Getting off manual

My first SLR camera was a Zenith 11.  It was a big solid Russian brick and for me it was the perfect introduction to SLR photography.  The camera was manual focus, with needle and ring metering  You had to set the aperture and shutter speed for appropriate for what he needle and ring meter was telling you.  In other words it was completely manual.

I now have a Pentax K1000.  That too is a fully manual camera.  The difference between the two is that the K1000’s light meter is in the viewfinder.  I don’t need to take the camera away from my eye.

My Micropress 4”x5” pinhole camera is totally manual.  It doesn’t focus.  It doesn’t have a shutter and it has a fixed aperture of f512.  It doesn’t even have a light meter.  I have to work that out in my head using ‘sunny 16’ rule or use an app on my mobile phone.  Generally, I opt for ‘sunny 16’.

I also own an Olympus Trip 35.  It’s a fantastic little camera.  It’s mainly automatic.  You use a zone focus system to focus the lens and the aperture and shutter speed are chosen by the selenium light meter.  It’s such a clever piece of engineering it doesn’t even need batteries.  I love using this camera.  It’s so much fun.  Even my kids like using this camera!

My DSLR is a Pentax KX.  I love this camera too (as you have probably gathered from previous posts).  It has these nifty little modes on it PASM.  I use PAS a lot.  I only use M on very limited occasions.  It has autofocus.  Again, I use this more than I have it turned off.

Does this make me any less a photographer?  The answer, in my honest opinion, is a resounding no.

I do find it amazing that some photographers believe they are not a photographer unless they are shooting in manual mode.  I would love to know where this opinion has come from because I do believe it to be utter nonsense.  Why?  Well read on and I’ll tell you why.

Let’s start with autofocus.  The autofocus on my KX works.  It nails the point of focus I am after 99% of the time.  The only time it starts to fail is if there isn’t enough light or scene contrast.  I know my camera well enough to know this and will then flip to manual focus.  That being said, there is absolutely no way I can focus as quickly and as well as my KX.

Now on to determining shutter speed and aperture; whenever I have seen someone using manual I have asked them how are they are measuring the light.  All of them have told me they use the cameras light meter.  Now forgive me if I am being naïve but as I understand it, in any of the automatic modes the camera measures the light and sets the ISO, aperture and shutter appropriate to the conditions in order  to give you the best photograph possible.  If the camera is in aperture priority mode then it will measure the light, and set the ISO and shutter speed appropriate to the aperture that you have chosen.  The same can be said for shutter priority mode where the ISO and aperture are set for the chosen shutter speed.

Again, my KX has software built in to it that can make these decisions in a fraction of a second.  I know I cannot possible read my light meter and dial in the appropriate settings anywhere near that.

I suppose that the point I’m trying to make is that the major camera manufacturers has invested millions in to developing Auto PAS systems that are quick, efficient and accurate; they have invested time and money to make it easier and more practical for you to go out and shoot photographs.  You have spent hundreds if not thousands of pounds buying a camera that has these capabilities.  Why turn them off?  If you want to learn how to shoot manually, why not buy a totally manual film camera?

Shooting in Auto PAS modes does not make you any less a photographer.  It makes you a wise and happier one!

Is it really a stupid question?

Breakwater and Ball - Digital Monochrome, Lee Johnson

On the Amateur Photographer website they have posted a new poll.  This week it is about monochrome photography and asks 'Would you be prepared to convert one of your cameras to black & white?'  Is this a silly question?

After doing my research I still believe that it could well be.  I've read several articles about how much better the monochrome image from a converted digital camera is from a colour image that has been converted.

First, I have to admit that I do love monochrome photography.  There is just something about it and in my head I know it doesn't make sense, after all I do not see objects, people or landscapes in black and white.  I see them in colour.  I am of an age that I remember watching TV in black and white.  Would I go back to those days?  Nope, not really.  I seriously think it's more of a nostalgia thing.

The Leica M Monochrom

Of course there is an exception to this.  That is when I shoot film.  I love processing my own film and although I'm told that C-41 is as easy as black and white, I'm still a bit reluctant to try it and of course I shoot colour film nearly as much as I shoot black and white film.

One of the options in the poll is 'No, I'm saving up for a Leica M Monochrom instead'.  This option does sort of make sense to me.  Why not have a camera that is dedicated to shoot just monochrome images?  Ok, if I were going to spend that much money on a camera and lenses I would probably be looking to invest in a Pentax 645z or a quality large format film camera and not a Leica but at first the sentiment was there.

Heptonstall - Shot on Ilford FP4+ and scanned, Lee Johnson

However, as I began thinking more and more about it I came to the conclusion that it is a bit of a silly question.  My DSLR, compacts and even my mobile phone cameras all have the option to shoot in black and white.  I also have the option to convert an image from colour to monochrome in Lightroom or Photoshop.  Same with film.  I could shoot a colour neg and either process in black and white chemistry or scan it and convert in Photoshop.

Perhaps a converted digital camera may shoot a monochrome image better than some of these options (I still think a negative and a nicely made print is more beautiful than any digital image) but for me, the quality I get using the techniques and equipment I have at my disposal are more than adequate for my needs.

If you are feeling brave you can convert a digital camera to a monochrome digital yourself.  Petapixel have an article here.

Same thing but different

Grouse Butt - Bob Singleton

A couple of weeks ago Bob and I went out taking photographs at the same time.  We were not out together but we were in the same geographical area with a similar sort of subject in mind, snow.

Bob chose to go to the summit of Pendle and take some shots there.  I was at Newchurch which is not more than a couple of miles away from Bob.  Bear in mind that we did not know both of us were out an in the same area.

I don’t think we actually class ourselves as any particular type of photographer, we just enjoy photography but that being said we both favour a documentary approach.

It is interesting to look at both our photographs from that session.  They are both documentary photographs.  There has not been any Photoshopping.  Mine had its final levels and sharpening done in Photoshop but that’s it.  I suspect that Bob’s is straight out of Lightroom.

Winter Whites - Lee Johnson

The interesting point is our approaches to a similar subject at the same time.  Bob has exposed his photograph to show the conditions as they were.  It was a bit grey, flat and not particularly nice.

I was looking for something that would make a nice monochrome image.  I wanted some strong blacks, shades of grey and then some almost paper white.  I knew that my cameras meter would underexpose the image so I dialled in about 2 stops of exposure compensation.  The result is what I wanted to achieve.

Both photographs have a lot in common.  They are in the same geographical location; have a similar subject matter (stone, landscapes and weather conditions.  They both look very cold!); and are documentary in nature.  I like Bob’s image as much as I like mine but the interesting thing is that we have the same approach and still come out with something quite different.

Now I get it!

Not so long ago Pentax Ricoh released the Pentax K-S1.  At first I thought the idea of a light up camera was simply folly, a gimmicky selling point.  Last night I changed my mind.

It's fair to say I am a Pentax fan.  I bought my digital KX because I knew there was a lot of excellent quality lens available both new and old available for it.  I knew the imaging was good, I'd searched flickr and done my homework.  Above all the KX felt right in my hand.  It actually felt better in my hand than the equivalent Canon and Nikon did (although I have to admit, it was a toss up between the KX and Nikon).  I love my KX so much that I bought a K1000 film SLR.  I love that so much that I have a Pentax Espio 115G, a 645 (both film and digital) and 110 Auto on my GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) list.

In an earlier post Liam alluded to the both of us taking part in a course on astronomy.  As part of the course we have to take photographs of the star constellation Orion and last night proved to be the first and best opportunity to do that.  So braving the temperature I set off up the nearest hill to bag a shot.

Orion - best seen on Flickr

I've done night photography before but it has always been pretty much in an urban area.  Last night it was dark, in fact it was so dark that my camera's auto-focus was useless and I hit on another problem.  I couldn't see through the viewfinder.  Well, no that's not strictly true.  The light of the rear display was interfering with my eyes own capability to see in the dark.  Of course, I could use live view or turn the display off.  Well, I could have if I could;

1. remember which button it was in the dark or; 
2. seen the button in the first place.

As a result I have a new mental note.  That is, 'if shooting in the dark take either a torch or phone with me'.  It helps light the back of the camera up even and I can find the buttons!  Either that or buy a camera that has light up buttons.

The K-S1 isn't such a bad idea anymore!

RPS Starts Analogue Group

Heptonstall Church by Lee Johnson.  Shot on Ilford FP4+ 

with Pentax K1000.

The Royal Photographic Society has set up an analogue photography group in response to what it calls a film photography 'renaissance'.

The group will have its first meeting at College Hall, Lichfield this Saturday (31st January).  Attendance costs £7 to RPS Members and £10 to non-members.

The RPS has stated that they have been overwhelmed with the enthusiasm for film photography after many members responded to an article in their magazine RPS Journal about the importance of film and the creative possibilities of the medium.

The programme for the day will offer opportunities to photograph Lichfield Cathedral and discussions on film photography.

To end the week

To end the week I thought I would post my photograph of the week.  This may just become a regular feature.  So if you would like to see your photograph here then please post images in to the flickr group

Have a good weekend!!!  See you Monday!

Lancoast - The Way Forward

Pixel editor, Lee Johnson, has posted thoughts on his latest essay, Lancoast on his blog.  Lee has been battling with his original idea of shooting the entire essay on film before salt printing the neagtives or the option of using digital.

Lee said 'My internal editing on the fly machine began to work and a way forward found its way.

As much as I love film and wanted to do this in film it is impracticable.  The cost and time in getting each image in 4”x5” format would out way the advantages and look.  If I were to use 35mm although it would work I would still scan the negatives, carry out some Photoshop work (levels, scratches, dust etc.) and print the large scale negatives.

Digital has become the answer that I didn't really want it to be.  Cut out the middle section of developing film, shooting with different film and/or cameras and I still end up with the outcome I want.'

The full story can be read on Lee's Lancoast Blog here.

The River - Lee Johnson

'Oh my God!' A damp feeling ran down the shin and calf of my right leg. The cold shooting through my body was intense like being wrapped in a blanket of ice. It could not have been worse than if I had been slapped in the face with a wet trout.

A welly filling with ice cold river water in the middle of December is probably not anybody's idea of fun. Well, perhaps only fishermen and photographers. It's funny, now that I sit here at my desk I remember just how cold it was. At the time getting home, the comfort of central heating and a few hot chocolates quickly dissipated the memory.

It was on a whim that I visited the waterfalls of Earby. I didn't have any particular shot in mind. The only thing that I had actually thought about was that I wanted to make exposure time quite long. By making long exposures the water becomes blurred and often gives an impression of movement throughout the picture.

When making landscape photographs I tend to start with a very wide view taking in as much of the scene as possible. After a while I begin to settle in to what I am doing and see the micro landscapes and abstracts that I actually find infinitely more interesting than that of the whole. I guess I like details.

A few hours sat at my PC and the cold amnesia had firmly set in. The collection of images I had made were good. In fact it is fair to say that an abstract from the set is one of my favourite photographs I have ever made. I should really find a way of making a nice print of it.

The thing is shooting something like this is a really bad idea for me. I don't really tend to work in single images. I actually prefer to make essays. That is a collection of photographs that tell a story. So when I see something that is beginning to work it tends to start the steam engine to whir the cogs of my brain and the Christmas holidays gave me plenty of time to think.

Taking these shots also coincided with me reading Ted Hughes book of poetry on the River Dart in Devon. Each poem is accompanied by a photograph by Peter Keen. So it was no surprise that my brain went into overdrive. However, there was no chance I was going to attempt to write poems to go with my images. It's one thing writing an article for my blog or a magazine but a completely another world writing poetry and I don't think my command of the English language extends that far.

The festive season came and went and the idea of The River had firmly set in. As with all my ideas for essays the initial idea behind the project had started off too big. Originally the subject of The River was going to be the River Ribble but with a timescale of nine months this was not going to be possible and so I had a re-think. The answer to the brainstorming session was to document a river that was and continues to be much closer to my heart; one that I could visit easily when I had a spare hour or so; the answer was Colne Water.

Colne Water is a river that stretches around five miles from the hamlet of Laneshawbridge, through the town of Colne and ends in the village of Barrowford. Unlike the Ribble it has a very definite start and finish. Very much like the Ribble it has a variety of landscape characteristics from rural through urban fringe, industrial and back to urban fringe.

It turned out to be a good time to document this river. Major changes to it were about to happen. Some of the wiers were removed to allow breeding salmon upstream. No bad thing at least not in my book. Also permission has just been sought to generate electricity from another part of the river. Again, in my opinion no bad thing. And then there was also the demolition of the mill at Waterside.

I tend to take some test shots before I settle in to producing an essay properly. It quickly became apparent that I had found a look to the images that I was happy with. This wasn't going to be about big beautiful landscapes taken during the time of days referred to as the ‘golden hours’ (that is sunrise and sunset). It wasn't going to be about the wildlife of the water course and although there would be some small space for it within the essay the final piece would be more abstract than that.



Beth Derbyshire & The Ark

I began shooting the images that would be included in the final piece without an idea what the final presentation of the piece would be. In general when I start out shooting an essay, I only have a vague idea of what the finished piece will be like. This usually evolves and clears as the process of making photograph continues along. In terms of The River the final piece would become an audiovisual presentation.



Model of The Ark

Some time ago I got involved with Beth Derbyshire’s Ark. This was a converted canal barge that travelled up and down the Leeds Liverpool Canal showing a multi-screen video installation and this proved to be an influence on my final piece. Not having access to multiple screens or projectors I decided that I would create slides with a series of interchanging images from up and down the river. The soundtrack to the imagery would be a soundscape created by recording my walk along the river bank. This hopefully meant that the viewer would be immersed in sights and sounds that I was seeing and hearing.

The River is made up of around 70 images most of which are quite abstract or show some small detail often missed by someone walking along the course of Colne Water. There are some images of the landscape that it sits in; there are some photographs that document some of the wildlife; some are quite pretty; others are quite hard to look at.

The River was never going to be a beautiful celebration of a prized landscape feature. It was always intended to show the viewer how nature and man affect the landscape in a warts and all manner. I think it achieves this.