A tale of disaster

So I went out to "do some photography" yesterday morning.

The reason? I hadn't made a photograph in weeks and I was feeling withdrawal. And it was foggy and I thought there might be something in it. I got some shots at the National Arboretum here in Canberra - and a couple weren't bad, either.

Trees in fog, National Arboretum Canberra.
© Shane Baker

Anyway, I was heading home, and I thought it might be worth making a diversion to the Murrumbidgee River to see if there was anything to shoot. The sun was up and something might be there, right?

There was. A nice flat surface on a pool in the river with reflections. I just had to get down there.

So, I picked up the Nikon and the tripod and my camera bag and headed down towards some rocks. Slippery rocks.

Next thing I know, it's like someone has kicked my legs out from under me. I hit the rocks like a safe, get back on my feet - and can't see the Nikon. Some frantic looking around and I see it - my D800 with 24 - 70 lens attached literally submerged in the river!

The lens was full of water, so I let it drain and headed home. Once home, I separated the body and lens and placed them into a home-made dehumidifier - where they remain until I can send them to Nikon Service in Sydney tomorrow!

I feel sick just thinking about this beautiful gear submerged in a river. God knows what the service bill will be.

The take away from this? If you've got a bag or a case or whatever, use it if there's the slightest chance of something going wrong - like walking on rocks in a river.

The tale of the repairs waits for another day.

Sigh ...

Shane

Kids and photography.

We've had three of the grandkids visiting from Perth this week. Me being me, I offered each of them the use of a camera. The 13 year old has the D300, the 7 year old the D90 and the 5 year old the Fuji X10.

I have to say that despite the patronising comments coming from more than a few adults, they've produced some very good images.

I love digital for kids - or anyone learning photography. The marginal cost of any image is almost nothing, and they get immediate feedback when they try something new. Perfect!

And, of cause, I can give them a set of images on a USB stick that they can print or show to family and friends.

So the message is: don't underestimate kids. Give them a useable camera and they'll deliver.

A portraiture master class with Greg Weight.

Last Sunday, I did a portraiture master class with Greg Weight.

I enjoyed the session, and especially Greg's practical, unaffected view of photography and portraiture.  (The fact that he is a Nikon shooter didn't hurt either (Joke!!).

When she picked me up, my wife Linda asked me what I'd learned.

Good question.

I'd certainly learned stuff - but more importantly, I'd gained a few things. Firstly, I realised I knew stuff. I recognised the photographers Greg talked about and often, the images to which he referred. I also understood a fair amount of the technical stuff too.

That means thatI gained confidence in my ability.

But I also came to the conclusion that I don't have to be an expert on portraiture to shoot portraits.

What I did learn / decide / conclude is that I've got to get off my arse and join in. To be an effective portrait photographer ... I've got to shoot portraits.

Yep - I'm nothing if not quick! <blush>

I've lined up friends who have agreed to be photographed, I have the photo kit and I've ordered a backdrop - which I'll use some of the time.

Time to stop talking and start doing - or as Frederick Van Johnson says: Time to take off that lens cap and shoot!

I've always admired portrait photography.

I'm in awe of the likes of Arnold Newman, Josef Karsh, Irving Penn, and Aussies like David Moore, Max Dupain and Helmut Newton. For all that, I've tended to treat portraiture as something of a spectator sport - which is a major failure on my part.

That said, from my armchair (or basement, for my North American readers) I'm going to "have a go" at some recent examples of portraiture.

I should begin by saying that I'm not aware of any all-encompassing definition of photographic portraiture. Wikipedia defines it as:

Portrait photography or portraiture is photography of a person or group of people that displays the expression, personality, and mood of the subject. Like other types of portraiture, the focus of the photograph is usually the person's face, although the entire body and the background or context may be included.

That gives a lot of options and covers a lot of ground. There have been and continue to be glorious formal portraits such as these:

 Norman Lindsay by Max Dupain

And Karsh, like Shakespeare or Beethoven is arguably part of our culture ...

Then there's the less formal school. I love environmental portraits.Check out Irving Penn's Igor Stravinsky:

So, given this latitude ... I was disappointed when I visited the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra to see the 2013 National Photographic Portrait Prize.

I'm not so egocentric that I expect to like everything shown. I expect a full range of reactions from gobsmacked to angry - but not to be disappointed.  There's some damn fine work in this year's exhibition, but there's a lot of rubbish too (in my humble opinion!).

What do I mean by rubbish?  Images that could only be described as "snaps". Yes, I know there's a fine line between photojournalistic or even environmental portraiture - but quite a few were well over the line.

Also, I would expect any portrait to be sharp. Many were not. One in particular was simply out of focus. No doubt the cognoscenti would patiently explain to me that this "artistic", but I consider it shows a lack of craft. Similarly, eyes should be in focus, but noses can be a tad blurry. Several images were the other way around.

There also appeared to be a hefty dollop of political correctness in the selections. I can't believe the selections (from over 1,200 entries, I believe) really had that many "land rights for gay whales" images.

Many of the PC selections also had another characteristic that I find unforgivable: they only made any sense with a written explanation. Photography and portraiture are visual art forms. The image should speak for itself. If an image only has meaning with a hefty panel of explanatory text next to it, then the artist has failed.

To be fair to the Portrait Gallery, they're not alone in all this. I followed a link from a tweet earlier today which prompted me to write this little rant - because the piece on portraiture seemed to be advocating the very kind of "portraiture" I dislike so much!

I'll get off my soap box now.

Have a good Easter.

The value of photographs - and why they're worth preserving

I want to write about the value of photographs - and why they're worth preserving. 

(Those of you who know me and have heard this already may like to browse Wikipedia now or make a cup of tea.)

The poor souls who attend my Digital Photography classes at Erindale are told with some apparent authority by yours truly that a photograph has value if it was one or more of the following characteristics:

• it's fine art. Not many of us produce a lot of this, unfortunately;
• it's of value to you. The grandparent's shot of a grandchild (or vise versa) is a classic example; or
• it's a record of something of value that has been lost.

It's this third point that was reinforced for me recently.

It's Canberra's 100th birthday on 12 March 2013 and for those of you not familiar with the history of our wide brown land, it had a troubled beginning. While it was proclaimed in 1913, due to two world wars, the Great Depression and indifference from much of Australia, it wasn't really developed until the 1960s.

I recently saw some photographs made from the 1910s through to the 1970s showing Canberra "before". These images were accompanied by very good attempts to make the same image from the same vantage point - using landmarks to try to orientated the photographer. The whole show was quite fascinating.

Now these images were workman-like shots, but they were made for a purpose - and that purpose wasn't great art. They were intended as a record only. And it's well that they were made because they are a record of places and indeed, people who are gone forever. Nothing will bring that place back. Even if the unthinkable (and highly improbable) were to take place and mankind were to be wiped out by some catastrophe, the place where Canberra now sits will never look as it did in 1913 - or in 1960.

So my point is that even the most mundane snaps have value as they will inevitably record - and in a sense, preserve - someone or something that is no-longer with us.

And this brings me to another of my hobby horses: an image is only useful if it's preserved and can be found.

These images were preserved because they had been made by a government agency and carefully stored and catalogued. If they had been treated as are so many images made today, I'm sure they would be lost - and so would their value.

When attending big public events, I wonder at the number of people using their phones as cameras. Don't get me wrong - most of the smart phones these days have very capable photographic capability - but what happens then? Are these images stored, or are they uploaded (and down sampled) on Facebook, perhaps? Maybe they're sent by email or SMS - but are they kept? We are told that more photography is taking place now than ever before, but where will the images of the people and places that are gone forever be found in 10, 20 or 100 years?

So my thought for the day is: whatever means you use to capture those "snaps" of family, friends and places: save and protect them for the future!

Thanks for reading this through to the end.  I'll have a little lie down now ...

Shane

And where are my images from the Multicultural Festival, I hear you ask?

Well ..... I didn't get any.  (Yes, I'm embarrassed.)

Despite my great love of street photography, I don't find t easy and have to get into a certain mind set. This weekend past - I didn't.

Maybe next year?

<sigh>

Shane "promises" Baker

Giving street photography another try

It's the Canberra Multicultural Festival this weekend, and I'm going to give street photography another try.

Although I admire street photography at its best - the likes of Elliott Erwitt come to mind - I haven't done much of it.

A few years back, I went to teh Festival armed with an SLR and a zoom and came away with one of my best ever images:

I love this shot. This man with his interesting face is deep in conversion with two friends who are conveniently framing his image. In my perhaps not very humble opinion, it's a genuiely good shot.

But I haven't done anything as good since.

So this year, I'm giving it a try with an innocuous little camera - one that looks like I'm using my grandad's old film rangefinder: my Fuji X10.

As you can see, it doesn't look like much. It's not likely that people will feel confronted by it. The alternative is for me to use my D800. Even with the "nifty 50", it looks a bit intimidating - though nowhere near as scary as an SLR mounting a 70-200 zoom!

Nevertheless, I may try the D800 - just as an experiment.

So with gear decided, the other issue is tactics. Apart from street portraiture, where the photographer literally asks permission to photograph people, there are basically two tactics. One can stalk one's subject with a relatively short lens, shoot from a distance with a long lens - or stake out a space and wait for them to come to you.

I'm going to try the latter - with the X10 and maybe with the D800.

I'll let you know how I go!

Shane Baker