Self Portrait With Doors

 
Morning folks - whilst we're waiting for the film stuff to drop as the kids say these days . . . here's a little digital oddity. 

And please don't worry film fans, consider this as an interlude in between the main meat and potatoes and the B-film. 
Look, there's an usherette down at the front, go and get yourself a Strawberry Mivvi and sit back down!

I recently bought myself a remote control (ML-L3) for the Nikon F750 and initially thinking it was knackered (apparently they don't work very well with Duracells) I decided to test it, and ended up with the picture you see below.

Self Portrait With Doors

It is quite a distance from the camera to me, and the control worked perfectly - all you need is a line of sight to the camera . . you don''t even have to point it EXACTLY at it, just its general vicinity.

The weird thing is, I am decidedly happy with said photo . . . 

As a long-time, now non-time, reader once said, I am always putting doors and gates and windows in pictures - could it be some weird Freudian indication of my inner feelings about art and self-expression? To which I will reply, after some years of reflection (and in the words of the psychiatrist in High Anxiety):

 . . Bullshit . . .

I just like them (doors, windows, gates etc etc).

Anyway, the journey to said photograph begins in the manner below - please bear in mind that I was playing, and as such, absolve myself of all responsibility as to their content or merit and the lack of . . . .

I think they're quite funny including the no-holds-barred horror selfie (5th photo).

Nice And Comfy

Is This Thing Working?

The Light Didn't Go On

It Didn't Go On Again

F'ing Technology - It's Still Not Going Off!

Maybe It Did That Time

Calm Returns - How Far Can This Thing Reach?

And that''s it!

Briefer than a wrong-way-around sparkly mankini!!

The lens was a 50mm f1.4 AF-G Nikkor - they're reasonably cheap for a prime and give an excellent quality image - well worth exploring. 

The remote is actually incredibly useful.

I've used it since like a faux cable release and MLU lever in a situation whereby the camera was precariously balanced on its tripod, on a bunch of brambles and was leaning into the subject - it worked great, zero movement and the added convenience of not getting your danglers entangled in sharp and scratchy bits.

When spare time comes and revisits me, then I shall get myself out with some more film, but in the meantime, and in the interests of keeping my fingers and brain engaged, thank you for reading.

It's a daft post, I completely agree.

TTFN and keep taking the pills y'bampot.

H xx

This Little Bird

 There's a little bird that somebody sends

Down to the earth to live on the wind.

Borne on the wind and he sleeps on the wind

This little bird that somebody sends.

He's light and fragile and feathered sky blue,

So thin and graceful the sun shines through.

This little bird who lives on the wind,

This little bird that somebody sends.

He flies so high up in the sky

Out of reach of human eye.

And the only time that he touches the ground

Is when that little bird

Is when that little bird

Is when that little bird dies.

© J. D. Loudermilk

Morning folks - a strange start I know, however, as with a lot of things these days, happenstance comes along and takes a thought process on a different route. 

I took the photographs in this blog a couple of days ago, on unfamiliar gear and trying to surmount a steep learning curve.

I was doing the dishes this morning and listening to one of the world's great radio stations - BOOM - it's in the UK and on the net . . (BOOM ROCK is superb too, but that is only net.) 

Anyway, Graham Dene - a DJ I have listened too since London days back in the mid 70's - played the Marianne Faithful version of J.D. Loudermilk's 'This Little Bird'.

I was immediately struck by its poignancy and relevance to a photograph I had been thinking about all night.

J.D. I think was referring to the Bluebird Of Happiness - a quaint and very old-fashioned thing,  yet so wonderfully powerful in its meaning. 

If only more people spent their time looking for it, rather than relishing some argy-bargy, the world could be a better place.

Am I the only person who loves the film K-PAX? 

Anyway - I am rambling as usual - back to the meat and potatoes - learning curves and unfamiliar gear.

Long-time readers will know that I am (to quote Joe Walsh) an Analogue Man.

I've dabbled with digital and more often than not hated it.

So, recently when hit with the phrase:

"We'd like you to do some colour photographs . . you're the official (and only) photographer . . ."

for my son's wedding . . . I thought long and hard.

The old Sony A6000 would not cut the mustard. 

In truth it was useless as a useable camera; the battery life was poor and it handled like an articulated lorry travelling at speed on an icy road. 

I thought even longer and harder about it and realised that I hated it.

(If ever a camera had been designed by someone who designed consumer goods (fridges etc) for a living, then it was almost the epitomy.)

I thought back to a Nikon D300 that I also used to own - again, no happiness there - I couldn't get my head around the crop factor and the lens I had with it, turned the whole thing into a boat anchor. It took decent photos though.

A brief passing: the Fuji 27mm f2.8 XF Lens coupled with an X-E2S - in truth a nice combo which proved to be unreliable.

I thought back further: a Canon EOS 50D with 40mm Pancake. Now that was a camera I enjoyed using (apart from the crop factor and being forced into buying a lens that was too long for my vision because of relative poverty at the time.) It felt like a proper camera though.

I remembered our stolen Lumix DMC-F5 - I used it, but it was definitely not a camera you could use for normal photography.

As you can see, I've had little luck on this front and it hasn't been for want of trying.

Why not use colour film? was a common suggestion . . . 

But have you seen the price of it? 

Also with something that will hopefully be treasured in years to come, the thought of doing my own C41 processing in the bath like I did a few years ago . . or surrendering such a precious cargo to the rigours of the postal system  (. . . oh sorry Guv - we've got no record of that . . . ) well it was too much to bear.

Plus, it would also have cost a fortune if I took a ton of pics.

In an ideal world, it would have been Tri-X in a Mamiya C330 for the main monkey-business and a Leica M2 for informals . . . but it isn't an ideal world and to be honest, travelling for a wedding means your weight constraints go out of the window . . .  A 330 in hand luggage . . . ? Hmmmmm.

So I retired to my hole in the ground and did a huge amount of reading; I asked really knowledgeable friends; I did more reading . . and came to a decision.

The Sony and some other camera gear was punted and I ended up with a nearly new Nikon D750 with a shutter count under 4K. In truth it looked barely used.

For lenses, well a 24mm natch (as I prefer the wider side of things); but for those all important wedding portraits?  Go for what you know (as Pat Travers once said) was the order of the day - so I got a very reasonably priced 50mm f1.4G.

The previous wedding I had photographed (our neice's) was centuries ago with a Nikon F2 and 50mm f1.4 pre-Ai so it seemed happenstansical.

Anyway, it worked. 

Once you get your head around the multitudinous options, the 750 handles like a proper camera. 

It's got a fantastic battery life, takes excellent images and is really a cinch to use. 

I am thoroughly enjoying it.

On the day itself it proved an accurate and reliable companion  . . . and . . . if the film world went belly-up tomorrow, I feel confident that this relatively small digital dinosaur would keep me going.

Surprised? So am I!!

Into this mix of something I've never really approached properly, this Wednesday past - came something else . . 

A ZOOOOOOOOOOM. 

The 70-300 VR Nikkor to be precise.

I have never got on with zooms, even though I own a pre-Ai 70-200 Nikkor (the legendary one). 

It's just never been my thing and I have hated the bulk and sheer "Oh bleeding hell - he's taking our photo . . . Go on darlin', HIT HIM!!!" OBVIOUS aspects of using one.

Friend Bruce has been exhorting me for years . . but I never capitulated. 

BAH! HUUUUUMBUUUUG!!

Anyway, getting the loan of one from my friend Neil and I thought, I really had better give it a go . . . and you know what . . it was a revelation.

No slinking about trying to serruptitiously snap passers by. 

Nope, I was going full-on-separation-of-colourful-elements-from-the-general-scene. 

Now THAT is a scene man . . 

Dead Gull

And that kind of brings me to the above photo.

Allow me to wax lyrical . . I was going to anyway.

Are those colours Pre-Raphaelite or what; they remind me of John Millais' Ophelia for some reason.

It's just a converted JPG straight from the orignal RAW file with nothing done to it.

No farting, no faffing and definitely no AI.

I saw the feathers mixed in with the other detritus, and thought 'that looks nice - shame about the piece of polystyrene but I'll include it as it's a bit of a 'don't shit where you eat' statement.'  

I zoooomed in, steadied the camera on a railing and took the picture.

It was only when I got home later and started looking big that I saw that the polystyrene is none other than the floating body of a Common Gull.

For all that seagulls are probably the most hated bird in Britain, they're in deep trouble. 

The changing world is changing their food supplies - it's actually no surprise they recourse to McDonalds and such-like. Indeed other seagulls too in times of need - pity they're not that bothered about Magpies.

The picture makes me feel deeply sad, and yet in death the remnants of this bird and the other detritus have achieved a strangely beautiful (to me) state of grace.

Normal, film-based stuff will resume soon - I crafted some prints back in about July - I firmly think they're the best prints I have ever made. 

I took them along to the forum and they barely elicited a murmur . . not that I take stuff along for comments, but these were as fine prints as I have ever made in decades of printing. 

As such I found it disheartening.

Hence the colour stuff.

I've actually always wanted to explore colour more - it is eminently suitable for grotography - and now I can to my heart's content with a digital camera that actually acts like a camera.

Anyway, that's about it - short and sweet.

We'll see where things go from here. I've been loaned an inkjet too, but just in case you've brought your tea up, I was in the darkroom printing just this week . . so all is right with the world.

Lonely Gull

Oh and the above - a lonely gull is probably wondering what has happened to their pal. 

It wrings yer withers doesn't it?

The concrete is the Tay Road Bridge and beyond you see what I believe to be the old foghorn foundations in the middle of the Tay - now beloved by cormorants.

Till the next time, keep taking the tablets and watch out for the normal people.

H xx