Flies

An unlikely source of inspiration.

You know your home library is a good one when you come across books you never knew you had.

Which is exactly what happened to me the other day when in search of inspiration and education about good macro photography. I have no earthly idea how I came to own this book, but I am most certainly glad to have discovered it.

While the subject may be unusual the photography contained in the pages of this book is some of the best macro work I have seen.

Atlantic salmon flies are tied as much for their looks and display appeal as they are for real fishing. This book covers the gamut from fly tyers interested solely in emulating pre-WWI techniques (!) to those interested in the very latest designs using synthetic materials. The interviews with these artisans are almost as good as the photography.

As the book was published in 1991, before large frame digital existed, all the work here is on film and, while it’s hard to make out from the picture of photographer John Clayton on the jacket cover, was probably done on large format. The lighting, posing and choices of backgrounds all speak to a work of love and exceptional effort.

No longer on Amazon, look for this book in the remaindered catalogs. The excellent Alibris has it. Highly recommended for the beauty of the subjects and the photographic execution.

For a daily snap be sure to visit my photoblog Snap!

Phil Brown – photographer

An original and moving project.

The power of focusing on a project has been mentioned many times here. A perfect example is the work of guest photographer Phil Brown from London.

I’ll let him speak for his images – you can see more on his web site.

* * * * *

“Of the 155 homicides in the Greater London area in 2007, 26 victims were teenagers: 18 were stabbed, eight were shot. The shootings have a particular resonance, with the UK being a country with strict gun control laws. These are the streets where these eight shootings occurred.”

I originally thought up this unconventional project in November 2007, whilst reading about the latest teenage shooting in London. It may have remained only an idea had I not read a 5B4 blog review of ‘The Forest’ by Paul Seawright the following day. This book seemed to be based on the same idea – ostensibly dull scenes, quite neutrally captured, devoid of people, but rendered horrific by their accompanying captions which convey the inhumanity of what has taken place there. Seeing how someone else had successfully developed a similar idea gave me the impetus to actually see the project through, for once, rather than adding it to the ever-growing list of ‘potentials’.

Generally speaking I feel, or rather stubbornly compel myself to feel, safe walking around any part of London. I’ve been here for long enough to know where the good and bad parts are and to know the mannerisms of people well enough to gauge the potential threats. That said I felt suitably unsettled in all of the eight places I went to photograph this project. I think the fact that they weren’t generally in the more salubrious parts of the city, coupled with the knowledge that I was standing in spots where bullets had flown and people had died, made me feel unusually vulnerable. Several of the streets were dead ends (hence the name of the project) which also added to the sense of dread. After the first trip out (which featured a run-in with the police who were in the middle of a double drug bust and couldn’t fathom what I was doing wandering around) I started leaving my wallet at home and only taking the essentials to get there and back and a couple of rolls of film for the thankfully worthless camera I was using (semi-functional Canon QL17).

The challenge, besides the probably misplaced fear generated by my over-active imagination, lay in trying to make something interesting out of the largely deserted and otherwise forgettable inner city housing estates. The quality of the pictures that my light-leaking, meterless camera produced is such that the whole project has probably been rendered unpublishable in any form other than on my website (and now Mr. Pindelski’s, thanks to his encouragement). However, I think that a visually coherent gathering of such images makes a valid point and should, at least, serve to give pause for thought.

Dead Ends

War Memorial, Stoke Newington. Pass not without Remembrance.

Streatham Ice Arena. James Smartt-Ford, 16, shot on 3 February.

Fenwick Place, Clapham. Billy Cox, 15. Shot at his home on 14 February.

Long Walk, Plumsted. Philip Poru, 18. Shot on 14 October.

Clevedon Close, Stoke Newington. Etem Celebi, 17, shot on 14 November.

* * * * *

Thank you, Phil, for the opportunity to show your powerful documentary work.

For a daily snap be sure to visit my photoblog Snap!

Brand awareness

We are all guilty of it.

There’s a car that is one of the fastest in the world. It is exceptionally affordable. It is supremely reliable, has very high engineering standards and comes in red, if you want. It’s possibly the fastest production car made yet the manufacturer cannot give them away because the brand is wrong. It connotes nothing so much as beer-bellied ol’ boys at the ball park on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Not the image you quite want for something that is meant to advertise “I am single, available and sexy”.

That car, of course, is Chevrolet’s Corvette. A Ferrari with like performance and looks (OK, like performance) is five times the price.

A branding failure, no matter how much GM tells you it’s there to reinforce the message of Chevy excellence. I wouldn’t be seen dead in one.

It’s the same with watches. We have all been told a thousand times that a quartz Timex keeps time as well as anything, and that is correct, yet I have two manually wound timepieces in the desk drawer which cost egregious sums to acquire and are anything but accurate, not to mention needing constant, costly maintenance. I wear neither so there they are, waiting for …. I know not what. But the makers, unlike Chevy, got the branding dead right. Low production volumes, word of mouth advertising, scarcity, exclusivity. That’s what makes a brand.

It used to be that way with cameras.

The esteemed brands which shared the qualities of those watches were few. In the ’50s the Speed Graphic (crude and effective) and the Linhof (anything but crude, and equally effective) ruled, but only one was a brand in the sense of this piece. It was not the Speed Graphic.

Rolleiflex has always been a brand and remains so to this day. Any number of great photographers used waist-level Rolleis, ungainly as they may be, and some great studio work is being done to this day with their ne plus ultra medium format, single lens reflexes. I owned one of these nuclear deterrents many years (a 6003 Pro) and it was as easy to use as any medium format camera can ever claim to be easy to use. And it was a real Brand. When you locked that Zeiss Planar or Distagon lens on the body you were not the sort of person to be messed with.

In the ’60s there was really only one 35mm brand. The Leica. Cartier-Bresson used one. That’s all you had to know and no advertisements were needed to remind you of that.

The final years of great brands were the ’70s. A fading Leica gave way to the Nikon F which is to the Leica like Hulk Hogan is to Audrey Hepburn. Neither breaks easily, but one also doubles as a blunt weapon. Thanks to an America which appears yet again to have invaded the wrong country, Viet Nam gave the Nikon F its baptism. Thereafter there were no excuses needed for its Far East provenance. It had become a brand.

Then something funny started to happen to the whole brand idea. Maybe taking a leaf out of Chevy’s book they reasoned “We have the Corvette. Why not make some econoboxes. The brand might wear off.” So Canon, Nikon et al started making genuinely horrid consumer cameras, emblazoned with their name in a prominent, contrasting shade on the front. Now Aunt Maude could make sure everyone knew that she too, like Donald McCullin, used a Nikon.

Others came at it from the opposite direction. So desperate was Olympus to be seen that they gave British birdman Eric Hosking several sets of gear to displace his aging Zeiss Contarex. It worked. The former maker of toys was suddenly being taken seriously. Pentax did the same with David Bailey and Sam Haskins while Minolta did it with David Hamilton. More recently, new brands have piggybacked on their reputations in other fields. Ricoh and Casio make great copiers, so why not cameras? Samsung of TV fame? Why, cameras of course. And there’s no need to go on about Sony and HP.

So brand identity, in a strange way, lost its elitist leanings. First, counterculture chic dictated that the rich be seen wearing Swatch watches and using disposable cameras (for their equally disposable photographs). Second, who was to know whether your Leica was the cheapy Panny from China with the red dot, or the more-money-than-sense M8 (probably also from China but they aren’t telling)? Labels, in other words, had obsoleted brands. If you can get millions to buy your Benetton emblazoned T shirt so that you can go motor racing, then clearly the label means more than the brand.

So rather than further rue the demise of Great Brands, let me just let you gaze at some of the finest, most of which I have been fortunate to use and exult in.

For a daily snap be sure to visit my photoblog Snap!

The Man who was Never Caught

Cycling pays.

Only the most naïve think that professional sports are clean. I’m at the other end of the spectrum, depending on that old rule which applies across all fields of human endeavor:

“Go where the money is”.

Or, stated differently, I would bet that nearly all professional sports are rigged. Whether it’s the obvious – like professional wrestling – or the less so – like baseball and American football, there’s simply too much money at stake to attract the virtuous. Those icons of American entertainment are rigged, you say? Surely not.

Well, check out the most famous baseball game ever (generally referred to as “The Shot Heard Around the World”) or the New England Patriots’ more recent cheating. Rigged.

At least I take comfort in the knowledge that the only sport I actively follow – Formula One – is totally rigged. The guy with the best stolen secrets and the biggest pocket book wins every time. So at least we know where we stand. It makes the entertainment that much better when you are realistic about its parameters.

Which brings me to cycling. After weightlifting it’s hard to think of a more corrupt sport. I very much doubt that any winner of the Tour de France has been ‘clean’ in the sense we think of that description. It’s just that some are smarter than others. And boy, is there money in it or what?

That showcase of displays of wealth, Architectural Digest, profiles one such famous cyclist’s home in the current issue. Go to the home theater and there are his seven TDF jerseys, signifying an unbeaten winning streak. And one good thing about AD is that the interior photography is pretty interesting from a technical perspective, even if the displays of money on the walls leave me cold. And to show you just how much money there is in the game, the famous cyclist’s home is on the cover, no less.

The photography is great. The home of The Man who was Never Caught.

If you like good interior photography – thought some HDR might help occasionally – pick up a copy of Architectural Digest. Just don’t look for the pure of heart inside.

For a daily snap be sure to visit my photoblog Snap!

Patrick Demarchelier

And the diva.

Take a look at the engrossing movie The Devil Wears Prada and you will hear the Meryl Streep character (an amalgam, one imagines, of the two great Vogue editors of recent times, Anna Wintour and Diana Vreeland) ask on several occasions “Can we get Patrick?”.

I cannot remember a time when Patrick Demarchelier – yes, that Patrick – was not famous. With just cause. Click here and you will see what I’m writing about. Pair this superstar photographer with a true, like-they-used-to-make-them, superstar actress whose looks match her acting skill, and you have Hurrell’s Hollywood recreated. Angelina Jolie is a Star in the old sense of the word. Sure, there are the bizarre tattoos (self expression, if you ask me) and all those adoptions (how many starving kids have you saved recently?), but, heck, that’s just modern times. There’s no denying the woman’s acting skills, her commitments to charity ($8mm donated in 2006 alone), and for lady readers, the hunk that passes for her soul mate. Did I mention that she’s gorgeous?

Thanks, Mr. Demarchelier, for making life that much happier for this fan.

For a daily snap be sure to visit my photoblog Snap!

Categories

Archives

Translate