Romain Grosjean

This was a commission for Microsoft Lumia around F1 driver Romain Grosjean. I was on set shooting (mostly) BTS to accompany the video campaign.

Egosurfing

I posted one of my photos of Julia Donaldson recently. I was thinking about when I've searched for my work online (photographers have to keep track of their images), and she always appears on page one. So I wanted to post three of my most Google-friendly* shots. 

For the past four years (at least), when I search my name, the image that's usually on the top line is (a version of) astronaut Tim Peake:

As for viral, one photo from a set I took of War Horse's star, Joey, among the poppies at the Tower of London (Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red) has been everywhere, with thousands of shares and likes on Facebook**:

Finally (drum roll...) my most "shared" photo is from 2006 of two Sphynx cats, Dream-maker and Felicity. They are not only beautiful, but they appear to be kissing. As such, it wins the Internet most days:

*By 'Google-friendly', I usually mean shared. And by shared, I mean infringed, a euphemism for stolen. 

**Alas, the value of a picture credit is zero.

Ratings are overrated

I rate all my images in Lightroom. This is an important part of my workflow, if for no other reason than offering another search/filtering option. Here’s why else it matters and what it means:

The Star system

First, an explanation: after every shoot, photos are rated from one to five stars in my library. 

One star is for something awful: misfires, blinks, out of focus shots etc. These will be deleted later.

Two stars means poor: this collection contains uninspiring but required images, the dull fillers.

Three stars get awarded to anything reasonable. They're fine, but wouldn't go in any portfolio.

Four stars: while I wouldn't put these on a website, I might keep them for clients requesting to see examples of something. 

Five stars are for my favourite work: most of these are on my website. Those which aren't are either too similar to my website portfolio, too old, or not quite relevant to the kind of work I do.

I never spend more than a second deciding on each picture. The majority get three stars - or at least this is the default rating (I realise this undermines the purpose of the system). Occasionally I'll award an entire batch four/five stars for a shoot which I was happy with, but which provided very similar shots. I'll often go back after a few days with a fresh perspective, and after the initial buzz has gone. 

So?

Now that's out the way, there are three things to think about.

The first is that I've realised there’s no real need to rate the images, as the value is limited. Mostly, it’s self-appraisal after a shoot is complete, and sometimes the only critique they'll receive. While an important debriefing process (of a kind), my own narrow judgement is not ideal; it's too subjective and informed. Constructive criticism is best coming from other photographers - but this is a rare thing. Feedback from clients is typically rare. 

The second - related - is that star ratings over-simplify and commodify the qualities of a photograph. Worse, they do so in a rather diluted and liberal fashion. At least there's something unforgiving and final with the simple thumbs up/down system (or "kill" and "keep"), and which I apply to the first round from a shoot. Bear in mind that anything less than four stars won't ever be seen again, so it amounts to the same thing.

Third, I notice I’m not improving. I scatter roughly the same amount of stars now as I did when I first went freelance. Less than a dozen times a year will I make a five star image. Actually, I’m probably giving out fewer fours and threes, as I see the same kind of images I’ve shot before: less original, and scarcely improved upon. The fives would also be going down, but for the fact I’m doing more interesting and different work than I used to, which I suppose allows for more possibility of getting something I like. 

Practice does not make perfect

Of course, it’s entirely to do with the critical eye. As we improve on the ground, by necessity our more informed eye looks for higher concerns, and becomes a tougher critic. I’ve probably mentioned elsewhere my press photography NCE portfolio (2004?), about which I was once very pleased. It now makes me cringe. Yet there are still three images from it on my website (have I said too much?) - and whether I’ve kept them because they stand the test of time, or because they show an aspect of my style which I’d like to continue to present, I don’t know.

I do know that I’d like to replace them, and that urgency grows every year. There's something Dorian Grey about it all. You just get bored of seeing them, and their appearance is both shaming ("WHY haven't I bettered this?") and a source of pride ("...but I still like it after so long!").

Even the five-star images have a shelf-life, an inherent entropy. Eventually they lose their shine and drop down the rankings: one day you demote them to four, then, later, into the abyss of three stars and lower.

The only thing to do is to keep working, to keep trying. To replenish the top tier, to keep feeding the beast with something fresh, at least for a while.

Seeing past the subject

The discussion about Charlotte Proudman had me thinking. Not about how inappropriate the comment was, nor the misuse of LinkedIn, or sexism. I wondered whether it's even possible to separate a good photograph from a good subject. Not to say the images below are good or not, but to argue that the subject matter often has a bearing on it.

I have photos of Jamie Oliver and Chiwetel Ejiofor on my portrait page. To be quite honest, I'm not sure if they're very particularly strong images, but they do suggest access, which can equate to experience or skill. Hence, portfolio.

Similarly, many sports photographers might have shots of Usain Bolt/Mo Farah/Jessica Ennis/Oscar Pistorius shot from the end of the race track, crossing the finish line and winning the final. Even though these photos are far from unique and possibly not very exciting*, some of their value is in their fame and recognisability (which comes from newsworthiness). They show how - like the athletes they depict - the photographer is at the very top of her or his profession.

As for newsworthiness, we have etched in our collective consciousness innumerable images depicting great tragedy or joy, and never really consider or care whether they're 'good' from any other viewpoint (technical, artistic, creative etc.), but only see them as records of historic fact, and therefore as powerful photographs.

So: photogenic subjects, famous subjects, newsworthy subjects. These kinds of people blur one's opinion seamlessly: "Is it a 'stunning' LinkedIn image, or is the subject 'stunning'?", "Is it a great portrait, or just a well-known face?", and "Is it a good photo, or just access to some incredible event?"

Most interesting of the three kinds of subjects above is the 'famous': interesting because our cultural, subjective, informed position affects (determines?) how we view images of famous people. And it's very much rooted in its time. That is, it makes all the difference if the viewer knows who the person is, and even their opinion of them. If they don't know them, or at least don't recognise them, their viewing is immediately and irrevocably altered once given this information**. So, back to the title: I dug out some images of (I hope) less-recognisable but nonetheless powerful ladies.

This is someone you would know but probably not recognise:

She's an author, and as for fame, her most well-known book is perhaps only second to Harry Potter. Her work has spawned shows, films, mugs, socks and school bags. Every young-ish parent in the country will own at least a few of her books, and many (myself included) know them off-by-heart. It's Julia Donaldson, author of the Gruffalo.

But is it a good picture? Well, as I've been saying, sometimes it's hard to see past the fame of a person and judge a photograph objectively. In the end - and despite there being only a couple of decent images of Julia online anywhere - she never made my portfolio because I don't think the image is strong enough. 

So much for fame. Next are three leading ladies who are (perhaps?) less-recognised still but nonetheless hugely influential, powerful and successful. We have President of International Markets for Mastercard, Ann Cairns; Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Pearson, Kate James; and Vice-President EMEA for Facebook, Nicola Mendelsohn. All these did make my portfolio - but not with these photos. Other images from the shoots were stronger (take a look in my business and portrait galleries).

Let's assume you don't recognise them, and, unlike with Julia Donaldson, there's no immediate association going on even once named. Does their business or their high position affect your judgment? As it happens, two have appeared in national newspapers fairly recently, so will be recognisable to some. But does it matter? Does it make a difference how you view them?

It comes down to historicism - the extent and angle to which the background (to an image, here) influences our opinion. Perhaps we like to think we can be more objective, but there's much more going on here. We can't help but frame our view with external knowledge, a cultural climate, and our personal bias and taste.

*Not unique, since many other photographers are positioned in the same place. And not exciting with respect to a photographer's more creative and/or less newsworthy portfolios. To put it another way, if the images weren't of global sports superstars winning the Olympics, but instead showed (otherwise identical) shots from, say, the second-round heats at the U-21 Commonwealth games, they'd be unlikely to feature in a portfolio. 

**I should add that you can argue it's easier to read a portrait of a famous person. You have some idea who they are, and can judge to what extent the photograph captures and confirms that aspect of their personality. Or indeed, questions it. Success or failure in the portrait is surely tied to this in some respect.

British Gas

A selection of images from lifestyle / campaign shoots for British Gas in customers’ homes.

​ Problem solving vs creativity

I get told regularly that, being a photographer, I must be 'creative'. I think this is intended as a compliment - and would like to take it as such - but I don't think it's true.

Photography is a job; it's about getting the picture that the client wants. The artistic shot might not be very useful; some shoots have a strict shot list which must be adhered to. Despite claims to the contrary, clients are usually after reliability, skill and experience over artistry. Creativity where it's possible and desirable - yes. But the brief comes first. There's a higher value on being a 'good operator' than a creative. Yes, of course, there is more scope to be the latter in, say, fashion or conceptual art, or where the emphasis with the brief is to capture a mood or idea. But much of the time, it's about creativity within limitations.

That said, creativity should always be part of the approach: there's nothing worse than ‘merely’ fulfilling a brief. Yet so often, the most direct or simple shot is often the best one, or at the very least, the frame of reference, the 'safety shot' from which we develop an idea. Hence, the idea of considering oneself artistic and pursuing creativity as a goal feels a little misleading and unhelpful, starting from the end point as it does, and working backwards to the brief. That is, we end up trying too hard.

Even for portraits (in my field, at least) I find myself working logically towards a goal. The challenge is not in considering theoretical or 'deep' artistic concepts, but simply identifying what could improve the photograph, then working out how to do it. Pragmatics and logistics. 

I think creativity mostly takes place in one's personal work. In commissioned work - if creative flow occurs at all - it's at the meeting point between that personal creativity and the objective brief. 

So I describe what I do as problem-solving. This might be a creative outlet (I don't know) but it's about dealing with issues, people, logistics, lighting etc. quickly and efficiently. Anticipating, problem-solving, troubleshooting - that sort of thing. A little bit of 'what if' and trying out ideas which come up, perhaps (but even these are rooted in time and situation, not theory). 

And if there is a trick, it is to get something fresh within the limitations of the real world (and in real time). And that's the challenge I enjoy. To find that meeting point. It's knowing when something good, new, or interesting can be achieved from the mundane (and the corollary: realising when even the most (apparently) rich situation has nothing much to offer). That would be where creative opportunities lie.

There's the idea (mostly untrue) that you're either logical or artistic. But if that is the case, I'm the former. Which could be damaging to one's ego, to consider oneself unartistic in what is considered an artistic profession. But that's how it is, at least for me.