The Decisive Moment

Last week I stumbled upon a website where photographer Vitaly Druchinin demonstrates his (considerable, in my opinion) talent for retouching and manipulating images of models. I was really impressed.

My initial reaction was that the resulting picture was a lie, in as much as it gave a false impression of… well, everything! Once I gave it a little more thought I realized that I was being rather naive (okay, stupid). Of course these pictures give a false impression - why would you want to see the reality anyway? These images are art, not documentary. They exist to create a fantasy. And as art they really work. Without the before and after images I would have been none the wiser and I think this is the key ingredient here; the “artist” has created something which you do not question when the finished image is all the information you have to go on.

However, a couple of days ago, many of the local bus stops were adorned with a poster advertising the opening of a new shop in the town centre. The poster shows the lovely Louise Redknapp in her Triumph underwear, looking fantastic. For a few seconds (I admit it would have been longer, but there was nobody waiting for the bus at this stop) I stared at the poster and admired the lighting, the set and, okay, Mrs Redknapp. Then it hit me! I know I’m looking at at a picture which has almost certainly been completely retouched. I don’t have the before and after pictures to compare, but that’s not clever lighting, it’s Photoshop. Is Mrs Redknapp really that shapely, or has she been digitally enhanced? I’m labouring the point - I know you get it.

What makes this advertising image different is that I’m expected to believe in it, although it’s still about fantasy to some extent, obviously. It’s not supposed to be art. The model is someone recognisible; someone I feel I know, in a way. This makes it feel dishonest.

Of course this has been going on for ever. Even the portraits from the old masters aren’t accurate. Famously, creating a painted portrait was more about showing the sitter in a flattering light than depicting an accurate portrayal. Isn’t this just the same thing but with modern technology?

Where do you draw the line? Is there really any difference between airbrushing away a single wrinkle and completely changing the lighting of a photograph? Is this just part of producing aesthetically great imagery or is it the corruption of something that should be more pure?

Yesterday I attended my first lesson at college for my AS level in photography. The course focuses on black and white photography and requires the students to work with film.

We spent most of our time in the dark room, learning the basic principals of using an enlarger with light sensitive paper. The aim was to make a photogram.

In case you don’t know what a photogram is (I know I didn’t until yesterday) here’s a quick breakdown of how you make one:

1. get a piece of light sensitive paper
2. put stuff on it (the idea here is block light from reaching the paper – semi opaque objects and objects that can reflect / scatter light seem to work best)
3. expose light to it using an enlarger
4. develop, wash, fix and wash the paper
5. take a look at what happened

For those that like to know, the photogram at the top of this page was created by using muti-coloured plastic cocktail sticks and exposing for 4 seconds at f8 onto Kentmere VC Select Fine Lustre M.Wt. The paper was then developed for 1minute, washed, fixed for 5minutes and then washed for 5 minutes.

If you’ve never made a photogram and have access to a darkroom I strongly recommend you give it a go. If nothing else it’s a pretty fun way to spend an afternoon.

I started getting into photography properly about the same time that digital was becoming a decent way to take photos. I made a conscious decision that I would embrace the new technology and shunned the “old way”. Until now my only experience of using film involved waiting in line at boots wondering how many of my photos would come out pink or even worse would have that “Sorry. You really messed this one up”, sticker plastered across them.

This was the first time I’ve used darkroom equipment and although it was by no means a total experience it really opened my eyes to something. I think I finally understand what is so appealing about working with film. It’s not the fumes from the reasonably hazardous chemicals or the constantly thumping my leg on things while moving about the incredibly dimly lit room. It’s not even the losing the white photographic paper on the enlarger’s white baseboard (who decided that was a good idea?). It’s the excitement of seeing what you’ve got - that short delay between exposure and sluicing the paper in the developer until the image literally fades into view. If you’re working efficiently we’re only talking about a minute but in that minute you get to experience something that you just don’t get with digital - anticipation.

An old friend of mine visited TDM yesterday and imparted some of his experience regarding my wedding photography fears. I gave him a call to find out what he had been up to lately and he told me a little bit about the safaris he has been organizing. As you can see from the picture of the leopard cub inside a carcass, it has been a fruitful exercise!

In spite of being incredibly busy at the moment, Tony has agreed to set aside a little time to write a couple of articles for us, including his experiences as a wedding photographer, his journey from amateur to professional photographer and his trips to exotic locations to photograph the wildlife.

For those of us who like to know such things, the technical info of the leopard shot looks like this:

• Location: Samburu, Kenya
• Camera: Canon 20D
• Lens: 70-200 F2.8 with a Canon 1.4x converter
• Exposure: 1/125s @ f6.3
• Raw file processed with CS2

Recently I decided to sign up to do an AS level in Photography at the local college. The course requires you to have a “good, basic 35mm SLR camera”, so as soon as I received confirmation of my place on the course I excitedly marched into town to buy one. I’d been saving up a bit and had a budget of £200 - more than enough to get a basic SLR I thought. Well, you see it would have been enough if I could have found one.

In my local town centre (which is actually a city centre) there are three photography shops. One is part of a big chain. One is part of a slightly smaller chain and the other is an independent store. I went to all three and not one of them had a 35mm film camera in stock. In fairness the two chain stores did both have a second hand section that did contain film SLRs, but these were archaic to say the least, and to be honest I didn’t want to buy a second hand one. I had saved up my money and I wanted to treat myself.

Neither of the chain stores ever stock film SLRs and would only be able to order me in the very expensive top of the range models. The independent store on the other hand was the most helpful and offered to order me in Canon’s recently released EOS 300x (which I now have in my possession and love by the way).

The really odd thing about all this though, is that despite not being able to sell me a camera there and then, all three of them had piles and piles of multi-grade paper, all the right chemicals and a plethora of film to choose from.

I asked the independent guy why he didn’t keep them in stock and his reply was very simple, “no one buys them.”

So here’s my question - What do all the film photographers do when they’re kit wears out. Are they going to have to go digital? This isn’t something that bothers me too much. If I’m honest I prefer digital and the flexibility that it offers me anyway, but I bet there’s going to be a mass of disgruntled film enthusiasts out there when this happens.

I even checked the internet. Again, unless you want to buy the very top end kit it isn’t much easier to buy a brand new camera from there either. Not using UK websites at least. Does this mean that we really are going to see the death of film? Once all the second hand kit dries up and every piece of existing kit breaks / wears out is that it? Are we going to be left with lots of rolls of film (that we can apparently buy almost anywhere) but have no way to use them?

If you check out most of the manufacturers websites you can see that there are less and less film cameras in their ranges. Some manufacturers have even stopped producing them all together. Is this the real beginning of the end? Is this even a big deal? Will Mildred get together with Trevor? Who knows? We sure don’t. What do you think?

My kettle broke the other day - a major catastrophe when you drink as much tea as I do. So into town I went to find a Kettle hardy enough to supply me with my daily two gallons. I ended up buying one of those kettles with the filter in it. The water that comes out is almost as clear as if it were fresh from a mountain stream. It boils so fast I barely have time to select a tea bag before it starts to cool down. All in all it’s a magnificent piece of equipment. There is one downside though. With a traditional kettle you want to fill it just before you boil it. With this you need to fill it after you’ve used it to make sure that enough water has filtered before you next want a cuppa. Otherwise there’s a bit of a wait as the water trickles through the filter. Such a small difference and worth adapting to for the spring-like H2O. The trouble is I can’t adapt. I never remember to fill it once I’ve used it. I’m stuck in the habit of using the old kettle. The same is true of my new camera.

I needed to buy a 35mm film SLR for a course I’m taking at the local college. I mostly use my canon EOS 350D so I thought I’d buy the closest thing I could to that – the canon EOS 300x. It is indeed very similar to use but it does of course have it’s differences. It’s driving me nuts! I’ve read the manual. I’ve sat on the couch without film in it practising whilst watching telly. I’ve even tried writing it down to get it to sink in and I just can’t get it. When it comes to crunch time and I have to actually use it to take a photo I go right into auto-pilot and try to change the settings as if it were my digital. Now I know this is nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with me being a useless git, but how do you overcome something like this? Am I destined to be unable to operate my camera without having to really think about it? Am I finally going to get the hang of the film camera and then struggle with my digital? Will I forever be in a limbo state unable to use either camera properly? What can I do?

Please send answers on a postcard to 43 Chilton Aven…actually, you could just use the comment form below. Let us know if you’ve had similar troubles and what you did to resolve them.