Wrong

Hello again, welcome to another blog from the inner workings of NathanPhoto, as this is the second one of the month and in following my new formula, this musing is a spacer which has all of the open-ended possibility of the exploring of anything.

This one is about ‘wrong’, specifically when an image (to my/yours eyes) seems ‘wrong’. Once seeing that and knowing how it can be improved upon, it’s the question of what to do? I obviously know what to do in certain prescribed settings as in teaching, you explain, you interpret and you critique, but what about more generalised/specific opinions on work that, well, doesn’t work?

I do realise that as I muse on it here, there is a possibility of this subject bordering on my research ideals in other profiles, as one is currently exploring the value of opinions, which in current climes is becoming a debatable point in varying degrees, so thought I would explore ideas of wrong with the NathanPhoto hat on.  

Will say that a lot of these observations are completely my own, but I do find when shared they seem to garner some consensus in others. I also see a common thread running through these and again this unfortunately contributes to the much wider debate on the changes in the standards of imagery being delivered. These current ones I’m not sure fit quite rightly in my thinking, not completely pinned these down but I will say that we seem to be collectively trivialising still imagery. Partly through the contribution of quality, which seems to be changing, not always in a good way.

One does realise that this (possibly) is a result of the current absolute gains needed to supply capitalism, which is getting hungrier each day. Either way this is still an alarming factor.

Continuing on with this blogs thoughts on wrong, I realise it has been crystalised recently by these 3 observations:

·      The Inappropriate use of black & white in images.

·      The act of choosing the cover image that just ain’t doing it.

·      The rise in mirrorless image making becoming ubiquitous.

I thought about, but I won’t give, specific examples, as l think that’s a bit tight. I will approach these as wide-ranging observations/talk about generalities. I’m also unsure of where/what the end points of these developments are either, and that’s really utterly scary. Where will this devaluing of photography stop? *shudder to think*

Instead I will expand on these three points:

B&W usage. I saw a business launch the other day and their whole imagery output was in black and white, not a great look for them as an initial view of the images made it look like a cross between a crime scene and a torture chamber. Colour and bright would have been the order of the day but feel they were incredibly ill-advised in selecting b&w.

Covers. Recently there have been a number of magazines launch with multiple covers, they all had the same content within them and most of these sets were afforded their own covers, this is a great and fantastic way of showing the strength of covers and magazines. Well apart from a few examples, where I found myself questioning the decision of making that particular image the cover, when almost every other image in the set would have made a stronger cover, so why choose the one they did?

Mirrorless. This last one is an immensely personable argument, it does seems to exist solely in my own point of view. This rise in mirrorless usage is effecting imagery, it looks too much of a different quality, it really doesn’t look as good in some cases, but no one is mentioning it and no one seems to care? I strongly believe that you can tell which ones are made this way, they give off a certain quality that implies something other than it purports to deliver, as well as the quality of this, especially when shooting at 40 frames a second gives. You are basically taking a still frame from a moving image and that involves problems that need addressing, plus you can almost sense that detachment that not looking through a viewfinder gives.

All this adds into a worrying trend, couple it up with what I think we could see in the near-ish future of the complete (or as close to it) ‘death of paid for photography’ in our lifetimes.

Where would that leave photography if it only becomes an activity for the privileged few? That is a much bigger and larger question whose possible answers scare me, so I think I will take the next question, which is, what to do when you see these developments? I’m not completely sure, I am being made to feel quite long in the tooth, and as such that I possess an opinion that isn’t as valid in relation to anyone else’s. So in my differing roles I can see this, as a:

·      Consumer I can choose not to buy/support,

·      Practitioner I can choose to make different,

·      Observer I can choose to comment,

·      Tutor I can inform and critique.

·      Person who loves photography, I can choose to rally.

But I must ask to what avail?

Well to show the importance, love, possibility and hope that still image making can bring as well as highlighting issues, illustrating creative processes and everything else in between. Will the next step see me become a resident of speaker’s corner evangelising of the need for this? Watch this space as they say, hope is the foundation of rebellion.

As ever as I’ve discussed images but not shown any to balance it out, I will leave you with an image for your perusal, delectation and/or enjoyment. I made this image last week and have photoshopped it (some may say badly? Possibly wrong? #seewhatididthere) as it was a moment where I thought of the still image being as powerful as ever, I now realise that it can function as a little bit of lightness to balance out this glum, hard-hitting realisation of the direction the medium is going in. Whichever way you see it, here it is:

A crane appears to be attempting to lift what looks like a giant moon, image is photoshopped to make it look this way.

What we thinking? Good/bad?

As ever, thank you for reading. And if you have any feedback, thoughts, comments or anything’s, then please get me though the usual channels.