13 Responses

1. Jason Theaker

   An interesting insight into your thinking Dav. I don’t agree with parts of what you say, but I recognise much of it as a thoughtful and very well considered. It’s obvious that you like the slow burner and an image that grows on you. It’s also clear that you feel your way around the subject and respect the subtle details.

   For me in this set the image that really is growing is the 3rd one. The fog separates, simplifies the detailed background, but you retain the subtle detail in the foreground…pleasingly subtly atmospheric!
   Anyway, some very detailed thoughts, my northern shady drinking madras connoisseur!

   On November 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm • Reply
2. Simon Miles

   I particularly like Bolehill Mist and Oranges and Lemons. I agree that it takes time to decide how you feel about an image and I am often struck by how different my images look when printed. However, I would say the problem is more about needing a little distance between initial expectations and end results. In my case there is often quite a gap between the two, usually leading to a degree of initial disappointment. I suspect this may be the result of my initial assessment being strongly influenced by the emotional experience of actually making the image. Of course, sometimes this is simply the result of the image being XXXX – still, one can live in hope!

   On November 27, 2011 at 1:55 am • Reply
3. David Barrett

   A good read, Dav, and quietly inspiring images for us to get to know, too. (If that’s not too flickresque feedback). Oranges and Lemons is one of my current favourites for its refreshing simplicity. And White Moss Grasses for its gentle beauty harmony and balance. Is that White Moss Common? – if so: impressive leaving-out of the main items on the menu there.

   There is a paragraph to which I would like to add some additional perspective, though: paragraph three.

   You are a photographer, Dav. I am a photographer too. I am not “digital” even if you are “film”. Specifically I am not a digital photographer even if all of my camera bodies and some of my lenses have computer architecture inside. Having said that, I do come back from some days of photography with one or more 8gb cards chock-a-block with “captures”. But that’s when I am a doing wedding photography. The mostly documentary style has also to produce reportage images when people haven’t got their eyes closed or are scatting their noses even if I have nailed the exposure and composition.

   When I am doing landscape photography I come back with between ten and fifteen images (usually about ten). This is mostly because, like you, before pressing the shutter I ask my self some serious questions about the worth of a composition. In fact also—I suspect—like you I ask similar questions before unpacking the time consuming to set up gear from my camera bag. Finding the composition with camera packed away (bag usually leaning against a rock or tree) wandering round with a viewfinder card (or with ones eyes) before all of that faffing about to set up, as you know well and no doubt teach, necessitates serious consideration and deliberation. And that slow pace has all sorts of benefits of which you are also well aware. It means letting the good light go by sometimes because composition is arguably more important. The consequence of this far fewer than most people expect images on the memory card. Almost without exception better images for that. Far more time to consider and get to know the digital files because of not having to separate wheat from chaff (that was done before pressing the shutter after all) and far less processing.

   My point, hopefully not too pointedly, is that when you wrote “I know many digital photographers (sic) come back with an 8gb card chock-a-block with ‘captures’”, it could have been interpreted as pejorative and doesn’t line up with my own personal and other, albeit anecdotal, experience. I know many photographers too. When practicing landscape photography most don’t fit with the caricature of the digital photographer. But I suspect that even if I read it that way, you probably didn’t mean it like that.

   On November 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm • Reply
   • Simon Miles

     Coming to digital from a large format background myself, I think I know what Dav means about the cost of sheet film being a natural inhibitive (is that a real word?). However, I also thought Dav’s remarks about digital ‘captures’ came across as slightly pejorative. I am not really bothered by this (each to his own) except that GBL is sometimes accused (unfairly in my opinion) of having a film bias and – perhaps – this sort of remark does not help?

     On November 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm • Reply
4. dav thomas

   Thanks for the comments everyone.

   I must clarify; I wasn’t trying to suggest I was any better than a digital photographer with my comments. I’m well aware that many digital photographers are just as selective about what they photograph and don’t come back with cards full of images. I’ve been known to use a digital sSLR myself for landscape photography and whilst my capture rate inevitably increases a little, I still only return with a handful of compositions.

   I do, however, think that working in a “capture all, edit later” approach is detrimental to composition and ultimately, hinders the landscape photographers progression. I realise that having a digital camera is fantastic when it comes to having multiple goes at the same photo – for example, when photographing tide patterns when you’re trying to get just the right shape or when waiting for branches to stop moving – you can keep trying unil you get just the right moment – the cost of sheet film means we can’t apply this approach as it’d cost a fortune.

   As David points out, if your photographing a wedding or event, then it’s perfectly normal to fill the cards up, it’d be silly not to!

   On November 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm • Reply
   • Simon Miles

     None of which detracts from an interesting and thought-provoking article. I don’t know about you, but I am old enough to remember the arguments we used to have about different film formats and radical new technologies like autofocus. Having started out with 35mm film, then moved through medium and large format, I am now back almost where I started using traditional manual focus lenses in my (D)SLR. Plus ca change and all that…

     On November 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm • Reply
   • David Barrett

     Good to know you are not profligate with dSLR shutter, Dav. Agree completely about the detriment of capture now edit later in this genre (or any genre, really) and I hear what you are saying about waiting for branches to stop moving and film, although they do often look good when they are moving too, don’t they

     And back to my original point: A good read, Dav, and [your] quietly inspiring images for us to get to know.

     On November 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm • Reply
5. Rob Hudson

   Hi Dav, another fine insight into the mind of one of our finest landscape photographers. I understand what you are saying about taking time to asess the quality of your work in your own mind, I do exactly the same, although sometimes I wish I’d left it longer!

   But I think taking your time about composition, light etc before pressing the shutter is demonstrating your maturity as a photographer. Sure we’ve all been there in the past filling our memory cards to the brim with second rate landscapes, it’s part of the learning experience. These days I go looking for probably only one composition on a day (yer tart!) alrhough I may happen on another if I’m lucky.

   One day I’d like to dig a bit deeper into your thoughts and processes. But for now these slices are merely going to tantalise.

   Oh and Oranges and Lemons is a wonderful play on colour, just as beautiful as the other images, but fresh in it’s simplicity and eloquence.

   On November 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm • Reply
6. Dennis Bromage

   Beautifully written and very interesting article and one I can really relate to as I have similar struggles to get to know and love my own images. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve rushed home really excited and processed an image thinking it was one of my best only to realise a few days later that it isn’t even worthy of a place on my website. It’s often the more subtle images with hidden depths and details that in the long term stay with me and become my personal favourites.

   As an aside I really wish you hadn’t made the derogatory comments about digital photographers, which did detract from the main article. I wish this site and the photographic community in general could get over this whole snobbery about the size of the sheet of film or digital sensor you use. Years ago I can see the argument had some ground as you can only print so big from a 35mm negative or transparency so any ‘serious’ photographer that wanted to produce large prints had to realistically invest in medium or large format BUT that quite simply isn’t the case anymore as almost all cameras can now produce very respectable large prints. The choice is now more a personal one, do you like the look and feel of film or the practicality and immediacy of digital etc. etc. etc. Shooting with a digital SLR shouldn’t automatically make you a second rate photographer but that’s the way it often feels…

   Of course some digital photographers snap away and make hundreds of exposure per trip but not I suspect the majority of photographers on this site, most of who (I’m assuming) aspire to make beautiful, well considered and well crafted images. I think it’s time we were judged purely on the quality of our images rather than on the tool we used to make them…

   On November 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm • Reply
   • Charles Twist

     Hello Dennis and others,

     I think, Dennis, you have nailed it fairly well. I would add a few comments in favour of digital (and this from a tog who uses LF predominantly for landscape):

     1) digital is very experimental and allows you to create new rules. While LF forces you to hone composition and identify what works (a subtractive, filtering process), digital allows you to think out of the box (an additive process). The work of Leeming and Paterson is a case in point. Too little is made of this breaking the mould approach because, I suspect, transgressive novelty is so hard to accept (ask Ted).

     I don’t accept Dav’s point that cost is prohibitive: if you feel strongly enough that the approach is right, you’ll bear the cost. After all, Dav, how many shots have you “wasted” in order to hone your compositional skills? In my very personal opinion, I’m only as good as my next shot, so in the end all the past shots are effectively outdated, don’t reflect my present position and you could say, are not worth showing (other than to say what I have experienced – in the past tense).

     2) digital allows you to shoot hand-held. These is belief that the tripod is the key to perfect composition, which is true to a large extent. But is perfect composition necessarily the be it and end all of landscape photography? Couldn’t we take a leaf out of the wedding photographer’s manual and adopt a journalistic approach? I for one think there is great value in going for a walk with a hand-held digital in order to snap the subjects that fascinate me immediately. Of course, these produce far more pictures. Of course, the framed print in a gallery is not the outcome of this method. But what is so wrong about that? I believe that one can create a perfectly valid series of pictures that may be presented in magazine or blog style which will tell you just as much if not more about a place as would a single statement print. I am not sure that Tim’s magazine is ready for that just yet (well he didn’t accept my submission anyway ).

     There we are, just a few thoughts. Best regards,
     Charles

     On January 3, 2012 at 9:53 am • Reply
7. Adam Pierzchala

   A very pleasing article, thanks Dav. Like several others I too like to wait a little while before scanning my films so as to view them one step removed from my experience of the shoot. But I do admit to processing the pictures I take with my LX5 as soon as I get home. In both cases I am often surprised at the results, both positively and negatively depending on my expectations at the time of releasing the shutter. And I follow a fellow-photographer’s advice to “live with the image” before showing it off. As to digital exposures, I suppose that we all take more when shooting digital just because we can; we can also try another exposure in case the wind blew, or the focus was off or as you wrote to try out different motion blur effects. All totally legitimate and making good use of technology. But what I don’t understand is the digital users who seem to take pride in shooting hundreds and even thousands of frames in a day, even of predominantly static subjects. That sort of numbers game is beyond my simple mind. Rgds., Adam

   On December 2, 2011 at 11:22 pm • Reply
8. Flyby34

   Hi Dav, very inspiring article I must say. It is for guys like you why I made the change back to film and use my digital gear at a minimum. I like the workflow to give it a ‘rest’ and try to accomplish a picture which has the wow-factor, at least for my self. But digital has it’s big advantages. When I look at your pictures, number three gives a sort of 3D sense. How would that look on paper? Must be even better!
   Thanks and cheers, Bert. (Netherlands)

   On December 4, 2011 at 7:59 pm • Reply
9. andyf

   This article certainly rang a chord with me as I find I go through similar processes as you do, except disappointment rears its head far too often than I would like. It is certainly the same with me that the images that I enjoy the most are the quiet ones which I’ve made and those that shouted for my attention soon lose my interest. Of course the other process that we all go through is that as we improve our technique and vision we discard those pictures which we originally considered our best work. Conversely though when I’ve looked back through some of my old work I’ve found images that didn’t quite work either technically or visually, but had some aspect or idea that I’ve been able to work on and develop in subsequent images.
   Cheers Andy

   On December 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm • Reply