Interesting (film related) story on the beeb

VirtualAdept

VirtualAdept

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,169
Name
Mads
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend of mine just sent me this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-39254575

The whole idea of little islands is something I'd never considered, though its certainly made me think.

One thing I wanted to ask, in reference to his reason for using film, I was wondering if thats a common theme among us filmies?
 
I'd like to say that a shot on a negative feels more real - I like his quote about the photographs "being objects describing a place". In reality, I think I need to print more, to really live up to that expectation. It's one of the reasons I've always been interested in printing onto things other than paper, to make an image more sculptural.
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm is it me as IMO his shots were depressing and have no "sparkle"
Click to expand...

I have to agree Bryan. I understand the fact that British weather is generally grey with a hint of grey but there doesn't seem to be any highlights in those images at all.

Sorry for bringing in digital images, but Llanddwyn Island is a great place if you're a landscape photographer although the wild horses can scare the life out of you if you're walking back towards the mainland in the dark...

Llanddwyn Island by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

As is the coast around Meols/Hilbre

Meols Boats by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
 
"I believe a photograph cannot exist unless it appears as a physical object, negative or print."

A prime contender for Private Eye's "Pseuds Corner", if ever there was one.
 
Edit: nah, ignore, not worth getting into.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
H'mm is it me as IMO his shots were depressing and have no "sparkle"
Click to expand...
Now this highlights an attitude of mind - is 'sparkle' necessary for a meaningful photograph? Noting, hopefully, that a photograph may have content beyond mere surface. Or is surface held to be all?

How might you feel about the mono work of Fay Godwin, for instance? Or Raymond Moore?
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I have to agree Bryan. I understand the fact that British weather is generally grey with a hint of grey but there doesn't seem to be any highlights in those images at all.

Sorry for bringing in digital images, but Llanddwyn Island is a great place if you're a landscape photographer although the wild horses can scare the life out of you if you're walking back towards the mainland in the dark...

Llanddwyn Island by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

As is the coast around Meols/Hilbre

Meols Boats by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's more like it as Boardman's shots are so miserable that you wouldn't want to go to a place like that, if the impression was to show crappy weather he has succeeded . h'mm not for the tourist's brochures.
 
excalibur2 said:
To me yes, why show a beautiful area like that.
Click to expand...

Many, many reasons. Beauty is subjective. Beauty is more than the surface. Beauty is contextual. Because capturing beauty isn't always the aim of the photographer, nor always desirable.

Britain is beautiful, and Britain is also wet, miserable, and in many respects, a bit s***. There's room for sun-drenched landscapes, and there's room for moody, drizzly ones, and room for depressing ones, and room for Martin Parr at New Brighton showing kids paddling in rubbish-filled pools. Criticising photos for not capturing beauty or sparkle if there was never any intention of doing so is just missing the mark.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Many, many reasons. Beauty is subjective. Beauty is more than the surface. Beauty is contextual. Because capturing beauty isn't always the aim of the photographer, nor always desirable.

Britain is beautiful, and Britain is also wet, miserable, and in many respects, a bit s***. There's room for sun-drenched landscapes, and there's room for moody, drizzly ones, and room for depressing ones, and room for Martin Parr at New Brighton showing kids paddling in rubbish-filled pools. Criticising photos for not capturing beauty or sparkle if there was never any intention of doing so is just missing the mark.
Click to expand...

Well if it's style and all his shots around the British Isle are like that then I'm not impressed... I was taking shots like that when I was a newbe with only a tlr Coronet camera :D
 
Photos definitely don't always have to be beautiful. One of the objectives of art is to make the viewer think about something, and here that's achieved with dull, flat photos, to show the atmosphere of the places he visits.
 
All my photos exist even the digital shots, for me it doesn't need to be physical to exist but I do believe photos should be printed and be shown.

As far as his choice to show these coastal islands as dull grey depressing places than that's his choice and his decision to show those places in that style,
personally I wouldn't. i don't think his choice of film (FP4) and/or processing has shown us anything out of the ordinary neither is it particularly insightful in terms of the location, it may well tell us more of the photographer.

It's his choice and I would defend his right to take what he likes and present them as he sees fit, but they do very little for me.
 
I wonder if those images have some life when seen printed, because they just look like badly taken snaps *as presented* in that article.
 
RaglanSurf said:
It's his choice and I would defend his right to take what he likes and present them as he sees fit, but they do very little for me.
Click to expand...

Agree but they do look a bit 'flat'.

Bet they look better as prints. ;)
 
But what is so newsworthy about that?
None of the islands are hard to get to. I've been to them all more than once and never thought I was doing anything out of the ordinary.
There are harder places to visit than these and that's before we get into urbex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top