Tool or Toy?

As September draws to its conclusion, I’ve been surprised to realise it’s only been a couple of weeks since I got back from an all-too-brief holiday in Brittany.

Now I could bore you with my holiday snaps, but I’m only going to bore you with two. And they’re not even typical holiday snaps.

The real purpose of this post is to share some thoughts on a new addition to my kit bag, a Lumix GX9 camera (and two lenses). This isn’t so much a camera review, more a ‘why did I do that?’ sort of musing thing.

For My Pocket

For a long time (I’m talking years!) I’ve been in the market for a properly pocketable digital camera. Something I could chuck in my coat pocket, but with more versatility and better image quality than my iPhone – a Holy Grail for many photographers.

I looked at all kinds of options, from the eye-wateringly expensive Leica Q2/Q3, to the Ricoh GRIII, but nothing quite hit the spot. Then I started to notice the Panasonic Lumix GX-series of cameras. Again, not perfect, but as close to the right balance of versatility, quality and price as I was ever going to get.

Since I wanted a camera that could potentially find a use in client work as well as be a personal carry-around snapshot option (my Brittany holiday was starting to focus my decision-making too), Panasonic’s Lumix GX9 has the added benefit that it takes interchangeable lenses. I didn’t want the built-in zoom that many cameras in the pocket-friendly category have because I wanted the best quality I could get.

The only potential downside is that the GX9 is discontinued, and the GX-line seems to have reached the end of the… um… line. So a used camera was my only option. Even some of the lenses seem to be discontinued, such as the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7*, which is mounted on my camera in the photo.

That 20mm is, on this camera, equivalent to a 40mm lens on a regular SLR (I won’t explain the technicals here, just believe me). That’s my favourite focal length, so I was pleased to be able to pick up a genuine Ebay bargain.

For a second lens option, I bought a Lumix/Leica 15mm (30mm equivalent, see above) for wide angle shots. For this I bought new as the used prices weren’t all that attractive, and it is still available through retailers.

For Work

So how does this slot in with my work gear?

As a rule, I favour fixed lenses for my work – I just prefer the quality. However, even with two main camera bodies, this can leave me changing lenses rather more often than I’d like. So the GX9 with the wide lens on it gives me the option to do the general views at events without having to switch out the standard or long lenses mounted on my other two camera bodies.

There is compromise here though. The GX9 isn’t exactly a wizard of low-light photography, so I don’t use it where I need to crank up the ISO (sensor sensitivity) beyond 800. Things get awful noisy from 800 onwards, though the end-use of the pictures can mean low-light noise isn’t always a problem. The camera can also take an external flash, which can get me out of a fix in certain low-light situations.

The viewfinder is pretty dire too, but I knew that going in and actually I’ve got used to it. In most other respects, it’s a highly usable, capable camera – you just need to know how and when to use it.

For Fun

Beside the personal/holiday/family snap use, and to make the camera even more versatile, I also bought a lens adaptor which allows me to use some of my lovely Nikon lenses on this camera. Ok, so I lose a lot of the automation of the purpose-built lenses, but it’s another chance to play and experiment with other looks and styles. For example, I haven’t (yet) bought a longer lens for portraits for the GX9, but I have a Nikon-fit Voigtländer 40mm lens which becomes an 80mm lens on the GX9 – perfect for portraits! The adaptor adds value to the camera, as well as allowing me to use those lovely older lenses more often too.

For the Future?

I suppose my biggest fear is that one day this camera will die and I won’t be able to replace it easily. Modern digital cameras don’t always have the robustness of some film cameras. For last year’s trip to Brittany I took a very pocketable 35mm film camera. It was manufactured some time in the 1990s and yet it still functions. However, I can’t use that for work since no client wants to wait for film to be processed and scanned.

In an ideal world, Panasonic would bring out an updated version of this camera. Sensor technology keeps improving and this camera’s format (known as M43 or MFT, and pronounced ‘micro four thirds’) has a lot of advantages in terms of portability. If they’re thinking of doing this, they’re taking their sweet time about it.

For the time being this toy/tool will get use while it lives. If/when it dies, I’ll see if there’s a decent used replacement available, and keep going until I finally have to ditch the lenses. Maybe by then some perfect alternative will have emerged.

So keep an eye out for future posts featuring this dinky camera, in the meantime, here it is in all its cuteness alongside two of my favourite ‘holiday’ photos.

*Wherever the lens is listed new, it’s shown as Awaiting Stock. I suspect Panasonic ceased production some time ago.

A Qualified Opinion

Final grades certificate in photo-journalism for Tim Gander. Issued by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.

Not bad grades, and I did pretty well on a local evening paper.

This is a blast from the past – my certificate in photo-journalism, awarded by the National Council for the Training of Journalists in 1992. It was amongst a stash of old school reports hoarded by my mum.

I don’t want to sound like an old man reminiscing, but this dates from an era when photographers were trained to take pictures for news. This no longer happens, and sadly reporters with iPhones are a poor substitute.

The course at Stradbroke College in Sheffield was, for a few decades, the only formal route into news photography in this country. You either took the one-year pre-entry course (as I did), or you could get a traineeship on a paper who would then send you on block release to cover the course over a period of a couple of years (I’m a bit sketchy on this as it was a long time ago!)

Having completed my full year, this certificate graded me on my progress at that stage. I then had to find a job with a paper (in my case, The Portsmouth News) and be indentured for two years before taking final exams, submitting a final project and qualifying as a senior photographer. Of course I passed with a Distinction, as you would expect.

But why is it a problem that this structure no longer exists? People consume news very differently today, so this training malarkey is old-hat and obsolete. Plus taking photos is so much easier; who needs training?

The issue arises because since newspapers have devalued their product to the point where most local papers consist of nothing more than a mixture of phone snaps, Google Streetview screen grabs or images lifted from Twitter, photographers no longer play the role they once did, that of first witnesses and documenters of breaking stories. We simply don’t have that anymore, at least not in the traditional titles.

We were also trained to cover events, even incidents, with professionalism and with a good grasp of press ethics and the law. In fact understanding the law as it related to our work was often useful in situations where those in authority (*ahem* the police) would try to obstruct our work. Today, many reporters and certainly members of the public don’t have the knowledge required to be effective image gatherers.

The cutting back of photo departments, which really got going in the early 2000s, also disposed of an incredibly valuable asset. While reporters were already being increasingly tied to their desks, writing stories almost entirely over the phone and without leaving the office, photographers were the main point of contact between the readers and their paper.

This wasn’t always an entirely comfortable role for photographers, but it had a value which is now lost for good.

It’s good to see the emergence of community newspapers now, such as The Bristol Cable, which work on a different business model to traditional newspapers, however they still haven’t fully embraced the power of photography, largely relying instead on their staff journalists or, at a stretch, casual freelancers. This is a shame because a publication will struggle to find its look and voice if there is no consistent style to its visuals. It also means there’s still no consistent contact between readers and editorial staff.

Of course I understand the issue of cost vs benefit, and most of these new news initiatives just don’t have the budget for properly-trained photographers, so they’re stuck with this new paradigm. They can’t cover stories consistently and in depth, so they fall short of the engagement they need to grow. For as long as they can’t grow readerships, they can’t invest in photography.

So while this certificate might be a flimsy document harking back to a time when the news industry was very different, it’s also a reminder that an entire industry, underpinned by structured training, has suffered a pretty mortal blow. I would love to see a new ‘traditional media’ emerge where photographers have regular patches and disciplines to cover (eg news, sports and features), and as platforms such a Twitter seem to be losing ground, maybe the time will come when people return to trusted, curated, edited and regulated sources for news.

There is hope yet! And then perhaps I can present my certificate and get a job on an evening newspaper.

See The Portfolio, Understand The Process

With the exception of David Bailey, every photographer has to keep their portfolio fresh and updated regularly. While for some that still means a printed volume, for most photographers it’s their website, which is what I’ve been working on lately.

The question photographers have to ask themselves as they work through this process is, “What makes a picture worth adding to my portfolio?” The question you might ask yourself is, “Why should I care?”

Well if a client understands the thinking behind what makes a good portfolio, they can also understand what a portfolio says about the photographer behind it.

There’s plenty to think about, but it’ll start with context (ie. what kind of photographer they are and what kind of work they want to attract), but setting that aside for now, the best way for me to illustrate the subject is by setting down my thoughts. Through this process, I hope you’ll gain some useful insights too.

1. Why Update My Portfolio?

This one’s simple – a regularly updated online portfolio keeps Google (and other search engines) happy. Each time a search engine indexes a website it’s looking for fresh content. Fresh content boosts the value of the site and elevates it in search rankings. I get a fair bit of work this way, so I need to keep my portfolio updated.

2. What to update it with?

Every few months I go through my Portfolio pages to see what’s especially old, or what might no longer be relevant to the types of work I’m doing or want to do.

Showing certain kinds of work will attract enquiries from certain kinds of clients, which is why my site is fairly heavily skewed towards showing corporate portraits – that’s both the work I do and the work I want.

Age isn’t everything – I’ll keep older pictures in if they’re strong and still serve a purpose, but on the whole, I’m looking at recent jobs to see what might be suitable to add to or replace existing work.

When I’m trawling through my recent archive I’ll be searching for images that fall into one of the three portfolio categories: Business Portraits, Corporate Communications, Editorial & PR.

3. What Makes A Portfolio Picture?

That’s where it gets trickier, and while I don’t think I nail this one every time, I see photographers who haven’t mastered the challenge at all. They include their favourite pictures, but this is the wrong place to start.

The challenge is to disassociate yourself from the making of the picture. A portfolio picture isn’t good just because you like it. It isn’t good because it was hard to make, or because you made a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

A portfolio picture has to be good in its own right. While Google won’t even care if a picture is interesting, in focus or correctly exposed, a potential client has to be convinced by the quality of what they see. What they won’t see is the effort or the circumstances surrounding the making of that image, so its entire strength will come from its quality and content.

4. What Is The Context?

I mentioned the context in my introduction, and there I was referring to the type or field of photography being promoted. A wedding photographer will have different considerations than an industrial, architectural or food photographer.

Similarly, I need to apply different considerations when choosing images for any of my three categories. Let’s briefly go through those:

Business Portraits

Here I want to show the quality and style of my portraiture, but I’m also looking for some variety. Beyond the basic headshot against white, I also want to show I can create different styles, moods and even orientations (upright or landscape). I also include a few images to suggest that a portrait can mean more than a simple headshot and can include some context, which stylistically starts to overlap with Corporate Communications.

Corporate Communications

This is broader than just headshots, so it’s an opportunity to show greater creativity. These images might include props or location elements; they might be staged or fly-on-the-wall action images. People presenting, interacting with others or with their environment are fairly typical examples of the Corporate Communications image.

I should add that the term Corporate Communications refers to everything I do for my clients, but I sub-categorise these images to differentiate them from pure Business Portraits or Editorial & PR images.

Editorial & PR

This gallery is unusual in that I’ll often include screen grabs of the images ‘out in the wild’ in news media sites, allowing clients to make the connection between my work and the possible exposure it will bring them.

The nature of the category means I might be showing work which has more of a story to tell, but the image should still be as self-explanatory as possible (though my captions will also help explain the context and reason for the image).

For this category, I’m looking for images of a news or feature style. They were shot for a newspaper, press release or corporate news web page and therefore have a different look to those shot for general Corporate Communications.

Site-Wide Refresh

While the focus of this article has been on the portfolios, I also regularly update my homepage image as this is the first impression potential clients get. It also makes the site more attractive to search engines as they favour new content over old.

As if all that wasn’t enough, this time around I’ve also updated some of the featured pictures for the top-level Portfolio menu, again keeping the site a bit fresh for returning visitors and search engines alike.

Summing Up

In essence, if you’re a client casting around for a photographer for your next project, it’s worth having a bit of insight into what you’re being presented and why.

If a portfolio doesn’t even present examples of the genre you need, move on to the next site. For example, photographers who showcase family portraits are probably not going to grasp the particular challenges and requirements of corporate or business portraiture.

It’s important to match genre as well as style and quality to your requirements to avoid costly mistakes, and I hope this article goes some way towards avoiding that scenario.

Now you’ve read this, why not take a look back at my website? I’d love to hear if it’s changed your perception of what you see.

Has Video Grown Up?

This is the first in a short series of articles discussing the various pros, cons and considerations for businesses and organisations to get the most out of video. I’m going to start with a bit of background.

In the Beginning

In the beginning there were words, and words were good. Actually, images pre-date words by some considerable margin, but since Egyptian hieroglyphs are pictures which represent language, maybe it’s a moot point. I digress.

The point is, still images remain the most portable and often most potent and powerful method of disseminating information. There’s no denying though that video has exploded in popularity over the past decade.

Where Are We Now?

I don’t want to state the obvious, but let’s just recap that the power and popularity of video has its foundations in the convergence of Web 2.0 with digital cameras, followed by the rise of social media and easier access to the creative tools to bring us to where we are.

What has changed in more recent years is the refining of of the equipment and the editing software, bringing the craft within reach of anyone who understands images (namely photographers).

How Did We Get Here?

In 2008 the first full-frame digital SLR capable of video capture launched. It was “a game changer” but only in the right (experienced) hands. I wasn’t ready to offer video at that stage.

The tipping point has come with the emergence of mirrorless cameras, where the combination of stills and video capability in a single camera might be said to have come of age. It still requires more than just flipping a switch from Stills to Video, but that’s the nature of the medium, not the technology.

Where Do We Go Now?

All of the above leads to a situation where high quality video is now more accessible to a wider range of businesses than ever before. That isn’t to pretend it’s cheap or easy, but where it would previously have been impractical and excessively expensive to commission video for an SME’s communications, it can now be achieved with a far more attainable investment.

I mention it’s not cheap, but if you consider I can deliver a sequence up to 60 seconds long for a little over £1,000.00, that’s pretty astonishing. Of course overall cost depends on various factors which I’ll cover in a future article, but a few years ago that kind of budget would have left you with something you wouldn’t want associated with your brand. To have a video shot professionally and with any level of polish would have set you back £10,000.00 + and then you’d have the expense of getting it out there, most likely through paid-for advertising channels (more £££££££!).

Where Do Photographers Fit In This New Paradigm?

There are still differences between the service someone like me offers, and that of a full production company. However, like many photographers, my service is in addition to, not instead of, the Hollywood treatment. It’s a service which is positioned to give SME’s a step up into the world of video. The finer differences between this and the full production house service are an aspect I’ll discuss in another article later in this series.

I’m concentrating on in-house interviews, client testimonials and B roll (think flavour-of-the-event, office/business overview and retail events). Clips for YouTube, Vimeo, Instagram reels etc are an increasingly large part of my practice, often alongside stills work (not always practical or possible, but always worth asking about).

You can see some of my video work here.

That’s A Wrap!

If you’re not sure whether video has matured enough for your needs, I hope this article puts things in context. In simple terms, video is here, it’s more available than ever and it can be incredibly powerful.

Whether it’s right for your business is a question I tackle next time. Make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss it!

Is shooting film pointless in a digital age?

I have been told by people who clearly know more than I do about these things that shooting film, then digitising it, is a pointless exercise because you end up with a digital photo; why not shoot digital in the first place? Well sometimes I do shoot digital for personal projects, but it’s my choice.

So here’s my response:

1. If I shoot digital, I can only ever have a digital print from that file. Conversely, if I shoot film I have the option of a traditional (wet) print if I want it, with all the nuance and quality that gives me – far above and beyond anything achievable from a digital file.

2. Done correctly (and I’ve spent a lot of time working on this), a digital reproduction of a film negative (or positive, for that matter), should preserve much of the tonality and look of the original. It still doesn’t look like a digital image.

3. So why not add a film look to a digital original and be done with it? Because it always looks fake. And I still can’t get a traditional print from that (see 1 above).

4. When I shoot film I’ve already made certain creative choices about how I want the end result to look; I’ve baked my commitment in from the moment I loaded the film. When I shoot digital, the choices can overwhelm the creative process and the question arises, what was my original intention? What constitutes ‘the original image’?

5. Detail isn’t everything. Digital cameras now record scenes in such fine detail, it can leave the result looking sterile and forensic. Emotion and nuance are difficult to preserve in a forensic medium.

6. Why get so bent out of shape about the fact I shoot film? Some people get quite heated about this and I just don’t understand this reaction. Do they rant at watercolour artists? Do they criticise sculptors who must surely be throwing their chisels away in favour of 3D printing?

Apart from all that

I shoot film for all of the above reasons and for more besides (archival stability, provenance, approach and so on). Let me do my thing. And if my results are rubbish, by all means have a go at me for that. Criticise my results, not my method of obtaining them.

Right, I’m glad that’s settled once and for all…

PS. To see more of my personal project work, head over to https://www.takeagander.co.uk

If you sign up to my quarterly newsletter at https://www.takeagander.co.uk/contact before March 1st 2022 you’ll receive a 10% discount code for any order worth £75.00 or above AND be in with the chance to win an A4 fine art print of your choice! The winner will be announced on Friday 4th March 2022.

Do You Love Photography?

Loving Photography

The recent acquisition of Unsplash by Getty has prompted me to think about what the love of photography actually means.

I won’t go into the ins and outs of the sale here, you know how to use Google. But I do want to examine what people mean when they say they love photography. Many of these people are contributors to sites such as Unsplash, yet I have to question the nature of their love of photography.

Of course I can’t tell people what to do with their photos, but equally we should be aware that something is happening (has already happened) to photography which leaves us all much more vulnerable than we might think. It has harmed society incrementally such that we’ve barely registered the change. More on that later.

When I talk about my love of photography, I use the phrase in a global sense; I love coming up with ideas, shooting them and presenting them. Some make money, some don’t, but they’re never available for exploitation without suitable remuneration.

And loving photography doesn’t just mean loving the act of taking pictures. In that global sense, loving photography also means nurturing the industry of which you claim to be a part. In short, it means acting like a professional. At the very least, it means not causing harm.

For others it seems to mean a love of having people and brands exploit their work. Some see this as beating professionals at their own game, which is just downright weird. That is not a healthy love.

Filthy Lucre

I can’t criticise the work people upload, much of which is of a very high standard (albeit it’s often very sterile), but they should be paid fairly for its use.

Some will argue that you can’t truly love photography if you want to make money from it. Hogwash. Utter c**p. In fact I would say the opposite; anyone hooked on views and downloads is more in love with their own ego than anything.

And what if, instead, brands had to pay for what they took from Unsplash? Would they download and use it then? What does it say to a photographer if no one is willing to pay actual money to use their work?

So why does this even matter? It’s just some pictures, right? Wrong.

A Diminished Industry Hurts Us All

The devaluation of the photographic industry over the past 20 years has left us with fewer sources of high quality photo-journalism. Our once thriving press has become less diverse, even where it tries to be polarised in opinion. Think the PR machine at No 10 dishing out the same sanitised pictures to all outlets. Those outlets, having no budget (or claiming not to at least) will use free over paid every time. So the visual voice becomes homogenised across titles and channels. Diversity suffers as a result.

This degradation has affected the national voice in other ways beyond photography. While there’s a clamour for greater diversity in our media, we see fewer articles written by people from less privileged backgrounds because only those with independent means can afford to work on the poor (or non-existent) rates on offer.

I certainly can’t afford to work for the fees our national newspapers pay – I’m a grown up, not a school child. But I’m a white guy so boohoo me. What about women? Or people from poorer backgrounds? Or those whose ethnicity makes it more likely they won’t have independent means? The talent is undoubtedly there, but the access isn’t because it’s flooded by people who can afford to “donate” their work. This is what’s happened in photography too.

You might not see the connections between newsroom budgets and free stock image sites, but all areas of the photographic economy affect all other areas. That’s why all photographers need to look after their own areas of interest in an holistic way and take responsibility for their actions.

Pups For Sale

And so back to the happy punters who give their work for free to Unsplash. They’ve been sold a pup; a dream that their altruism is the engine of a creative industry of which they are a part. That perhaps one day they’ll be spotted amongst the millions of lemmings and picked out for plum commissions.

Except it’s not, they’re not, and they wont. It’s just shutting down creativity for the truly creative. It’s shutting out those voices which haven’t the spare income to be heard. It favours the motivations of individual egos over the cause of the wider industry, and it’ll now be feeding that cuddly little independent, Getty Images.

Anyone who says they love photography should ask themselves what they’ve done for it lately. If they’ve become hooked on giving their work away, they need to question their devotion to it.

Perhaps if they’re amongst those who’ve fed Unsplash with free material, Getty’s acquisition of all their images might help peel the scales from their eyes. It might be time to redefine their relationship with photography and understand what a true love of photography looks like.

Nothing to do with photography. An Essay.

This article is apropos of absolutely nothing to do with photography, but it’s an idea I’ve been thinking of committing to words for some time now.

If you’re a driver, or interested in technology, or the environment, you might find this an interesting read. You’ll be the judge. I warn you though, it’s not a short piece, so get the coffee and biscuits ready. Maybe a sleeping bag too.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or in a cave for the last few decades you’ll know that the environment is under pressure as never before, and that if we do nothing to address this we will all end up living under rocks or in caves.

We know our driving habits are just one aspect of modern life which needs to change. While the bogeyman du jour is diesel, petrol cars are at least as bad for the environment and simply replacing our diesel/petrol cars with electric isn’t going to solve the issue of energy consumption. It might push pollution out of our towns and cities, but it’ll still be a major factor in climate change.

What the environment needs is a massive shift in how we own and use cars and how we travel.

Most people seem to be of the view that the future lies in simply switching from one form of propulsion to another, that whatever car they have now, they will one day switch to an electric version of it and this will solve everything, but this simply isn’t radical enough. It doesn’t look far enough ahead and as I’ve already said, it doesn’t address the fundamental issues affecting the environment or climate change.

I won’t go into too much detail about why this simple switch isn’t enough, we already know the problems caused by battery production, electricity generation, life-span maintenance and eventual disposal. Instead I want to focus on how radically our private transport solutions will change in order to make an effective impact on the health of our planet.

Ok, so we know we need to make fewer journeys by car, and we need to make those journeys more effective, so how about if we start from scratch? I mean literally from a point where nobody owns a car?

That’s not such a radical idea. Figures for 2016 show 86% of new cars were bought under personal contract purchase (PCP) agreements. In other words, only 14% of drivers owned the (new) cars they paid for. The rest had them on plans under which the car was effectively owned by the dealership.

That’s the first step towards a new way of motoring. How about taking it a step further, and instead of motorists paying hundreds of £s a month for a car they don’t own, they pay for a contract plan which allows them to use the car they need, when they need it, without ever keeping the same car from one journey to the next?

That’s a taxi isn’t it? Well no it isn’t, at least not in the way I’m thinking.

Here’s the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle: We all know about driverless vehicles (DVs), but at the moment they seem like space-age technology and we’ll never live long enough to see them in common use. You know, like computers were never going to be widely owned. Or “radio telephones”. Believe me, just like those old technologies which we assumed would never hit the mass market, DVs will be everywhere before we know it.

What you probably currently think though is that one day you might own an electrically-powered DV. Actually, I don’t believe you will. Ok, some of you will own one because you don’t have the imagination to see a life where you don’t keep a car you chose personally in front of your house, but you’ll probably be a minority with money to waste on things you don’t need.

So how does this utopian dream work?

Let’s say you need a car to get to work. This might be a regular commute, or (like me) an irregular commute at irregular times and almost always to a different location. It actually doesn’t matter because the electric DV (let’s call them EDVs) will pick you up according to your schedule requirements and take you wherever you need to go. It’s still sounding like a driverless taxi, but stay with me.

Unlike a taxi, there will be a few fundamental differences; as I say, there won’t be a driver, but also the car will be exactly the right size for your requirements and if your requirements change, a more suitable vehicle will be along in a just a minute to take you to your next destination.

Let me elaborate: You book the car you need using an app. If it’s just you commuting, you book a 1-seater car. If a few people need a car on the same route at the same time, the app will offer to send a larger share car for a discount. You take your pick.

Let’s say you get to your initial destination and decide you need a larger vehicle – maybe you need one which carries more people, or one which ‘could’ carry more people, but you need to flatten the seats to take a long load, well just get on the app and within minutes of booking, a replacement EDV will come along. The first EDV you booked will go off to the next person who needs it.

One of the problems with owning a car is that it’s often the wrong shape or size for what you need. Most of us drive around with 4 or 5 empty seats in our cars, but with the scheme I’ve outlined above, we could save car space, energy and road space by only driving a car of the size we need for any specific journey.

Indeed the shapes of cars in a driverless, fully-electric world could be very radically different. How about just one rear-facing seat? Or a circular cabin for 4 or 6 people? For long journeys, what about a car you can bed down and sleep in?

In a properly driverless world, cars which can’t crash can be designed in a much wider variety of shapes. They can be made from much lighter materials because they won’t need crumple zones or side impact protection bars. The full range of possibilities is beyond imagination right now.

Also in this wonderful future you are freed from loan plans, fuel costs, servicing, MoTs, insurance, or having to spend weekends washing a car which is rapidly depreciating outside your house.

And that’s another thing; as a percentage of the time you own a car, how much of that time does it spend idle outside your house, your place of work, or even at the shops? I can’t calculate an accurate figure, but for most of us it’s got to be around 75% or more unless you’re sharing your car with someone else who drives it at night when you’re asleep.

That’s a ridiculous amount of time to have something you’re paying several hundred £s a month for just to be sitting around doing nothing. I hear business people and politicians banging on about efficiency, well where’s the efficiency in that?

So an EDV you don’t own will be more efficient, because the minute you no longer need it, it can go and be useful to someone else. Even at night.

Now imagine if most of us switched to “communal” EDVs and got rid of our cars. Suddenly the number of vehicles cluttering up our kerbsides, drives and car parks would reduce massively. There would be the occasional EDV, but we’d see our streets again. We could re-shape them, plant them up, re-plan one-way streets to make the most of what we have.

Our streets would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists too. In fact, more people would choose to walk and cycle precisely because it would be safer to do so, and because the air would be sweeter to breathe.

Returning to the question of the environment, ask yourself which would be better: Millions of electric cars being built to replace the cars we own as individuals, or EDVs only being manufactured in numbers sufficient to meet real need? If not everyone is driving all the time (and no one is), we only need sufficient vehicles to service the journeys actually made, not to have them sitting doing nothing.

The savings in steel, alloys, plastics, glass, batteries and so on would be enormous, as would the savings in energy because EDVs would only be charged when they needed it. I bet a lot of electric vehicle owners find themselves having to top-up charge simply because the car has been sitting idle for long periods between journeys.

Of course all this will require a great deal of re-adjustment in individual thinking. We’d all have to give up the desire to own our cars. Some of us would already do this gladly, if given the opportunity, but I suspect there are many who still believe that the environment is someone else’s problem and they will cling to car ownership for as long as legislation allows them to. For the rest of us I imagine a very sudden switch from ownership to contract plan fuelled by the biggest scrappage scheme ever undertaken.

There will always be classic cars which people will want to keep (those Maestros and Cavaliers with their nostalgic tug back to the 1980s…) and I get that, but they’ll be such a minority that their environmental impact will become minimal. And eventually, once fuel becomes too scarce or expensive, they’ll eventually be permanently garaged; preserved in aspic or gently rotting away.

Likewise there will be every specialist vehicle from ambulances to ice cream vans for which a shared EDV equivalent won’t exist. Again, these are a minority on our roads, so losing everything except them will still mean a great environmental gain.

There would of course be great societal upheavals too. Taxi drivers would be a thing of the past. Traditional car mechanics will have a dwindling trade. We won’t need as many car parks. There will be economic impacts I can’t even begin to imagine, but as ever, this won’t stop progress.

My hope is that this might be one form of progress which, rather than crushing all that went before with no tangible benefit to mainstream society, will bring benefits to far more people as well as the environment itself.

One thing is for sure though; just replacing what we do now with a slightly shinier version which runs on a battery isn’t going to solve the issues we face. We’re going to have to think far more radically than that, and we’re going to have to be quick about it too. The question is, do we have the imagination and the will, and can we do it before it’s too late?

Is your photographer GDPReady?

With the Facebook data scandal still simmering in the headlines, most people will assume that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which comes into effect on May 25th only applies to large organisations, but it also affects a great many photographers. In particular it impacts on those, like me, who regularly photograph people for business websites, press releases, social media and so on.

In a rather large nutshell, anyone who handles data has to get their house in order and register with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) before the deadline or face sanctions. I’ve registered, paid the annual fee, and I’m going through the data I have to ensure it’s secure and compliant.

What this largely means for me is that I need to work through my client galleries removing old ones or ensuring they’re not accessible to anyone except the client. I also need to make updates to my website to ensure people have an understanding of what GDPR means in relation to my work and how I handle their data.

Some galleries are publicly shared because I’ve been asked to make them so, but even then I’ll be looking at closing access to the oldest ones. All this is going to take some time as I’ve been running the system for many years now, but as I add more client work to the delivery system I’ll be making sure it’s only visible to those who need to see it. The only exception to this will be where the person I’ve photographed has given permission for me to allow their images to be searchable.

There is a slight conflict around all this in that as a photographer I should have the right to use my work to promote myself, otherwise clients needing my services won’t be able to find me, but I have to balance this with keeping and handling personal data (a face coupled with a name and place of work for example) in a responsible manner.

There are ways of making all this work, but it’s going to take more than a few weeks to really hone it. Thankfully, for the most part, my entire back catalogue of digital work dating back 18 years isn’t stored online or I think I’d have a mental breakdown at the enormity of the task. While I use cloud storage to deliver images to clients and to allow them to have an online database of the images I’ve shot for them, all my original work is backed up to off-line hard drives which keeps them secure from a data breach point of view.

The other good news is that the personal work I undertake, such as the current Saxonvale project, falls under the artistic exemption of GDPR. Of course this doesn’t mean I can be slap-dash with peoples’ personal data, but because of its nature it’s less prone to result in either a complaint or an investigation by the ICO.

Even so, I have taken images for that project which will only ever see light of day in print form because they’re too sensitive to be shared online, and that raises an interesting question about the future of photography; will we find the internet a less useful space for getting important stories out if there’s a risk of a data breach in publishing online?

Only with a few judgements behind us on data breach cases will we build a true picture of what is or is not a breach of GDPR because it’s not entirely clear from the regulation text itself given the multitude of potential scenarios. In the meantime, I’ll do all I can to keep within the rules.

To be honest, it’s mostly just common sense and courtesy and of course you’ll want to make sure any photographer you work with is compliant. Well now you know of at least one photographer who is working towards that goal.

On Your Marks for Auction

Remember my post the other week about how it isn’t all about the gear? Well here’s a perfect example of that theory.

I have to confess, I don’t know a huge amount about the work of the American photographer Mary Ellen Mark (she passed away in May of this year), but I knew the name and now know a fair bit more about her since I can across the story (via Petapixel) about one of her cameras going for sale on Ebay. Mary Ellen’s estate has put the camera up for auction partly to raise money for American Red Cross, but presumably also to raise money for themselves.

I don’t know why they want or need to sell it; perhaps they’re looking to dispose of some assets in order to cover death duties and protect her archive. Whatever the full story is, speculation seems a little pointless.

Screen shot of the Ebay listing for Mary Ellen Mark's Nikon FM2 camera with 28mm lens.

What strikes me though is that if you look through her archive of work and understand that she counted People Magazine and Life Magazine among her clients, the Nikon FM2 (which we’re told she probably used for these clients) is an incredibly basic camera. No whistles, no bells, yet her work is clearly that of someone who could interpret a scene in an engaging way, but with the minimum of camera gear.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t photographers today, with highly sophisticated digital cameras, working in an equally simple but effective way. I know there are, but as I alluded in my earlier post, there is often too much emphasis on camera features and not enough on just getting the technique and style down and telling a good story.

Whether this particular camera has collectible value simply due to its provenance is also an interesting debate to be had. The FM2 was a Japanese, mass-produced camera and you can pick one up on Ebay for less than £200. Bidding on Mary Ellen’s camera has (at the time of writing) already exceeded $2,200.00, so clearly there are interested collectors out there. My instinct tells me her estate view this camera as not central to the story of her work and that her more exotic cameras will remain with them. Again, pure speculation.

Of course whoever buys it will be sorely tempted to put a film through it, assuming it’s still in working order. If it was me I don’t think I could bring myself to do it unless I knew my shots were going to be iconic (I know that’s a bizarre constraint and I can’t really explain it). But then would it be sadder just to place it in a cabinet for display? Well I’m happy to say I can’t match the bids, so that particular quandary won’t be troubling me. If you happen to buy it, do let me know how it goes.

Holiday Schnapps

Even though I’m on holiday with my son Joe this week, I thought I’d drop you all a line and share some photographic impressions of my time in the Tyrol, Austria. I’ve banged on before about how I enjoy taking photos for myself and how even though photography is my job, I enjoy the freedom of taking photos just to please myself.

The funny thing is though, when I’m in such a pretty part of the world as this, I’m not so keen on the “chocolate box” images which can be so hard to avoid. I want to take photos you wouldn’t find on Google Images – during a trip to Paris earlier this year, it struck me how many people walk up to The Eiffel Tower, take some snaps, then walk away. Shooting as if all they wanted was a frame or two to prove they were there, when they could always see much better photos on the internet any time they wanted.

Of course I have taken some of the bog-standard kitsch photos, which will have been taken by countless others and many probably better than my efforts, but I salve my conscience by not spending too much time on those, but looking for the unusual too. Images which while not literal, will also remind me of moments in my holiday without entirely overwriting my inner memories of it. I’m sure some people spend so much time peering at a camera screen and have so many stills and videos of their excursions, they must struggle to remember anything fun about where they went and what they did. My photos are meant to be those impressions which sit at the edge of the experience. I’m not photographing the main experience, but the little moments around it, leaving me to relax and enjoy the bulk of my trip without a camera glued to my face.

And so here, half-way through my trip, are a few of those peripheral moments. Don’t worry, I promise not to post every last photo I take. Some might pop up in future blogs and others will remain private. A couple have already surfaced on my personal Facebook page, but I wanted these to illustrate this weeks point. I hope you enjoy them.