For this quick test I loaded a RAW file into Photoshop and tweaked it a bit in ACR. I added a bit of fill light and some recovery just to get the best I could from this image.

First up we have a few black and white presets.

“Monochromatic Artistic”

“Monochromatic High Contrast”

“Monochromatic Low Contrast”

“Monochromatic”

“More Saturated”

“Photorealistic High Contrast”

“Photorealistic Low Contrast”

“Photorealistic”

“Saturated”

“Surrealistic High Contrast”

“Surrealistic Low Contrast”

“Surrealistic”

Looking at these photos makes me wonder why Adobe would have included such presets, and also why anyone would use them. Many of them show classic signs of “Bad HDR”. I’ve put it in quotes there because bad HDR is subjective. You’ll see many photos similar to these on Flickr. Its quite popular to over process this way. So bad is subjective. That aside there are many images here with halos which is something you should try and avoid in HDR. Normally halos occur when buildings are backlight by the sun. The sky is brighter than the buildings as there is no light on them and you can get a halo around the building. The thing is that in this instance the sun was further down the river so there shouldn’t be halos at all. I’m not sure why they’ve appeared. Either way its a bad thing imho.

Some of the presets completely blow out the highlights. I’m a fan of using HDR to avoid just that. It is essentially why its in our toolbox after all. The surrealistic low contrast one looks like someone smeared vaseline on the lens. Whats up with that? “More saturated” looks very wrong. I’m not even sure why theres a saturation slider there when you could do it after with an adjustment layer.

Another problem is that this process isn’t non-destructive like the majority of the other adjustments. So if you adjust the saturation in the “HDR Toning” you can’t easily undo it. If you use HDR Toning to convert to black and white you’ll also have no control after to tweak it. My advice would be to simply “HDR” it and then use adjustment layers to tinker with the saturation and convert to black and white. I’d definitely say so for black and white because all HDR Toning is doing is reducing the saturation. Really good black and white is achieved by adjusting various colour channels to create a beautiful contrast of tones. Desaturating an image means you have no control over that. Its just an absence of colour. But I’m being picky here.

All in all I don’t like this new HDR feature. Its one of the big new reasons to buy CS5. I’m sure in time people will be able to get good results from it but not with the presets that ship. They’re just awful. Its like they took a look at some of the worst HDR on Flickr and said “Ok lets make it easy for people to do that.” Personally I’d say use the “Merge-to-HDR” feature in Photoshop or Photomatix. I quite like that the merge to HDR feature forces you to take 3 or more photos. It doesn’t let you cheat. It seems really odd that Adobe would promote this option as “HDR Toning” since theres no real HDR about it.

If you want to learn more about doing HDR with Photomatix take a look at my rather popular tutorial on the subject.

Finally, this is the image processed in Lightroom. Works for me.

Two things struck me from it. Firstly the image quality was outstanding. We’re talking about a camera from 140 years ago. When he nailed the focus and shutter speed, not being picky but some suffer for motion blur, when he nailed it the results are incredible. I’m not even sure if my D700 would be that crisp at the size they’ve printed these photos. I think the largest is around 1×1 metre. Its one of the things that I love about old cameras. They’re simply a box that captures light. They’ll go on forever. My D700 won’t. Its why I want a Leica M6. I’ll still be using it when I’m 60. None of my current cameras will last me till then. Thats a real shame.

From looking at these metre high prints, looking at the detail and being wowed by the sheer scale of the exhibition it got me thinking about the current state of the media. I hear that most normal journalists at the local paper are equipped with a Nokia phone with something like a 5mp camera on. It’ll do video and photos. Somewhere along the line someone has gone “We only need a camera that produces a photo to fit in this square.” The DPI on a newspaper isn’t really that high and neither is the resolution. A 5mp camera phone will produce something that technically fits in these empty squares. The same for web. Only need a 72dpi image at around 500×500 pixels. Thats nothing. You can source those photos from anyone at the scene with a camera phone. Why do you even need a professional photographer with a D3?

The answer is simple. For future proofing. In 50 years time what sort of exhibition could you put on with 5mp camera phone images? Sure they’ll look fine on the web but these things aren’t going to upscale nicely. Image quality isn’t just about the resolution of the image. The lens and sensor size has a huge impact on that. Hence medium format for advertising. It should be the news’s responsibility to document modern times in the best way possible to preserve it for the future. We’re going to be left with a handful of photographers who take it upon themselves to document the world as it is in their spare time simply because its not currently commercially viable.

Some people say that print is dying and it quite possibly is. I know many photographers who have never printed their work. How many family photo albums are simply left on a computer these days? I really hope we haven’t fallen to the idea that a 5mp camera phone is enough. That a 500px wide image on Flickr is going to be our legacy in this age. Someone needs to be thinking how we present today in 140 years time.

Go and see the China exhibition. Stand next to the largest print you can find and then look at the screen on your mobile phone because that screen is the future. Look back at the huge print and I hope you’ll get my point.

I have two rather good projects to explore on my doorstep. One is a very personal project and the other is simply a documentary. I can go out and take ok photos. I’m sure people will tell me they’re good but they’re not. They’re safe shots. I want to be on a level above what I am now getting the real shots. I don’t mean photographing people dying in a war zone. I just want to feel like I’ve got the shots I want and not to feel like this. They put a new wheel up in Liverpool so I waited for dusk and photographed it without issue. I grabbed my gear, walked down the road and took photos. Nothing stopped me doing that. I want to be able to do the same for documentary work. I want to pick up my camera and take photos without issue, without my head holding me back.

Its all so absurdly stupid really. I’ve been doing street photography off and on for 4 years now. I find it just as hard now as when I first started. Aren’t you supposed to face fears, build confidence and grow from that? It hasn’t happened with me. I guess I understand things more now. I know that I’m not just photographing people walking around. I’m looking for moments. But when they happen I can’t lift my camera and they’re gone. Its so hard for me to go up to someone and ask to take their photo even after 4 years of practicing. Why?!

I took this photo over 4 years ago. I walked past her initially but returned to ask for her photo as I felt it was worth it. Its a good shot. 4 years on and I’m still that same shy person. It makes no sense.

I took this photo a few months ago in Southport. I wasn’t talking to her so I could sit there and take the photo. I was surrounded by friends and in a relaxed state of mind so I guess that helped. She was also willing to be photographed and at no point said otherwise so I didn’t even have to ask. I love this shot and I’d like to do more of this sort of thing.  Its 4 years since the other shot and these portraits are few and far between. Surely 4 years of progress would have given me the ability to do this all the time?  I should be able to go out and just shoot. Every single person I see is a potential photo, potential story.

I’m reminded of a quote by Richard Avedon. “I hate cameras. They interfere, they’re always in the way. I wish: if I could just work with my eyes alone.” I feel like the camera is holding me back. I have to lift it up to take a photo. Its like putting on a rainbow dress and jumping around waving rainbow flags while blowing a whistle. It feels like I stop engaging with the moment and try to photograph it. The moment is of course aware of this and changes into a zebra preventing me photographing what I just saw. I’m tempted to shoot docu work with just the 50mm. Partly to remove gear from the equation but also to make my camera smaller. I am tempted to even shoot with my AE-1 & 50mm as thats even smaller. I just feel like the camera is hindering things. I want the photograph but to get that I have to take the photo. Thats where things get tricky. I have to disengage from the moment and photograph it before its over…

You know I have no idea what I’m actually trying to do here. Writing this has just made me think. I know how to take the photo. See the moment, shoot. I know that damn it! See this is why I’m so frustrated and angry with myself.

I took this photo at the 20th Anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. I saw what was happening, lifted my camera and took the photo. My head was clear. I knew I had to take that photo because it was important. This single moment said everything about the event. All I would have to say is that its 2 people at Anfield 20 years after Hillsborough and everyone would understand. So I can take the shots I want, the important ones. I can bend my camera to my will. So why am I so stuck? Do I need to be doing this every single day so the stuff in my head is beaten down?

In my heart I know that this is what I do best. Cityscapes, buildings, sunsets, etc are all nice but they’re safe. Outside of buying a new lens, trying a new processing style or finding a new building I’m not being pushed. Its all safe. Wait for nice light. Take photo. Easy. I want more than that. I want to see moments and photograph them. They’re right on my doorstep but I can’t.

Every year I get this and I’ve got no answers or resolution outside of keep going. I had this in 2007 and in 2008 and in 2009 on this blog. I guess all I really want is the confidence to take any photo I want and not feel this way every few months.

I’ll try and make my next post a happy one

But then what am I? My main source of income is commercial photography, not photojournalism.

Am I an architectural photographer?

Am I a commercial photographer?

Am I a portrait photographer?

Music?

Landscapes?

A photo-journalist?

I can do architecture, landscapes, portraits, gigs, documentary and photojournalism. I would love to have Joe McNally’s job, who wouldn’t eh.  Commercial work is fun because its often quite creative and allows me to flex those muscles. However, photojournalism is my passion. Its real. Its so damn real. Its all about life. The power of people. Our ability to be our best and worst documented in one single photo. But then I also love playing with architecture. Angles, contrasts, light, the precision of it all. I love, but am also scared by, portraiture. Capturing someone in that moment of their life. The simple beauty in a face. The story behind that person. Its great.

Its something I’ve struggled with for a few years now. What am I? Where am I going? Do I continue to pursue commercial photography? Do I give it all up and try to be a photojournalist? Do I just carry on in the hope that all these skills will give me something that I can use in some way? Maybe I can pour them all into something. Is it best to focus on something and be great at that instead of good at a few things? By focusing on one thing theres a risk of missing out in other areas.

I asked Twitter what am I known for. The response was something I expected. I really appreciated peoples replies but they confirmed a worry.

I’m known for 2 things really. Photograhping Liverpool and producing HDR images. Thats a worry. Bob Carlos Clarke is known for sexy erotic b&w photos. Joe McNally for fantastic portraits. James Natchway for war photography. Andy Rouse for wildlife. Even Edward Chambre-Hardman for portraits and scenes in Liverpool. My worry is that HDR is a technique. Its something that can be applied to many photographs. Its like b&w. Photographers are known for their use of b&w on a subject, like Bob Carlos Clarke or Ansel Adams. People want photos of buildings perhaps with the level of detail HDR can give you, but they’re not going to want someone who can do HDR. They’ll want someone who can photograph something well. HDR, b&w, etc, are techniques that are applied to a subject. Its the subject thats important. Architecture, landscapes, portraits, documentary, etc.

The other thing I’m known for is Liverpool. Liverpool is one hell of a subject. Music, street, architecture, landscapes, cityscapes, ships, people, documentary, everything. Its a city and it holds so many photos in it waiting to be taken. Its a fantastic place for photography and I love it to bits. However, as a photographer I wouldn’t say that I photograph Liverpool and do HDR. I say I photograph people and places.  The classic response is “Do you do weddings?”

So to try and tie up these thoughts, what am I? A few years ago when I discussed turning professional I was reminded that you need to find your niche and own it. Over the years I’ve found what I don’t enjoy photographing and what I love to photograph. Thats why I love Liverpool as it has everything right there, besides dramatic mountains like Vancouver. I asked this question a few years ago and people told me to shoot what I love and be happy. I’ve been doing so and I love it but there’s always this worry. What am I? Am I on the right path?

The end result is that I’m not leaving Lightroom any time soon. I saw some samples that made me think about Capture One but the interface on that is hideous. I think the level of sharpness I’m getting now is good enough. (Click the images to view them full size)

• Photograph more of Liverpool outside the city center.  The surrounding neighbourhoods of Liverpool are quite a contrast to the inner city and I’d like to document that more.  It means getting over fears of the area though.  People telling me “Oh I’d not go round there with a camera” etc.  Have to get over that.
• Photograph more personal things outside of just my nephew because its expected.
• Try and do more self portraits that aren’t taken at my desk, or at least self portraits that are a little more fun or different.
• Do more portraits.  I’ve had ideas for over a year now and they’ve been on the backburner because I can’t find the right model, or perhaps because I’m too shy to really go for it.  Screw it.  I’ve got ideas that have to be played with.
• Do more actual landscapes.  I’ve got North Wales at my disposal and the Lakes just in driving distance.  I should use them.
• Try and do a themed body of work.  Most of my photos are just 1 shot wonders as I’m passing somewhere.  But I’ve got ideas on some projects that I’d like to do.

I guess that they’re not really resolutions but more of 2009 thoughts.  I would love to get in my car and travel around Europe.  I’d prefer to take up biking and do that.  I get the feeling that with a bike its easier to stop at the side of a road and get photos.  But thats a whole load of expense I can’t afford.  Lessons, bikes, and new limbs.

So anyway, to start 2009 I’ve decided to do a couple of self portraits.  I really need a shave though.  It was on the cards but the darn shaver battery was dying as soon as I turned it on. I didn’t fancy the half shaven look.  As a bit of a joke for Xmas someone got me a mask and a hat.  Apparently I’m the forum villain over at Talk Photography and as such they figured it would help in my villainness.