Light & Shadow

I’m nearly ten years into my ‘serious’ photography journey. I’ve photographed pretty much every style of subject in many different locations. I have taken tens of thousands of photographs, maybe half of one percent, worth keeping or at least ones which I am proud of.

I don’t know if this hit rate is unusual but all the while, I’ve been searching for a distinctive style. I want people to look at my work and instantly recognise it. A distinctive look that my photos take. The one constant quest in my work is to examine the relationship between light and shadow.

I enjoy the work of street photographers such as Sean Tucker, Samuel Lintaro, Roman Fox and Faizal Westcott ; who all maximise the use of shadows, strong patches of sunlight and people moving through these spaces. I went into Manchester last week and made the most of the sunshine by finding spots where it partially lit up the scene. Im still learning the techniques involved with making strong images but I do use the highlight weighted metering mode on my Sony cameras. It’s a fairly common metering mode on most makes but the Sony one helps me to produce a certain look that I’m after.

The light gods do have to bless you in order to achieve this style but when they do, you need to work the scene quickly and with intent. I like people or interesting objects to be in the light or people passing through. I’m not worried if others in the scene just come out as black shapes because it helps the viewer to concentrate on the detail in the lighter spaces. The three pillars of photography to my mind are light, composition and time. I am far from the finished article when it comes to all three but I have learned and improved my understanding of all of them in the last ten years. I now take photos intentionally rather than in hope. I compose a scene and wait for something or someone to walk into it. In the case of the image above, the man eating a snack was stood for a while but I had to wait for him to be isolated rather than behind passers by.

The image above has elements of light and shadow created entirely by the shape of the building. The geometric patterns of the building look fabulous against the blue sky ( if you look carefully, there’s an airliner flying above) and shows you don’t need to be on the street waiting for someone to walk through a patch of light to make a good photo. The legendary British photographer Martin Parr has said that you need to find a subject that interests enough to want to explore more and more. My landscape photography works best for me when I have dramatic skies or strong light on parts of it. I struggle with landscape photography because I think people like landscapes and they are less challenging than street or documentary photography. I’m drawn to the coast because it has texture, light and drama. I just don’t think I’m much of a landscape photographer and I admire those who create beautiful images in nature. It’s just not my main interest and I need to accept that.

I can’t conclusively say my style is distinctive, that is for others to determine. I know I haven’t perfected it by any stretch of imagination but I am getting there. The one thing that those who see my work like is my moody look to my images. I like to create a bit drama, to make the everyday seem a little more interesting.

On another topic, I find myself getting a little frustrated with some photographers on YouTube who tell you that ‘gear doesn't matter’. I am no beginner and have been at this for a while now. I sell my work, have had my work featured in magazines and do studio photo shoots and gear does matter. The fact I’ve been through pretty much every camera brand to end up where I started with Sony. Why did I switch from Nikon Z to Sony? The cameras are as small as full frame cameras get, they have an extensive range of native and third party lenses available and they just work. They aren’t aesthetically the prettiest, they don’t go for retro or sleek. They are purely functional but very good at that. I enjoy shooting with them because they don’t get in the way of my composition or execution.

Often these photographers shoot with the top of the range camera bodies and lenses, get gear sent to them and are sponsored to make their videos.

I don’t begrudge them these factors in any way. They are very experienced professionals who have worked their socks off to get where they are. They provide useful information for those wanting to upgrade or switch gear; and I know it isn’t their intention to make you go out and buy the same in the hope of you being as good as them, because it doesn’t make you a better photographer. I do however reserve the right to have gear that is slightly more than I need for the essentials and allows me to be even more creative. I have traded my way to my present set up and don’t plan on switching because I’ve been there and got several t shirts to prove it.

Eureka Moment

I had a frustrating walkabout two days ago.

I took a Pentax DSLR and some lenses into Halifax and went to the market to take some shots. I found myself chopping and changing lenses, not content with any of them.

This contrasts with the day before in Manchester. We visited the David Hockney exhibition at the Aviva studios and my main lens of choice was the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 SE. Limiting myself to shooting mostly with that was quite liberating. I zoomed with my feet, worked harder to get the right shot but enjoyed the experience much more. Following my photo walkabout in Halifax and after reviewing my images, I ended up deleting half the photo because I didn’t like either the composition or the fact I had had to work so hard to get them.

I sat and thought about the experience and came upon a realisation. Why am I burdening myself with an excess of choices? The obvious answer to this is to only use a zoom lens. A zoom will allow me to cover all the standard focal lengths and I wouldn't have to move about so much in order to get the shot. I have a beautiful Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens which does an excellent job. For landscapes, it’s pretty much all I would need as it gives me a broad focal length reach when sometimes you are restricted by your environment. I am however, not just a landscape photographer. Often I will rock up in a location and look for the human interest in a ‘landscape’ setting. I also love architecture, people and documentary photography. For these more urban or street settings, a small prime lens is much better. My cameras aren’t massive and a small prime will make for a relatively discreet set up.

I then did a review of my edited images on Lightroom and went by focal length. It turns out that one of my favourite focal lengths just happens to be 40mm. The images at 40mm weren’t just on primes and often on a standard zoom lens. Now I have two small cheap Nikon primes (the 40mm f/2 se and 28mm f/2.8 se). I use the 40mm far more than the 28mm purely because I seem to like the field of view you get with a 40mm. When I shot with Canon full frame, my favourite lens was the 40mm f2.8. Yesterday, we went into Leeds and I took a quick stroll around the market area using only the 40mm. It was a hugely liberating experience to not have to think about zooming or changing lenses. The less you change the less likely you are to risk getting dust on the sensor. Some of the most iconic photographers of all time only used one or two prime lenses. They moved and worked for their shots, restricted themselves in order to free up their creativity.

So why 40mm? For me, it is wide but not too wide. It allows me to get a degree of background separation without distorting the subject. There is the long ranging debate as to what focal length does the human eye perceive the world. It is generally thought that we see between 40 and 50mm. Pentax do a 43mm f/1.9 which is seen as the optimal real world view we experience. Leica recently released a 43mm version of the Q3. So, using a 40mm is slightly wider than our normal view but not too wide as to distort. I’m not a great proponent of this whole real world focal length thing but what I do know is that just before I put the viewfinder to my eye, I see a composition. If that composition is there in my viewfinder, It makes my life a little easier. The Nikon lens is a relatively cheap lens but it is really well made considering its price point. it is very light and compact, autofocuses quickly and quietly. It renders colours and images with an almost nostalgic look (they worked some weird magic) and most importantly, is an uncomplicated lens. No buttons, options , just a lens. Your photography became much less about what kit you have and more about what you’re doing. Landscape photography is generally a much slower process than street or documentary. You can use a zoom to get just the right composition and take your time. I do like doing this but by nature, I am impatient. I see an image and take it. I often don’t prepare, hardly ever use a tripod and almost never bracket or focus stack. I should probably try doing it more but do I want to miss the moment setting up? I admire so many landscape photographers for their skill, preparation and attention to detail.

The upshot of this is that I will be using my 40mm lens far more than before. I also carry the 28 for when I want a wide angle shot but generally, I’ll stick to 40mm. I still have the 24-120 and the superb Z 50mm f/1.8 S as a portrait lens which will not be neglected. I shall be offloading a bunch of gear as having too many options is not good for me. I now have to work on making sure I have the correct settings for every scenario. There are so many conflicting opinions as to how you set up your camera for street photography but I will just have to do more research. I hope you like my 40mm gallery of photos on this blog post.

Eating My Words

Ok, I was wrong.

I made the decision a week ago, in order for me to trade a load of gear in for me to buy a Nikon Z7II, a 45.7mp high resolution beast. The big brother of my Z6II. I’m loving the output of the Nikon mirrorless system and having done extensive research, I thought I’d be the total hypocrite you now see before you.

There are several reasons as to why but they will just sound like me justifying this decision.

We have had fairly inconsistent weather in the last few days and I have been getting over a cold, so the opportunities for me to give the camera a good run out, have been limited. So these really are first impressions. Form and function, it is identical to the Z6II. It is very hard to tell one from the other apart from the writing on the front. They behave very much alike so it isn’t a steep learning curve to operate or indeed set up. Where the magic begins is the moment you start producing images. The clarity, the detail you can get from this camera is for me, off the scale. You are presented with a machine that can produce whatever you want it to/or are able to, and the choices in composition are limitless. The ability to crop an image and not lose printable resolution is really handy.

All the reasons I didn’t go for this model seem a bit far off the mark. Yes, my 24mp Z6II is probably cleaner in low light and it has a faster burst rate than its big brother but they are different tools in that sense. As a landscape camera and for general street photography, I think the Z7II should be a winner. The image above was taken at sunrise a couple of days ago. On editing the raw file, I noticed this dot in the sky. At first I thought it was a bird or a bit of debris on the lens. When I magnified it , it was a clear shot of an airplane carrying passengers to or from their holidays. It is tiny but very clear, which I found astonishing. The tree-line is sharp against the pink sky. I’ve shot with some nice cameras in my time but none have come close to capturing detail quite like this.

The black and white images in this post are taken with the Nikon z 24-70 f/4 s lens, a kit lens that is by far the best I’ve ever used. It balances beautifully on both my Nikon bodies and produces super sharp images every time. Some higher megapixel cameras have too much resolving power for some lenses but the Nikon ones pair very comfortably with the Nikon bodies. Have I been here before with previous cameras? sort of. I have used some great gear in my time but none come close to this new one.

I have sold all my Pentax gear and a couple of other pieces to fund this new body. I don’t have to wonder if I’ve made the right decision because I already know the answer to that. Yes, you can produce stunning photos on a 15 year old 12mp camera but this gives me so much space to create and does the hard work effortlessly. I fully admit I was wrong.

Does Size Matter?

The image above was taken with a 36.3mp camera. That is as big a sensor I have ever owned. By modern standards, that’s a middle of the road sized sensor, given that many top end full frame cameras are at 61mp and medium format cameras at 100mp. I bought the camera partly on reputation and also that it was a very good deal. The 36.3 mega pixels, allow me to crop my image quite considerably and still retain a decent file size. The question is though, does it make for better quality images than say a 12.8mp camera from the same manufacturer?

I have Nikon cameras ranging in sensor size from 12 to 36 and I’m not entirely sure that the number of pixels, determines the quality of image. There doesn’t seem to be an exponential growth in quality, the more mega pixels my camera has. I have more scope to crop with a bigger sensor but do I lose anything at the same time. My Nikon d700 (that took this image above) is a very interesting camera in the Nikon pantheon of cameras. Nearly every modern digital sensor is made by Sony by way back when Nikon designed the d700 and d3 cameras, they went to Matsushita (a branch of Panasonic) to supply the sensors. This resulted in two models that render light and colour very differently to most other digital cameras. It’s a big heavy camera that is a professional grade camera and a joy to use.

The image above is from a Nikon d750. This is a 24mp DSLR and 24 is often described as the sweet spot of pixels and full frame sensor format. It has more in common with my 36mp Nikon d810 but is smaller and marginally lighter. It handles low light as well as both of the others and is rugged and a pleasure to use. The delight of these Nikon cameras, is that they are all very reasonable and professional grade gear. They do create slightly different looks but none have a particular edge over the other. The lack of megapixels in the d700 is made up for with an extraordinary filmic quality of its images. The d810 produces highly detailed images that allow the photographer to crop at pleasure. I like to use a 5:4 crop (pretending it’s a medium format image I subconsciously assume ?) .

I like to have several bodies that I can use for different purposes. I like the option rather than doing everything on one body. I’ve recently sold all my Panasonic gear and got a very cheap Nikon z6, to use mainly for street photography. For my photo shoots, I’ll probably use the d810 and d750 as they are good for portraits and in low light. The d700 is my indulgence. I love it because it does something the others don’t.

Does size matter then? Not really is my conclusion obtained from not very exhaustive research. I’m happy using Nikon cameras, lenses and that seems to be the common denominator. I can share batteries among 3 cameras, lenses over all 4 and a menu system common to all. It makes life simpler and easier to switch from model to model. How many megapixels is not my primary thought but having a range does help.

No Compromise

I said goodbye to my full frame Pentax K1 a week ago. I was sorry to see it go but needs must and it was time to enter pastures new. I could have gone back to Fujifilm, a camera manufacturer I know very well. My main concern however was kit weight and although the bodies are generally a lot lighter than the full frame equivalents, often the zoom lenses aren’t much smaller.

The only realistic other option was to enter the world of Micro Four Thirds and specifically, Panasonic. I could have invested a large amount of money in the latest G9 MkII but in the end, I went with the MkI G9. It’s a very good camera, high spec, good menus, very comfortable to hold. It has great video specs too which is a real step up from the Pentax. I did however, realise I would have to rethink how I use my camera. The smaller sensors aren’t as good at controlling noise in high iso settings. That means relying on base iso and slower shutter speeds in low light. .

I’ve been using it for a few days now with some getting used to. The lenses are very nice and incredibly tiny. It’s so nice to be able to pick your camera out of your bag and not feel weighted down before you even compose a shot. Today, I spent an hour in Leeds city centre, doing some street photography. I put the Leica kit lens on and got to work. What a joy to use! I’m pleased with the shots I got , some slightly different to my usual style. I know it is capable of producing top class professional results but this will take time to get on top of. As a workhorse however, I couldn’t be happier. I hope you like the selected images from this mornings session. It does not feel like a compromise. It’s a different route but I hope, the right one.