Photo Analysis

No, I'm not going to write about the aesthetics of photography, about the rule of thirds or any other form of compositional criticism. The "photo analysis" to which I refer is the extent to which you can get inside a photographer's state of mind from the images they capture.

Of course it isn't quite as simple as that... there are a number of "gates" through which the photographer's images must pass before they are available to us for analysis. First, they have to survive "first view" - that's the first time the photographer sees his baby and has a chance to decide whether he likes it or not. In this digital age, first view is often on a small screen on the back of the camera. The more impulsive photographer may jab the delete button there and then - a beginner's mistake if ever there was one. The more considered (For which usually read "experienced" photographer knows better, and will view his outputs calmly some time after the event. The distance of time and space should enable him to be more objective in his editing.

The next big gate is "first edit"- of the images taken at the time, only some will be regarded by the photographer as good enough to be seen by the outside world. The third and final gate is "last edit". This is the big one - which images tell the story, how many should be shown and in what order? Whether a single shot, a tryptich or a complete photo-essay, whether a macro shot of a bug or a happy family snap the weeding process is essentially the same.

Some photographers self-edit very well. They understnd and appreciate that "less is more". Others hold the opposite view. They present an optic-nerve numbing parade of dismally monotonous shots that leave the viewer contemplating feigning death as a means of escape. A few years ago this involved sitting on the sofa at somebody's house with an album balanced on your knees (happy snapper) or a slide show ("advanced" amateur) popping in front of you. Now the bores can invade your desktop and your home via the medium of the internet and photo gallery and sharing sites such as Flickr. I'm not blaming the medium, by the way - it is a tool that can be abused like any other.

So. After all that, we have an image, or better a set of images, to assess. They can immediately communicate to us where the photographer was, how much freedom of movement he had, even, to an extent, how tall he is. To a lesser extent we can deduce what interests him, at least by way of subject matter. And here is where the fun starts. Of course some subjects, and the photographers' treatment of them, are more revealing than others. It is hard to get inside a photographers' head looking at still-life close-ups of flowers (a notable exception being the output of Mapplethorpe, of course - using a young man's bottom as a vase for a lily is a bit of a dead giveaway as to the inner workings of the image-taker).

People shots provide the best material, in my experience. Preferably of the candid, unposed variety. They give us two shots at the photographer's psyche. Firstly in his treatment of his subjects - is he sympathetic (think Doisneau) or aggressive (think Wingogrand) or disdainful (think Parr)? Does he empathise wih his subjects, or treat them as objects? Does he engage, or observe? Secondly is his subjects reaction to being photographed. Are they aware or unaware? If the former, what is their reaction? The way they react - the way they look - can speak volumes as to their feeling about the lens and more significantly the man behind it. Do they feel threatened or flattered? Are they relaxed or tense? Or resentful?

The photographer's "use" of people in a shot is also quite telling. Are they the subject, or an afterthought? Do they form part of a cohesive composition or do they appear uncomfortably out of place? There's no right or wrong here - only the chance to tap into the man (or woman) behind the lens.

It's a powerful tool, that transcends intent and reaches into the subconscious.

Consider this image:

...or this one:

...or indeed this:

I took them all, within a six week period, along with others that are similar in tone and theme. When I took them, in my mind, I was simply experimenting. The open door or portal motif that features in each one, together with the solitary but unrecognisable figure in the middle distance evolved rather than my setting up each shot.

Months after I took, and displayed them, mixed in with other shots, another photographer made the connection and linked them together in his mind and through his perceptive comments, in my own. He said that, to him at least, the images spoke of isolation, of alienation and of a journey, or a rite of passage - through the portal to somewhere else. At the time I was in a period of transition in my life and many of the themes that he felt came to him through the images were exactly in tune with my feelings at the time.

Once I realised this, I looked again at images I had captured at various times in my life, and "linked" them to how I was feeling at the time. The images took on a new and very personal dimension as I realised that the lens was not just pointing at the subject, but was also focussing on me.

It doesn't always work. If you go out, for example, to shoot a simple subject- vintage cars at a show, for instance, there is little of you to be "seen" in the resulting images. People shots are best, as I have already opined, and particularly "street" photography, like the shots above; you are more "in the zone" when taking shots like this. The "higher brain" is bypassed, and the "monkey brain" - that primative sub-cortex that has been with us since trees were desirable residences - takes over the shutter button.

Don't take my word for it - give it a try... you may learn something about yourself.

Bill

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.
- I'm just a bloke with a blog who takes pictures... if you disagree with any of what I write that's fine by me.

It's not a team sport, is it?

It never fails to amaze me when I see those advertisements for photo holidays. Go off to some gorgeous location with all your kit and learn from some Jedi Master the art of landscape photography in the company of a dozen total strangers. Perhaps it's me, but I can think of nothing less likely to put me into the zone, at one with my surroundings and the scene before me, than a tripod turf fight with some chap wielding a Canon and a bobble hat.

It's not snobbery - it's a genuine, heartfelt belief that photography is, for the most part, a solitary pastime. I don't mean the "we're-having-a-great-time-on-holiday-go-on-take-a-picture" type of photography - I mean the "I'm-out-to-capture-something-special" stuff.

Now, any photographer who comes as one of a pair, or part of a family, is well aware that he cannot just put himself into the zone and snap away oblivious of the partner beside him or the pushchair in front. He has duties, obligations and responsibilities. He must curb his creative streak until he has the opportunity to focus, in both senses of the word, without irritating anyone else.

When I've been on a trip with a wife or partner, I have always patiently explained that, yes, I love you, yes, I would rather still be in bed, no, I don't need you to come with me, no, I won't be long, yes, I'll be careful as I head out of the hotel room at 7:30AM to capture city X as it wakes up. I have subsequently gone on to explain that no, I am not religious, but cathedrals are very photogenic, and yes I really do need to sit this way around at the pavement cafe so that I can snap the world going by, because people with shopping bags are interesting.

When I've been alone, I have walked around for as long as I have wanted, I have stopped where I want, for as long as I want, and I have not had to explain a single one of my actions. I have pondered angles of view, and lens choices, and "worked" a scene for minutes on end until I have achieved the result I wanted. Nobody to hurry me, none of that silent prickling at the back of my neck because she has walked on 50 yards and I haven't... yet...

Loved-up or lonely? You decide...

Now, I bet you are expecting me now to offer some great insight as to which is "better" - solitary snapping or partnered photography. Well, I've looked at my outputs from periods of my life when I have been in one state or the other and I can honestly say it isn't quite that simple. Generally, my output is more colourful, more, dare I say - cheerful - when I am loved up. When I'm on my own, I tend to take bleaker, but more "complex" images. Do my outputs reflect my state of mind, and the amount of metal on the third finger of my left hand? Probably. Which would I rather be?

Happy.

Wouldn't you?

Of course there is a happy medium, and it is up to you to strike it. Finding a partner who understands your need to not be dragged over to look in the shoe shop window just as you see the perfect street drama unfolding before you is a photographic skill not to be underestimated. Better yet, find one that shares your interest without crowding you and you have it made.

Hold on - perhaps I have got those photographic holidays all wrong... perhaps they are actually hotbeds of coupling and steamy, no-holds-barred monopod-munching as libidinously lusty lens-wielding Leicaphiles get it on with buxom Olympians in the certain knowledge that they have met their soul mates and can double-expose together in perfect harmony for years to come...

The mind boggles...

Bill

--0-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission
- What was the best thing before sliced bread?

As if...

I went out today and shot a couple of rolls of film. Nothing special, just street shots. People going about their daily lives, in public. I didn't get arrested this time, but since the Anti-Terrorism (Enhanced Powers) Act of 2011 I know that I, and others like me, are on borrowed time.

*steps out of time machine*

Scary thought, isn't it? being treated like a criminal for doing something harmless.

Thing is, it's happening today. Tourists being told to delete their photos of bus stations, parents being told that they can't take photos of their own children in public, photojournalists being held without charge for doing their jobs, and of course it is now "illegal" to photograph a policeman in the performance of his duties.

Where did it all go wrong?

As usual, there is no one answer. The horror of 9/11 and the resultant increase in vigilance against terrorism is one contributory factor. The public paranoia about paedophilia is another. A third is the spread of sites such as Flickr, Facebook and MySpace - the fear these days is not just that your photo will be taken but that it will be posted on the internet.

So what?

In the UK at least:

• You do not have copyright in your own image.
• You do not have a right to privacy in a public place.

It's as simple as that.

Don't get me wrong - there is an etiquette to these things. I detest the working style of someone like Wingogrand, for example, who dehumanises his subjects with an in-yer-face approach and a blast of flash. How many frightened rabbits does he want to catch, I wonder? You must have respect for your subjects. That does not necessarily mean asking everyone in a street cafe if you can take their picture, but it does mean that you do not disturb them by your actions. You can achieve this in one of two ways - discretion, and permission - either works, depending on the circumstances; there is no right or wrong answer on this one.

Thing is, the photographer is an easy target - mooching around, laden down with apparatus, "acting suspiciously". The Police Community Support Officer, or PCSO appears particularly partial to a bit of hassling - at least, most of the recent complaints have involved a PCSO rather than a "real" copper. I suppose that it is easier to pick on a middle-aged bloke with a big gadget bag than the group of half a dozen hoodies across the road...

If challenged, by a member of the public or a member of the public in a stab vest (a PCSO) always stay calm. Explain what you are doing and why. Remember that attitude goes a long way to determining outcome, so if you come across as friendly and open, this will often defuse any hostility. If you are being threatened by a member of the public remove yourself from the situation if you can and/or call the police. If you are being detained by a PCSO or police officer, make sure you make a note of badge numbers and their stated reason for stopping you. Remember that a PCSO has no right to know your name, and can only detain you for 30 minutes or until a proper police officer arrives. Above all, remember that nobody has the right to confiscate your equipment, memory cards or film, and nobody has the right to ask - or force - you to delete or destroy your images.

Finally, not all PCSOs are part of the problem - this cheery pair were content to pose for me in central London not that long ago - after I had chatted to them of course...

--o-O-o--

Bill

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission
- You know you are getting older when your kids tell you the police are looking younger

Less is more

It strikes me as I get older that I am carrying less and less by way of camera kit when I go out. Of course when I were a lad I thought nothing of swinging a dirty great LowePro Magnum from one shoulder all day, laden with a couple of bodies, half a dozen lenses, flash, film, notebook, pen, cuddly toy, decanter and glasses, etc. I would yomp over hill and dale, and return home having burned a roll or three, mostly with a single lens and a single body.

There are still occasions to this day when I will go out loaded for bear. The most recent was a Sealed Knot event to which I took:

Digital SLRs - 1
Film SLRs - 1
Digital Compacts - 1
Thumping great fast tele zoom - 1
Almost equally heavy fast standard zoom - 1
50mm lens - 1
1.4x teleconverter - 1
Monopod - 1

Total focal length covered - 24- 560mm


I used the lot, one way and another, although the long setup got the most use because the action was so far away (Did you know that a pike is 16ft long? The crowd is kept at least that far back, just in case one topples...)


For those (k)not in the know, by the way, the Sealed Knot is a bunch of English Civil War re-enactors. They take it all frighteningly seriously, and seem to have a thoroughly good time along the way.

But I digress...

These days my preference is to carry something like a D-Lux 4 or a Leica II, that fits in a pocket or small bag, and can be carried all day, even at my ever-advancing years, without feeling it. The practical aspect is obvious - and my chiropractor approves.

But there is another force at work. Because I carry less, I work harder, look harder. Because I look harder I see more. Because I see more, my hit rate has increased. Oh, not by much, but by enough to notice. The shotgun has been replaced by the target pistol, the bludgeon by the rapier.

Have you ever watched one of those chop-socky movies where the baddie whirls around like a manic Magimix for a few moments then the hero fells him with a single, languid move? That's the effect I'm aiming for.

I'd rather be old and cunning than young and random, anyday.

Bill

--o-O-o--

- All views expressed are my own, even the interesting ones
- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission
- Marmite and malt-loaf do not mix

The Indecisive Moment

In the world of photography, there are some names that stand head and shoulders above the rest. Capa, McCullin, Parkinson, Karsh, Atget, Salgado... Asked to name ten famous photographers any snapper worth their developer will be able to do so without batting an eyelid. The list will vary from person to person, mirroring their likes and dislikes. Ansel Adams is famous, for instance, but I find his images - and his writing - as interesting as watching yogurt ferment and he would not feature on mine.

If I were a betting man, I would say that the name that would appear most frequently is Henri Cartier-Bresson. There is a whole lot of myth and malarky around the tall, well-heeled Frenchman who "invented" the Decisive Moment. Did he or didn't he crop? Did he or didn't he only use a 50mm lens? Some "get" his work, others find it trite, but there is no doubting his impact. I'll wager that any given weekend worldwide hundreds of thousands of photographers go out with one aim in view - to capture their very own Decisive Moment on film (or SD card if that is what floats your boat). There are many more who, once the shutter is pressed, look at the results with the quiet satisfaction of having "nailed it" - there in their hand is their very own slice of time.

But what is that moment, and what makes it decisive? Is there a purity to being in just the right place at the right time - a nobility of spirit and purpose that comes together at the split second of pressing the shutter? Or is that bollocks? Which is nobler? The chap walking around with a screwmount Leica - older than he is, and carrying the patina of tens of years of use, relying on his reflexes to capture the peak of the action - or the man with the state of the art DSLR complete with movie mode, who hoses the action and later, in the privacy of his own lightroom, slices the best image from a hundred thousand others?

Does it matter?

The two approaches are poles apart. The two hypothetical individuals have as much in common as a pikeman and a machine gunner. But they are both after the end result. Both can achieve that result - does the means matter, or just the end?

I'll put my stake firmly in the ground - I'd rather be carrying the Barnack than the bazooka. Part of the pleasure for me comes from achieving more with less. The sense of achievement that comes from getting that shot, knowing that I have captured it through my own reflexes, hand to eye co-ordination and vision, rather than setting a course on the bridge of the starship Canon is part of the pleasure.

Consider this shot. I took it as an entry for a competition. The theme was "The Decisive Moment". I went out with a Barnack Leica with a single aim in view - to capture that elusive slice of time. I came across this street entertainer and burned a roll of film on his antics.

As I worked I repositioned myself to get the best background, and the best view of the action. As I realised what he was planning to do - to throw his hat from his foot and catch it on his head - the statue to the left of the shot suddenly became important - as much a part of the composition as the street performer himself.

It took him three goes to get the hat from foot to head - therefore I had three "decisive moments" to choose from. This is the second of his - our - three attempts, and the only one in which all the elements - for both him and me - came together.

You don't always get time to prepare.

You don't always get a second chance.

...or a third.

Is this a "Decisive Moment"? Enough others thought so for me to win the competition. Was I proud of it? Yes, for I had captured the image with just my reflexes and a basic camera. Could I have taken the same shot with a DSLR? Of course I could. But it would not have been so satisfying. Did I cheat? Ah - there's the question. By having a number of attempts to "practice" on, you could argue that hitting the sweet spot was that much easier for me. Practice makes perfect, after all. No. I don't think I cheated. I still had to get it right, and on another day I may have just produced something worthy of the bin.

I don't want to be HCB.

But it's nice when it all comes together.

Bill

--o-O-o--

You can see a larger version of this image here: Decisive Moment

D-Lux 4 and Beyond....

I'll start this blog with a review. Please don't think that this is going to just be another review microsite - oh no... I intend to cover a range of subjects in future, that will all have one thing in common - they interest me. But I have been meaning to publish my thoughts on this for some time, and there is no time like the present.

--o-0-o--

I have had a Leica D-Lux 4 since Christmas (2008) and very happy with it I am too. It follows both the Panasonic FX-1 and FX-2 as my carry-around digital and improves significantly on both in terms of image quality and handling. Since I have large hands I have added the Leica Grip to the base of my D-Lux - something you cannot do with the Panasonic FX-3 and a boon to handling. Combined with a simple wrist-strap (in my case an old Olympus one) it enables secure and stable one-handed operation.

D-Lux 4 with Leica Grip:

Now, I am not an accessoriser by nature, or just for the sake of it - I seldom wear a tie these days. But the ability of the D-Lux 4 to take an an adaptor ring on the front, which in turn allows the mounting of tele- and wideangle converters adds to it's flexibility. The trade off of having a wider, faster (24-60mm f2.0) lens than it's predecessors is that it runs out of reach at the top end. so far I have got around this by the simple expedient of carrying another camera - in my case a Canon G7 with the RAW hack. This has some advantages - not least being a general backup - but there are times when I would like to just carry one camera, one lens and work in a simple and uncluttered manner.

My first buy was an adaptor. The Pandabase LA-PLX3 to be exact.


This is a well-made, black anodised tube, with a 46mm female thread on one (the camera) end and a 52mm female thread on the other. It is provided with a robust 52mm snap-cap and a cap-keeper thread. I quickly dispensed with that last - I hate such things and would rather buy a new cap than have it flap around when I am trying to shoot. It is fitted to the D-Lux-4 by removing the black ring on the front around the lens then screwing it to the threads thus revealed.

Once fitted, the Pandabase adaptor is secure and solid, and provides a decent grip for two-handed shooting. In fact, this setup together with the grip makes the D-Lux 4 feel much more like a larger and more substantial camera. The adaptor alone provides other benefits too - it protects the lens once extended from accidental knocks, and at the 60mm end acts as an effective lens shade. I have added to the front a 52mm sky filter for added protection from dust and grimy fingers.


When not in use the Pandabase adaptor, together with a 46mm snap-cap forms a suitable home for my Leitz SBOOI 50mm viewfinder. This viewfinder approximates the field of view of the 60mm lens very well, and is a real boon to anyone who wants to use the camera at full-tele in bright sunny conditions, or simply not rely on the rear display to compose.

So. As already mentioned, the one real drawback of the D-Lux 4 is that it runs out of steam at the tele- end. There are a number of "teleconverters" available through eBay and the like, so I decided to spend the princely sum of nineteen pounds to get hold of one.


The Fujiyama 2.5x Teleconverter is a substantial item, weighing roughly as much as the D-Lux alone. It comes with a rear screw cap,a front push-on cap and a faux suede pouch. It appears well-made and mounts readily to the front of the Pandabase adaptor, adding significantly to the bulk and heft of the camera. By it's nature it is totally useless at the wideangle end, vignetting to the point of providing an interesting circular image.


It is clearly designed only to be used at 60mm, giving, in theory, a 150mm tele equivalent.


Where the wheels come off the wagon is in the results that this combination delivers. Welcome to my "test rose" in my back garden. I'd like to tell you that I have grown it specifically for this purpose but I would be lying like a cheap Swiss watch if I did. Suffice to say that it kept still long enough to be a subject for this test. I altered the camera to subject difference to keep the bloom approximately the same size in each image. No Photoshop changes have been made.

Without teleconverter:

With teleconverter:

100% crop without teleconverter:

100% crop with teleconverter:


Now, I freely admit that I am not a professional reviewer, but I think the results speak for themselves. In a simple test (I have only reproduced one set of results here, for the sake of space and brevity) - believe me the results were consistent - the Fujiyama degrades the image noticably. Apart from a touch of fuzziness there is a colour shift that may or may not show up on your monitor, but is clearly present.

Conclusion - reluctantly - is that, in very simple terms, you gets what you pays for. If you put a £19.00 adaptor on the front of a £600.00 camera you will get £19.00 worth of results. In other words, avoid. There may well be better teleconverters out there - in fact I dont doubt that there are - but this is a lemon of the first order, not even fit for use in a jug of cheap sangria. I'll continue to use the Pandabase adaptor - a simple, elegant and effective add-on that earns it's keep- but for now at least if I want more reach I'll continue to carry a second body.

Bill

--o-0-o--

Notes:

This review has been updated on the 11th June with new test shots.

All images shot on D-Lux 4 with add-on equipment as specified.

No D-Lux 4s were harmed in the making of this review.

To see larger versions of all these images and others please visit: Review Images

All images are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any form without permission.