Christian Darque Photography

The Quality Of Photography

2011-10-29T16:33:00.006+11:00

While recently reading an edition of Australian Photography, one article posed the question "if we removed Photoshop from the world, how many good photos would we actually see".

Of course the intent here is to suggest that too many people rely on post processing, "fx" and manipulation and there would not be too many "good photographic eyes" in this world.

Personally I think that opinion is overly judgemental and possibly completely incorrect. Looking at things a little differently, would it be possible that the actual quality of photography might improve? Given the propensity of so many digital photographers to "over Photoshop" an image, is it not possible that without that reliance on manipulation we would see more pure, raw genuine shots relying more on the eye of the artist to create something unique and captivating purely from the strength of the image?

Who knows. However I have had a few conversations recently with fellow photographers in which we have discussed elite expensive camera equipment and the quality of image they can provide.

I have also, during these conversations, recounted the story of a young girl in the USA who won a major photographic prize using a $10.00 throwaway camera from Wal Mart. That got me to thinking of what could we potentially photograph around us, on a daily basis, using whatever we had on us at the time. Be it a mobile phone camera, a small compact or even a webcam.

I have taken a few shots recently with an iPhone 4, using only that phone and it's software to create the final picture. I will share a couple of them here.

This shot above was taken on my mobile as I was leaving Adelaide recently. I added a vignette effect and obviously turned it into black and white. Apart from that, as shot. Personally I like this shot a lot. It reminds me of a WW2 style documentary photograph of a bomber, and I have a real love of photos that provide a feel of nostalgia. I particularly like the engine being in the shot, it gives the shot a feeling of dimension and reality.

The colour version I also liked a lot, but the drama of the black and white just did it for me.

The Escalator. Taken in the arcade next door to The Hilton in Adelaide. The sight of a lone man surrounded by shining steel, light and structure interested me. Again, shot on the mobile with a frame and desaturation added via the phone's software.

The Adelaide Wine Centre. I like this shot, reminds me of the silver gelatin style photo. Added FX and frame in the phone's software.

So what's the verdict? Feel free to love, loathe or have complete indifference to the shots above, it's all about artistic opinion.

Personally, I think the production of a good photographic always has and always will emanate from the eye of the artist, sometimes in spite of all the expensive equipment available.

Just take photographs with whatever you have at your disposal, I want to see your art.

Jesh De Rox

2011-10-29T15:47:00.006+11:00

I had cause to attend the AIPP Nikon gathering at the Adelaide Hilton in October, an event known as, interestingly, The Event.

I must confess, until the second last day of this gathering, I had never heard of Jesh De Rox. He was listed, incorrectly as I later found out, as speaking on "Experimental Photography", and that interested me.

After two and a half hours, instead of attending a workshop on how to create arty shmarty experimental photography with "my super new crazy and zany ideas", I found I had experienced a roller coaster of incredibly uplifting emotion, awareness, inspiration, motivation and just an all round fantastic feeling.

Jesh spoke with more honesty, logic and human respect than I have ever heard uttered form those to whom we trust our futures, politicians. I heard more about respect, dignity, spirituality, decency and love than I have ever heard from any Priest, Pope, Rabbi or Minister. Yet not once was God mentioned, nor was religion.

Yet, all this was tied in so naturally, logically and obviously with art and photography. And it all made sense.

Jesh is a very unique individual, he speaks wonderfully and grabs your attention from the moment he starts. Entertaining as hell, yet highly observant and intellectual in matters of logic and the obvious. He is like a hyrbid of Jerry Seinfeld, Albert Einstein and Picasso.

I was, very simply put, impacted by a man I had never previously met and knew nothing about. I could identify with and understand his philosophy so easily it was uplifting.

He has made me view my future photography, my life, my respect towards others and my own personal attitude in a completely new light. And all this from a photographer.

He brought audience members to tears with displays of emotion, love and respect, and how easy these things are to obtain, and he had us in fits of giggles with his fascinating view of the behaviour of us all.

I met Jesh very briefly. All I can say is it was a seminar I'll never forget, and I have seen a lot of those. I sincerely hope I am lucky enough to one day meet again with one of the lovliest souls on our planet.

The photograph above was taken from the back of the room with my iPhone 4, every time I see this photo I can feel the memory of that moment, and that's just what a photograph should do.

Blessed Be Jesh, you're a gift to those who need to feel a difference.

The "Mysterious" South Sydney Project!

2011-09-11T13:14:00.004+10:00

Those who know me realise I am a big fan of the South Sydney Rabbitohs, a famous club from the NRL first grade competition in Sydney. Anyway, moving forward, as many may know the Oscar winning actor Russell Crowe is part owner of this famous and proud old club.

So, imagine my surprise one Saturday afternoon when I received a call on my mobile from Russell saying he had seen my work, loved it, and wanted me to become involved in a creative photographic project he had in mind.

Now, as I am sworn to secrecy regarding the details of this project, I can say no more. However in this blog I am going to give those interested in South Sydney and photography a "sneak peek" into some of the shots. I hope you enjoy.

The photographs below were taken mainly in Feb 2010 at the annual Camp Rabbitoh Training Camp in Coffs Harbour, and at Redfern Oval in Sydney.

Rather than rattle on with my biased and personal comments about the greatest rugby league side in the world, if you have any questions about the sample pics following, please feel free to ask. Oh, and GO THE RABBITOHS!!!

That Magical Random Moment

2010-11-23T16:15:00.000+11:00

Okay, time for another rant. At times I speak with other photographers or photography enthusiasts who moan and say "there's nothing to shoot around here". Annoys me, big time.

My answer to that is, "you're not looking hard enough". There is always something to shoot.

Recently in another blog I mentioned I was in my shop at Newtown when a retro/vintage style motorbike pulled up across the road. I ran inside urgently, grabbed my EOS 40D and ripped off about 40 shots of the bike.

Of course, some people are going to look at these pics, yawn, scratch their butt in a lazy manner and ask "so what, it's a motor bike". Well, some people just can't be enlightened. For the rest of us, here are three samples of a subject I had no idea I'd be shooting until about 60 seconds before I grabbed my camera.

The moral here is, always have your camera nearby and be ready to steal that Magical Random Moment.

Ciao

So, What's Your Angle?

2010-11-23T16:01:00.001+11:00

From my observations if you're interested in photography regardless of whether you're a pro, amateur, semi-pro or someone who loves to shoot when time permits, we've all probably got one thing in common. That commonality is knowledge. If you're anything like me you'll read anything you can get your hands on when it comes to photography, in that never ending effort to improve and grab that "oh, I didn't know that" type tip.

Nothing wrong with that, it's very healthy. Again, if you're anything like me you've probably heard and read all the "inside" tips endless times. However just now and then you'll read it again and discover this tip was so basic you'd kind of forgotten it. Never mind, we all do it.

Speaking of which, I was reading a photography book recently and the author was stressing the importance of the angle from which you shoot your subject. He was talking particularly about flowers, saying NEVER shoot down on flowers. Why? Because we all see them from that angle every day. We need to get down on our knees and shoot them from an angle 99.9% of people never see them from.

This is a belief I agree with and have practiced for many years. yes, it is obvious. Like I said earlier, sometimes we forget the obvious because we're so busy trying to be perfect.
I think the "angle" rule is so important it's worth mentioning again in this blog.

The Location:

The Old Brickworks Sydney Park St Peters.

I have an incredible fascination with the past and the associated local history with locations which visually appeal to me. These old brickworks started in the 1870's and closed in 1970. The old Farmers building on Market Street was made with bricks from this operation. Whenever I go walking there I can feel the past, the workers who have since passed on, the talk of the "after work beer" you can almost hear. Hence, it has become a spot I enjoy photographing.

The large chimneys here are the real focal point, especially from a distance.

Anyway, enough talk. Here are three shots of the same structure/s but from very different angles.

I think it is very obvious how the perception of something can change depending on the angle from which you view it. The moral of this blog is, try to think of yourself as a bird, a lizard, a dog, a passenger passing on a nearby helicopter or anything other than a human looking at the same old subject from the same old angle. It will give you far more rewarding photographs.

Photoshop, Honesty & Art

2010-11-23T12:47:00.009+11:00

I've chosen a topic to blog about that will undoubtedly take some time to cover, it's the age old debate of "how much manipulation/Photoshopping should a photo have" before it becomes a lie? It's an interesting topic and one that I briefly covered in the blog entry titled "Is Photography Art" back in January of 2010.

Being totally honest, the topic, or more correctly the attitude of some people towards the topic, downright annoys the hell out of me. Nothing annoys me more than a self proclaimed "expert" telling the artist/photographer the photo is not good in a "technical" sense because it broke the rule of thirds, or your shadows are too dark or you shot directly into the sun.

Ignore them, they are all wrong. Yes, there are some rules which are age old in photography and they serve a useful purpose. But they are a guide, not a strict set of laws to be adhered to even if it stops you from shooting that artistic shot you see in your mind.

James "Frank" Hurley was criticised as far back as WW1 and WW2 for his "manipulation" and staging of his images. So what? The man is arguably one of our greatest shutterbugs, he didn't draw these images, they happened and he shot them. How he presents them finally, is the complete choice of the artist, Hurley himself.

What is staged or manipulated anyway? Who can say or know for sure? Let me give you an example with the following photograph.

At first glance I would suggest most people who looked at this photo would say it has been "Photoshopped" using one of the watercolour style filters, giving it that soft hand-painted appearance.

I would also suggest you'd be completely incorrect.

The only manipulated aspect of this photograph is the conversion from colour to black and white. Yes, there is a very soft hand-painted aspect to this shot, but that was how it was shot, straight to the camera and it was a most deliberate decision. Let me explain.

I shot this early one morning in Sydney Park, next to St Peters railway station.

Shutter speed was selected at 1/20, I wanted softness, blur and a sign of movement. I also used the panning technique, I was trying to pan not just the lady as the moving subject, but the grass and trees in the background. Hopefully the final shot would suggest movement in a soft non harsh way, but also the never ending movement of nature and all that is around us everyday.

The point is, this image was "manipulated" if you like, by my decisions on the camera settings. Ironically, my technique here would not be looked down upon for "over Photoshopping" by the "experts" because it's not Photoshopped. However, would one of these experts know that, or would they assume it was affected strongly by Adobe filters and dismiss the shot's validity based on their incorrect assumption?

Starting to see the hypocrisy displayed by experts?

For me, if the above photo was taken as a normal sharp photo and then had a paint style filter added, I would have no issue with that at all. Surely it is the result that is important for the artist and also the viewer? The photographer of the 21st century has a tool kit available to him/her for photographing their own art. There is no limitation on those tools in my opinion.

Let me give you another example, in this instance I decided to heavily Photoshop a picture in order to present not just what I saw at the time, but what I felt. Check the following picture.

This was taken on a warm spring night in Newtown in Sydney's Inner West. There was a full moon, a comforting Spring smell in the air, and most certainly a feeling of "magic" that only a full moon can provide. There were soft white clouds, but they had very strong lines in them despite their softness and they were moving ever so slowly.

I didn't want a tack sharp picture of a full moon in an urban scene with perfect reproduction of the colours. I needed to get the movement of the clouds into my shot, likewise the movement of the moon and it's surrounding clouds. Okay, that's easy, shoot on a shutter speed slow enough to blur their movement.

Cool, thanks for the advice. One more small problem, I "feel" warm taking this shot, it's spring and it also feels slightly surreal or magical out here tonight, now what do I do?

Okay, I made a decision to change the White Balance setting to reflect the colours of the bricks and window lights inaccurately, tending towards an orange feel.

So far we have a fair bit of "manipulation" and all on the basis of the camera settings. I opened this shot in Photoshop and played with the hue and saturation, I wanted it to look and feel not quite real, a little fantasy like if you will. Contrast was also altered until I got a look that made me think "yes, that's how it felt". I got the TV antennas in the shot to express the presence of nearby people and their lives, I got the moon, the clouds, the warm window lights. I got the shot I wanted.

So, in my opinion you can use a combination of manipulation effects from the camera itself through to Photoshop, if it gives you, the artist, the best opportunity to duplicate exactly what you saw, felt and imagined when you took the shot.

Sadly sometimes in life true creativity or daring to think differently is so frowned upon because some stodgy old fool insists you "stick to the rules" and not buck the "traditional" system.

To hell with them I say. I have never and never will attempt to suppress someone's creativity simply because they do things differently. In fact I would do the opposite and encourage them to break, bend and twist every conventional rule they can find in an effort to push the boundaries of their art even further. To me, that is the very essence of art.

I'll leave you with two final shots. The one of the runner running down the hill is particularly interesting in regards the manipulation debate. The rays of light coming out from behind our runner and the sun look so bold and defined that you'd swear they were added with some sort of illumination or lighting filter. Not so, not even slightly Photoshopped. It was totally due to the way I shot the sun and positioned myself. Shooting into the sun can be very rewarding if you're trying to create a very specific shot.

The dog shot I liked, it almost suggests a dog on the attack. However the deliberate blur masks the fact he was a very happy dog running back to his owner, who had just thrown the retrieved squishy ball for the dog. That soggy ball was now squashed and firmly entrenched in the dog's mouth. However the thought of a dog just being frozen with a ball in his mouth did nothing for me as a photographer. The thought of presenting him as on the attack in a local park appealed to me.

To sum up, how much manipulation is too much is a stupid question in my opinion. It is entirely up to the artist. You can decide.

Ciao

Are You Obsessed With Photography?

2010-11-20T12:34:00.008+11:00

It seems I can't go anywhere these days without my trusty Canon and it's accompanying backpack slung lazily across my shoulder.

I am a notorious early riser, at times as early as 5am I'll grab my camera and just go for a walk, and I'll shoot as I see. Just recently I was in my shop in Newtown in Sydney's inner west and an old vintage style motor bike pulled up across the road. In a mad frenzy I dashed inside, grabbed my camera and shot about 40 photos of this bike. Close ups of specific parts, rear views, front views etc, I just HAD to take every opportunity to perhaps get "that" shot of a fascinating piece of machinery. They turned out quite well in glorious black and white.

There is a place in the Blue Mountains known as the Everglades, an old art deco house and a most glorious garden designed in the 30's from memory.

My partner and I were strolling through there recently, along with Canon of course, and I caught sight of a statue which captured my imagination. The shot below is the result. It reminded me of an ancient statue that had come alive and been caught on camera while it was walking through these graceful gardens.

Leaping about in the middle of the day, talking to the statue and discussing what angle it needs to be shot from, WITH the statue, I confess is a little strange. It also does not do a great deal for your perceived levels of sanity. However I did get a shot I liked.

I have been accused, at times, of being a little obsessed with photography. I find it most difficult to watch a documentary or movie without continually uttering such things as "what a great black and white still that would make" or "I'd give my left testicle to shoot in that place for a month".

However, many of the greatest photographers in the world continually preach that for truly artistic photography, this is the way to go. To carry your camera as often as possible and look for that one instant where only you have seen something, and then you record it as you perceived it at the time. Again in the Blue Mountains we visited the Toy and Railway Museum on a very cold and misty morning. The shot below is the result. I loved so many aspects of this subject.

The mist moving in, the old railway bench right up the back, the solitary tree breaking the flow of the pure white picket fence, the boldness of the decorative timber balls that adorn the fence. To me, it just made for a very atmospheric shot.

I'm not sure if I have an obsession. I do know I feel far happier and more comfortable when I have a camera in my hand.

The point is I guess, obsessed or not, if you're into photography in any way, amateur or pro, carry that camera everywhere you go, and shoot when your heart tells you to.

And damn everyone else, there is nothing wrong with being married to a great camera!

Colour or Black & White?

2010-01-03T09:10:00.002+11:00

I shall admit up front, black and white has always fascinated me. From the old black and white movies I loved (and still do) as a child, to the photographs in the old family album to the beauty, simplicity and complexity of a good old Zebra, the two extreme tones of black and white and all the midtones in between have always just "done it" for me.

Many moons ago when I had a "boss" when working as a photographer, it seemed all my projects were to be shot in colour. To be honest I found this boring in the extreme. Don't get me wrong, I love colour, particularly those found within the magical realm of nature.

However from an artist's point of view I found it creatively inhibiting and run of the mill.

We all see in colour, we dream in colour, we think in colour, we even know what to expect from colour. If someone says "look at my photo of a tree" it's a good chance that tree will feature greens and browns in it.

Presenting a tree in black and white I find far more interesting. What filters will I apply, will I go with a strong smooth midtone style or one of highs and lows and real black and white contrast?

Yes, I suppose people could say similar challenges await the color photographer and I wouldn't argue. Black and white however, is far more exciting to me because people still don't know quite what they'll see with a black and white representation.

As an example try this experiment. Choose a TV show you like and are very familiar with, watch it but turn down the colour completely so you are watching a B&W TV show.

Try watching Dr Who, Seinfeld or Torchwood in B&W and you will probably start to understand what I mean, it's a very different experience and brings a unique "feel" to the show.

Moving on from many moons and I now have a thriving business and no longer have need for a "boss" to make me shoot in colour.

As such, probably 90% of my work is black and white from choice. At times, such as the floral shots from the Blue Mountains, I find the colours so vibrant and energising I just have to represent them in colour.

Just recently (see The Dancer collection) I have experimented with using a very very low saturation level on some of my shots giving them a soft, washed out pastel look. Certainly not a new method, but it's new for me when I use them on shots I would probably more often than not give a strong and bold finish to.

My aim has been to get the colour to a level of softness whereby the viewer is not sure for a moment if they are seeing a colour shot or a black and white shot.

Whatever your choice, enjoy it. Don't be afraid to play, as an artist, with all those options and effects regardless of your choice. It's why we are artists.

Ciao

Is Photography Art?

2010-01-03T08:44:00.006+11:00

The debate on whether or not photography is a legitimate art has raged almost since the first photograph was taken by Nicephore Niepce in 1814. The "anti art" school of thought says how can it be an art? You simply point a device, press a button and your image is there, like magic.

To me, that's a little like saying an artist who paints on canvas simply dips his brush in paint, makes marks on the canvas and hey presto you have a Rembrandt.

Obviously, I believe very much that photography is an art.

Give ten people a camera each and ask them to photograph the Sydney Opera House for example. I can guarantee you will not receive ten identical pictures back. Why? Because it is, like any form of art, very open to interpretation as to what the final product will produce.

In my early days in photography I spent a lot of time in darkrooms experimenting with different developing and exposure times, the varying temperatures of the chemicals and a million other little darkroom tricks you only learn by trial and error. These days instead of the darkroom it's usually Adobe Photoshop, but nothing has changed. The post processing effort is just as important now as it ever was in a darkroom.

If only it were as simple as "point and click" and you suddenly have this fantastic and dramatic photograph, truly a piece of art.

Even now in the digital age when in theory technology has made things easier, I find that there are even more possibilities as to how I will process and present my final photographs, in other words the eye of the artist is probably now more important than ever due to the endless possibilities available.

In some ways I think of photography as one of the more demanding of art forms. When you point your camera at a subject and shoot, a percentage of that photograph is a "fact", it is shot exactly as you saw it at that very moment.

So, the question then arises what percentage do you leave as "exact" and how much do you interpret as the artist? This is where it gets so difficult. I have recently added a collection from the Blue Mountains to my website, the actual shots of the mountains themselves were a real challenge in so far as how to present them and what forms of processing to pursue.

That view from Echo Point and nearby in the Blue Mountains is truly one of the most beautiful and spiritual landscapes you'll ever see. However, do I see it exactly the same as you? Of course not. I see a magic, a mystery and a power in that view. How can I hopefully relay what I saw the day I took the shots to you? How can I supply a photograph that will provide you with the same impact, passion and awe I see in that view?

This is where the "art" is, to me, indisputable.

As the artist, I must make decisions on focus, composition, contrast, vibrance, saturation and a dozen other tangents and then hope that someone who views my work will pick up a little of the feeling I get when I take these shots.

Is it art? Of course it is, and it's a beautiful one full of endless possibilities and conclusions.

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others on this topic.

Ciao

Me, Cameras and Cheese

2009-11-25T21:21:00.028+11:00

I confess, cheese actually has nothing to do with me or cameras, apart from the fact I just finished a dinner laden with cheese.

Back to the topic, you distracted me. I can not recall the first camera I had, but my dear late Mother always told me I was a little obsessed with cameras all my life. I recall vaguely that if I came across a camera in a second hand shop I would buy it. In a frantic manner I would run around taking pictures of everything I could, never mind the fact it had no film in it, nor was I even aware if it worked. It was me, behind a camera and taking pictures, at least in my mind. That's where all art begins, so it now seems as though it was quite appropriate.

I do recall buying a very early Polaroid camera and driving everyone nuts with my ridiculously high rate of excitement at this brand new technology, this allowed me to annoy the living hell out of everyone within shooting distance by photographing them and then making them watch the miracle of that instant photo while I giggled excitedly beside them.

My first serious camera was a fabulous old Pentax MX, with a variety of lenses, none of which I can now recall. I actually used this camera professionally for a number of years both in Australia and overseas and still own it to this day.

The Pentax MX, a grand old lady!

Fast forward a number of years and I was dragged very reluctantly into the digital era. I was very much a traditionalist and loved the feeling of winding the film and the sounds only an old 35mm can provide. I was loaned a digital Sony DSC F707 for a weekend by a photographer friend and I was hooked.

The next week I went out and bought the Sony DSC F828. At around $1600.00 at the time it was a very nice piece of camera. I still have it and use it. The swivel body was a great innovation and is so handy when you don't want to scrape your belly on the ground to get the right shot.

The Sony DSC F828, still holds it's own!

Currently I use a Canon EOS 40D with a Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro and a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR. Despite these lenses not being in the same quality class as their Canon prime lens cousins, they are excellent value and perform exceptionally well in all the conditions I have tested them in.

The EOS 40D, I love this beast.

A great performer, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm

The Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro in it's 3 stages of extension

I am not going to go into long boring technical details about the advantages of my current rig mainly for two reasons. Firstly for those who want to know all the technical information there are 14,753 reviews on the net on the Canon EOS 40D and both lenses. I know because I read every single one of them during a month or more of painful research before I made my final choice. Secondly this site is far more about the art of photography rather than the technology.

So, now you know my name and a little about my choice of cameras, meanwhile you have not even introduced yourself to me. How rude.

Ciao