Other side of the lens

Things have been slow here of late as I'm still not online after moving into my new house, as evidence: this coming to you from my lunch hour. Neither has the camera been out of the bag. At least I'm 90% through unpacking.

Yesterday, however, I had an interesting photo experience being on the subject side of things - for it was giant coporate photo-shoot day. Mug shots of all, cheesy coroporate poses, pubilicity shots, groups shots etc etc. A large team set up shop: couple of photogs, couple of assistants, make-up and others. Must have been a team of about 8. Three studio sets. Piles of gear. So much, so typical, I suppose. (They seem to like their photographers here - the weddings I saw going on at the hotel all seemed to have large teams for the photography.)

The interesting thing for me, hoever, were the skills demonstrated by the photographer doing our team. Kathy, judging from the name on her shirt. A very engaging young lady - chatty, lively but professional. And she had an ability to remember names - first time out and then it was personal address from there on in. Even remembered all the names from the last time (which was a couple of years ago, I gather). A little thing that seemed to make things go so much smoother and a nice touch of personal engagement to keep us unwilling victims in the right frame of mind.

Continues to reinforce how little the skills of photography are about cameras.

Assigning value

Let us start with the condition of an amateur photographer like me and probably you, too) who's in this for the love, not primarily to make money.

So how does this photographer assign value to his work? It must be worth something, and that may not necessarily be monetary. And if the aim is not primarily to make money, should it matter that anyone would wish to pay for it. And how does it measure up to others in the same position?

If you've asked those same sorts of questions, here are some thoughts I've been having on the subject (and you may also detect a hint of the economics reading I've been doing recently).

Let's start with the money bit. Any pictures I might produce or print have a very limited cost associated with them - the direct costs of reproduction. There is no cost associated with the making of my work. Remember the starting premise - don't do photography for the money, so I'd be doing my work regardless, for the pleasure it gives me. Therefore I cannot assign a value to my time: there is no opportunity cost of doing an activity I'd would do anyway. If I get to feeling that I need to assign monetary value to the time I spend doingg photography, that means that there would be something else I could or would be doing - suddenly I'm not doing it purely for the love.

But there are other qualities of value. the pleasure the product gives me. Memories it invokes for places I've been or emotions I've felt. The pleasure of seeing others enjoy my work - receiving praise thereby.

And I think one of the highest terms of value I might assign (although you may differ) would be that others (photographers especially) might want to own my work, either through a swap or other means. That's not that I want to actively market or make money, which defies the principle of my starting assumption.

A new photography source

I've linked articles and photographs before but now the UK's Daily Telegraph has formed a new photography section - Telephoto. It is a collection of articles and photo-essays, focusing on art and documentary photography. Already it's looking good and covering some subjects a little less popular in the field. Worth checking out.

Noorderlicht 16 pt 2: the whole story?

"Point of no return" Noorderlicht at the AA-kerk, Groningen, September 2009

There were several series presented at Noorderlicht that were documentary on places or events. Three stood out for me for a common reason I'll discuss:
Julian Germain's "Steelworks" looking at the impact on communities in the North of England brought by the closure of traditional heavy industries;
The headline show "Point of no return" curated by former Magnum president Stuart Franklin, a collection of work by Palestinian photo journalists focussing on the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza;
finally "Belgrade belongs to me" - work by three photographers (one Serb, two Dutch) looking at recent life in Belgrade, Serbia.

All three were presented in heavily political terms - respectively: the destruction of communities by Thatcherite policies, the death of innocent civilians by an occupying force (and Franklin's introductory essay had to be withdrawn under threat of legal action by AP, very much a political act in itself) and the poverty and lack of support left behind by NATO attacks in Serbia. So much, so common - especially on these particular themes.

But there is always more to any story. It was the last of these shows that really got me thinking on this at first (although I'd mentioned something along the lines looking at Germain's work), reflecting back more on the others later. When I visited Serbia a couple of years ago, and briefly Belgrade, I noticed something rather different than the grim picture being presented by all three photographers in the show. Indeed there is poverty and many grim neighbourhoods - understandable a few years after war. But I also saw a country and city under development. New buildings, a clean and metropolitan centre, possible hope for a better life in the coming years. And the history of the place - Belgrade's old Citadel showing the scars and reconstruction from centuries of warfare, a country strategically placed between Europe and Asia with the fertile lands provided by the Danube as it runs to the sea. But I don't intend to denigrate the work or view presented but there is rather more to the whole story, I feel. I also felt the photographers were focussed on despair wrought by personal experience but anecdote doesn't make for balanced evidence.

Likewise the work from England. Indeed many communities, dependent for many years on single industries, were devastated by their closure. But then strong unionisation, a lack of development in working practices and eventually uncompetitive behaviour played their part, as they have in other heavily industrialised parts of the Western world. Blaming the outcomes on a single set of policies is a popular and partisan approach to the subject. Not that I want to present either view as right, or indeed that any of that is my point. But stories such as this are more complex and I think it takes a strong care to be able to provide counter-point, especially to one's own views.

Which leads onto the Palestinian work. Shocking images for sure. A grisly display of destruction and dismemberment rarely, if ever, presented by Western news media. Ordinary people caught up in the middle of fighting, children killed, families displaced. But I was given to think: was this just a small slice? There was work presented by 11 photographers and yet several of the images were alternate angles from the same scene & subject. Was the story that narrow that repetition was necessary?

It is a notion that certainly comes up often: what is objectivity. I think a simple (and possibly simplistic) answer is showing all sides. Being able to argue for both cases. Challenging accepted wisom or group-think. It is something I try and practice often - the ability to see all sides of an argument, to play Devil's Advocate where necessary. I think it is necessary to informed debate, helps one more clearly formulate one's own views and hopefully leads to more considered decisions. Unfortunately I don't think I see enough balance in documentary photography to help. Sometimes the photographer needs to show us what he avoided as well as what he targetted.

Noorderlicht 16 pt 1: the introduction

As Doug Stockdale mentioned on his blog, we took the opportunity of his visit to the Netherlands to meet up in Groningen at the weekend and visit the Noorderlicht photo festival. it's always good to meet IRL with online contacts and we had much in common to discuss. It was especially good for me to be able to visit and discuss photo exhibitions with someone similarly interested.

As Doug mentions, it's really too much to take in effectively in one day - I reckon three days are really needed to fully appreciate the range of material on offer - pretty much the whole town is taken over with various exhibits, housed in all kinds of spaces.

This year's theme: "Human Conditions", which seemed encompass a lot of pocvert, destitution and conflict. That said, there was some strong work and powerful projects on display. I'll be picking up on some of the themes and thoughts I hand in further posts.

My closing point on this short introduction: I was surprised that somewhere as remote as Groningen would carry an international exhibition of this range and quality. It also turns out the town is something of an Arts destination in genral, with all sorts of exhibitions and activities on-going, broad even for a University town. Who'd have thought it would take nearly 10 years living in the country to discover that.

Three types of camera user

The new Olympus E-P1 is causing some buzz and there is some interesting comment over at Colin Jago's photostream. This got me thinking about who actually uses cameras and how. I have quite a lot of first-hand knowledge as I seem to be "camera guy" in my circle of friends, family and colleagues.

Type 1: the point and shooter

Easily 95% of camera users are the casual snappers - holidays, social events and the like. They want easy. they want decent pictures. Auto everything, please, and make sure the exposure is right. Most frequently asked question: how do I turn off the auto flash? (No, really.)

If Olympus thinks that the E-P1 is simplifying the DLSR in a way that will appeal to this lot, I think they're way off base.

Type 2: what do these buttons do?

I reckon this is the majority of DSLR buyers. Want some more control and better image quality (I won't say better quality pictures, hah!) but largely use auto stuff. P-mode abounds, all auto focus, auto exposure. Exposure compensation is advanced. Dabble in RAW but don't want the hassle. go on courses to learn what the buttons do (manual, what's that?). most frequently asked question: what aperture should I be using?

The E-P1 might appeal to this lot but it does have largely the same features as a DLSR and costs way more than an entry-level from the big manufacturers. I think price alone will stop this group buying it.

Type 3: I want it my way

Of camera buyers, they aren't many, but I bet they're a huge chunk of the spend. Gear mad, or very focused on particular usage. All the advanced amateurs and pros are in this group. Know how they want to the camera to work and want to be able to set it up that way. gripe about all manner of nuances in features, performance, ergonomics. Post-process everything. (I'm one of these.) Most frequently asked question: how do I set the ?

No camera will ever satisfy all of them but some will figure out how to get it to do good things. I think it is those type threes that can live with the compromises that will try the E-P1.


Notice I haven't said much about camera type. Type ones buy P&S, whichever was recommended to them, type twos tend to buy entry DSLRs and may have a cheap pocket camera, type threes probably have a bunch of cameras & lenses, small to large. they want small cameras to be as fully-featured as the top-end DSLRs. Why should the new E-P1 behave like an entry-level P&S?

And it's not just Olympus. I think all camera makers are missing some vital points. Most people want basic, simple cameras that give good results. The top end want a bunch of features that lets them shoot the way they like but wrapped in different sized packages.

The market speaks?

TOP has a poll running on video in stills cameras - what is being described around the web as an inevitable convergence of technology.

I'd imagine that the poll represents quite well the target market for DSLRs: photographers from the enthusiastic amateur up to pros all with an interest in kit & technology. I'd also imagine there are enough votes to make it representative. As of this writing the results are pretty stable.

So what do I take away from the numbers? First, more than twice as many people actively don't want video as do want it. That means there are potentially twice as mny people who would NOT buy a camera because it has video as would do so. Further, half those polled don't want video, although most of that group would just ignore it.

So while the camera companies and pundits reckon this is all inevitable, a large part of the market is saying it doesn't want it. Seems to me (as I commented over there) that there is call for 2 distinct products.

Can I have low ISO, please?

Right then. High sensitivity cracked. Cameras now see better than humans. Great. When I become a bat hunter I'll be well in. (Go read Mike J's latest comments).

But I often run into the opposite problem - needing a stack of ND filters to get the longer exposures I want. This happens more often than I run out of light. So can I have a camera that is happy doing 10s+ exposures without noise and can shoot at ISO12, please? This could be a whole new area for manufacturers to fight over.

A right-on photographic prize

I came across this report of the new Prix Pictet, supported by Kofi Annan (former SG of the UN). A photographic prize in support of sustainability - the latest hot topic amongst the politically correct. Right-on!

If you know anything of contemporary photography, you're likely to recognise quite a number of the short-listed photographers.

While this is a worthy attempt at raising various levels of "awareness" I can't help but feeling it's little more than artistic posturing, in the form presented. looking through the work, I don't get any sense of needing to go do something. Or, for that matter, a sense of a global problem depicted. I think it is a problem of trying to present subjects like this as purely visual - there is no context in the images themselves. I miss the text that supports the work. Pictures speak a thousand more words, but nothing alone.

Divergence

TOP is running a poll on views of the merge of video and stills capability - gauging reaction in the great "convergence" debate.

Meanwhile I read the posts on the subject over at Drew Gardner's blog (linked at LuLa). 2 really interesting bits caught my eye.
from a Canon preview event

The audience was mainly press photographers from what was formally known as 'Fleet Street'
Some of the comments I heard on the night....
'What a disaster! Canon have messed it it up again'
'Good camera apart from the video facility, why the F**** do I need that?'
'21 mega pixels? I wanted 14! at 10 frames a second!
'Canon have missed an open goal, video is for people who have no imagination'

and from Photokina

The Canon 5d mk2, along with the remarkable Vincent Laforet video, which was running on a loop in the centre of the Canon stand (so few people seemed to be paying any attention to this, sometimes I,m baffled)

So with the poll results and these comments I glean this big fact: the buying public just aren't very interested in, leaning towards hostile to, the idea of yet another useless function being added to their camera. I think Drew Gardner has completely misjudged the reactions he saw (he would, he's a fan of convergence).

Effectively the audience for the 5DmkII is saying: we want a better stills camera, with a load of other improvements, please. Video just doesn't interest us. And I see their point. If this is supposed to be a PJ tool, why has it got resolution and responsiveness more in line with landscape work, and if it is aimed at landscape (much like its predecessor seemed to be), why on earth the video at all?

So many commenters on digital cameras are crying out for stills improvements (dynamic range seems to be top of the current list). I think video is becoming an apology for not fixing the stills cameras, a distraction from the fact that the underlying device isn't actually getting any better.

Competitions and your rights

It's an ever increasing problem: companies running photo competitions that then demand you hand over your rights to the images. Imagine my surprise when I found an exception.

The Daily Telegraph in the UK runs a couple of travel photo competitions - usual stuff: post your best travel shots and win a prize. Interestingly, however, is the honouring of the photographers' copyright. The rules state that the entrant agrees to a limited release for the purposes of the competition, for a limited time period. Pretty much the minimum you'd have to do.

I thought I'd see if this attitude spanned across newspapers. Unfortunately not.

I checked out the other UK quality papers: The Times, Guardian and Independent. The last doesn't seem to do photo comps. As for The Times and Guardian, pretty much the usual rights grab on effectively the same sort of competition as the DT. In both cases they claim full, royalty free rights across their entire publishing groups in perpetuity.

Makes me wonder how they treat the paid photographers. If the amateur competitions are a measure of the way they treat the pros, there's only one publication in this group I'd want to work for.

Batman: a turing point in the camera market?

Went to see the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight" last week Good movie, a little long and very, very psychologically dark. probably the best Batman yet, if you're a fan of the comic books.

But that's not the point here. One thing that jumped out at me was that, for the first time I can remember, Canon was the photo sponsor. Until now virtually all movie camera gear has been Nikon (save for the occasional period piece or Leica RF). Certainly holds for all the big-budget, product placement stuff. And now Canon are in their.

Does this relate in some way to the tonking they're getting in the pro market? For sure the Olympics were a big turn-up, first time I can remember significant Nikon gear on the touchlines. And advertising follows a need to sell. Perhaps Canon are feeling the pinch. Competition can only be good for us, the poor old consumers.