A personal look back on 2021 photography

[Wes Hall]

As we started 2022 I said to myself I would look back over the years photos I took and kept. I wanted to see which images my eyes became drawn to time and again, and curate a personal top 10.

I've not managed to undergo the self-reflection I will be taking with these quite yet, as I want to give time for my thoughts to percolate so I can develop my image creation through this year.

What I did manage was to create a collage of my choices, as seeing them placed next to each other made it easier to let my eye wander and see contrasts and similarities.

I originally had a short list of 46, then the final 10.

What I did learn is that none of my favourite pictures came from the camera I use the most; my Pentax K-S1. What this tells me I've yet to decide.

I thought it would be fun to share the results of this with the forum, and I'd be most happy to receive any observations and comments you may have.

Below is the draft 46.

 

[Chris Bennett]

An interesting exercise, Wes.
Of your top ten, the first and last are the real standouts for me. I wish I'd taken both of those.

 

[Wes Hall]

Thank you Chris, those are two of my favorites. That last image, the fog capture, I kept a note of the filters I used and what I did to get it- this kind of abstraction I want to pursue for certain this year.

I have plans to revisit the Churro stand (first left, middle row) as I really liked that stand and the potential I can see in it.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

A great exercise. Wes. I also like first and last of the ten, but all ten are good, and a few others could have sneaked in there too.

Interesting that none came from your fav camera. Could it be that camera is great to hold in the hand, has all the nobs and buttons in the right place? It's important to feel comfortable with your camera, but ultimately it is results that count. I had a about twenty cameras and various lenses, and some fit the hand an eye better than others. But I got fed up having so much gear, and managed to trade them all in (save one) for a used Q2M, which was a big gamble, given the ridiculous price. But I was lucky that it turned out to have my name written on it: fit, comfort and image quality is just what I'd been looking for for a long time. I'm not at all suggesting you do likewise, rather making the point that finding a camera that is great in the hand and great for the eye, AND gets great results, is sometimes hard to find. The one film camera I kept is the Konica Hexar, which I love enough to not let go of it. That said, I haven't used it in two years.

Another observation about your complete 46 images: they seem all over the place in terms of subject matter - that's not at all a criticism, and seems common to most of us. But perhaps deciding on a specific project would make collections of images more satisfying to you, and potentially of more interest to others? You could have two or three projects, of course - I wouldn't recommend more - but when I head out with camera in hand I found it best to keep ..ahem...focussed on one project. What do you think?

 

[Wes Hall]

Thank you Rob, you've provided me exactly the level of feedback and thoughts I'd hoped for.

Interesting you interpreted my most used camera being my favourite, I can see how, but this isn't my favourite camera, that honour goes to my Sigma DP1 (I'm utterly enthralled with that sensor) for digital and my Hi-Matic 7s for film. Your pointers are astutely observed about the feel in hand, as the K-S1 has a small form that seems to place the lens front and centre in hand, but I will say my preferences for 'feel and ergonomics' with this particular camera is biased as it was my first DSLR camera (having previously owned a Canon EOS 300n and Panasonic GF3), so the layout and handling feel 'right' as it's what I've learned my craft with.

Yet, having acquired more cameras (like rabbits I tell you!) I've started to notice what different ergonomics are out there, as well as controls and menu systems. Take the Sigma- very nice tactile body (cold metal, light and surprisingly good one handed), a simple couple of control wheels, but a very counter intuitive UI and fine focus system (definitely favours zone focus), as well as a next to useless screen for judging the focus point on any singular subject. But, like your Q2M, the image quality, fit in my hand and something about the slow-step process of image taking with this camera is me. It is contrary and difficult, with many missed shots, but when it's right....

Which leads nicely to the comment about the 46. Looking again over them, you're observations are precise; they don't have a singular theme. I can see small groups of themes, but nothing fixed- and I guess that's telling that the past two years of photography are only just beginning to help me discover my preference for style and subjects. Projects are a very new concept to me for photo taking, actually the first I really tried was thanks to the gentle suggestions of people on this forum such as you and Chris, with my 'looking back project'- truthfully more a technical exercise than a deep meaning piece. Yet, I will be looking at how I could sculpt a more meaningful project or two this year.

I will be using this exercise to create an introspective article for 35mmc, as I feel reflecting on why I loved and selected these images, guiding my preferences and progress as an amateur, will resonate with others (I can hope ).

Excuse the short essay, I'd actually like to know what it was that helped you find your 'taste' in camera and images- I've seen you mention a preference for black and white I think across other posts? What charmed you with the Leica or Konica?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I always wanted my photography to give a sense of what I was feeling at the time of the shoot, rather than a depiction of what was in front of me.

Ah...I was going to write more, but someone has called my attention away. Will be back...

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Here’s an old thread, Wes, which will give an idea of what photography means to me: an aid to contemplation: http://realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/calla-lily-robs-daily-blog.20355/

 

[Rob MacKillop]

But that doesn’t answer your questions. However, it’s after midnight, and I’m off to bed.

 

[Wes Hall]

Bed should definitely come first over replies to this thread, however I really appreciate your insight Rob- these are the conversations that help refine the hobby and provide interest.

So would it be fair to say you seek to create your personal perception of reality in your images, rather than the generalised perception that we agree on mass? If so, I get it- the camera becomes more than a recording tool.

I'll check that thread out before I waffle any more comments .

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Right. Let's see if my brain is working at 22:22.

There are times when I get serious about it all, try to make something of it, and there are times when I'm too tired and just shoot for the exercise. Sometimes the latter comes up with better shots than the former, but the former is more meaningful to me, gives me more satisfaction.

Many photos are descriptive, point and shoot style. Many photos involve some degree of fantasy, through "stage management" or processing in PhotoShop and the like. Each can come up with great images (and dire ones too) and I've indulged in both many times. But after a while I find myself saying, "well, so what?". How can I get something more out the camera?

Let's imagine we are photographing a chair in a certain light that takes our eye. The descriptive style is relatively straight forward, finding a balanced angle of view, which ends up with an image showing a chair. So what? The fantasy style might require more lighting, and much use of sliders and layers in post. We end up with something fantastical, maybe suggesting a story. Fine, but really, so what?

Neither of which really tells of that existential phenomenon of a human looking at a chair, how that feels emotionally and intellectually. What is "this thing"? Is it "out there", and I am "in here"? A feeling of alienation from the ordinary, everyday object? Suddenly we have stepped out of assuming everything is normal. A dynamic between two worlds. My attempt to shoot might "focus' on what is between us, what separates us. The image produced might not have any physical part of the chair in it at all. The physicality of both chair and observer has become irrelevant. It is the separation, the differentness, that is the subject.

Or, do I recognise that there is no difference between us at all, me and this thing I call a chair? We are both made of molecules floating in space, with no reason for either of us to be here, no reason to be as we are, no reason to have a relationship, yet here we are. Do I flatter myself by assuming I am more sentient, more intelligent, more aware than the chair? That would separate us, so no. Once in mindful meditation I felt my molecules were drifting apart as I started becoming "one" (it's a cliché, I know) with my environment. But setting aside any mild amusement at this, or accusations of pseuds corner, it was a real experience, no matter how close I was to just simply dreaming. In this case, what would I be photographing? Everything and nothing? It is all the same. There is nothing that separates us. No object. No observer. What would that photograph look like?

I'll admit there are times when I didn't shoot at all...the experience was enough, and greater and deeper than any image might or could have been. But that still makes having a camera valid, as an aid to contemplation and experience. It might well be that my best photographs are the ones I felt I didn't need to take, and didn't.


As for choice of camera. I need something I don't have to think about. With the Konica Hexar, the settings are ridiculously complicated, so I don't bother. I put it on P mode, and just shoot, never changing anything. With the Leica Q2 and Q2M I find both incredibly intuitive. Everything is just where it needs to be, as if they'd asked me personally what I would want from a camera. I don't even know I'm making changes half the time, I can keep my mind focussed on the shot. In either case I'm not really aware of the camera.

File under BS? Your decision. These are real thoughts and concerns for me, but not 100% of the time I have a camera in hand.

 

[Wes Hall]

Nice to wake up to the art of the intellectual digression alive (or not) on the internet. A Hugo High Five doesn't really do this metaphysically biased introspective justice.

You've given me much to ponder Rob, yet one point I feel I can make instantly is this doesn't get lost in that endless filing cabinet marked BS.

The tangible element of what I'm hearing; your reasons for the tools of choice, seem to fall into a mission statement I believe many camera manufacturers have followed like dogma- keep the camera out of the way of making and capturing the picture.

It runs counter to my personal preference, as I place value on having a unique and often difficult to replicate experience; the challenge and tease of trying to obtain that consistency when I set out to portray my eyes vision is often the greater experience than the final capture. My love of my Sigma is definitely grounded here and evident with my distaste for phone photography- there is no conflict other than framing the view.

For what it's worth in going to attempt to pull up that chair from your metaphor and discuss the thoughts- I'm not a practiced philosopher, yet I'm happy to wrestle the thought experiment into existence.

It seems to me that we're looking for that link when we photograph that proves our presence was real- the moment in times flow could be seized and gazed upon at leisure. It feels like we've grasped hold of our autonomy and become more than just a fleeting biological organism; somewhat grandiose to say but 'god' like. Of course, a sequence of planned actions will be perceived as carrying greater meaning by positing a concept and finding the subject that portrays it so complete you can bring it to the reality of others, something being a witness photographer with the approach of snap shooting may happen upon, but remain vaporous beyond the first glance. Using your chair, I can see exactly what you're conveyed to me in your recent forth bridge shots, where you are not crafting a reality seen with the eyes yet one that is felt in the viewer, the moment and the setting are told more than a replication through a still capture could.

I'm going to echo your sentiment that this could very much be filed under BS, contrary to my initial statement; grounded back in direct terms the decision to just 'be' in an experience is powerful, and one I'm less adept at since getting into photography as the addictive nature of my mind will persuade me to bring a camera. The snapshots of the mind can be the memories most precious, but to have a physical (digital) reminder of what you actually saw I feel is an insurance policy of sorts against time.

To quote you "In this case, what would I be photographing? Everything and nothing? It is all the same. There is nothing that separates us. No object. No observer. What would that photograph look like?" very much Schrodinger's photograph to me.

Taking and creating images is that very human need to be felt, seen and remembered, I'm sure in part that's why we do it, and as you said some of your best images may be those that remained only visible to you. All in all, I photograph for these reasons, to connect and show my existence and experiences mattered.

Hopefully, some of this remained sensical and conveyed my thoughts.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Setting aside the question of reality, is there anything real in any of this? A photograph is not the thing itself, it is of its own self. The memories and feelings it triggers are not the real feelings and impressions we had at the time. And presenting the image to others creates many other realities, where the viewers see out of their own mind's eyes. So in our attempt to "connect and show OUR existence and experiences matter" we find we can never fully connect, and ultimately our experiences can never be fully experienced enough by others to fundamentally matter. The thing is not what we imagine it to be, and others imagine it to be something else...

It's a funny old game!

 

[Wes Hall]

"we find we can never fully connect, and ultimately our experiences can never be fully experienced enough by others to fundamentally matter"

I take comfort in this; society encourages the emulation of experiences and repeating that what has been done. It's nice to think we all have truly unique experiences.

Cheers for this entertaining and enlightening discourse Rob.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Cheers, Wes. It’s always good to try and clarify your thoughts. Colour frustrates me because if we see something as, say, green, that is because that is the one colour the object hasn’t absorbed. It’s what it refuses to let in. That’s why I often prefer to take colour out of the equation. But then I look at my Saul Leiter book, and I rapidly conclude I’m an idiot! But it’s still good to question. I like your Foveon reds because they don’t pretend they are the “real” colour, they just kind of celebrate themselves. Then the situation moves away from “here’s a red car” to “here’s a car shape, and here’s some great red colour!” The elements separate and become interesting individually. Do you recognise this?

 

[Wes Hall]

I'd been aware of this thought Rob regarding the representation of colour, but you've articulated it better than the thought floating around my skull.

I think your onto something with the separation- I know I've seen a more subdued colour palette in some of my pics and found the details are muddied through this- like the contrast is too subtle. Once I've seen this, it's hard to recover the impact through adjustments in post. That's where I feel the Foveon images set themselves apart- impact at point of first sight.

Going back specifically to what you said about separating the elements, I wonder if this ties to your love of monochromatic photography? It was certainly the reason I got enamored with it, allowing the light and details to stand out and show me a clarity my eyes miss in the colourful reality.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes, my photography took a bit of a leap forward when I gave up looking for things to photograph and instead just photographed light when it interested me, no matter what the object it was resting on or illuminating. I became fascinated by just light. Then shape and texture joined in. Monochromatic photography helped me as it were focus on those elements, while the thought of adding colour was just a big NO WAY! It is/was just too much in itself, colour, a massive subject, the inclusion of which changed the image completely.

And this is why having a camera that could not shoot colour became liberating. I was no longer taking something away by removing colour in post. I could set my shot up in b&w, take the shot, open it on the computer and edit it without colour being involved at any stage. I know the Leica monochrom is ridiculously expensive, but it is a bloody good camera/lens combo, and does what it advertises.

But...I keep looking at Saul Leiter's colour work, and realise that when the subject becomes colour, then that interests me. So I've been searching for my voice in colour, and having a hard time doing it. But that way of having each element in a photo happy in itself - light, shape, texture, colour - while working together to form a complete image, well, that's still an ongoing quest. I might go back to film.

Here's an old colour film shot I did, four or five years ago. I don't think it's very good, and the separation we talk about is not there. But it shows how I was beginning to think of using colour in an image: big blocks of the stuff! But I was unhappy with the results, and went back to b&w, thinking "I'm rubbish at colour photography!". Let's just say it is work in progress.