Two Men In A Room

Morning folks - in a nod to the mighty WIRE and their cracking tune 'Two People In A Room', this is another tale of countryside adventures and one way roads.

As he has been wont to do recently, Sir Bruce Of Robbinsestershire duly picked me up and whipped me away to somewhere I had never even heard of, but curiously, had passed once:

HMS Peewit. 

It is a motley collection of hangars now used as farm buildings, outside the famous Angus golfing town of Carnoustie. 

The hangars are easily mistaken for those massive farm barns you often see these days, but in reality, look a little further, and they're obviously hangars; there's remnants of runway and tumbledown collections of typical RAF base buildings scattered about too.

Sir Bruce (knowing no fear) sidles Der Linsenwagen up all sorts of roadways I would never even dream of looking at. 

And that's just what we did. 

"Isn't this . . . ?"

"Nah, we'll be alright."

It's a bit like being with your Dad actually and in a good way!

He also went and asked permission from the landowner, and we unpacked our gear and went and Stared The Camel In The Eye.

I was using the Hasselblad SWC/M, on a tripod, loaded with FP4+ rated at EI 80. 

I went with this combo because of the tight quarters expected in the buildings and the forgiving nature of FP4+.

And I really did need it. 

The lovely thing about the SW is that if you obey the bubble, you're fine. Anything that looks squint will be squint, though fortunately most builders do use spirit levels! Its only caveat is that YOU are entirely the judge of focus (as it is a VF-only viewing camera) - this can get quite complex close up. 

I always recommend carrying a small tape measure with you, and also always recommend that you MUST realise that the really strange bendy image you see in the VF looks nothing like what is captured by the lens. In other words - TRUST THE MACHINE!

When you learn to do that, everything should fall into place.

The other thing I love about the SW is that it is a superb architectural camera. OK it doesn't have rise and fall and other movements, but get your viewing position right and the camera level and it will render an interior beautifully. I love it and am very aware that I am lucky to own one.

Anyway, without further ado, HMS Peewit.

Peewit 1

Peewit 2

Peewit 3

Peewit 4

Peewit 5

Peewit 6
(That's Bruce btw)

As you can see, she's mostly used as a gardener's shed these days (though actually it has probably been so for a long time) - you can find more about her real history from reading four articles on Bruce's blog. 

I prefer his photos to mine, so stick that in yer pipe and smoke it.

You can find them if you click - -> HERE

The film was developed in Pyrocat-HD. I did that because of the very obvious disparity between those deep interior shadows and the windows. 

Some of the shadow readings were around EV 1!

Not only was the day quite gloomy, but the light indoors was pretty shocking too. 

You're talking exposures (taking into account reciprocity) of 145 seconds at times:

"STAND BACK FROM THE TRIPOD! Now put that cable release on the ground . . ."

Yes, not the easiest, but fortunately the tripod was sturdy and there was no wind.

It's possible that the Peewit will very slowly slide into the ground - as you can see the exterior brickwork is in need of some TLC, however the interior concrete is pretty damn fine - when you think about it, the brickwork is just camouflage - what it disguises are concrete bunkers. 

How long do they last? 

Even the heavily-exposed-to-the-elements ones around these parts are still doing fine, so you never know . . hundreds of years?

It all depends on how long the windows can carry on for I suppose - some of them are boarded up . . . 

We both commented on what a fine photographer's studio it would make with a little jimmying-up.

The above are all scans of prints - sadly they don't do the prints justice. 

There's levels of detail in there which I think goes above and beyond 5x4.

The prints are also not as 'grey' as they appear to be above, but hey ho, that's what happens when you use a cheap scanner and can't be bothered with all the curvy stuff. 

Admittedly, they're not the most exciting photographs in the world, but if I've managed to convey some of the atmosphere of the place to you, then I am happy.

And that's about it really.

Normally at this festive time of year I do a yearly round-up, but I'm not sure if I can be bothered this time (even though [actually] it has been a very productive year photographically.) 

So, if you don't get another clarion call from MailChimp to your inbox, you'll know why!

All that remains is for me to wish you all the best for the Festive Season, and, in an increasingly chaotic and angry world, peace and happiness for the New Year.

Take care, have a good one and remember to get the sprouts on around about now.

H xx

Last Post

OK folks - don't spill yer coffee. 

It very nearly was The Last Post too, due to some very strange error messages on my Mac. 

It's pretty old, and have you seen the price of a new one these days? 

Anyway two days down the line and a reinstallation of the operating system, everything seems fine . . phew.

Anyway, I'll preface this post with a wise old saw from my old mate Ian 'Unter, of Mott The Hoople.

"Contrary to what various people say, this is the best possible form of music that there ever was, just this . . "

Regular readers of FB will know that I've struggled with formats over the years and this year has been the craziest courtesy of a couple of people - a certain Mr. Robbins of this parish who loaned me (amongst other things) a long-time lustable (the Mamiya Press [6x9]) and a friend at the forum who asked me whether I could reseal his Mamiya RZ (6x7) - a complete 3 lens, 3 back, AE finder etc etc kit! It is still here. I also did his OM4Ti (35mm) for him too . . . .

Sheephouse Turrets has been awash with cameras, from a Rollei Old Standard (6x6) the above two, various lenses, a new (old) Canon L2 (35mm) and a new (old) Mamiya C330F (6x6). 

It's quite bonkers - there's around 20 useable film cameras in the house and I find myself ever drawn to the old faves - my Hasseblads (6x6 and 645) and Nikons (35mm). 

Don't ask about the LF stuff (5x4") - I've enough film to last my lifetime and zero enthusiasm for lugging two and a half tons of gear anywhere at the moment.

The funny thing is, I would say it has probably been the most photographically active year of my life too, which has been great.

That has come courtesy of two things - the DCA Forum which forces me to produce something every month; it's not like they have me in a straightjacket or anything, but being nearly the ONLY ambassador for the DARK (room) ARTS, I feel I have to keep the side up. 

The other thing is The Thursday Occasional Club, where Mr. Robbins and I head out into the wilds of this 'ere neck of the woods.

It's a day of talk, laughter, great company, cameras, film, and (to me) a feeling that we're almost like the last two Neanderthals in a world of Homo Sapiens.

 

Despite the 'analog revolution' how many people do you know that use film? 

My answer to that is very very few.

Even in Brussels on holiday - a city that isn't exactly quiet - I spotted ONE Pentax ME. 

And that is it. 

Maybe we all come out at night . . I dunno, but it does feel to me that the world is getting smaller.

To this end (game) I've been thinking:

"What the fuck is going to happen to all this stuff when I pop my clogs?"

And it's not just the ever increasing 'burden' of camera stuff, it is (to my mind) THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING THIS. 

To wit:

THE PRINT

Y'see I find myself thinking a lot about how in another 20 years, I really could either be pushing up the daisies or can't be arsed to go through the lengthy and increasingly punishingly expensive process of (ahem) "traditional photographic practice".

To wit (yet again) so what happens to my 'legacy' (as it were) of decades of printing . . will I be bothered to care about it, or, on a darker note - how do the people that I leave behind, deal with it?

 

Bet you've never thought that before. 

But you will, and hopefully now you will be concerned, because you have put so much effort and skill into this whole creative effort, producing these smallish bits of time and paper which are a total reflection of your personality, that it really has to mean more in the great scheme of things than meeting an acrimonious end in a skip.

London Circa 1965.

Oh I know, photos survive - I was reminded of this recently when I uncovered a photograph of my recently departed sister with our family friend AJ. 

Maggie was about 14 and on her arm is the biggest fecking parrot you've ever seen. 

It's a family photograph and was a surprise to her daughters who had never seen it before. 

Family stuff tends to survive, albeit in an incredibly truncated version - and that is fine, because something will hopefully sail onwards. 

But creative stuff - that's a whole different kettle of fish - who wants it? More to the point, who is interested? 

Well, if you're a well-known photographer, someone somewhere is probably prepared to store it in perpetuity (and even more so if they can monetise it!)

But if you're a smalltown, Joe Soap (like me) who produces interesting (to my eyes) work that no one knows about . . . well . . the future is quite bleak. 

It's a fact, that despite all these well-meaning bits of nostalgia (like the 'return' to film and indeed LPs) the world is ever-increasingly becoming less grounded in physical stuff.

At the start of the year I thought:

I know, I'll print at 9.5 x 12" and store them in archival sleeves and that way someone at some point will think they have some worth rather than just chucking them.

But then, you're casting forward a huge burden of responsibilty on future generations, and, again, who's to say they'll be interested, or even have the space?

It's hard isn't it.

Please excuse me whilst I grab a cup of tea.

Certainly, printing at that larger size suits Medium Format.

There's no two ways about it, an 8x8" image on that size of paper screams gravitas (and also looks beautiful if you have been careful).

But the 35mm stuff . . yeah. 

Well . . . 

And so with much chin-scratching did I realise that the vast quantity of 35mm stuff I have, was destined to remain forever just a tiny, squinty thing on a contact print, which is ridiculous when you think about it!

I've got a daft number of 35mm cameras and lenses and I don't even consider myself a 35mm photographer! 

I've got thousands of 35mm images, which, whilst pretty stupid looking on a contact, surely must have meant something to me, in that I actually took a photograph of them.

The Medium and Large Format stuff is easy to deal with. The worthwhile, printable images are all too easily visible (though of course you can revisit at a later point and something might catch your eye that you didn't consider in the beginning) but 35mm stuff?

Well if you were to print everything you fancied printing, at sizes like 8x10" or even 5x7" you're still creating a VAST amount of burdeny-stuff. 

That's a new phrase btw - B-S.

It's a prickly pear isn't it man-cub?

Let me rewind a bit to a recent trip Brussels.

WTF Sheepy are you off on one again?

Well yes, y'see I discovered (well actually he's been there a few years) a most wonderful shop. 

It is called Avec Plaizier. 

You can find their Instagram here

We've been in his shop before, but this time (on a chucking wet morning) with a Canon L2/35mm LTM Nikkor around my neck and a subcutaneous feeling that there was little point in me carrying it, all of a sudden I had a revelation.

And it literally did land with a massive CLONK in my head.

Postcards

My goodness it was so obvious. 

All those years of weird pictures - print postcards. 

They're small (ostensibly 6x4" but in these metric days 10x15cm) but they're handleable in a way that even the smallest arty print isn't.

There's no bull with a postcard. 

You're not handling it with kid gloves; it's there to serve a purpose. 

Yes it will get damaged, written on and (if fulfilling its destiny) will travel somewhere and end up as a skidder under a posties shoe, or (hopefully) ultimately be pinned to a noticeboard or attached to a fridge, or even end up framed. But the thing is, it is out there, like some subversive entity, disseminating your mad view of the world and passing through the hands of others.

I was in such as fever as to be nearly breathless.

OK, back to reality and an order to place - I was determined. 

Not many places stock that size of paper, and indeed as far as I can see, my only choices are Ilford MGRC and FB and Ilford Portfolio. 

Harman don't even produce it as Kentmere; see what I mean about the world getting smaller?

Years back every manufacturer produced it. 

Biting the (expensive) bullet I ordered some Portfolio from Process Supplies (who I love by the way - a proper old-school, knowledgable company [who else would tell you that Ilfospeed is now discontinued and they're running down stocks?]). 

Incredibly with Portfolio, you're nearly 70 pence a sheet for this size. 

I will say though, never having tried it before, gosh it is good. 

It's pretty stiff and will dry relatively flat though that is dependent on relative humidity - mine developed a temporary bow on a very very wet weekend, but it returned to nearly normal after. 

The emulsion is the same as Ilford MG, this meant I could produce ad-hoc test strips with my Kentmere paper as there was no way I was cutting a sheet of this stuff up.

I also decided, seeing as I really want these small worlds to last, that I'd double fix and selenium tone them. 

Quite a lot of work for something so small, but you know what, I feel it is worth it.

Gosh, you can even get Secol postcard sleeves (and acid free rummage boxes) to protect your masterworks too.

Of course, being postcards you can print as many as you like - once you've nailed the original print, make notes on the back, and that is your reference. Store it safely if you want, but if you want to bang out 10 copies of the same thing you can easily do so. Traditional photography, is, after all, a semi-industrial process!

As a size, 10x15 is a cinch to handle. 

5x7" trays and you're laughing. 

What could be easier?

Anyway, here's a selection of some of my more, how shall we say, esoteric photographs. 

I trimmed the borders off for the scans, but for all of the actual cards, I am using a border of 5mm Left and Right, and 4.5mm Top and Bottom. 

My lovely old (gifted) Leitz easel is wonderful for this.

As this is a work in progress (and seeing as Ilford stopped printing the Postcard stuff on the back of them) I still haven't physically trialled one in the postal system yet, but I intend to. 

You get proper 'PostCard' rubber stamps and a wealth of archival inks to rub them up with - I've got one on my Christmas list.

Maybe Portfolio is too much?

It would probably be cheaper producing them with an inkjet, but I don't own one, so for the moment . . . anyway, I just like printing, so I'm not going to let a squirter spoil my fun.

I'll maybe get some Ilford MGRC and try that too and see what happens.

Anyway, I can report that to me they are a success and have a lovely uniformity to them which I've always felt was lacking in any 35mm prints I've ever made. 

It is a new way forward and I do believe I will adhere to it.

Give it a go if you can - they look (AND FEEL) really good . . honest.

Until the next time, TTFN and remember to be kind to that old man stuck up your chimney.

H xx

Auld (R)Age

Morning folks - hope everyone is well.

The Winter is starting to draw in with a great rapidity that I never like, though this year I am determined to embrace it more and not be so bothered that it is getting dark at 3.30PM!

Anyway, without further ado, I have recently been using a couple of truly old . . well, older than me . . . photographic devices - it's been fun and is the pure antithesis of today's 'do everything' cameras. 

No, they're not LF cameras either, nor is it the Mamiya Press (which is kind of like using a LF camera, but with a handle - you go through similar processes and checklists before every exposure . . and after too!) No these were different from the point of view of snapability.

Take a bow please, a Canon L2/35mm f3.5 Nikkor and a Rollei Old Standard. The former from 1958/1951 and the latter from 1934/35.

They've been fun to use and like anything older, required a wee bit of tweaking from me to get results I was happy with.

In the Canon/Nikkor case, that was fitting a lens hood (I ended up using my 5cm FISON - you would think it would vignette, but it doesn't, and it clamps like a champ!) and not being too radical with my choice of shutter speeds. Whether it is because of all the gripping and scraping I have been doing as DIY or an age thing, or possibly even the weight of the camera - it is very light - I found that it is quite sensible, where possible, to decide on 1/30th as my slowest shutter speed.

It does rather limit your choices, but what can you do . . if you want to explore fun in an ancient style, then maximise your potential.

The Old Standard was a bit different, in that you can sort of use your body and a wall as a tripod whilst gently pulling down on the neck strap - it is a surprisingly stable way of doing things, even with a camera as light as the Rollei. 

And it is a light Rollei - certainly lighter than my T. 

It makes the likes of a Mamiya C330 look and feel like a house brick from a black hole!

The Tessar is also of a different quality to the Tessar on my T. 

Bruce would call this UB (Unsubstantiated Bollocks) but to my eyes it is true. 

The T's Tessar is a single coated lens; the early Tessar on the Standard is uncoated and therein lies its magic - in much the same way that early Leitz Elmars have that glowy look to them (more UB?) the same can be said of the Old Standard. 

I can only imagine what it would be like with its proper hood.

Anyway, here's some photies . . . oh and I forgot to say that using such ancient machinery may well result in the likes of the following comment (which I loved):

"That's an affie auld camera!"

Probably my favourite carpark picture - everything fell into place and, despite the sun falling on the plexiglass window, the dark splendours of the concrete cathedral have been revealed. The 35mm f3.5 Nikkor is a fine lens - I feel very priviledged to be able to use it.

This is printed on Ilford MGRC at Grade 4. Film was HP5 at EI 200 developed in HC110 (Dilution B) for a total of 8 minutes (I stood it from 6) - a nice combo and the inherent mild contrastiness of HC helped to contribute to the lack of contrast in the scene.

Sadly the 'waterfall' has since gone.

These are the Old Standard - I like them both.

The first was printed at Grade 4.5 on some very old MGRC - I can go no higher using the DeVere's colour wheels! The photograph, is pretty much exactly how I saw it, and the Tessar has rendered the scene beautifully softly.

The second was printed at Grade 4'5 too. 

One wonders how it is possible to go, in a print, from really soft (the building with the Paper (white) Sun behind it to incredibly hard (the woman's feet and the bright pavement). 

There was no split grading involved and I can only assume the camera has contributed. 

There's an enormous amount of detail in there too - not too shabby for a nearly 90 year old lens.

Film was the combo of out of date (2009!) Pan F and Fomadon R09 at 1+50. 

VERY GENTLE agitation to 10 minutes and then let it stand to 12.

I'm not normally a 'street' person, but I like this a great deal - it looks old despite the modern bus shelter.

The older I get the more I realise that Rodinal can be used almost universally for most subjects - a wonderful developer and if I only had to have one, then it would probably be it.

And that's it - short and sweet.

The two old 'uns are currently having a natter about the state of the world over a cup of Darjeeling and a couple of hobnobs.

Until the next time, over and oot and keep taking the pills.

H xx

The Great Dissolve

Morning folks - I hope you are well. 

It is an interesting title isn't it, and you're probably wondering:

"Oh JEEEEZ, what is the olde fart on about now."

I will say, you might well be raging by the end, but don't let that stop you either way; be warned, it's quite long; a tad opinionated and as such a thing is as valid as any other argument . . . 

So put your feet up, get someone to loosen the straightjacket and let's begin.

Top Photo - Modern 'Photography'
Bottom Photo - Photography As I Knew It

Firstly, let me explain myself. 

I photograph. 

I love photographing and I love printing. 

I love the smell of fixer and stopbath. 

I love my darkroom.

And I love the sheer difficulty/easiness of being able to punt out into the world an image that is not only of some worth to myself, but also (possibly) has some longevity by nature of its actual PHYSICAL PRESENCE. 

That being, a bog standard negative and a darkroom print.

I regard them as little boats of time being shoved upstream into an unknown future . . quite often made with a mechanical marvel constructed when I was much younger or, in some cases, not even a glint in my father's eye. 

In other words, you've got it, I love photography.

It holds gravitas for me. 

It is an important and often surprising part of my life.

But here's the rub. I increasingly find myself looking around at a lot of the stuff currently classed as 'photography' and then reaching into a cupboard for my ruffled shirt, slightly baggy-at-the-knees boating pants, white socks, a very cool pair of aviators and just possibly (if I am wearing one) I might even roll up the sleeves on my jacket.

Then I'll drag out the ghettoblaster and stick on a cassette with fab hits from A Flock Of Seagulls, OMD, Human League and many other forward thinking 'futuristic' pop combos; heck I might even have a boogie to 'Magic Fly' by Space.

Then I say to myself: 

'Great, let's do it!'

Isn't that just the best photographic advice you've ever had?

You see, is it just me, or has the 'photographic' community been transported back a few decades to the era of shoulder pads and big money? 

Stick with me on that, all will be explained.

I was brought up short recently by a link to an esteemed Photographic Societies competition winners website (try saying that sentence when you are drunk).

A lot of what I saw, NOW IN 2023, reminded me a hell of a lot of what I had seen in the 1980's.

It shocked me enough to write this post.

To illustrate the point, if you've got it, a worthy tome from 1981 - Michael Langford's superb "Darkroom Handbook" - page 292. 

Got it? - Bob Carlos Clarke's montage of the man with dry earth for his mouth and some sort of electrody brain machine on his head. 

Colourise it, and then stick it in as an entrant here

Och, stuff it, here y'go!

How about page 250 - some 'Advanced Posterization' . . yep - same too.

Or page 229 - 'Multiple Printing':

Or Bob C-C again in 'Montage':

You've got to remember the age of these, yet they'd all work in an exhibition 42 years too late. 

Failing that, pick up pretty much any photographic book published on the 80's and 90's where the photographer is having a go at something 'arty' . . . is it just me, or does it all look 'current'.

Back to THE NOW - you have to believe me when I say I am not having a go at any of the competing 'photographers' (everyone can do a Fleetwood Mac; one person's 'art' is another person's dirty bed etc etc) because in said competition there are some pictures which you would obviously call photographs.

But the composites? 

The obvious set-ups and chewed over stuff? 

Well . . .

To be honest I never thought that much of that sort of stuff was relevant back in the 1980's (though, I know manipulation has been going on since the dawn of photography, but that's not the point.)

Back then they always seemed like exercises that served as a 'see what I can do' amusement, rather than carrying any real photographic gravitas. 

And I know you'll think I am walking on thin ice with that statement, but like I say, it is just my opinion. 

I also know you'll say:

"Surely that's what you do in a darkroom - you manipulate a negative"

Yep, spot on, but again, not my point.

With the montaging, multiple printing, colourising etc back then, sure some people made a good living from it. Some people were even brilliant at it.

I can draw your eyes to say any number of (as an example, say) musical instrument adverts from the 1980's; they all looked so modern with the delay units (sic) floating through space like cast-off Star Wars models; or a battle plain on a distant world, lined with pedals all ready to to fight the good fight for RAWK . . .

But it was just advertising.

It might well have been made using traditional photographic techniques and great darkroom skills, but it wasn't what I would call photography - it was image making and there is a distinct difference. 

It used 'photography' to illustrate the product; to pursuade you (yes you, potential RAWK GOD) that if you would only purchase said product, you too could be creating futuristic music on a distant planet.

OK - I know this was from 1992, but you get the idea.

In fact, I am not going to spare you the pain . . . get a load of this:

UGH!

Image making has always been a distinctive aside (in my opinion  - I always thought it went hand-in-hand with graphic design) and certainly there has been a lot of great image making that could also also be classed as great photography; but the bounds are very fluid. 

 

To give some background, I come at image making, graphic design and illustration from an era when everything was done manually. 

As an example, we used to have to trace text from Letraset catalogues (the actual product was far too expensive for an impoverished student) on a large DeVere copy camera. This tracing was the actual typography you wanted to use - your slogan, if you like. When you'd got it all laid out, you'd reverse the tracing paper, overlay 2B pencil on the back, take it to your illustration board, carefully tape it down, then trace over your original Letraset lettering thus transferring it to the board and then, you'd go over the lettering on the board with a rapidograph. 

Does it sound complex and time consuming? 

Damn right it was!

Nowadays though, rather than days and weeks spent trying to get something like that out, it is now available at a simple command. 

Jeez, it was even easy with all sorts of Adobe stuff, but now, I can just describe it and accomplish something remarkably 'real'.

Be warned - everyone that can string two words together has the ability to produce something as just as cheesey as the above adverts!

Be warned - everyone that can string two words together now has the ability to produce a 'photograph'.

And that's not even my point - technology changes, you either run with it and try to catch up all the time, or you entrench yourself - rather in the way I have.

How many of the competition winners are text-based? No idea.

But it isn't even the execution - shit happens, times change, people move onto 'better' things.. 

No, it is the CONTENT.

Here's something I knocked up from Freepik.com.

My Words: "An old man in a room with a candle" - Style: Vintage (cos I am)

"An old man in a room with a candle"

Sure it is overly contrasty and looks a bit computer generated, but on the whole, if you'd told me that was taken on a digital camera, I wouldn't question it. 

If however you said it was taken on a Jupiter lens with Rollei Retro I would disagree, initially, because the look is very similar. 

Unlike the latter though, it does not exist in anything I would call useful to me - it is just a low-res png.

Here's another - same description:

"An old man in a room with a candle"

And another - my description a bit more detailed: "a man in a room with a large dog and christian imagery on the walls"

"A man in a room with a large dog and christian imagery on the walls"

And again:

"A man in a room with a large dog and christian imagery on the walls"

If I were to tell you I had set both of them up and used a Hasselblad with a 60mm Distagon, you might well be convinced. 

But I didn't!

OK - they're not perfect, but sign up and pay your money for a high resolution download, open your Lightroom and get tweaking . . SEE WHAT I MEAN?

I didn't even put any thought or effort into those save the typing.

Anyway, back to our competition:

An Orangutan with a fecking dandelion seed head? 🙄

A Bison that looks like it has half of a Hollywood lighting team off to the right?

The person with the brainy-thing and the bird? 

The people with the brollies that look like a Jack Vettriano painting?

The bloke with the big dog that looks like an exercise in painting a dog?

Every single colour portrait that looks like a hypereal illustration?

Landscapes that look like no landscape has ever looked in the entire lifetime of this planet?

They could all have been generated by Freepik (sic)

What we are seeing folks, is The Dissolve. 

Photography as we know it (well, as I knew it) doesn't really exist anymore, except in niches that are as anachronistic as shoving children up chimneys to sweep them.

Sure, a lot of the competition's entries will have been 'captured' (God I hate that word) on things resembling cameras/might well be called cameras. but a lot of the assembled images have more in common with Father Ted's car, than they do with photography. 

You've never seen Father Ted's car? 

Well, you can find the clip here.

Do you see what I mean? 

Everything has been so worked and reworked and perfected and tweaked and reworked again and added to and subtracted from, that the end result looks nothing like a photograph. 

Folks, we have entered the world of illustration.

And photographers, don't think you're an illustrator, because you're not.

These are illustrators operating in 'Hyperealism':

© Alyssa Monks

© Dirk Dzimirsky

© Luiz Escañuela

© Paul Cadden

Yep, they're NOT photographs. 

They're all achieved with oil, pencil, pen, acrylic, gouache, and skill.

One does wonder what the point is though!

So the question I am going to throw out there is:

Which do you prefer:

The photographs trying to look like illustrations?

OR

The illustrations trying to look like photographs?

Again, I am knocking no one - the skill levels involved in the latter are extraordinary - I think I come down on the illustrator's side.

Oh, it's time for a nice cup of Mrs Doyle's tea.

Aaaah!
That's better!!

You've made it so far, hang on in there old bud, there's more to come . . . 

As a weird aside, the popular prog-metal band Dream Theater have a long history of illustratively photographic (is that a thing?) album covers going back to the late 1980's.

As they were/are a 'thinking man's' band, why not have some 'thinking man' style covers?

There's been a slew of illustrations from this train of album cover thought - you might even own some.

© Dream Theater

© Dream Theater

© Dream Theater

© Dream Theater

Initially, they were done 'photographically' and illustratively; then Photoshop and mixed media took a hand, and I've no doubt they'll soon be (maybe even are) Ai.

 

One can link that lineage back to Hugh Syme and his conceptathons, and even further back to Roger Dean, Jim Fitzpatrick, Bob Haberfield, Patrick Woodroofe (and all the great conceptual illustrators of book jackets over the years, but especially the 1960's and 70's). 

Also, I would be completely remiss if I never mentioned Hipgnosis with Aubrey Powell, Storm Thorgerson and George Hardie (great little article here.)

Probably more than any other, they're at the root of what is happening today.

As an aside, I loved Hipgnosis. 

Still do. 

But it was album cover design. 

It was part of a concept. 

It fulfilled the brief to bring an artist's music to an adoring public in a complete package that made you think.

There were many companies operating in that field, producing sleeves that were every bit a work of art as anything hanging in a gallery. 

I can point a finger at 4AD, with Grierson and Oliver producing a distinctive mesh of graphics and photography which would define the look of the label (as well as being superlative pieces of Graphic Design). 

Or ECM where Manfred Eicher's vision for the label incorporated tremendous photography, which stood as just as an important part of the album's presence as what was held within their gorgeous heavyweight sleeves.

Hipgnosis

ECM

4AD

Influential wouldn't you say? 

And when you start swimming the dark seas of album covers you uncover much more of what today is award winning 'photography'.

In other words, there's a lot of it out there; it has been done better already and more importantly:

IT HAD PURPOSE.

Anyway, like a weird dump of happenstance (and another causal effect on all this 'ere typing) was my great pleasure in reading a post from long-time FB reader Omar Özenir (Hi Omar!) on his blog OMOZFOT, called "The Game" - you can find it here.

I don't know about you, but to me, these are photographs, and I really love them all.

They're moments captured in time - y'know, the way all those photographs you looked at years back looked.. 

Sure, he has used his mastery as a printer to extract maximum quality from the negatives, but it's his eye that instigates everything. 

There's no Gorillas on the monkey bars.

There's no Clowns on the bench.

That isn't a Polish person on the pole.

The people disappearing from the frame are so fleet and intransigent and so perfectly timed that you question everything about the image, especially the timing.

Sure, he could have done it in the ways I have written about, i.e. assemble the multifarious parts; tried some tricky juxtaposed bits, etc. etc. or even just typed it. 

But the thing is there are no parts. 

There's no directors. 

No creative influencer.

No Ai lurking in the background. 

It is just a human with a camera and some FILM. 

The latter being the key word in all this.

I know you'll throw your toys out of the pram now, but, I've been thinking, if I were entirely digital, I would be getting worried. Because, apart from my files stored on a HD or in the cloud somewhere (and the HD is in your house and the cloud has your log-in details) I would have nothing else (apart from metadata - and even then) to prove that any of what I call my 'photography' was actually done by me. 

I didn't even necessarily have to have been there, such is the power of digital manipulation. 

I saw a 'new' thing recently whereby a chap was out walking in the Highlands, took two different photos in different lighting conditions around a half a mile apart and then used Ai to seamlessly blend them into a single image, that looked like a piece of actual landscape . . to which I thought . . WHY?

The 'truth' which is largely believed to be the whole thing about a photograph (and photography in general) is now no longer true. 

A picture might be worth a thousand words, but who wrote those words?

I was going to say, it is back to that whole thing: CONTENT (Sorry esteemed photographic society, but it is sorely lacking in that contest - goodness knows what the judges were on. To have the power and control which digital undoubtedly has, and to squander it in an unimaginative, or indeed unrealistic looking way . . . how sad.)

But if that content only exists as a file which can be created/manipulated, where does that leave the photographer?

We are, all of us 'photographers', standing on an abyss where we don't quite know where things are going; we also don't know whether we're going to jump or be pushed, nor do we have any idea whether there's a nice soft landing at the bottom, or a horrible, splatty death. 

Nothing is as it seems.

I can entrench myself in my darkroom and produce the old stuff - the physical object proves I was 'there'. But can you prove your files are anything other than concepts?

Bear in mind that what I illustrated with Freepik above, is just the beginning.

Frightening . . . 

And (again!) sorry to harp on about the competition winners, but most of it is not photography.

It isn't.

No matter how much you argue with me, it has lost its essence, namely the ability to freeze all the weirdness of the world, not just as an actual artefact of that period of time, but also (because of the wonderful interaction of time and film) as something other. 

Some thing that might not even have occurred to the photographer when they pressed the shutter. 

Of course, some (or even a fair amount) of digital photography IS like this - people work with the media they choose and that is the predominant method of working for the vast majority of people who like 'photography'. These self-same people are approaching it in a 'traditional' way, i.e. they're just taking some photos. But what they're not seeing is the lumbering behemoth which is catching up rapidly and which will, ultimately, cause viewers of their photos to ask: 

"Was it real?" 

or 

"Is it real?"

or 

"Were you there?"

Think about it.

Remember the adverts from the 1970's and '80's?

Is it live, or is it Memorex?

I know this is a loose and possibly ill-conceived argument, but I had to get something down.

You're probably furious with me, and possibly rightly so, but if just one person has a conversation with a photographic friend about this and it spreads and causes discussions, then that is a positive thing.

Thanks for bearing with it.

Maybe one day I'll convert and 'see the light', but for the moment no. 

Give me a film camera and a darkroom.

Give me f8 and a sixtieth of a second.

"A Penguin On A Hill With Telecomms Equipment In The Background"
Leica M2, 35mm Summaron, Ilford HP5+

Over and oot.

Hxx