Michael Kenna

Now that I've brought up Ansel Adams in my blog, I thought it would be a good idea to also introduce Michael Kennas work. Both artists (and I mean Artists) have been pivotal to me in my own progress as a photographer. Ansel was responsible for making me want to pick up a camera in the first place, and Kenna has shown me that photography is about what you visualise and imagine in your mind. It doesn't always have to be a verbatim recording of what was there.

Shooting throughout the night, he has a very 'zen' like approach to the landscape which I very much agree with. Photography is not just about seeing something and making an image of it. It is also about forming an emotional connection with your surroundings and being open and aware to what is presented to you. And perhaps just enjoying the moment.

Ansel Adams

What I love about this clip of Ansel, apart from how modest he is, and seems like a really easy going chap, is how open he is about his art. He explains how he manipulated his images in his dark room, and how he liked to 'visualise' the scene before he took it. Essentially, the negative for Ansel was the starting point in creating his 'visions', and to look at the negative printed verbatim would have been an uninspiring experience. He coined the phrase 'the negative is the score, and the print is the performance'.

Now what gets me is that there are a load of folk out there who think manipulation of the image is lying. And that it's a relatively new thing since the digital revolution came along, but If you listen to Ansel, you'll realise that manipulation of the image has always been there, and it's part of the creative process of photography. Sure I love it when an image comes together that requires no alterations, but I do like to put my own 'art' into my work, as do many photographers.

Ansel was very forward thinking and he embraced the (at the time) forthcoming digital revolution. He thought it was exciting and it would lead to new possibilities. He was a purist in the artistic sense and was no dictator of what should and should not be acceptible as art.

Patagonian Ice Field

Going to extreme lengths to get a shot of Cerro Torre, I ventured onto the southern Patagonian ice field. In this podcast, I explain why sometimes, I go too far in the pursuit of an image.

Please click on the image to play the podcast

An old, but new Image

This is a shot of Duncansby Head, a location in the far north east of Scotland - literally only a few miles away from John O'Groats, which although is not the furthest northerly point in the British Isles, has the reputation of being so.

This was taken around 4 years ago. I forget when exactly, and it's been sitting at home along with a pile of other 4x5 (large format) images that I shot over the space of a few years with a very beautiful Ebony 45SU camera.  I just didn't have the means to get it scanned - scanning by a pro lab is ridiculously expensive here in the UK (see KenRockwell.com for more information on cheap scanning options in the US).

If it hadn't been for crazy costs of anywhere around £40 to £80 to get a high res scan of a single image, then I would maybe have percevered with large format, but I suspect that the reason why I gave up large format was simply because it didn't suit my temperament.

You see, although I may state that 'the camera does not matter', which is my efforts to get people to stop focussing on the 'gear' side of photography and to focus more on the 'emotional' aspects of it, the truth is cameras do matter.

Cameras in general, are a hindrance; a barrier between you and the image. If you have the right camera that suits your temperament, then it is less of a barrier. That's why I seem to always return to my Mamiya 7II system. I'm comfortable with it, I can work fast (at my own pace), and I'm very happy with the results.

Back to the image. I met up with an excellent photographer recently - Michael Stirling-Aird, based here in Edinburgh and he kindly offered to scan some of my large format transparencies for me. So I dug them out and what I found interesting was that this particular image really caught my eye, where in the past it had not. I can only assume that the reason for this is that I've completely forgotten what my aspirations were at the point of capture.

In essence, reviewing your work straight after a shoot is hard to do, because it's hard to be objective. Sometimes you need a little distance.

I've had around 4 years distance between shooting this image, and publishing it. I'm very happy with it now, and I can't remember why I rejected it at the time I made it.

Perhaps it was part frustration at trying to compose upside down (I remember not being able to achieve compositions that would otherwise have been second nature to me with my Mamiya 7II), I'm not sure.

Anyway, it just goes to show that every now and then, it's worth going back over your old images for a review : an old image will often take on a fresh meaning for you, when reviewed after you've given it some distance.

And that's just great.

Sunrise or Sunset?

Q. Sunrise or Sunset? Which is best?Q. And is it worth hanging around after the sun has set? Q. And is it worth taking pictures before the sun has risen?

Yes, it's a bind getting up in the morning really early and I always think that winter will be easier because you can get up later, but I just find it just as hard because it's cold, and has a feeling of 'dread' about it when you get up in the dark. These are certainly the times when I reckon I've lost my marbles and should see a psychiatrist....

But I've learned that sunrise is often much, much better than sunset.

For one thing, the temperature is low, so there tends to be no wind, and if it's been really cold, there's a lot of frost around and even fog - I've seen localised fog in small patches in the morning. You really don't often get that in the evening because the earth is giving off all the heat it's been storing up all day.....

As for hanging around after sunset... yes, it's definitely worth it.

The trick is to keep shooting - you may feel you're not getting anything because it feels to you that the best light has gone, but I've often found some of the best light in the morning happens before the sun pops over the edge of the horizon - so it's conversely true for sunset as well. The light at this time is very very soft, so shooting at this time and letting the built in light meter over expose it (this is what it will do - it will try to make it like day light), is really interesting and I tend to see lots of 'weird' things happen.  Shutter speeds are longer, so you get blur of clouds, movement in the grass etc... and the colours are a bit strange too.

And I guess the other thing is that the camera tends to pick up things you didn't register. There may be some subtle colours going on which you weren't aware of at the time, yet I've seen my Velvia film come back with traces of colours I didn't see.

So the short answer is yes. Definitely worth shooting before sunrise and shooting after sunset. My preference is for sunrise because of the atmospheric conditions I've described above. But it really comes down to you.... it's all about what you see and what you want to make of it.

There are never any hard and fast rules. Just be open to what is presented to you, and run with it.

What is required to make a great photograph?

I was just thinking today, that if someone asked me - what is required to make a great photograph? Then I'd have to come up with a top ten list of 'things' that I think contribute to making a good photo.

1. Being there. You must have heard the term 'f8 and be there'? Well, it's the essence of a good photo. Being in the right place at the right time, or in the case of landscape photography, recongising a good composition, and being submerged in beautiful light

2. Recognising the moment. Knowing that right here, right now, the light and the subject matter are combining to provide something you feel inspired to capture.

3. Being open to 'anything can happen'. Often I've found photographers so intent on making an image, and rooted to the spot, that they can't see the wood for the trees. If they only let themselves 'go' and disengage from the process of making a picture, perhaps they will see aspects they didn't notice, or will research / roam the location they are in. I remember on one workshop taking a picture of some horses below the Cuernos in Torres del Paine. The composition was so obvious to me, yet a participant of my trip said to me afterwards 'I didn't see it'. And I'm sure it's because they were so wrapped up in capturing what they were trying to 'make work' that they missed what was being offered to them.

4. Being able to recognise a good composition. Some people instinctively know when a composition works and just go to it like a duck to water. Others have to experiment over time to discover what lenses work and what sort of compositions work too. Nothing is cast in stone and each person has their own 'vision'. Some are more focused / tuned than others.

5. Knowing that what you want to capture will fit onto your film or sensor. With experience, certain exposures work more than others. Soft light works best than midday light, but having experience can help you determine what will work. I guess this is now getting into the technical realm.

6. We're now into the technical realms of photo making. But have you noticed that I've not even mentioned a camera yet? That's because the camera is purely a tool that YOU direct. I've taken pictures on a crappy 35mm camera that have been better than images I've taken on Large Format. Seven is about exposure. Understanding dynamic range and how to correctly expose the shot to get what you 'see'.

7. Which is important? Freezing time, or depth of field? Often I find with landscape I want to take long exposures when something is moving fast in the scene. I like to convey movement and the passing of time, but sometimes it's not appropriate. Knowing when and how.

8. A camera. Yes, it does matter, but not as much as the other aspects I've described. Naturally, it's an over-simplification to say a camera doesn't matter, but the point is that it is not the most important element in taking a good picture. It is just a tool and some tools are better than others. Some can hinder than aid, and I've found that some cheaper tools hinder less than some expensive tools. I like a camera which doesn't get in the way. It should be simple to use, and act as an aid or interface between what you see and what you capture. If you're spending too much time fiddling with it, then it's a hindrance,  not an aid to capturing the moment.

9. I can't think of any more.

So you see. It's not about the camera. But you do need a camera to capture your 'vision'. Those that say the camera does matter are missing the point. The camera is the last step. It is something you use to record everything esle that came before - being there, recognising a moment, understanding light and composition and determining the right exposure. Only then do you reach for your camera.