I was doing a little research into our local photographers and I found myself looking at the website of Piotr Stryjewski. I’m guessing he is not a Basingstoke native, judging by his name and his website; “Stryjewski” is not a typical Hampshire surname. Not that it matters, of course! I’d like to find out a little more about where he is from, what his influences were and how he came to be living and working in exotic Basingstoke!

To be honest, I can’t say I am excited by all of his photos, but what I really do like is the way his fashion work seems to spill over into his wedding photography. It gives it an edge and, in my humble opinion, really makes it stand out. Wedding photographs can be quite boring for anyone outside of those directly involved, so creating images which are interesting in their own right is an achievement.

Some investigation is required.

That heading (“Why Are Some People Still Using Film?”) probably sounds a little confrontational and it was meant to. However, I am not actually trying to criticize anyone who is still using film, I’m just really interested in the reasoning behind the decision to go one way or the other. Not that it is necessarily down to reasoning, it could be emotional or perhaps financial.

My own reasoning for converting to digital is clear. I didn’t have room for a darkroom anymore, family life leaves a lot less time for self-indulgent hobbies and I felt that digital had reached a point where I could achieve pretty much the same quality as I was getting with film.

The other day I was waiting outside Boots (the chemist) in a popular seaside town and I noticed a bunch of people who came out of the shop and stood next to me while sorting out a fistful of newly purchased 35mm films. Around the neck of one of them was slung a well used and (presumably) well loved SLR (should that be “Analogue SLR?”). What really struck me was that this was a young man; young enough to have grown up in the digital age. He must surely have chosen to use the old technology, as opposed to not having got round to replacing it? I was about to approach him and ask him about it when my wife reappeared from Boots and dragged me off to the beach. It was probably just as well – I’m not sure being approached by some fat old stranger piled up with bags, towels, buckets and spades, mumbling something about “why aren’t you digital?” would have made his holiday complete.

Later the same day, I visited the Photographers Lounge and was admiring and discussing the latest images by Richard Heeps, which are proudly hanging on the gallery wall there. Kate pointed out that these images are shot on film and traditionally printed in a darkroom. The prints have detail, a depth and a richness which I am not convinced would be achieved with digital, although I have no experience with the really high-end digital kit. Assuming that high-end digital would achieve the same (or even better?) quality, the cost of this equipment could be prohibitive to many photographers.

I can’t help feeling there are many really good reasons for still using film and just because I’m struggling to think of them doesn’t mean they are invalid. When I went looking for some 120 film for my Mamiya RB67 it was quite hard to find and the price was quite shocking. Not to mention the time, effort and cost involved in getting it processed.

I don’t want to get back into “which is better, film or digital?” because that is now a pointless fruitless exercise, but as someone who was reluctant to give film up for quite some time, I’d really like to hear some of the reasons other people have stuck with it.

In the graphic design studio where I am found during normal working hours, the studio manager recently had a requirement for a photographer to take some specific shots for a project. A photographer was recommended and my colleague studied her website and all seemed well – she had her own local studio, decent gear and the evidence that she could take a great shot.

When the job was done, the images were sent to us on CD and the studio manager set about reviewing them and choosing candidates for inclusion in the publication. However, he was disappointed with the quality and asked for my opinion. Without going into great detail, it has to be said that the supplied images were technically awful. They looked like little JPEGs which had been blown up, overly sharpened and overly compressed. I put all my findings to the manager who forwarded them to the photographer. Her reply stunned me, although I still have not really concluded whether she was lying or had no idea what she was talking about. (I would like to paste her explanation here, but I really don’t want to risk her being identified)

We asked for a RAW file or two to be sent over so we could judge the originals for ourselves and the response to this was more (I have to say it!) stupidity. Eventually she agreed, but so far two CDs have got lost in the post, in spite of being sent by recorded delivery!

So what does make a photographer “professional”? This photographer has good equipment and has demonstrated the ability to point a digital SLR at a subject and end up with a top-notch image, possibly after some Photoshop work, but we all do that. Before digital it would have been essential to know what you were doing, to understand exposure and processing and all that stuff. There is not much chance of recovering from excessively under or over exposed film (I speak from bitter experience).

These days it is relatively easy and relatively cheap to set yourself up as a pro photographer. Great kit is readily available, PCs and Macs are cheap enough and setting up a website to show off your skills is quick and cheap too. But none of this makes you a professional, as far as I am concerned.

The sad thing in this case is that it is my belief the photographer made a silly mistake; maybe forgot to reset one or more settings on the camera after a previous shoot. We were able to use one of the shots she supplied, so we got away with it, but now we have a photographer we will not use again. A simple, honest explanation of the error would have at least given us some confidence and we could have all moved on.

That works fine when you are already in the place you are going to be taking the photos, but might not work not so well when you are preparing for a trip abroad or are planning a trip in the future.

Of course, now we have the Internet and there is not much going on in the world that I can’t find out from Mr Google, with a little bit of effort and judicious searching.

Now, for those of you lucky enough to have an iPhone in your pocket, there is an interesting app available which could really help. Called “Darkness”, essentially it tells you times for sunrise, sunset, moonrise and moonset for just about any city in the world and for any date.

I won’t pretend I’m going to rush out to get an iPhone just so I can use the app, but if I had one already I would definitely be investing $1.99 in “Darkness”. I believe they are preparing to release a major update, so it would be worth keeping an eye on their site. As soon as the new version is available I’m going to get a copy on a friend’s iPhone and then I can submit a review.

In the meantime, more information is available on the Bjango website.

10th April 2009 – Version 2.0 Released on Apple iTunes Store

I have just heard from Bjango that version 2.0 of Darkness is now available on the Apple iTunes Store. Some of the new features are listed below:

• Completely new user interface.
• Added 14000 new cities (over 22000 in total now).
• Date Switching, allowing viewing of any point in the future or past.
• Added more moon details, like moon azimuth, age and illumination.
• Now shows more moon phases (8 in total).
• Added city map.
• Azimuth and altitude details for various sun positions.
• Improved city searching.
• Fully localized for Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese (Brazil), Russian, Spanish, Swedish.
• Partially localized for Chinese, Danish, Finnish, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese.
• Added sound effects.

I’m looking forward to trying it out (although finding a friend with an iPhone is proving harder than expected!).

I have been using my Canon 20D (8Mp) for about four years now and have taken a little over 10,000 pictures with it. Apart from the tiny LCD on the back and a nagging suspicion that the auto-focus could be a little faster and more accurate, I have been extremely happy with it. Like many other photographers (I assume!), I have watched with interest as cameras have developed (is that still considered a pun?!), especially with regard to the number of megapixels they have.

When digital first came along I tried to calculate how many pixels would be needed to equal the quality I could achieve with 6x7cm film. I have seen this value “calculated” (I put the quotes around there in an attempt to suggest skepticism) a number of times by various people but I don’t recall ever seeing any results I felt I could trust. My own attempt to calculate a film-to-digital ratio resulted in a figure based on nothing more than an uneducated guess backed up by opinionated self-belief. My guess was “about 50 megapixels”. I suppose I wasn’t that far off, if we accept that the full-frame Canon 1Ds with its 21mp is about equivalent to 35mm.

I liked this number, mainly because it was obvious nobody was ever likely to make a camera with that many pixels and, even if they did, nobody would be able to afford it. Film was in safe hands, I had decided!

Anyway, along came digital SLRS and then they became available to ordinary people like me. The 20D suited me with its massive 8.3mp and possibly more importantly, with its PC socket to connect it straight to my studio flash. Now I’m not going to insult anyone with pretend science or anything, but to settle my curiosity I sent one of my images off to Photobox to be printed at around 16×12″ which was the biggest I had ever printed from 6x7cm film. The result really surprised me – the print from my 20D was as good (actually, I reckon it was better) than from my Mamiya RB67. Remember, there’s no science here – just me putting two prints side by side and making a judgement.

Now I have been lucky enough to upgrade to a Canon 50D in the last few weeks, which has given me almost double the amount of pixels. The camera is fantastic and I would say it is the perfect upgrade from the 20D, mainly because I bought only the body and everything else I already had fits it. I’m sure the 50D is well documented elsewhere, so I’m not going to go into too much detail here. Suffice it to say that the improvements in the auto-focus, image processing and so on over the last four years are quite evident in the handling.

However, I am having one issue; the file size. My memory cards are effectively all half the size they were, I use up twice the space on the hard drive when I transfer them and they take significantly longer to open and process. Now all of this is pretty obvious, really, but it does make me wonder what life is like for those people who have one of those 21mp or 25mp flagship SLRs currently on the market. I can only assume that if you can afford the top-of-the-range, you can also afford to install a bank of super-computers to do the processing work!

Alongside these processing/storage issues I find myself stuck on one burning question; how many of us really needs all these pixels? I’m not suggesting that nobody needs a 25mp SLR, or even that nobody will take advantage of this technology. What really strikes me is that I can’t see me ever needing more than 15mp and I really mean ever. So when Canon is developing the 60D/70D/80D or whatever is coming next, I want them to improve everything, just like they have been doing, but let’s please put a cap on the number of pixels.

The same goes for all the manufacturers – I’m only citing Canon because that’s what I use, but you are all as bad! Stop this “mine’s bigger than yours” culture and get back to the good old “mine’s better than yours” argument that kept us busy for so long!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a weapon of mass destruction? Is it Optimus Prime’s wayward cousin? No, it’s a… er… a million different cameras, apparently. It’s kind of ugly and incredibly beautiful at the same time and I feel drawn to it.

I gather that the movie camera has been out for some while and is threatening to revolutionize the movie industry. Whether or not the rest of the system will go into production is unknown, but the clever money seems to be betting in favour. I really hope it does.

The system comprises a collection of components which can be put together in an almost infinite number of configurations. Pop over to the Red website and have a read – I can’t do it justice.

I can’t make up my mind whether Twizle is genius or… well, I can’t even think what the alternative might be! They seem to have made a business out of applying some completely inappropriate Photoshop filters to any photo you supply them, and selling you back your newly “Twizled masterpiece” on canvas for a shameful high price.

It’s mental! I really can’t believe anyone (and I do mean anyone) would be gullible or stupid enough to use this service and pay this price. However, according to their website, “000′s of customers can’t be wrong!” (sic).

It’s so crap it is actually quite brilliant! My personal favourite has to be the “Very Viennese Swirl” Twizle:

Or that might just possibly be equalled by having your wedding photos “improved” with the “The Incredible Twist(er!)” treatment:

Pure class!

They are my new heroes, without a doubt. I’d love to meet their “thousands of customers” (notice they don’t say “thousands of satisfied customers”) as I have some valuable shares in a steam-powered space exploration project I would like to sell…

Go on, take a look at the Twizle website – it will make you smile, I guarantee it!

Fancy a break from the daily grind? Well, if your feeling a little creative and have an hour or two spare head on over to http://pro.corbis.com/creative/readycam for some pinhole photography fun courtesy of Crobis.

There are several designs and they’re all free. Simply print out your favourite and glue it together.

Smashing!

I was driving to a friendâ??s house the other day when I entered the motorway and everything ground to a halt. We crawled along for a few miles and before long the source of the trouble became apparent.

A sporty looking saloon â?? it was impossible to tell what it was before the crash â?? had spun out, swiped a lorry and ended up half way through the barrier. The police, fire and ambulance service were all in attendance and there was a blur of fluorescent jackets swarming around the vehicles.

Without warning the carâ??s fuel tank exploded. I donâ??t mean that it caught fire and popped a bit; it actually exploded â?? fire ball and all. I had no idea that this could actually happen in real life. I thought exploding fuel tanks only happened in Hollywood. In my excitement I reached into the back seat, grabbed my camera, switched it on, raised it to my face and zoomed in. Then something odd happened. I started to squeeze the shutter release and as I did so, a flood of guilt washed through me and I froze. As if someone else was controlling me, I put the camera down on the passenger seat, leant back in my chair and let out a long sigh. I felt appalled with myself. Some poor fellow might have just been really badly hurt and my first thought was to get a good snap of the fray. Moments later the traffic moved on and we left the horrible mess behind us.

Iâ??ve thought about the crash a lot since then. It was one of those situations and one of those opportunities that (at least I hope) will never present its self again. Iâ??m certain that I missed out on taking an amazing photograph. I probably could have sold it, at least to the local papers, and I would have received lashings of praise from my photographer friends. Regardless though, Iâ??m sure I made the right decision. Sure, it could have been a great photo, but at what cost? All I could think while putting the camera down was what if it was me? How would I feel if someone else profited from my misfortune? I could never be proud of the photo; I would always feel a little ashamed.

Itâ??s not quite the same thing, but I have a friend who is a freelance celebrity photographer. Heâ??s one of those guys you see hanging over the railing at glitzy, red carpet events. In his view, the absolute best part of his job is when something goes wrong and he gets a good snap of the big name when it happens. Itâ??s these photos that heâ??s most proud of and itâ??s these photos that earn him the most money. In life away from work heâ??s one of the nicest people youâ??ll ever meet. Heâ??s kind, generous and a great guy to be around, which is why I canâ??t understand why he gets such a buzz from doing what he does. After all, isnâ??t it profiting from someone elseâ??s misfortune in its purest form?

There are times when it is prudent and even important for us to photograph â??bad thingsâ?. For instance, without the photographs and news reels of the two world wars, how would we know of the atrocities that occurred? Itâ??s also important that we keep seeing them. Not every day, but at least every now and then. Itâ??s imperative that we are reminded of these â??horrors of warâ??. Can you imagine what would happen if we forgot? Without the photos of starving children in third world countries we would be unaware of the constant struggle of hundreds of millions of fellow human beings. They would have no voice and there would be no way for us to know that they need our help. Itâ??s these photographs that remind us of how fortunate we really are and in doing so give us perspective on our own lives.

I donâ??t think the lessons we learn from seeing photos of car accidents are really on the same par. Sure, we are reminded of what happens if we donâ??t drive carefully, but then how many traffic accidents do you see in a year from simply driving about? That seems enough of a reminder to me. As for what we learn from seeing A-list celebrities tripping over at a movie premier â?? well Iâ??m stumped.

Perhaps Iâ??m making too big of a deal about all this? Maybe Iâ??m just going soft, but this type of thing really doesnâ??t sit well with me.

What do you think about this? If you had been in that traffic jam what would you have done? Would you have taken the photo or would it not have even crossed your mind? Perhaps you would react as I did, fully intending to take the shot but then finding that you couldnâ??t follow through? Is there a line that should be drawn or is everything fair game?

Back to the subject of Wedding Photography, again (I suspect we’ll be covering this one a lot!).

I was talking to my friend Mark, who I have mentioned before is right now going through the transition from keen amateur to professional. Mark was telling me about the half a dozen or so weddings he has covered for free, or dirt cheap, in order to have the opportunity to get a few weddings under his belt and into his portfolio. Oh, and for the experience of course, which never comes cheap in this game!

The trouble is, he is now in danger of being labelled as a “cheap wedding photographer” for the foreseeable future. Although having covered friends’ and relatives’ weddings at a special rate has lead to a number of referrals, the referred clients have an expectation of an inexpensive photographer covering the event from dusk till dawn.

It strikes me that when trying to make the jump to pro status, the photographer needs to have a plan, almost a prepared statement to read to the lucky couple getting the special deal. My suggestion (much too late for Mark, obviously!) would be to quote friends and relatives the full price you intend to charge once you have made the jump. Then, give them a whopping discount, clearly showing that this is a one-off because you are my cousin/nephew/sister/best buddy or whatever. This way, the photographer has shown his normal price and the friend/relative can clearly see the saving they get from being in the right place in the gene pool at the right time.

Will it actually work? I don’t know. I need someone to try it out and let me know! Any takers?