The Decisive Moment

To me it’s invaluable. Think of any situation you’ve been in where you have needed to direct models or wedding guests or even just one person for a portrait. At some point in each of these scenarios you will have had to command the situation. This requires confidence.

That’s not the only roll confidence plays in photography. We’ve all done that thing of taking 30 of the same shot just to make sure we get what we want just because we’re a little nervous. If you’re in the zone less than a handful of shots will do the trick. You need confidence to do that.

I’ve been using the same camera for a couple of years now. I know it inside and out and know what to expect from it. I never have to second guess the camera when I’m using it. The lenses though are a different matter. When I’m taking portraits or doing a wedding I mostly use the EFS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II that came with my Canon 350D. It’s a pretty good little lens. It’s versatile, well built and reasonably cheap. But for some reason I’ve never been completely happy about using it. I couldn’t tell you why. It’s played on my mind and on occasion I’ve lacked confidence and made all the usual related mistakes because it.

Gaz recently bought himself the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens and to be honest I got a little jealous. Now my budget can’t quite stretch to one of those but I did have enough in the kitty to get the Sigma equivalent - the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO (reviews and a comparison of the two will follow very soon).

The build quality and ease of use are very good. There is no doubt in my mind that the lens is far superior to what I have been using. The specification alone supports that notion. When I put it onto my camera something odd happened. I all of a sudden felt more like a proper photographer. Almost like up until now I had only been playing with photography. Considering I regularly photograph people and weddings for money and have had no complaints so far it seems odd that this should have happened but it has.

I’ve spoken to other similarly skilled photographers and they have had similar experiences. Perhaps it’s part of the “right of passage” a photographer goes through as they develop their skills and experience or perhaps I’m just daft, but for me it seems that the price of confidence is £300 for a new lens.

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.