NZ Photographer of the Year 2009 - Paul Gummer answers our questions. Read here!

[talan]

Hi everyone,

Paul Gummer has kindly spent a lot of time preparing answers to forum members' questions to him. Below are his answers. I hope everyone here appreciates his top efforts to answer our questions. They are very detailed and has far exceeded my expectations. It really shows his passion towards photography and contributing back into the community!

Thank you Paul!(Y)

The answers below:

1. How has your photography evolved through the years?

I started photography initially just to get some decent pictures of fish I caught (could have done with stitching for those real bigguns!). But then I got involved seriously 25 years ago through a p/t course in Melbourne, Australia (PSC) and was really interested in 5” x 4” film camera work and B&W darkroom work. Someone had suggested I get a large format camera so I did and just after that, my 35mm Nikon was stolen. Having no money to buy another I just used the 5 x 4 for everything – mainly landscape and architecture but also some portrait work. (The Montsalvat pictures on my website were made in my second year of photography).

We used to make up developers from the powdered chemicals to optimize the tonal quality of prints (Dr Beer’s Formula, D130, Amidol, Pyrocatechin, etc). Generally I printed on fibre-based papers for portfolio and exhibition work. I went back to England to live in the late ‘80’s and worked for magazines such as ‘Country Life’ and also architects, etc. I soon learnt that for commercial work where time is money, its better to use resin papers for speed and convenience. I also got into 5 x 4 transparency work and started doing a lot of landscape on this (see early work on my website).

We came to NZ in 1998 and soon got a teaching job at UCOL in Palmerston North which was great as we had young kids at that time. My colleague, the legendary Joe Sing, introduced us to NZIPP and the awards at the start. Students at UCOL began putting prints in and doing well. I only started putting work into the awards in 2006 which coincided with getting into digital (scanning negs and trannies). These awards are obviously aimed at pushing image making into new approaches, rather different from other types of competitions and awards, so I found a lot of my previous ideas being challenged and I veered away from what had been a more purist approach.

Commercial photographers are always looking for an edge and of course, with the general public all having cameras and computers nowadays, you have to search for new visual ideas in order to make sales. People are willing to pay for good work if they know it is something they are not capable of doing themselves. To be honest, digital work has freed me from the darkroom as well as opening new creative avenues for my work especially with recent still-life work. I loved what could be done in the darkroom and all the tinkering with chemicals etc but I’d swap a comfortable chair in a bright room for a 12 hour day in the dark any time! One thing I loved about tranny film was that you had to get it right in camera. I still believe you have to get as much as possible right at taking stage but post processing in Photoshop is now very much part of image making.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

2. What is your criteria for a good photo?

If I could pick four main criteria, they would be a sense of mystery, good communication, graphic quality and strong technical quality as they all work together for the image.

Personally, I enjoy images that have a sense of mystery to them; they leave something to the imagination of the viewer. Even the best photojournalism does that (eg Sebastiao Salgado, James Nachtwey, etc). I also feel that images should depict beauty, even though that is often seen as old fashioned these days – there’s a difference between beauty and just being pretty in the same way there’s a difference between beauty and glamour. I guess beauty’s more ‘soulful’ without wanting to get too mushy.☺

Images should communicate, whether that is in a subtle way or an overt way. Communication is important because it draws the viewer in, but like music it may not necessarily be tangible. Visual language is often about the intangible, about evoking some sort of emotive response. So, I guess that’s all tied up with aesthetics. Paul Strand said that “to photograph, you must have something to say”.

Images with a graphic quality can also become quite powerful aesthetically so I would rank this as an important attribute. I guess snapshots are frequently boring because they are just records (my family snaps mean a lot to me but probably little to anyone else for that reason!). I don’t follow conventions like the rule of thirds as these can be too limiting.

Finally, although aesthetics and communication are paramount, technical quality follows close behind. After all, why not make the most of your communication with a well-executed image? In academic circles it has become fashionable to play down technical aspects; that’s a pity because many people are missing out on taking their work to another level. But you look at the work of the real greats such as Avedon, Penn, Salgado, Adams, Weston, Caponigro etc and you soon see that the best work displays a balanced approach with exquisite technical virtuosity.

These guys were all highly literate so reading a lot around photography must benefit you in the end.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

3. What are some recommendations you would give to someone looking to be a professional photographer?

Find a mentor in the profession – there’s so much to take in.

Decide what kind of work you would like to do and work out who your market is. It’s better to do something you’re passionate about than slogging away at something you’re not really interested in. Having said that, some types of photography will earn you more money than others. Unfortunately, if you choose something obscure you may not sell any work.

You may need a part time job to cover rent and living expenses while getting established.

You’ll probably have to think work 24/7 for a few years while you get established. Even most of the best pros probably got there the hard way.

First thing to do is go to your dictionary, find the letter ‘Q’ and tear out the word ‘quit’.

Prepare a portfolio of relevant work, ie the type of work that your potential clients will give you. A good portfolio shows what you are capable of, your creative and technical skills, your presentation and organisational skills, and of course, your areas of interest.

Decide on your target market(s) and work out a marketing plan in conjunction with a business plan. It may be best to get professional advice when starting a business so you stay afloat.
Marketing is one of those things creative people would rather avoid but ask any successful businessman and they’ll probably say it’s the key to their success.

Potential clients won’t come knocking on your door and I found that 9 out of 10 people never phone back if you leave a message. So, you go to them. At UCOL we call that doing a ‘face mail’. It’s also part of building up a personal rapport.

Don’t undercharge. Its always tempting for new photographers but in the end the whole profession loses out because it says photography isn’t worth much. It is a skilled profession and the public need that reinforced. Photographers who undercharge usually go under sooner than later. So, charge what you’re worth and be worth what you charge.

Beware of clients who try not to pay…in the end its not worth working for them, is it? Quite a number of photographers and designers ask for a percentage up front…this soon sorts out the payers from the non-payers.

What else? The customer always comes first. Build a good working rapport with everyone. This includes labs etc – I always paid for my film processing up front even if it was going to be a while before the client paid. If you look after others, they’ll probably look after you and even if they don’t, you’ve still done the best thing.

[talan]

4. Do you use Photoshop? If so, to what degree?

Yes, I use Photoshop a lot. Frankly, it’s amazing and it offers so much more control than the darkroom ever did.

My way of working is to shoot RAW, properly exposed by checking the camera histogram at the time of exposure.

Adobe RAW converter is just like the old push/pull processing from the darkroom. I mainly did pulling film by overexposing and underdeveloping. Working with large 16-bit files that are pixel-rich, Recovery and Fill-light do the same but to a greater degree. For more control there’s the Curves function.
Then there’s the Hue & Sat. sliders for saturation and luminance changes changes in different colour channels.

Once in Photoshop, I do any structural work first such as transform/skew to correct converging verticals etc followed by any cropping to tidy up the composition. At this stage I may add a new sky etc. in if necessary.

From here, the next stage is to ‘smooth out’ all the tonal values, ie darken areas that are too light and vice versa. I always spent a long time in the darkroom burning and dodging so I do more of this in Photoshop. To be honest, it’s one of the overlooked ‘secrets’ to producing good prints. I use adjustment layers and tend to end up with dozens of them because most are basically just small feathered selections with a Levels or Curves adjustment. Learning the art of selecting and feathering is invaluable as is a thorough understanding of Levels and Curves. Finally, both local and overall contrast should be worked on. I have recently started using Layer Masks and these offer amazing non-destructive control.

After tonal work, I then sort out colour. This may include enhancing or lowering the saturation/brightness of specific colours. Again, using local selections and adjustment layers. Hue & Sat can do all sorts of things so I use it most. Finally, I may put a colour tone through the image. Often I end up with something that is in between a colour image and a toned B&W image.

I may put a subtle texture in the image either with a very low Opacity or using a blending mode such as Soft Light.

Finally, I put a Levels layer at the top that I call a ‘salt & pepper’ layer as it gives a final tweak to blacks, highlights and overall contrast/brightness to taste.

The image is flattened and then sharpened using High Pass sharpening.

To print what you see on your screen means you must colour manage your files, working space, monitor, printer, paper thorough calibration or colour profiling – a complex area but necessary.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

5. What advice would you give to a photographer trying to establish their own distinct style?

We all have our own unique way of seeing. If you’re passionate about what you’re photographing, you’ll inject something into the picture beyond the fundamentals of good composition, etc. Look at as many images as possible of other photographers, past and present. There will be certain characteristics you respond to and will inevitably be subconsciously built in to your own work. We are all subject to influence; its healthy and its how all the creative arts move forward (including painting, music, fashion, architecture, design, etc.). You can’t look at too many images. Narrow them down to the ones you respond to most and consciously ask yourself why they work for you.

Go out and shoot. Print. Then re-shoot. Print again. Then re-shoot again. Print again and so on. The more you do this for a particular type of subject, the more you will find an approach or style emerge. Your style may change over the years and that’s healthy too.

Find other photographers to share ideas with and discuss each others’ work.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

6. What do you suggest are good ways to improve one's photography?

Find subjects you are really interested in.

Look at as many images as possible in books, magazines, exhibitions, etc. Study them and work out why they look strong.

Read as much as you can on photography. You can’t do better than reading ‘Better Photography’ and ‘Better Digital’ and ‘Better Photoshop Techniques’ for current ideas.

Aim to shoot less different things but look for the most photogenic things and spend more time with them.

Aim to ‘graphically design’ your image in the viewfinder.

Keep you gear reasonably simple. A tripod is helpful as it makes you think carefully about camera placement.

Learn how to use Photoshop – this may mean going on a Photoshop course such as David Harradine’s when he comes to NZ.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

7 .Where do you draw your inspirations from?

My first two photography books were by Cartier-Bresson – who hasn’t he inspired! Early landscape work was influenced by various people such as Peter Dombrovskis and Eliot Porter. Then I saw Shinzo Maeda’s work and I started to do more textural landscape studies of trees etc. B&W landscape was influenced by photographers such as Paul Caponigro, Wynn Bullock, John Sexton, Brett Weston, etc. Olivia Parker’s Polaroid still-life work has always been inspiring to me; that’s an area I have always found difficult but am trying to give it a go. Currently, I am influenced by some of the Renaissance painters – how they used architectural features in their work and their use of colour. Some portrait work I have done was inspired by Richard Avedon, Paul Strand, August Sander and Nicolas Nixon. You can get some excellent books from the library via Interloan for just a few dollars. Web images are usually such low res that you just don’t get that benefit of a richly printed book. Most of the above photographers were great printers and saw the technical and aesthetic aspects of similar importance.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

8. Do you always plan and visualise your shoots beforehand? Do you do much research or preparation?

Frequently. Some of the Italian shots were pre-visualised before I even left NZ. If I am going to a particular location, I’ll look through relevant books, including guide books, just to get ideas. I am always open to spontaneity but research and planning can help save so much time. I had ten days in Italy and planned a route to take in all the towns and villages that looked interesting from research in our local library. I had to keep a tight schedule to get to photograph all the places I planned to go. One village was a two hour drive, twenty minutes there and then back on the road again.

My recent still life work is unashamedly digital with everything shot individually, knowing how it will piece together in Photoshop. I would never have dreamed up this kind of work if I was still using film, so sometimes a particular technical method can give rise to a creative idea. Often, I’ll draw up thumbnail sketches of ideas first to help with visualisation.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

9. What has been the most memorable moment of your career?

Oh, a difficult question……there are lots of high points. I guess they’re all the result of realising dreams and ideas.

Getting a 5 x 4 view camera was a real turning point – it forced me to stop and ‘see’ instead of just looking.

Making the image of ‘The Old Studio’ at Montsalvat in Australia – I had been going into the studio for a year and ‘knew’ there was a picture to be had there but I could never ‘see’ one until suddenly one day I saw and shot two. A revelation for me.

Achieving a first gold award at the NZIPP Iris Awards as they had always seemed so elusive and unattainable.

Obviously this year’s awards blew me away – again, these always seemed so unreachable.

But, I think the most memorable would have to be photographing the Hill Village in Italy. I only saw one image of this little village perched on a rock, in a guide book in Palmerston North Library. It took me ages to work out where it was and of all the amazing towns and cities in Italy, it was the place I wanted to photograph most. When I finally arrived, there was a thunderstorm over the hills behind and lightning flashing. It was getting dark and I just had to set up the tripod and shoot, having to stand on top of a wall to get the best elevation. The atmosphere was absolutely electric (pun definitely intended). Not sure why I shot more than one as it wasn’t a difficult shot – I was just spellbound with the place. I packed up just as the rain hit and then I had to drive off in torrential rain to find accommodation for the night. Next day I just sat and looked at the village for a couple of hours and then walked over to it and chatted with some of the locals; only a dozen folk live there. It’s suprising how you can have a conversation and a laugh with a vocabulary of less than twenty words of Italian!

This village was for me, the definitive summation of my two main passions in photography – landscape and architecture – and so simple. It is the most fascinating place I have ever photographed. I guess I’m just a simple bloke who dreams a lot…..and therein lies a secret or two…..

[talan]

10. Has digital photography changed the ideological principles of photography?

I believe the aim of photography is to make a picture that is pleasing to the eye and evokes a response in the viewer. It’s that simple. The problem is that we construct a series of unwritten rules that seem to get us tangled up in knots as to what we can and cannot do. The reality is that we all have different perspectives on life and photography so in the long run, obeying ‘rules’ becomes like chasing the wind.

Many folk feel that digital has somehow changed the ‘ideological’ principles of photography. The irony is that painters said similar things when photography first came on the scene in the 1800’s. ‘Photography is not real art’, they said. Now we hear, ‘Digital is not real photography’. Another irony is that people widely accept special effects in movies but then look at even a mild effect in a still image and say, “You can’t do that”. Strange.

When faced with change, people start looking at their rule books. If the idealogical aim of photography was to record a subject that was in front of the camera and leave it at that, then very few people have complied with the rules.

To start with the real world has never been just shades of grey – we see colour. So that rules out all B&W work. If manipulating a scene in any way is breaking a rule, then using any sort of filter such as polarizer, UV, coloured filters, graduated filters, etc must be out. Do you use your pure intuition to expose? If so, then any complex metering system in camera must be out. Should vivid saturation colour films be allowed? They manipulate the real colours. Should electronic zoom lenses be allowed? Isn’t that changing the perspective of the world? Surely we should use only a fixed standard lens? For over a century photographers have been retouching images from pencil on glass plates and sandwiching negatives to create images that are not 100% faithful to reality. Now we use pixels instead of pencils. Prints on different papers (inkjet or photographic) give different renditions of reality – which one is the correct one?

That really just leaves us with the issue of moving parts of an image or adding parts from other images. A famous Henry Peach Robinson print from the late 1800’s of a patient in a bed was made up from about half a dozen negatives; I have never heard anyone say that he should never have made that image. Multiple exposures have been around for years (for example, a friend of mine made a living doing book covers and record covers over 20 years ago using double and triple exposures on tranny film of quite different subjects. A typical example was clouds, a violin and a plaster bust of Mozart for a record of Mozart’s violin concertos).

Darkroom workers have been burning in skies heavily for years – but surely that’s not faithful to the original light? Painters and illustrators have put what they liked where they liked for centuries. Are photographers not allowed to?

So, in the end, us photographers are stuck in a corner by our own unwritten ‘rules’ and about the only issue folk might come to a concensus on is for accurate news reporting and photojournalism where there is an expectation that what we see in an image is what was actually there in reality. That’s probably a fair concensus of thought and not unreasonable and probably about the only ‘rule’ we can have. But even that gets manipulated……

Take two photographers working for different newspapers with different political stances…..a good example would be the UK papers The Sun (Conservative Party bias) and the Daily Mirror (Labour party bias). Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Prime Minister) makes a speech. The Sun photographer wants to make her look authoritative so uses a lower camera angle and waits for her to look imposing and in command. The daily Mirror guy next to him (or her) in the press area, waits till she has to momentarily scratch a tickle on her nose; his photo makes her look ridiculous by seemingly picking her nose. Which mage is the true one? They both are but photographers have always been finding ways of distorting the truth. So what is the truth?

In the end what we photograph is what we visualize in our mind to make a good picture. A number (but certainly not all) my pictures have new skies added. Frankly, I just don’t have the time or the money to wait for days or even weeks for just the right cloud formation to drift over the subject. My two Venice pictures are both as they were – nothing added. I was fortunate the skies were okay; but I’d have had no qualms in replacing the skies if they were visually poor. It was a case of go, shoot, leave. I had to wait for gaps in the tourists and make the most of the situations. Nobody was cloned out because I timed the shots right. Then it was down to good old burning and dodging and a then warm up filter for the Grand Canal picture; all old ‘film tricks’.

So, to answer your question, no, digital has not really changed the ideological principles of photography much at all. Film was great but had its limitations. If we were true ‘purists’ we would find cars and electronic cameras abhorrent to our ideals and would drive around in horses and carts to get our purist pictures on our wooden camera using glass plates …… Digital is here to stay and has opened up new avenues of creativity in the same way cameras did in the 1800’s. If any photographer wishes to make up limiting rules for themselves, that’s fine, but they should not hold on to the expectation that others should follow. Photography (and life generally) are so much more enjoyable if you are open to all possibilities, aren’t they?

[wirehunt]

A very interesting and in-depth read. Thankyou very much for that.

[PureKiwi]

that is a great read thanks to , Paul and talan and members for questions and anyone else i missed

Makes me think to go buy a film camera as well

[Rick0r]

Indeed a great read, thanks very much!