I’m guessing you’re probably sick of seeing NYC, so this will be the last one for the time being: somewhere between street photography and the observations of a flaneur, but above all, a view at how I see a new environment. Shot with the Fuji X20 and Nikon Coolpix A; two very capable and enjoyable cameras I reviewed some time back while in the US. Enjoy! MT
One commonly asked (and commonly mis-answered) question on the internet these days is around the definition of what constitutes a ‘professional photographer’. The usual definition is that it is somebody who is shooting for pay, and deriving the majority of his of the income entirely from photography for photography related activities. I suppose in the strictest sense of the definition, that is true. However, it says nothing about professional conduct or skill. What I’m going to attempt to do in this article is express my own views on what I believe constitutes professional behavior in photography. It is important to note however that this is a very much personal, though shared by many of my colleagues in all areas of the industry – both primary providers of photographic imaging, as well as supporting services and videography/ cinematography.
Sometimes, the film photography gods deign to make life easy for you: you happen to be in the right place at the right time, with the right light, interesting subjects, lots of opportunities, carrying the right camera and lens combination, just enough film to get you through a day with a roll left over as insurance, and even airport security guards who’ll hand check your film so they don’t have to make multiple passes through x-ray machines. The last European trip and workshop tour was one of those occasions for me. I went with my usual small digitals (OM-D, Ricoh GR) for teaching, and the Hasselblad 501C with one magazine, a few boxes of Acros 100, and the 80/2.8*. And I came back with a huge number of keepers. It’s interesting to note that despite its size, shutter noise and conspicuity, the Hasselblad never attracted negative attention – usually curiosity or nostalgia. In that sense, it’s actually an excellent street photography tool in the modern age. No more words are required, I think – other than for me to say ‘enjoy!’ MT
*Some of the rolls were pushed to ISO 200 due to lack of light; with Acros this also has the benefit of deepening your shadow tones. There doesn’t seem to be any grain penalty that I can discern, though – anything up to ISO 800 is fine, but the shadows just keep getting denser and denser. Digitized with a D800E, 60/2.8 macro and my custom rig.
One of the things I enjoyed most about New York was the architecture; the pace of development and abundant funds in the city meant that a walk through any of the districts was almost like stepping through the pages of a history of modern architecture. In particular, I was quite captivated by the more modern buildings and their interaction with the environment around them; most sought to give the impression of transparency and lightness by heavy use of mirrored glass, but in the end landed up standing out as somewhat soulless monoliths. Yet at the same time, they also blend in with their own kind. Even though each building is pretty much the same functionally, constrained only by dimensions and the need to maximize usable floor plate for a given land area, if you look carefully, you can still see the stamp of individuality of the designers. MT
A little while back, I made an offhand comment about a certain camera being my choice for ‘serious’ work which spurred a lengthy subsequent discussion offline with a reader; it got me thinking: what exactly constitutes ‘seriousness’? But beyond that, how does a photographer’s choice of camera, or format, or medium, influence the final image? More importantly, is there any way we can use that to make stronger images – because ultimately, that’s what photography is all about. We’ll explore that in some detail in today’s article.
In my earlier photographic period, I’d often made the mistake of thinking abstract photography was just a catch-all bucket for images that didn’t fit anywhere else; I even had a folder for that kind of thing called ‘Random’. From time to time, during my many photographic excursions, I’d find my eye deviated from the ‘objective’ – not that I had one. Admittedly, at that point, I’d mix shooting with an objective – say wildlife, or street, or architecture – with sessions where I’d just go for a walk with camera in hand and shoot anything that appealed. It was during one of those sessions that I started to be drawn towards arrangements of objects that were visually appealing for reasons I couldn’t understand or put into objective terms; there wasn’t a real subject per se; sometimes, I just found the whole scene/ frame appealing. ‘Click!’ went the shutter, and one more image got consigned to the ‘Random’ folder.
One of my favourite buildings in the country is the Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin Mosque – also known as the Iron Mosque due to its stainless-steel clad structure. It’s a very modern building located in the administrative capital, Putrajaya, that still manages to integrate traditional culture and religious cues into its design. These, together with its scale, location on the Putrajaya lakefront and sight lines, make it quite a spectacular building.
I was certainly noticed here. Apparently in the middle of a high-stakes gambling game, seconds later I was shouted at by about forty people and chased away. Invisibility would have certainly made for an interesting documentary series.
Here’s an interesting concept: photographic invisibility. By this, I mean the ability to take a photograph of anything, anywhere, or anybody, without being noticed. Nothing would be off limits, nowhere would be inaccessible, and everything you see would be just a shutter-click away. Assume for a moment, technical limitations don’t really apply – we don’t have to worry about image quality or low light or too much or too little depth of field, or buffers or file handling or curating the enormous mountain of images that would be the product of such an exercise. Of course, this is impossible – or nearly impossible unless the subject is heavily distracted, or you’re a photojournalist or street photography ninja – but stay with me for a while.
It’s not what you might think: I’m not going to be talking about washing your memory cards, or cleaning the contacts or something in a similar vein. The way you handle your memory cards – both the physical cards and the digital contents – might seem like a fairly simple and common-sense thing, but you’d be surprised at just how many risky moves I’ve seen amongst both pros and amateurs. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people were just as nonchalant about images during the film era – and back then, there were a lot more possible failure points that would result in no image, or a very poor one; this is simply because there is only ever one original copy of the image – the negative.
Today’s photoessay continues my exploration of NYC’s streets in black and white. Perhaps I’m being masochist in continuing this series after the dissenting opinions expressed in the comments in Part one (found here) – but once again, photography is subjective interpretation and each observer has their own views and preferences. I happen to like the precision and perfection others call ‘clinical soullessness’ – and I’d argue that the lack of imperfection is a style and skill of its own; consistently being able to find ‘perfect moments’ in a sea of uncontrolled chaos is extremely difficult indeed – which anybody would know if they’ve tried it. Enjoy. MT