PH Emerson and later the F/64 group, including amongst others Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, interested me particularly when reading through the course. This was because if my ideas for night/twilight photography that I intended to entertain for Assignment 1 – Landscape and perhaps beyond turned out like I imagined them, then this kind of approach would suit me well. A reason for this was ultimately images would be produced that consisted of subjects with sharp focus throughout. However, certain parts of the images could appear in motion, through longer exposures invoked from the small apertures used; quite ironically in order to get the rest of the subjects sharply in focus. This related back to something I had been finding with my photography.

Photography can almost force you down certain avenues within certain genres; for landscape, a high fstop is required for a slow shutter speed, providing the ISO remains constant. This thereby provides potential for the appearance of movement (usually in clouds or water). Conversely, a slower shutter speed is usually required for a large fstop, in order to make everything (else) sharp. So a tripod is required, both for the longer exposure and the small aperture making everything sharp! This conveniently coincides with two desirable effects that are often employed in landscape photography – a sense of movement and an aesthetic realism through everything else being sharp in the image.

This is further accentuated at certain times of the day; like the ‘blue hour’, just after sunset/before sunrise. This time of day is quite desirable because it looks more beautiful (or sublime), depending on what perspective you are looking at it from than say, midday. These images tend to benefit (from my experience), with sharp foreground and background elements, with the sky and/or water (and possibly moving people) providing the sense of movement in time. Here, there is the contrast between the sharp authenticity of the foreground and background subjects and the subliminal effects of the moving elements. The blue, otherworldly skies and the city lights coming to life add to this tension. It is coincidentally the time of day when these two factors (the sharpness throughout the frame and the sense of movement) are most manageable technically. This is for the reasons described above; with the ISO remaining low and the camera on a tripod the shutter speed are longer and f numbers are large naturally, without being overly so.

Long exposures can be a bit of a double-edged sword: on the one hand they’re very cool and sometimes sublime when used wisely. On the other hand they can become a bit clichéd, with some (at least landscape) photographers using the technique for the sake of it and also for a more remote reason. The remote reason is that it differentiates itself from what can be achieved on a DSLR from that on a smartphone, for example, because of the effects it produces. It is one of only a few ways DSLR photographs nowadays can appear ‘superior’ over smartphone photographs. However, when used ‘wisely’, it can tell the passage of time within a photograph or make subliminal effects that provoke emotional reaction.

Using small apertures (large f numbers) instead, were seen by photographers, notably Emerson for example to break out of pictorial traditions, where large apertures had been previously used to create soft, dreamy effects. The reasoning for this was Emerson felt (strongly) that the compositional elements and aesthetics should take precedence over what the photographer was feeling at the time.

So it could almost be seen that photography has come full circle nowadays, where long exposures are desirable but more importantly allow the photographer to introduce a pictorial feel, through using techniques that strangely follow rules similar to traditions of the F/64 group. This is where the aperture is purposely small in offer to produce sharp images throughout. Adversely, longer exposures can be invoked, producing effects that could be likened to the pictorial traditions that landscape photography started with. This is especially true when the final image has been post-processed: enhancing the effects of movement through dodging and burning and other local adjustments.

I still argue there is still a very good reason to adhere to getting the exposure as close to ideal in camera as possible, where it was practically essential for those photographers then. This is because while it is true ‘adequate’ results can be achieved in post-processing form exposures that aren’t ideal in camera, more than adequate results can be produced from an ideal exposure; for example there is often less noise in a well-exposed shot (or even exposed-to-the-right shots when used carefully) than in comparison to an underexposed shot where the shadows were ‘pulled up’ to retrieve detail. While these differences can be minimal or only visible at a magnified level, they tend to add up if the digital file is heavily processed.

Some other factors affecting whether an exposure is captured ideally in camera, would be keeping the camera level to reduce distortion and straightening corrections which can reduce final resolution of an image.

I was aware that one of the reasons I chose to do landscape as the next part of my course was that I would be able produce photographs that were ‘aesthetically pleasing’ to the eye. This I think is a bit different to beauty; firstly because it means I am actively trying to create images how I want them to look, rather than other people. However, I was aware that I would probably have followed (or intentionally (hopefully!!), broken) certain technical rules to increase the likelihood that others find the photographs aesthetically pleasing too. Because I believe beauty is subjective, it made sense to me that others might find photographs I produce beautiful too, with others ‘only’ finding them aesthetically pleasing.

On the other side of this argument was the realisation that for me, with sublime (and to a lesser extent beauty in my opinion), viewer’s sometimes don’t have to decide whether they find a photograph either one of these two contrasting aesthetics; they simply ‘feel’ something for a photograph that is sublime or beautiful. 

The Thames foreshore was a feature of London most people (especially those visiting as tourists) would overlook – ‘focussing on structures that are often overlooked or dismissed as banal’ – James Smith – BJP Feb 2014.

One observation I’ve made concerning certainly my own photography and other photographers as well is that while a strong foreground element and background element make a good ‘standard’ for a landscape, the foreground is usually the main variable that separates photos from other photographs. The background however remains fairly constant if photographing the same setting. By carefully choosing the composition the photographer is able to suggest conflict or harmony between the background and foreground elements differently in the same setting; mostly down to the foreground. I realise these might seem quite general comments but my point would be that the vantage point and selection (where possible) of the foreground may change (by whim or because of message intended by the photographer) to what was desired to be conveyed to the viewer. Meanwhile, the background (excluding the sky usually) is still recognisable as the same.

An idea because of this observation would be that I could search for something natural as a foreground element in the city. The first element of the city that sprung to mind was the Thames. More specifically and more uncommon was the foreshore of the Thames when the tide was out. While the foreshore did indeed include many man-made components like jetties and wharves, these components were so corroded by the gradual wear of the river that in my eyes at least they almost seemed natural. The Thames foreshore was a feature of London most people (especially those visiting as tourists) would overlook (especially when the tide was in!). This reminded me of a quote I read in the British Journal of Photography (February 2014) by photographer James Smith: – ‘focussing on structures that are often overlooked or dismissed as banal’ – James Smith – British Journal of Photography (February 2014). Coincidentally his approach to landscape photography interested me as well, where: ‘while he focuses on landscape in his work, it’s the built environment and the human response to it that interest him.’ The majority of the urban landscape in London was ‘built environment’ but ironically one of it’s few natural elements – the Thames – holds secret another ‘built environment’ that is only revealed when the tide of the Thames is out – the jetties and wharves of the Thames foreshore. I could potentially suggest a conflict within a modern landscape – the old, slowly corroding jetties and wharves of the foreshore in comparison to the flourishing, contemporary and massive landmarks of London. This contrast would be present in what is deemed a completely urban scene. I would be giving an unconventional perspective (through this historical/natural foreground element) in relation to the more commonplace modern, urban background elements. These backgrounds I thought would work best as being large, famous landmarks of London. My reasoning for this was that many of the landmarks would be known worldwide by tourists and showing the landmarks in a completely different light (at least to my eyes), with unusual foregrounds, would challenge such viewers preconceptions of London. The saying ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ came to mind but the opposite of this might be true with this approach: the sublime is non-negotiably haunting and evocative. Yes, the setting of each photograph was clearly still in London but to my mind it would be such an unusual viewpoint to see London from that prior notions could potentially be altered. This again is similar to the intentions in James Smith’s work described in the British Journal of Photography (February 2014): to encourage viewers to reassess their responses to them [structures that are often overlooked or dismissed as banal], and therefore their own personal assumptions.’ While the contemporary buildings along the The Thames were big and bold, the old and once very important, structures like jetties and wharves immediately beside the Thames were being forgotten.

When taking the photos, maybe take two exposures one 30s, the other fast shutter speed? So I have backup pictures in case my tutor says there was no necessity to making such long exposures?

By naturally being a low viewpoint as the river Thames was of course lower down than the landmark buildings, the photographs would inherently be less objective and detached.

References:

Smith, J. (2014) In. British Journal of Photography (February 2014) Aptitude Media Limited, 9 Beaumont Gate, Shenley Hill, Radlett, Herts, WD7 7AR UK.