I think todays photography has started to place too much emphasis on the technical aspect of how the photo was made, as opposed to the aesthetic why was the photograph made. Just because someone uses four grands worth of kit to produce a photo doesn’t make it amazing. It comes down to the often forgotten idea that its the photographer that takes the photo, not the camera, and it doesn’t matter what light recording device is used, as long as something is being used.  I do think sometimes the technical aspect can help others, but should only be used as rough guide, as otherwise the whole idea of using photography to be creative and come up with something new and visually stimulating falls down. Once somethings been done, its old news. A few examples that pop into the brain are The “Dave Hill Look” and “Dragan Effect”.  Both are two processes that first start out with an idea, then were planned, then lit and shot, then processed to achieve that particular look. Not as many people really want to believe, an action that can be applied to a shitty photo to make it suddenly amazing. Andrzej Dragan only takes only a few photos, spends months on the processing based on the subject and context, and produces amazing portraits. This is what many people fail to realise, the subject and context of the photo is much more important than what is done in Photoshop. Photoshop is a tool to help realise the photographers idea, but past a few minor tweeks and changes, the magic wand can’t magically make the photo amazing.

So where am I going with this? Basiclly, people should stop worrying about what camera they have, just go and and take photos. Ignore photoshop, think about what they are photographing, and do something new. Be influenced by other people, but don’t copy them.

As for me, I’m going to start using film more for personal work, slow down, think about everything a lot more and concentrate on the subject and context. Use Photoshop less and let the photograph stand on its own merit. With my digital shooting, simplify; one lens, one light, (I think I may have said this before actually…) and see what happens…

http://www.andrzejdragan.com/ -  For photos that are better than yours. :-)

Dunno when, yesterday… maybe? Nikon announced its D90 DSLR, causing a flurry of people on the photo behemoth Flickr to comment/argue/announce that they want one. It was the same story with the D300, and kind of with the D700, with threads along the lines of “I have a D40x and am thinking of upgrading to a D300, or should I get a D90??”

Now it may just be me, as I am poor and bitter and can’t afford a D-whatever, but to my warped photographic mind if you are happy with your D40x shooting the kids in the garden, or going out on day trips, what exaclty will buying a brand spanking new £1000 camera give you, apart from the sense of one-upmanship?  I was bought up (in the halcyon days of film) to understand that the camera just records light, the light is controlled by the lens, making the lens more important than the box its strapped to.

I use a D200, I bought it new about 2 months after it was released to replace my aging D100 (still going strong) My D200 just works. I know its foibles and how to get the best out of it. I don’t shoot at iso1200, autofocus aint the fastest in the world, but I can work around that too, I’ve never once said…”ooh, if only I had a D-whatever that shoot would be so much better…”

My next purchase? D300? D700? na. Glass. a 24-70mm f/2.8 to be specific. Damn sharp, and in a focal length that I need (only got a slow cheap mid-zoom at the mo) as I shoot portraits and the odd bit of fashion.

Will I ever get a new body? probably, when the D200 dies. As to what, well, we’ll see. Aulthough I’m leaning toward an FX sensor…

Pointless rant over…

OK, so its not the highlight of my photographic career to date,  but its always nice to see pics in print, Even if dispite careful framing and everything, they get the hell cropped out of them. (yea I understand its for space reasons…) Few photos from A Yellow Brick Road shoot I did last month (which was actually rushed to get done for the Fashion Supplement, but for whatever reason wern’t used)

Photos by Me, Mike Osborne, Yea it says Contributed Pictures, dispite them (the CP) being told (more than once) who took the photos. OK, its not exaclty Elle or the Telegraph supplement but c’mon, my name takes up less space. I assume theres a reason why they choose not to credit anyone exept the staff photographers, but to me it seems a bit strange. Its not like I’m trying to steal their jobs or anything…

Ah well (-;