CCC Forum

At this year's Wratten Lecture, Michael Freeman talked about how difficult it is to get an original image. Even now I smile when I see those shots of fisherman, who no longer fish and have instead earn their living by being models, balancing their fishing nets on their legs in the early morning light. Yet many of those photos would have been taken by people who have been to the location with a company which quite possibly specialises in photography tours. At the British Museum, the architects provided a gallery to get the best view of the Great Court The first photographers who ventured there no doubt did well when entering the resulting shots into their club competitions. Today the scene has become ubiquitous and is unlikely to impress, yet many of us have no doubt done it. I know I have. More than once. And even though last time I used a fisheye lens to get a different perspective, I knew in my heart that someone else would have done that before.

Over at The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston has initiated a debate about clichés, when a subject has been done so many times that it loses appeal. It is in two parts and a long read especially if you take in all the comments, but one which is worthwhile for those who are thinking about how to improve their photography. Yet even when shooting the familiar, there are examples of where the photographer has managed to achieve a result which is beyond the norm.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... lichs.html

What fisherman balancing do you mean?

davidc wrote:What fisherman balancing do you mean?

The one Michael Freeman showed at the Wratten Lecture in March. Sorry that I cannot be more specific than that, but I have seen similar shots cropping up from time to time since.

Actually, a Google search of "fisherman net dawn" turned up tons of them, so here's an example.

Mike Johnston has written a follow up article about how to avoid clichés.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... 3%A9s.html

And talking of clichés, earlier on I was looking at an article by Rikki O'Neill about his amazing images in which digital manipulation has a significant role. A camera is involved initially, but the final result is a long, long way from the reality it captured. While O'Neill freely admits he has his influences from other artists, and it would be strange if he didn't, I have not seen anything else which resembles it. For me, that makes his work unique with a definable style, although I accept that there might be others who are doing something along the same lines. You can see examples of his output on his website.

http://www.rikoart.com/

This is not my first encounter with him and last year and I went to a talk he gave in which he showed literally hundreds of his pictures. The man is prolific and each one was incredible, but by the end of the session I was totally overwhelmed and I really did not want to see any more. If ever there was a case of less is more, this was it. The article I had been reading was generously illustrated with his images, but seeing them again brought back those same feelings I had experienced at the conclusion of his lecture. By producing so much, it is as if Rikki O'Neill has clichéd himself. Repetition is a real killer and probably one of the reasons why judges are sometimes less than impressed with the work we put before them, however good we think it is. They have seen it all before.

As a slight aside, one of the things that struck me at the PAGB workshop regarding the standard required for a D, was the amount of processing and manipulation evident in the examples we were shown. The assessors stressed several times that there is a big leap from C to D and the standard required is commensurate with regular success at exhibitions and salons. However, I didn't see many of what I would call 'traditional' photos in the selection shown to us. They all seemed very art focussed.

Mike's link might be useful for members looking for examples of Surrealist works (see Wally Conquy's post).

http://www.rikoart.com/

link to Wally's post:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1633

Rose wrote:As a slight aside, one of the things that struck me at the PAGB workshop regarding the standard required for a D, was the amount of processing and manipulation evident in the examples we were shown. The assessors stressed several times that there is a big leap from C to D and the standard required is commensurate with regular success at exhibitions and salons. However, I didn't see many of what I would call 'traditional' photos in the selection shown to us. They all seemed very art focussed.

I really do hope that this is not the case. While the creative side of things is another avenue and when done well the visual impact cannot be denied*, should the PAGB be taking this approach and ignoring other forms of photography, it is doing both itself and the members of its constituent clubs a real disservice. I would not be interested in gaining a C if I thought that the higher distinctions were not open to me due to such a policy.

* That leaves aside whether a heavily manipulated and composited image is actually photography, or more correctly Photoshop art where the initial elements just happened to be have been created with a camera.

OK, perhaps not... the latest edition of PAGB's e-news contains a wider selection of images which have been successful at D.

http://www.pagbnews.co.uk/e-news/archiv ... eOrNot.pdf