Yes i have succumbed to the dark side of the force I’m currently trying out Instagram just to see how it fits into my social networking. So far, i’m just feeling my way around the photo sharing service, and it does appear to have noticeable differences from other photography iPhone applications.

To many photographers Instagram and Hipstamatic are dirty words. Dirty, DIRTY words!!! While both of these photography applications are lumped together in criticism, i find they offer the user slightly different approaches to photography using an iPhone. Hipstamatic is far less of a social networking app than Instagram. I can certainly understand Facebook’s interest in purchasing Instagram… though not the price they paid for it.

So will i continue to use it? Well yes. I went out for a walk yesterday and tried to get to grips with what Instagram can do. Sadly i couldn’t upload any over a phone signal as i went along.. because there was NO phone signal out in the countryside. I did manage to eventually upload some images though by using a hotel’s free wi-fi signal.

As a device for visually showing what i’m up to, Instagram is perfect. It’s a visual tweet, a snapshot, a visual scrapbook – a moment in time. The here and now. I just need to settle in with it.

The main website has a Instagram gallery where you’ll be able to see new and old images at http://www.richardflintphoto.com/instagram-gallery/

I’m currently reinstalling everything back onto my laptop. Great fun! After around 18 months of flawless use, the laptop finally started freezing on me in critical situations, so i decided to do a factory reset. A drastic move, i know, but it means a fresh, clean laptop ready to go soon. It’ll just take me several days to put all the software back on it.

Fortunately there was nothing on the hard drive of great value. I backup to DVD-ROM and memory stick, and now DropBox, as often as i can, but it never seems quite enough. The fear of losing digital content has increased each year as i realise how much I rely on files just being there. To complicate matters, the laptop DVD-RW would no longer burn discs due to a software issue. The factory reset has removed this problem too. Phew!

Just recently I started using an online service called CodeGuard after i realised how much blood, sweat, tears and man hours had gone into the main website redesign. The idea of someone wrecking all that work with a hack [shiver] terrified me! CodeGuard simply backup your website (all the files on your server) so you have a fall-back (or several!) should the worse happen. So far it looks like a great service.

“Some pros are dabbling with digital but most still shoot on film“. A remarkable claim by the great Eamonn McCabe made on BBC Radio 4 recently. I’ve been a fan of McCabe’s work ever since i first saw his sports photography in a copy of amateur photographer around 20+ years ago. In this case though, Eamonn seems to have got it rather wrong.

The problem is, is that photographers tend to believe that everyone works like they do – I shoot mostly on film, so therefore everyone else does. Only they don’t! Photography is a fascinating business because it is made up of so many practitioners doing photography their own way. We customise it to our own way of seeing, thinking and our attitudes to the world. We build our own methods, philosophies and believes, creating our own view of photography – and then we guard it fiercely. I’m right, you’re wrong!

For my part, I shoot digitally and on film. I love both and always will, but i am aware that there are photographers, out in this big bad world of ours, who will NEVER touch a film camera ever again. Likewise, some photographers stay away from digital photography. That’s a decision that they’ve made, just like i made a decision to use both digital and film. That’s the beauty of photography – we mould it into what we want, and no mould is exactly the same.

In the news with have the launch of the Nikon D4 and the rumbles of what looks like the end of that once mighty photo leviathan called Kodak. Both stories reflect how quickly the photo industry can change, It wasn’t that long ago that Nikon was seen as lagging some way behind Canon in the digital technology stakes. Now Nikon seem to have the edge.

Kodak’s demise is sad though. I’ve never been a huge user of Kodak products, but for a time i was a dedicated fan of their TMAX range of products – i still (though for how much longer is anyone’s guess) use their TMAX developer. I certainly won’t shrug off the demise of a company that has helped me take photographs over the years. Some others seem less bothered. Photography, for me at least, does not just mean digital imaging.

One of the more popular photography blogs had a post that enthused about the ‘end of the film age‘. Personally i believe that film will last for some time to come, but like in many industry sectors, only a small number of film manufacturing companies will survive or remain in that sector. In the film sector, companies like Fuji and Ilford may remain the only big players, especially if Kodak does go down. I do hope that film remains available. Film offers the user a different picture taking experience to digital. That should be encouraged. If the Impossible Project can make Polaroid film sales viable – surely 35mm, 120 and 5×4 film can have a place too.

Final thought: The decline of our high street photography shops can be linked to online competition, but a massive factor was the switch to digital. The market for photographic materials just vanished. After buying a camera and a memory card, why go back to the store? A lens? A bag maybe. Not regular items you’d go and purchase often though.

Digital changed the business model for the camera store on the high street, as much as it changed the photography industry itself. We have gained much from the digital imaging revolution, but that gain comes at a price. Those that can’t keep up will fall. Kodak, sadly appears to be one of those falling.

This photo kinda amused me at first but maybe it says a lot more to say about Halloween than you’d think at first glance.

Where has the seasonal magic gone? Even the Mummy is trying to sell you something! I really do miss the magical atmosphere that this time of year had for me as a kid. I want it back!!!

It was all started by an article that forecasted the possibility of the demise of film in the USA within ten years. I’ve been surprised at the level of conviction shown by both ‘film die hards’ and the ‘digital is the future’ crowd who have fought bitterly to defend their positions. Both make good arguments, although sometimes it  seems to come more from an zealous idealogical standpoint than calm reason and deduction.

The claim that film use is going down is correct. It’s bound to as digital cameras have caught on. Most people have embraced digital for convenience and cost reasons but my argument is that so far it has only really impacted the 35mm film market to a large degree.  The launch of a 200MP digital Hasselblad retailing at around £28,000 (plus tax) goes to show that although a good 35mm style digital camera is easily affordable these days, most medium format digital versions are still squarely aimed at a limited number of highly paid professionals or the rental markets. Yes there are cheaper alternatives but the prices are still prohibitive for many amateurs and professionals alike.

Until this situation changes, i believe that film in 120 and 5×4 formats will continue to be the only affordable alternative for large format photographers who want great quality images. As for 35mm, well film will continue to be produced as long as it remains profitable to do so. Colour will probably suffer significantly more than black and white, but it may just still have a place in the digital world. If the Impossible Project can succeed with the business model of selling ‘Polaroid’ film, then i see a potential market for selling film. Small but solid. Digital is the future but some film will remain on sale as long as it is profitable to do so.

In the UK we have a chain of photo stores that go under the Jessops name. The stores used to provide a good range of photographic gear and materials but in the last decade the photo chain’s fortunes have suffered quite considerably. I believe that in part this is due to the widespread adoption of the digital camera. Film is purchased, used, and processed. At each stage something has to be replaced especially if you process your own stuff; the film, the chemicals, and even the negative file you place the negs in have to be purchased on a regular basis. That doesn’t include the printing materials. Digital removes all that because at its core is the memory card that can be used over and over again. No wonder the camera shops are often empty. If i owned a camera shop i’d be actively encouraging film photography over digital – instead it’s vice versa.

A final thought. It’s only a small thing but I often get the professional photographer tag because i carry a film camera. I may be carrying both my digital and film cameras, but it seems that many of the public see film as solely the domain of the professional/uber photo enthusiast.  I’ve even been labelled a ‘proper photographer‘ because of carrying a film camera. I don’t agree with that but i certainly would recommend using a film camera – it’s a more challenging experience than using a digital camera. It complements digital.

A final, final thought. I intend buying a 5×4 camera this summer so i am going through the motions of putting my money where my mouth is.

In theory, a photojournalist should capture every aspect of warfare, but some areas still remain taboo. War dead have always been fierce topic of debate since Matthew Brady’s photographers photographed the dead on the battlefields during the American Civil War. Since then, photographers have often tried to capture the sense of sacrifice on the battlefield, usually under huge scrutiny and censorship from the military and political powers.  During world war II, images from the battlefields were closely controlled, and only on a number of occasions were US and British war dead photographs ever published. The Soviets, however, published lots of photographs of Soviet dead to motivate and inflame the Red Army/Soviet people as it fought against the onslaught of the German army’s assault on Russia.

A photograph is an immensely powerful thing. Even in the 21st century, the right photograph at the right time can cause havoc with public perception and opinion. The lessons learned after the Vietnam war are still being enforced. Don McCullin was barred from photographing the Falklands war in 1982 due to political pressure – the powers that be didn’t want any true images of war i.e war dead, by a seasoned war photographer, to influence public opinion back home. The result was that the Falklands conflict remains one of the most poorly documented conflicts that the United Kingdom has ever fought.The strangest element to photographs from a war is the nature of subjectivity. Display a photograph of dead Afghans/Iraqis and there may be few complaints, but show a dying British or American soldier and all hell breaks loose. Maybe it should.

The recent image of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard dying,  published by various news agencies, has brought the old arguments to the surface again. Just when do you stop taking pictures? Is there anything you don’t shoot? Do you publish the photographs? Even if you do take the photograph of the dying soldier, there is a good chance that it will never be published. On the other hand this is the reality of the situation on the ground. Young men and women risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq – sometimes the price can be high. Shouldn’t we acknowledge that, and show that risk and sacrifice? In the end this topic will continue to divide opinion as long as there are wars and photographers photographing those wars. 

Some of the most thought provoking photographs taken of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been taken back home among the families of dead servicemen, where the impact of the loss is so keenly felt. Todd Heisler’s superb photo-story Final Salute is an excellent example of a photographer looking closer to home for the true visible cost of war. For me, Heisler’s images are far more emotionally powerful and poinant than any taken on the battlefield. Maybe it’s away from the battlefield that the real stories lie.

A couple of years ago, British television was full of these ‘best of’ programmes. The best 100 love films/comedy/war films/science fiction films/ etc etc etc. It was tedious but the TV people loved them because it filled in about three or four hours of programming schedule. One thing became apparent from these TV shows –  the public vote format they used tended to favour the new. Time became a deciding factor on rating. If a film had been released recently it stood a far better chance of getting a higher position than an older 1940′s film. Music top tens were even worse because most people would vote for flavour of the month/year. Robbie Williams would often be higher for the best album ever than The Rolling Stones. Age and public awareness determined position. That is the fatal flaw with certain top ten topics. Do the vote five days/months/years later and you’d get a completely different result.

If you try to do a top ten with photographers surely you must have to take into account the era into account. You could do a top ten best Vietnam war photographers but it would be a lot trickier to compare Larry Burrows to  a modern photojournalist like James Nachtwey. Both photographers live(d) and work(d) in two totally different times, with different needs, technology and media audiences. One isn’t better than the other. It’s like comparing directly a 1950′s football player with the modern player. So much has changed that it’s virtually impossible to use any static and solid measurement to compare them. The best idea is to not even try.

For six years i studied photography. In all that time, i got to see the good and the bad parts of the education system that was designed to produce the next batch of film makers, photographers and visual artists. After six years in the system, i think I’m pretty qualified to comment about them. I do admit that my experiences were 11 years ago, and the system may have changed beyond recognition. Somehow, though, i seriously doubt that.  I first started studying photography in late 1991, and apart from a year out in 1994, i studied until the summer of 1998. Photography courses differ from place to place. Some are good and others less so.  Some aim at the fine art photographers and others at the documentary snappers, but they all have one thing in common. They are designed to guide and educate students in the art of photography. Notice that i say the art of photography and not the business, but i will get to that topic later. For the most part, these courses are good at providing an art education. They do, however, have one fatal weakness. They don’t seem to offer any education relevant to working in one of the most competitive industries in the world. The photography business.

Specialization is an integral part of the photographic education. What do you want to do with that talent? It’s a tough call, but most people usually aim at a number of areas – usually fashion, photojournalism and fine art. Yes, a course may offer other outlets like advertising, but for the most part, many students go down one of the previously mentioned paths. The more observant of you reading this may have noticed that these three areas of photography are often deemed as glamorous and appealing ones. The cool fashion photographer, the dashing photojournalist and the sophisticated creativity of  the fine art photographer. Wonderful, and yet at no time during the studying of these subjects does the real world play any importance. The question ‘ How will you make a living from this? never crops up. Mention high street commercial photography like family portraits, weddings etc and you kiss your ‘artistic’ credibility goodbye. Weddings???? uurrrrrrrggghhh. I have to admit that i fell into this commercial snobbery trap and only really came to my senses during the last 18 months of my education. How will i make money? Is the work there? Is specializing in one type of photography wise? All good questions that i never answered at the time. At least i was asking the questions - many of my fellow students were still oblivious to the horrible brutal truth. We were living in our own little worlds of illusion where we thought we’d leave University to a round of loud applause and job offers.

The future, and how students will fit into the outside world is the fundamental issue that all colleges and university should be addressing. The Colleges and Universities need to keep quality links with industry and should aim to deliver an education that can help students move into the photography industry. The most important of these are business skills because chances are, you will find yourself having to become self employed. I don’t know what business studies covers on these courses now, but on my degree it seemed to only concentrate on financing an exhibition. Tax returns, invoicing, job quotations, what to charge, business plans, finding work, promoting yourself – none of these subjects were ever covered by a lecture on my degree…. not once!  My HND course did cover it briefly, much to everyones horror i might add. Paperwork!!! But i  just want to take photographs! Reality came knocking. Our lecturer, Simon, worked as a professional photographer and knew all too well what ‘living the dream’ entailed.  Looking back, I now know that the time spent that morning was probably the most valuable of the whole college year. With that lecture in mind, I did ask at one point on the degree, about the business side of photography and got the terse reply ‘That isn’t what the course is about, Richard’.  Well maybe it should have been!!!

One photoblog I’ve been following for a over a year now really does get my blood boiling. I’m not going to mention the blog or who it’s by, but i will say that the writing on this blog is entertaining, witty and often contains useful photographic observations. The writer even seems a likeable, friendly type, but it’s the photography that really, REALLY annoys me. Bland, boring images, yep hugely DULL photographs that i’d rather set fire to than blog, taken with some of the finest pieces of camera equipment, money can buy. Looking at the dull images makes you instantly realise that great cameras don’t necessarily make great photographers.

I have a theory that a good photographer can shoot a great image using virtually any type of camera, from a cheap secondhand Zenith 35mm, to a mobile phone camera, to a top of the range Leica M8.2. Is it envy for the camera the blogger is using? Well maybe partly, but it just seems such a waste of a well engineered camera. A great camera should compliment the user and help you take great images, and if those images are lacking something then you can’t blame your tools. It’s not tools, it’s technique. I suppose, like all art and beauty,  a good photograph is just a matter of opinion and all in the eye of the beholder. Still seems a waste though. I’m going to keep an eye on the blog and see whether any improvements in image quality and shooting technique occur… I’m not holding my breathe.