital format does have drawbacks. It is easy to keep peeping at the screen to see if your photo looks any good without having understood the process that is involved in creating it. Then there are a bewildering array of pre-programmed modes that are there to minimise error, but which prevent you from ever understanding the nuances of exposure. And finally there is Photoshop, which has the propensity to create technical laziness. Without doubt it is a very useful tool, and I use it willingly to make minor adjustments to images where necessary, but I do not like to heavily manipulate an image so that I end up with something that I didn't see through the viewfinder. It can be over-used in an attempt to make an ordinary photograph better. Don't bother, just go out and shoot a better one next time. (Disclaimer - this is not a 'pop' at the creative aspects of Photoshop, which are truly remarkable. I just don't create that type of image, but certainly appreciate the work of those that do.)
Landscape photography is a challenge. The reason that professionals' photographs look so good is primarily the quality of directional light falling on the landscape, and the time they devote to getting that elusive shot. The weather in the UK is rapidly changing which makes it a wonderful resource for endless image opportunities. However, it requires discipline - shooting at either dawn or dusk, constant checking of weather forecasts and the fortitude not to kick your tripod down the hill when the sun goes in (it took you an hour to walk to that remote location!)
The appeal of landscape photography is that you get used to seeing pictures around you - and it certainly opens your eyes to detail that you may have missed before. Give some time to find out how to compose a strong photographic image (there are a few basic rules, but ultimately its down to you) and get outside and take some pictures. If you end up with a load of rubbish photos, but fond memories of the places you have been then it will have been worthwhile. The British landscape is truly amazing - go and explore it.
Eventually I succumbed to the inevitable ease that digital offered, particularly given the constraints of time and budget, and without doubt it is revelatory in terms of the ease with which images are readily available, at high quality. I am currently using Nikon's DSLR system which is more than adequate for my requirements. Has digital enabled me to create better photographs? Not at all - but it has made the process a little easier.
A good photograph should capture a moment in time and place, and have something to say over and above what you might normally see. With my paintings it is easy to embellish or create atmosphere - add a tree here, a few more clouds there. You don't have such creative latitude with photography , but that is all part of the challenge in creating compelling pictures. Taking landscape photography as an example (it is the subject of this blog after all) a strong image will convey a moment of dramatic lighting, or a new perspective on a familiar scene. No matter how complex your camera is you will not take good photographs unless you have the ability to 'see' a good picture. That is the photographer's art. Your ability to then translate that image to film or file is down to your mastery of technical considerations, and to a lesser extent the quality of your camera. I do not have the resources to splash £40,000 on a nice Linhof rangefinder and some razor-sharp German glass, but if I did I wouldn't necessarily capture a better photograph, just produce higher quality images.
Digital format does have drawbacks. It is easy to keep peeping at the screen to see if your photo looks any good without having understood the process that is involved in creating it. Then there are a bewildering array of pre-programmed modes that are there to minimise error, but which prevent you from ever understanding the nuances of exposure. And finally there is Photoshop, which has the propensity to create technical laziness. Without doubt it is a very useful tool, and I use it willingly to make minor adjustments to images where necessary, but I do not like to heavily manipulate an image so that I end up with something that I didn't see through the viewfinder. It can be over-used in an attempt to make an ordinary photograph better. Don't bother, just go out and shoot a better one next time. (Disclaimer - this is not a 'pop' at the creative aspects of Photoshop, which are truly remarkable. I just don't create that type of image, but certainly appreciate the work of those that do.)
Landscape photography is a challenge. The reason that professionals' photographs look so good is primarily the quality of directional light falling on the landscape, and the time they devote to getting that elusive shot. The weather in the UK is rapidly changing which makes it a wonderful resource for endless image opportunities. However, it requires discipline - shooting at either dawn or dusk, constant checking of weather forecasts and the fortitude not to kick your tripod down the hill when the sun goes in (it took you an hour to walk to that remote location!)
The appeal of landscape photography is that you get used to seeing pictures around you - and it certainly opens your eyes to detail that you may have missed before. Give some time to find out how to compose a strong photographic image (there are a few basic rules, but ultimately its down to you) and get outside and take some pictures. If you end up with a load of rubbish photos, but fond memories of the places you have been then it will have been worthwhile. The British landscape is truly amazing - go and explore it.
No comments:
Post a Comment