Hello and welcome to Any Questions on Landscapes monthly podcast with our hosts,
myself, Tim Parkin and Joe Cornish.
And we're here this month with our special guest Mark Littlejohn,
we've got a series of questions from a, a bunch of different people or a variety of
subjects.
and we'll start off with the classic discussion that goes in more because if
anybody knows Mark, we know that he tends not to use his tripod as much as other
people.
So our first question from Mike Gosheron and is simply tripod or handheld.
And Monty Trent asks the question with modern image stabilization technology.
Do I actually need a tripod at all?
Mark.
It's an interesting one and it's one I discussed on Harris a couple of weeks back
was there on the tour with Stu McLennan.
And I think a tripod is very useful to people who like to slow down.
They like to feel with the tripod in place, it reminds them that they're
actually photographing and they're not at the office and not at home, they're not
wherever else.
It reminds them they're actually photographing.
It's a tool that assists.
And it doesn't matter how good stabilization is, there are still people
who will maybe just have a little bit of a shaky hand or whatever.
My concern with the tripod centered around a couple of things, it's funny when you go
along, I live in quite a picturesque area, so you might see workshops set up at the
side of the road and the tripods are, the tripods are always set up at eye height.
In every case, they're like, let's find the best place to take the picture from.
They set up the...
best place for them to stand looking through it.
The second issue is the tripod then rules their lives.
So the cameras there on the back got live view up and people get locked in to the
live view.
If you forget the other 320 degrees around them because they're locked into that,
they could be the most amazing backlit squalges coming down from the left.
There could be a herd of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain to
the right.
but they don't bloody see it because they're just fixed straight.
And I think sometimes with the tripod, it becomes a case of the tail wagging the
dog.
There's certainly not a case for getting in a tripod because on a lot of occasions
you need them to have a slower shutter speed, if you're hands shaking.
And if you feel that you want to set up a tripod and just relax and have everything
done and dusted in front of you and it's ready to go for when the moment arrives.
Great, I would never suggest to somebody to change the style and to move away from
a tripod, just use it correctly.
A question for Joe here, because I mean, I've not done a lot of workshops, I've
only done a few and you between you and Joe and Mark, you've done hundreds of
them, I imagine.
Do do some people put their tripod down first and then start looking for a
photograph?
Is that is that a real thing that people do?
Yes, Tim,
in an awkward sort of crouching position, but there's usually a place where all of
the elements of the scene come together in the way that works at that moment.
And if you have the tripod already set up at eye level, which so many people do,
then it becomes a wrestle with the tripod, rather than, well, I know where I'm going
to put the tripod, so I'm going to put it up in exactly that place.
And any final adjustments are just millimeters, really.
with the tripod head.
So yeah, and I think that is really the issue is poor technique, which then often
makes tripods unpopular with many people because they don't get on with them,
whereas it should be your ally.
And I just also have a couple of, I'm going to jump in again, but having had the
honor of working with Mark on a couple of occasions, it's just great.
to see that when he uses it, the way he uses his body, it's like using a tripod.
I mean, he's incredibly careful in his positioning.
So all of the sort of same kind of values, if you like, of the care and consideration
and the thoughtfulness are still there.
It's just that he can hold the camera very steadily and he's very, very careful on
his positioning.
So in many ways, it's not that different.
I'm interested, Mark, what sort of shutter speeds can you get away with when you're
working with these very clever new cameras?
Well, for example, uh, the Nikon Z7 with like, you know, the dog walking camera,
um, with the 24 or 200, um, I tend to have that in DX mode and I can show, I've got a
picture of some reads in a higher, and that was at 200 mil.
So equivalent 300 and that was a 15th of a second.
Um.
With the little Leica Q2, I was on the beach the other night, there was some
fantastic movement with the waves, the sun had just gone down, and that was a quarter
of a second.
And do you know Olympus cameras are supposedly fantastic for handheld?
But yeah, I mean.
shots, a quarter of a second, half a second is doable with a few failures.
think, again, a lot of it is technique.
It's about breathing, it's about stance, it's about how you hold the camera.
If you look at it, it's basically, if you've done any shooting, which I haven't
because I hate guns, but it is that sort of approach.
It's getting you a nice stance, getting relaxed, getting the camera held securely.
I tend to put on a two second delay.
I'll breathe in and then I'll just start exhaling slowly as I press the camera
shutter.
Exhale for the two seconds and during that two seconds the shutter will go so there's
techniques for them
stress-free life up in Oppenheim helps.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm trying to think if I'm getting worse with it.
I mean, it's awkward.
It just depends on positioning as well, because incredibly low tide yesterday and
I was taking shots down the front and again, positioning with the little camera,
with the Q2, a 30th of a second at times was a little bit of a shake because it was
really quite awkward.
It really, you know, it's, it's horses for courses, but the way the kelp is you can't
use a bloody tri-bord and get into it
As well as this, the fact you're using a handheld, I'd be interested in what you
use as the composition tool.
Because I know people who use a composing frame, literally one person uses a picture
frame.
Some people prefer to compose on the back of a camera on the LCD display.
And some people prefer to use the actual SLR or the viewfinder.
What's your what's your preference typically?
If I'm like, my preference is the viewfinder, but if I'm in an awkward
position where I can't use a viewfinder, then I use the LCD screen.
But pretty much decided, as Joe was saying before about, if I stay with the calc,
when I'm looking at the calc, you'll have one or two little fronds and things are
arranged.
And then it's really a case of, I get my eye where I want the camera to be.
So when my eye is where I want the camera to be, then the camera comes in.
And then it's a case of the only...
The thing that I'm really using then is either the LCD or the viewfinder to focus
on the bit I want it to focus on.
Yes, it's really interesting hearing Mark describing that, because that's exactly
right, especially with the kelp pictures, which are so really abstract.
Every single decision you make about the positioning of the frame and the form
within the frame and the lighting is critical, so it requires that degree of
very, very careful attention.
And I hope I am the same in that regard, I just happen to put a tripod up to do it
usually.
And there are times when it...
you know, I'm using a linhof with digital back.
I couldn't really handhold it with the best one in the world.
So, you know, that's not an option.
But one thing I, and I've said this on team times, I know we've discussed it
before.
There are times when I use my phone very often to get the composition.
I like the large screen of the phone and I find looking at the image as a discrete
arrangement.
a little bit away from my face.
I find that a little bit easier than using a viewfinder.
As you say, Tim, horses for courses and everyone has different approaches.
But it's amazing how often the phone picture has something over the final one,
even though the final one may be shot with 150 megapixel back.
And that is, I regard it as spontaneity.
It's something that feels like
It is in the moment and it's more relaxed, it's more natural.
My biggest self-criticism in that regard is that my final work, as it were, made
with a high-resolution device is often that it feels a bit laboured.
However, when it works, and it really works, then of course it's great, because
you have all the detail and the beauty of nature just there, in a way that
the phone can't match.
But that's something that I am aware of and I'm trying to work on that.
Well, that does bring us to the next question, which is one that Joe's given to
us, which is around instinct in photography.
And it's something where I think is quite prevalent in it.
It's obviously prevalent in Mark's work because you work quite instinctually
hand-held.
But I think it's also some of that should be said for Joe as well, because you've
got an instinct, as you say, when you're using the phone.
But I'll start with Mark and ask him, where does instinct come from?
Is there a lot more?
Considered nature or you just instinctively finding pictures and
compositions
I don't think anybody would really consider me as considered, to be perfectly
honest.
There's not a lot of, as I've said a few times, I photograph anything that's
unlucky enough to pass in front of my camera.
And it doesn't matter what it is.
I don't, I think preconceived ideas are an enemy in some respects to being properly
creative.
If you go out and you're gonna take a set, photograph in mind.
It might be different if you do a definitive type subject, you know, if
you're going up a mountain and you've got particular ideas in your head, but you
just want to explore.
But for me, I describe myself more as an outdoor photographer.
I'm not a tree photographer.
I'm not a mountain photographer.
I'm just a photographer.
I just take photographs of anything that interests me.
If I see something and I think, well, I like that, I'll take a picture of it.
And the other thing I often say is, see with the heart, shoot with the head.
If I see with the heart, then I'm going to shoot anything that either makes me smile,
it makes me sigh, it makes me swear.
That's what a photographer, don't say, no, I'm not taking a photograph of that.
I always think if you see somebody you think, oh, I like that, take a photograph
of it.
The only photograph you'll regret is the one you didn't take.
So I, instinct is something that you might call it instinctive, it's just.
endlessly curious about the world, about us and just having a bit of fun.
Yeah, on the idea of having a bit of fun, do you experiment consciously ever on
things?
No, I've always described myself as a reactive as opposed to a creative, because
I'm just reacting to the world around me.
So I don't see it as creative, experimenting, anything else, it's just a
case of, it's there, it's lovely, I'm gonna photograph it.
Done.
You said similar things about using the phone, Joe, in terms of instinct and
producing
Yeah, and you know what, I mean, this might surprise people, but I totally agree
with Mark's approach.
And I wouldn't say necessarily always achieve it, because some of the time I'm
doing assignment work, so I actually have to problem solve to take specific pictures
of perhaps subjects that I wouldn't necessarily think of doing.
But most of the time, I also see what, I photograph what catches my eye.
I'm interested in what moves me, what makes me excited, what the line, a shape,
a form, a texture, a quality of light, all of those things that I find beautiful or
engaging, or sometimes sad or make me angry.
I mean, it is all of those things that drive my creative process as well.
It's just a different, ultimately, the outcome looks different to Mark's because
they're...
because we're different people.
And I think it's the ability to just channel yourself in your work.
And I think the reason that people love Mark's work so much it is because it is so
authentic.
It is him, the way that he sees.
And that's quite a gift.
I mean, it's easy to say, it's very difficult to actually make it happen in
real life.
And I don't know how it's done.
I just think it's practice and if you photograph a lot then just as with driving
or anything else that you do on a daily basis you become very good at it and
that's a you know that's a gift for those of us who've been able to spend a lot of
time outdoors with our cameras and actually fundamentally who love it who
love being outside and looking at nature in its endless cycles of change and so on
so yeah I've gone off the
point there slightly, but I do think it's that spontaneity that makes your work
compelling ultimately.
Does that, when you've taken your photographs, Mark, do you have an idea of
which ones are going to be good ones?
And does that change when you get back or do you basically leave everything until
you get back to work out?
Is it going to work?
I think sometimes you can have a most fantastic day out.
And so you get these thoughts and expectations attached to themselves to the
unseen pictures.
And then when you look at them later on, you're disappointed because they don't
match up to your expectations.
So I tend not to think about it too much.
There'll be one in the blue moon, I'll tell you why I like that.
But just one in the blue moon.
and it'll just be, there'll be something about it that's just extraordinary and you
just think, phew, and, but that doesn't happen very often.
Well, it happens very rarely.
I mean, I'm trying to think of a photograph that I really thought, phew,
wow, in the last God knows how long, to be honest.
Is that the same with you Joe?
Do you know in advance whether?
It's actually uncanny listening to this because that's exactly the same.
Most of the time you photograph and you're always trying to make a picture that gives
you pleasure but very rarely do you ever think wow that's amazing or that really
worked and then when you know and it's not in a way to do with you it's just like it
feels like you've just been in the right place at the right time but in a way that
is part of photography as well.
just being, you know, being the eyewitness and in the meantime, you continue to
refine your practice so that, you know, you've got this very ability to see very
directly and very, you know, and very simply condense or distill the idea that
has moved you.
So yeah, I agree with Mark.
I mean, it's just, you know, a lot of the time you're happy with the pictures or
maybe a little bit
and brilliant experience.
But then with distance, he waits a couple of months, look at the work again and
maybe some of the immediacy of the experience isn't there.
And you think, oh yeah, some nice images here.
I think I was quite surprised.
Well, I'm not surprised in a way what Mark said, but I'm sure a lot of people will
look at his pictures and think he makes amazing pictures frequently.
So, you know, as always, we're our own worst critics, as in most critical.
of our own.
One of Alex's questions sort of comes from that as well, because I'm listening to you
there saying that you don't know in advance which images are gonna be the good
ones, which means that some of the ones you think might not work do end up the
good ones, in which case it's important to experiment and work on pictures that you
find interesting, even if you think it might not be working, just try things out.
And that goes to one of Alex's other questions, which is about failure.
he's asking whether what, if anything, is the role of failure in Mark's processes,
but we can, we can count that as in different ways.
And now we mentioned this earlier, Mark, in terms of failure or learning, but you
don't see it as failure, do you?
I struggle to see the viewpoint because that implies that it's almost too
mercenary and too mechanical a thought process and I think I don't have any place
for failure within my photography and I think it's a it's a wrong mindset to have.
If you start it's like I'm trying to get the phrase right but when played a lot of
golf and sometimes you had a three-foot putt and you would
more afraid of missing than actually the thought of just like thinking about
sinking it.
And it could, I think if you think too much about failure, it can just affect
your frame of mind.
So I've never consciously thought about removing the thought of failure from my
mindset because failure has never been in there to start with.
I know Alex said to me a while back, he said, he says, what I like about you is
the fact that you're not afraid of failing.
And I'm thinking, I'm not afraid of failing.
I'm going outside.
having a great time taking photographs and if a picture doesn't work, then it doesn't
work.
It's just one of those things, but there was something about it that made me take
it in the first place.
There's something about it that made me smile.
So I took the photograph.
And failure, I think, is just, you know, let's just bin the word completely.
Because I think it's a state of mind, you need to put in a negative thought process
in there, as opposed to...
positivity of being out and just having fun.
And if you say having fun's the same as being creative and experimental, then so
be it.
But it's just a case of initiative, individuality, instinct, all that sort of
thing.
If I started thinking about failure or introducing failure into the equation,
then it's like, oh, well, I'm not gonna take that because it might not work.
You know, twirl.
Sorry Tim, can I jump in as well?
Just because I think it's really fascinating subject as well.
But I think that the reason that terminology is used, a failure, is that we
in our society, and especially in business and in work, people are very
outcome-orientated, which is, it's not surprising.
I mean, you can't really...
criticize it I suppose because that's the nature of so many I mean let's face it if
you're building a bridge you have to have an end point in mind and there's a certain
process you have to go through and has to have lots of rules and regulations that
surround it.
Fortunately for us that's not what art is about or what photography is about and
actually I truly believe that one of the biggest problems is that many people bring
an outcome orientated mindset to their photography.
Now, if they have a specific project and it's an assignment for a client, that's
also understandable.
But let's face it, for most of us doing landscape photography, it isn't.
And a much more creative and positive state of mind is to simply practice what
you do.
Go out and practice.
And if you do produce good results along the way, then think of it as a bonus, or
as a wonderful kind of...
byproduct of the privilege of being outdoors with your camera, because
honestly that's the most important thing.
The fact that the camera encourages us to look at the world curiously and to explore
it and to think about it and to engage with it, I think is the most important
thing of landscape photography and having an outcome in mind before you set out is
not likely to bring about a happy.
ending really, sometimes it might, but yeah I'm not in favour of that concept
either.
Yeah, I'm reminded of a story from a photographer that we both know who went to
a trip to America for a few weeks with a large format camera and too many, many
photographs out of an amazing time and came back and all the film was on exposed
because there was a failure with one of the holders for the film.
So there were no photographs came from the trip at all, which could be seen as a
complete disaster and in photographically, it could be.
However,
they looked back at the experience of being away for those three weeks, and they
were some of the best weeks they've had on holiday.
And they had an amazing time.
And so they thought, okay, well, it's changed.
I didn't get the photographs out of it, but the photography made me enjoy and
helped me have an amazing time.
So the photography wasn't a failure.
I just didn't get any pictures.
And I loved that, that separation of the two things, the experience of being
outside and the final results are two different things.
Yes, I mean that's very philosophical.
I know not many people would probably come to that view, but I think that's
brilliant.
And yeah, it's exactly what I'm advocating really.
And I presume Mark is as well really with that approach.
If you, it's just the, a lot of it is semantics, isn't it?
It's the language that we use.
And we are, human beings are competitive animals.
and we set ourselves up with this kind of mindset, which, and I just don't think
that it's the right one for landscape photography, really.
Okay, a new question for Mark.
This is from Tim Sharman.
It's a fairly simple question.
Which location provides the best landscape photography, the Lake District or
Scotland?
Mark
Definitive answer, please.
the side of the A9 on the way through.
I mean, it sounds a bit trite, but beauty really is all around us.
So, I mean, it doesn't, I have no preference.
I've absolutely, I mean, I love life here, but I love life in the lakes.
I always remember when I worked on the Yellowswatter steamers, and you just sail
around Yellowswatter three times.
And a bloke came up to me and said, so you just sail around three times every day.
That's it.
He said, God, that must get boring.
And obviously it didn't, but I've never get bored by anything.
I mean, it's a travel through here.
If it's a travel through Prerthshire, I'm thinking, oh, James, this is fantastic.
You know, I went down and visited Paul Kenny a couple of years back when I was
picking up my boy from uni and I'm driving down through the borders and I'm thinking,
oh, look at this, look at that, look at this, look at, you know, it's all around
us.
You know, I mean.
You know, you would ask that question, Andy Farrow, who lives in the South Coast,
or Tony Spencer, or one of these guys, would just surround it by beauty.
It just doesn't really matter where.
So it's...
ask a more intriguing question then.
What made you choose where you went to live in terms of your photography?
Was that an influence in choosing?
I presume it was, but why where?
It was probably the number of entitled numpties that were buying vows in the
lakes caused me to move because sooner or later I'd have been wrapping anchor chain
around somebody's legs and throwing them over the side of the boat.
It was a fairly old idea.
You know...
You had so many places you could be in Blink-O or you could go into Cairngorm or
you could go to Torridon or whatever.
This house was for sale and it was the right price.
It's 150 yards from the beach.
I'd been past here, funnily enough, I'd driven down this road just before COVID, a
couple of months before COVID, with Dylan Nardini and Helen Iles on a workshop.
Third person was poor, they couldn't make it.
So there was just the three of us in the car and we were chasing this backlit snow
squall all the way down to Red Point Beach.
And it was just a magical little drive.
maybe wasn't if you're a passenger when I'm trying to chase the light on a single
track bumpy road.
But it was just fantastic.
And when we sold the house, it wasn't, we put it up just to see if, you know, let's
put a house in the market and see what happens.
Kids had left, gone to university, whatever.
And we thought the house might not sell anyway.
But the estate agent, when he came around, brought a couple who were interested in
the area.
And within an hour, they made an offer and the full asking price.
cash.
So it was like a little dance, a little jig to celebrate.
And then it was like, bugger, where are we going?
And I remember this little road.
I remember this little road.
And yeah, there's a house 150 yards from the beach, views of the Toradonian
Mountains behind.
Spur of the moment.
That week they lifted the lockdown in Scotland so you could travel in.
And it's a bit more to it than that.
And then three months after the estate agent came round,
We moved in here exactly three months to the day.
If we'd had more time to look around, we might have been somewhere else.
We might have been Glencoe.
We might have been at Ballyhoolish.
And certainly now with that patisserie at Ballyhoolish, we could almost certainly
have been at that neck of the woods.
We could have been down the Red Coast.
Yeah, I know that, oh God, those lemon mirages.
I mean, anyway, moving off subject there.
But yeah, we could have been just about anywhere.
But the lakes for me is really turning into a theme park for the wealthy.
That's an issue.
And the same again up here, you know, the buying Airbnbs and there's more people
buying to let, which is just one of those things.
It's a beautiful area.
You know, there's older people moving in, but I'm an older person moving in.
So I don't know.
I don't know how you I don't know how you come to terms with that or how you sort
of.
try and support local communities, but if a pub comes up for sale, it gets bought by
people from away, it gets bought by big chains.
Not a lot you can do about it, but I mean, we're here, could have been somewhere
else, but we're not and we're happy.
Excellent.
Ian Meads is a question from, he says, some of my little John's photographs seem
quite heavily toned.
Would she achieve a near heavenly Hudson River schoolie look?
Either that, or he's remarkably lucky buggered over the weather.
Would these edits disqualify images from an NLPA consideration?
Now, I'm going to tweak the question slightly, because I think it's more about.
The NLPA stuff is more about deception or not.
And I'm intrigued as how far you go with your pictures in terms of color and
whether you have any lines that you draw in terms of going too far.
If I don't like it, I've gone too far.
I don't tend to draw a line, there's no set process.
It's like when I go out, I don't use filters, don't use a tripod, I take a
single shot, I don't blend, don't focus stack.
When I process, I don't do selections.
So I'll use a...
I use a grad in Lightroom, that's it.
As regards selections, you know, I don't select the sky, I don't select any
objects.
I might clone out a couple of spots here and there, but then everything else is to
do with the color.
So it's really all you're doing is just changing the hues a little bit, but it's
about color matching for me.
It's not about changing that because I can change it or changing that color because
it's like.
I guess, I mean, Joel talked about luck and everything else.
Now I am very lucky, I know that.
And I can look at a scene and I envisage it in my mind's eye and I'm fairly sure
about the color, how everything's gonna appear.
But then again, that might change, because split toning is a very, very personal
thing.
So, and when I say a personal thing, that can change from the morning to the night.
It can change from whether I'm in a good mood or a bad mood or if some, you know,
if I'm listening to Leonard Cohen or Katrina in the waves.
not that I listen to Catoone in the waves, it was just only cheer.
Think of, spur of the moment, I'm far more likely to be listening to Leonard Cohen or
whatever.
But, so when I approach it, it's a case of color matching.
And I think that's why I look at artists, and I like James Norton, Claire Hayley,
all these sorts of people.
I love going to exhibitions, you know, the new Scottish Wing at the Scottish Gallery
in Princess Street.
It's fantastic, you know, Alexander Naismith with his...
gorgeous images of a new town being built.
And there's, you know, there's just, I find those, I find going to galleries is
very inspiring.
I don't tend to look at other photographers' work or being inspired by
it.
Never have, it's just the way I am.
That's not to say that the photographers aren't inspiring.
I just, I look at paintings, I look at artists, whether that's because I'm
looking at...
something that's not quite the real world, I don't know, but I've always found
artists more inspiring, probably because I can't replicate what they do.
I can look at other photographers' work and think, I wish it was there, but I
don't tend to wish I'd taken what they'd taken.
But painterly, yeah, Hudson River School, definitely.
Because, and as much as the color, it's the dark and the light, you know, without
the light, there wouldn't be any darkness, without the darkness, there wouldn't be
any light.
It's that blend, isn't it?
It's that little bit of, you know, reality's overrated, to be honest.
Is it still important that you've taken a photograph of something?
Is the subject matter still important to you?
As in, you know, you've taken a photograph of some calp.
Is it still important it looks like the calp that you saw?
Same with the mountain.
You know, is it still important that it looks like the mountain?
I don't change the shape or anything else.
I might split tone, well I do split tone it.
But I look at the colors, you look at the luminance of the colors because that maybe
enhances a leading line, a curve, a scene.
Because the curves are just gorgeous.
And it's something that blend between, I don't like, I mean, it's actually looking
quite good for going later.
The beach in front of the house, I've never done kelp on our beach before.
But yesterday's tide was really low, so went out and it was like, jeesh, who knew?
I've been driving like 30 minutes to get to the kelp or I've been going into Red
Point and walking for a mile and you want to see the kelp outside the front of the
house.
It's absolutely bloody amazing.
It's phenomenal.
So I'll be, sorry, the dog's just moving.
You okay, darling?
Sorry, dog's just licking the cat now.
So I'll be putting on my shorts, my knee pads.
I've got some knee pads from a skater shop in Edinburgh.
And my corks.
Yeah, well it's a bit, it's black shorts, black crocs, black knee pads.
So it's like, it's almost like a Newcastle strip I'm wearing because the rest of me
is so bloody white.
Mark, can we have a picture of that for the podcast?
I just think that would be, that would really make it.
It really would.
Bloody chance.
New chance.
In terms of, I mean, I'll answer that from the natural landscape photography side of
it.
I mean, our rules don't really specify any level of what you can change in an image.
It's more about deception because at the end of the day, you look at black and
white photography.
It's that's about as far away as you can get removed from reality in terms of
color.
But it's still a photograph can still look like a place.
You know, you could still say that photograph isn't deceptive.
And you can make some quite dramatic color changes to a picture and it can still not
be deceptive.
So that's really that my answer is as long as it's not deceptive, as long as you're
not deceiving somebody with what you've taken, then that's fine.
Whether that's a good criteria, I don't know.
Do you have any rules or guidelines about what you do, Joe?
Yes, I do.
There shouldn't be any.
Well, you know, this is so fascinating.
I think that it's lovely hearing Mark talk about it because it just illustrates the
kind of the knots that we tend to get ourselves tied up in around it, mainly
because painters can really well do what they want and nobody criticizes or judges
them negatively as a result.
And yet,
In photography, in the world of photography, there is a lot of ambiguity
about what we should and shouldn't be doing.
And actually, it's a, you know, it's a free world.
And in my humble opinion, it's an art.
So it is really up to the individual.
I mean, I, my own view of it is that what I love about nature and photography, and
that synthesis of the two is the fact that you have this sort of a feeling of
of linkage to the original experience.
And, you know, I look at Mark's pictures, I still have that.
So yes, the colors may be toned or they may be, they're painted in a way, they
have that, they have him in them, his vision.
And that's what is part of what makes them wonderful as well as being brilliant
compositions.
And I would say in my own case, it's really just, you know, I probably do a lot
more editing than Mark does, but you just might not notice because
I'm trying to stay as if it was the real thing you were looking at, even though
clearly it's not.
It's just a photo.
It's a two dimensional description of what was in front of the camera at the time.
But I love the feeling of as if I could reach out and touch what is there and that
you believe it.
It's basically it's about belief.
It's a kind of faith almost.
And my photos for me, if I don't have that feeling of credibility, then
something's got lost along the way.
So that's the only rule, if you like.
And I wouldn't, you know, one should never rule out anything.
I mean, I do some, I have made pictures in the past, which are collages, you know,
which synthesize different images together, which have a kind of creative
intent.
But I've always have a justification for it.
I never do it just for the sake of it or because it's a technique.
But if there's an idea, if there's a concept that I want to explore, then I'll
use.
those kind of techniques.
But on the whole, my joy of photography comes from looking at nature and just
trying to find a way of distilling its beauty.
So, you know, and I think sometimes that involves a bit of editing at the final
result stage.
We've got a question from myself here, Mark.
When are you doing a book?
I'm uploading quite a few kelp images end of this week.
I'm just, I'm doing these next two days because incredibly low, but then that
should be it.
And I'll be uploading images to Kozu for the kelp.
I need to write the other book.
I'd like to do a little bit of writing with a book.
I mean, I know exactly what I want to do in my head.
It's been a while trying to working out what exactly I want to do and how I want
to do it.
And I keep on getting requests to do a book of spiels, if you like, so.
picture on one side and a spiel on the other.
And the idea of the book that I want to do isn't too far away from that.
Well, hopefully it'll be a good day.
I'm going to jump in there because I think that will be hugely popular.
You know, whatever, Mark, you probably may not think of yourself as a writer, but
people read what you write and I know how much pleasure and joy it gives them, you
know, because with your humor as well as your pictures.
So I think that combination will be a really a winning one for sure.
Have you got any questions, Joe?
think we've covered most of the territory.
I could just listen to Mark all day.
So you're on an easy ticket here, Tim.
it won't...
I'll be I'll be interested in terms of in terms of the books, I think you've already
got quite a few different ideas for books in you.
And like you say, you've got the kelp ideas that became part of a sort of light
sub project.
If you've got any, any other projects that you've been working on up in your area,
location based or subject based or
Not particularly, there is one, once I've done the calc this next couple of days and
gotten them uploaded, I've got to decide how much I want to write with that.
I don't think you need to write necessarily too much because it's a
different sort of a thing, but there will be obviously because it's made there will
be a little bit of writing.
There's a location I wanna do that Joe has been to that I would like to do more in
depth, but that's something small.
It's just a small area that I haven't really seen, but it's a beautiful little
area.
So then it...
you get concerned, but if you do photograph a little area and you
photograph it well and it looks beautiful, then more people visit it.
And it's the unspoiled little corner.
So then you've got to decide, you know, what comes first, the area or you.
And I think it has to be the area that comes first.
Yeah, I mean, other than that, I always find that, if I start thinking about
projects and that sort of interferes with my frame of mind, of just going out and
just photographing whatever it is that's unlucky enough to pass the camera.
I'd like to do a bit more with the reeds.
I really enjoy photographing the reeds.
I mean, I suppose I'm drawn to sort of still peaceful, I suppose almost Oriental.
I think the last book I bought wasn't on photography, it was Japanese art.
I think a couple of weeks last time I was down in Edinburgh.
And I love the calmness of some of those scenes with the reads.
Different sort of style from the I mean, yeah, I mean, the kelp's peaceful, but
there's something else about the reads, the quality of them.
That's just a little different.
Yeah.
it must play a role there.
It's really interesting actually that is such a wonderful theme to return to.
And when I was much younger, I actually met Harry Callahan, the great American
photographer in Washington and bought his sort of auto, what was effectively his
autobiography at the time, which is mainly pictures.
There's a lovely passage in there describing how, you know, he was a regular
amateur photographer and Ansel Adams came to his camera club in Chicago, wherever it
was, and at the end of it, Harry Callahan realized that he could photograph
anything.
And he said, I mean, up to that point, you obviously had a kind of very fixed idea of
what a photograph should look like.
And Ansel had sort of liberate, well, I mean, this might surprise you actually,
because a lot of people probably think Ansel Adams is very kind of technical
photographer, with very precise and so on.
But he was also very creative and he did, he essentially described the creative
process well enough to make Harry Callahan realize that he could photograph anything,
anything could be an abstraction.
And the series that followed, which essentially Harry Callahan, I think,
kind of attributed to launching his career was a series of reads on a pond.
And that was the kind of, you know, the opening for his work, which anybody who
knows his work is very, very personal and very experimental, very varied.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
I don't know.
I'll make a note so I'll look him up as soon as we're finished.
get it thankful when you pop in Mark.
But Mark, also it's really interesting to hear that painting has been such an
inspiration for you.
I mean, in a way I'm not surprised, but the fact you buy books on art and perhaps
do your researches online, maybe on that as well.
Because I mean, I too have, find a huge amount of inspiration from painting.
And in fact, it was, for me, one of the decisive moments in my life as a
photographer was
when I was in the US having been an art student and then I was working as an
assistant photographer.
And I remember being at the Canyon de Chey in Arizona, it was in 1982.
And looking at, and this by the way, was a canyon which had been photographed by
Timothy O'Sullivan in the 1860s and then subsequently by Ansel Adams.
And I was aware of both of those pictures.
So I had the...
photographer's reference point.
But when I looked at these amazing rock walls, I was struck that they were very
painterly.
But I also thought, wow, no human artist could ever match the beauty of what I'm
looking at or get anywhere near it.
Nature itself, it struck me that nature was the art.
And that's what essentially consolidated the idea of being a photographer in my
mind.
I felt that that's what I wanted to do, to be, you know, even though you might think,
well, painting is more, quote unquote, creative because you can do what you want.
But actually, it was the idea of honoring the beauty of the natural world that
seemed the right, philosophically, the right solution for me.
I love taking pictures anyway, but I also had to had to resolve that in my mind.
And that was that was an important moment.
So there's always that the link with with.
painting and with creating art is very, very strongly associated with the beauty
of nature in my mind.
And I hope that that's a, you know, and we all have our own different ways in and
finding different ways of getting inspired.
But I do think that investigating that curiosity about other art forms is
incredibly helpful for our own creative processes as photographers.
It's funny, you know, because that decision's come quite early on and it's
strange that even though I've sort of like had a previous life, if you like,
obviously, detective for however many years and everything else, and yet I've
been doing photography for 14 years now, but I can't recall a time when I didn't
take photographs.
I can't recall a time when I didn't look at the world that way.
It's almost like that part of my life has been sort of extinguished.
And I love every single day of this second life, going out and seeing things.
And again, it could be because I've come to it quite late on, that that's why my
approach is the way it is.
It's not being formulated by any sort of training or study or whatever else.
Because I mean, there's so many times I'll say different things and then you read a
quote from somebody else and you think, I've been saying that.
And it's sort of like the thought process comes to you.
then it shows obviously that nothing's really fresh.
You know, you're talking about a gentleman taking a photograph in 1860 off the canyon
and bringing up new ideas.
There's no new ideas really.
I think that's true, there's a huge amount of recycling effectively that goes on, but
every generation has to discover nature for themselves.
So where I think the difficulty in many ways for us now is that there's so many
people using cameras or phones, and there's a certain degree of almost sort of
overexposure and then it becomes so ubiquitous.
And also the damage to the natural world is a great concern.
I mean, you know, all three of us are very conscious of the fact that the honey pot
locations, as we call them, are being, are definitely being damaged.
I think it's just by photographers, of course, but by, you know, by Instagram and
tourism and so on.
And that's a worry in a way.
The fact that we do want to interact with nature, we want to engage with it.
And yet...
We'd also like to preserve it.
And that might be one other question or conversation that I'd really like to have
with Mark is how we can be more, I don't know whether we can be positive or
proactive.
We're trying to promote the cause of nature not maybe that consciously, but
that's certainly part of it.
is the number of tours that are run abroad.
People are going abroad, they're taking people to Iceland, and they're going to
various other places.
And I mean, I do stay close to home.
I'm doing the lakes twice in September, but that's two trips back to back, see
relatives, do whatever else and be in the lakes.
But there's an awful lot of air travel and whatever in the name of photography.
But then again, if I advertise tours and I don't, well, to be fair, I don't really
get anybody coming from abroad.
There was nobody sort of comes in from away.
My, I suppose, known really locally, that's it.
But it is, you know, we're still, you know, traveling here, there and
everywhere.
But then again, some people have got to make a living as well.
So it's bouncing, putting food on the table with them.
protecting areas but I mean I don't you know I'm in the certain areas that I just
don't go to because I mean you hear about the bit in front of Stub Durg, Unibuck, a
little more and it's just like you know a midden because there's people just walking
through every day.
But then you've got the rabies tours and the mini buses you know I mean you'll see
them Tim and an
Yeah, it is what it is.
think anywhere, anyway, you put a lay by in the highlands is going to be tourist
damage.
It's just inevitable.
And when you look at lock about the look at lock bar and lock in our catfish are
there where it's not really a well known tourist spot, but just photographers there
have done an amazing amount of impact.
But but one of the nice things I think you can promote from your point of view of
going out is the fact that just walking around.
anywhere is the most creative thing you can do.
And you'll more than likely come out with original photographs if you treat the
world like that and have less impact on the land as well.
Well, I think that's very true.
I mean, we get back into the preconceived ideas notion and photography guidebooks
and whatever else.
And people, for me, it just becomes stamp collecting.
They're going to set locations, take and set pictures.
And okay, yeah, take your own picture, do your own interpretation of it.
But I think there's a danger that we miss out on why we're taking photographs.
But then you have to realize that some people are perhaps doing it for different
reasons.
I would say Joe and I are both
taking photographs through a love of the landscape, as opposed to a love of
photography, or a love of the kit, or, you know, the camera is just a conduit between
us and the outside world.
But for other people, the camera is the most important thing.
Sharing photographs, I think, is one of the things that people get out of
photography, and the social interactions that come from that, I think, is something
that's underestimated with a lot of people.
And you take pictures of your local backyard, and you won't get as many social
interactions on social media from it.
And if that's part of the driver, I'm not saying whether it should be or shouldn't
be, but for some people it is important.
Do you get back down to that success and failure viewpoint again?
You must get X number or likes.
I noticed somebody made a comment on one of Rachel Talibart's pictures recently
because it was pictures that wasn't waves or whatever else, but she was doing
something different.
So somebody commented about it hadn't had the same interaction.
But that doesn't mean you say that you stop doing that.
You know, you follow what's in your heart as an artist.
You follow what's in your heart and you take photographs of that.
I could just go back to the lakes and start doing like long exposures over all
this water or whatever and get like loads more involvement.
I wouldn't be satisfied.
And I would consider that almost a failure if you like because I'm not doing what I
want to do.
I think it's very important just to, and it's easy enough to say, I mean, I've got
a ridiculous number of people like that have clicked like or follow me page,
whether it be Facebook, Instagram or whatever else.
But I'll still just keep doing what I want to do.
It's important for me to do me as opposed to doing Joe or somebody else.
The most important thing is taking your own photographs, not some other bugger.
Yeah, you could be really successful just by posting cat and dog photographs for the
next decade.
Thanks for watching!
Yeah, I know he's excellent.
Hey darling.
That's doubled our YouTube exposure already.
What are you after?
Oi!
I've got cheese biscuits in my pocket.
Well, I've just taken Rach down to Inverness and dropped off at the railway
station because she's...
what we were saying before, she's got to go down and spend a bit of time with her
mum.
But yes, I've got cheesy biscuits in my pocket.
So he's like, is anybody doing anything with that?
Because you know, if you're looking for...
How many kelp photographs have you had ruined by a high-impact dog?
Oh, it's funny actually, you know, it was really funny yesterday.
He reached, followed me down to the beach and the tide was so low that all the kelp
that was further out into the sea was actually poking through, which I've not
seen before.
I mean, it's incredibly low and it's supposed to be really, really low today.
But so this kelp was coming up through the water and he was just going brisk,
shouting at the sea because these monsters were rising up out of it.
And obviously these monsters were going to then start advancing onto the beach and
they could perhaps eat his mum.
So he was like, take care of mum.
Monsters, monsters.
He's just an idiot, completely annoying.
Oh yeah, I was doing the reeds, there's a little lock in it as you go across to
Slaggan.
Really nice little 5K walk out, 5K back.
But there's a lock in it, it's not too far out there.
And Num Nuts decides he's gonna like, oh, it's quite warm, I'm just gonna get in the
water and paddle about a bit.
So of course, as Joe was saying, calm waters.
Not calm waters when you've got a six stone box of paddling through it.
Washing machine pun.
Yeah, he's lovely.
you very much for that Mark.
That's absolutely brilliant.
We might have another couple of questions coming in but I'll send you those over
email.
We can put them in the article later.
And thank you very much Joe for taking part as usual.
We'll be back with the next, if anybody is looking for questions for the next ones,
we'll be announcing them in the next issue.
So until then, goodbye.
Goodbye.