Brief Two: Interior Location: The Residents of Broughton House: A Proposal

I work as a Care/Support Worker in various homes and independent hospitals around Manchester. The Service Users range from the elderly with/without dementia through to those with severe learning disabilities. The work is challenging, requiring patience and empathy. I won't say something cheesy like "I feel I make a difference", but I will say that I do make connections with some of the clients, and the whole experience of providing personal care gets me 'out of self' and prevents me from disappearing up my own arse with what's going on for me.

This gift I have (OK, calling it a gift is ostensibly me disappearing up my own arse, but I'm not at work now)- the gift of understanding and putting people at ease- is akin to portrait photography for me. The same rules apply. The people I work with are basically giving themselves over to me as a carer and a photographer; the former to get their own needs met, the latter to meet my own. In both, I am in a position of trust. The photographer is also a conduit for his subjects, enabling them to express certain parts of themselves, before recording this in the digital image. This- and the fact I am becoming more confident around asking what I want from my subjects- is the core reason for choosing to photograph the residents of Broughton House.

Broughton House is a 50-bed Residential Care Home for Ex-Servicemen personnel funded by the charities  Seafarers UK, The Army Benevolent Fund and The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. The building is one of the biggest I've ever worked in; a huge place opened in 1916 by Colonel Sir William Coates of the East Lancashire Red Cross as a response to the amount of people injured in the Great War. The place itself is like a museum- its walls adorned with pictures of old war heroes; its reception area holding a glass cabinet containing the many medals won in that war. Both the building and its residents are rich with history, which is the main impetus for me wanting to record said history photographically.

This is not a new thing for me. On the City & Guilds Level One course two years ago, I decided to do a similar thing, inspired as I was by the Social Documentary photographer Ian Beesley, who- at the time- had a few of his images exhibited at Gallery Oldham (where I was working as a gallery assistant). This was part of an exhibition called 'Women of Oldham', and featured black and white images of women who'd lived through the second world war, shot in their own environments. At the time I was also a volunteer befriender to an old man in Openshaw, so I approached the organisation I worked for in the hope they could set me up with so more old people to photograph in their own homes. I was put in touch with Auden Court, Clayton, and so was the start of a working relationship lasting a few months (I ended-up doing a calendar for them, assisted by my friend Trevor). Below are some of the images from the time:

f5.3, 1/10th, ISO400, 45mm.
I used a tripod for these. Back then I didn't know what I was doing like I do now. Its not a bad shot, and it was purely intentional that Brenda was looking away from camera (these portraits sometimes work). The colours are rich enough too. The main criticism from my tutor at the time was the subject's double chins. I think I can achieve a lot more this time round.

f5.6, 1/13, ISO1600, 55mm.
I must have really messed around with the settings two years ago. That being said, this is more within keeping to today's brief: Roy looks cerebral and contemplative. This time I will attempt to include more of the actual environment, though.

f5.6, 1/20, ISO1600, 55mm.
This is even closer to what I want from the Broughton House shoot, helped by the fact there are plenty of characters that look just like Albert. I shot him in several poses, both wide and close-up like this. The problem I had with the wider ones were the bits of tat in his room. I think I am experienced enough to remove any extraneous items now, though.

I think you can see what I was striving for here, but with the Broughton shoot I want to achieve a little more with it (if only to reassure myself that I've improved as a photographer). This time I want to make best use of the ambience of the surrounding area, making best use of all available light. This is based a rather pithy thing I read in a booklet I got free with Amateur Photographer magazine last year: "while normal people photograph objects, advanced photographers are photographing the light that is falling on the object" (1). As stated in my post on metering modes and exposure, for most subject types I use Spot Metering, but because of the importance of the environment here, I plan to use Matrix Metering. 

I assumed  the use of flash was prohibited in this brief, but have since been told it is acceptable providing it is used alongside natural light sources, not instead of. Of course, the problem I would encounter by using my flash in the TTL mode (I'd be lost without this mode), is that its sole purpose is to sync with the camera's settings to override all ambient light, thus eradicating any subtle changes in natural lights and darks. No good for focussing on the environment then.

The obvious idea was to shoot the residents in their own rooms, but Broughton has its own smoking room and library, offering me the opportunity to take full advantage of different moods and lighting scenarios. I've been inspecting both of these rooms for a while now, and both have potential. The only issue I see here is one of continuity (would I be able to get away with a mixture of shots from their own rooms and the communal areas?). In the rooms themselves, I aim to be more creative with the use of light than last time, and will try my best not to be afraid of shooting using a high ISO.

Gaining Access

My tutor, Richard Gaskill, has mentioned a few times how "access is the key" no matter what the project. This became all the more apparent at Broughton when it was made evident from the first time I mentioned the idea to the Manager. Of course, he wanted to know all about my intentions and where the images would be shown (I mentioned this blog). The manager of the home informed me he would need to speak to the Colonel (the big boss), but the upshot was a "yes", based on the following conditions: a) I could provide a letter of confirmation from one of my tutors explaining what I would be doing; b) I had my college pass with me at all times, c) I would also shoot some images for the benefit of their own website and newsletter (this was their main bargaining chip) and d) every person features in my images would have to sign a model release form (printed from Moodle). During the following shift, I was introduced to the colonel himself. Behind his stern demeanour, I found him generally interested in what I was trying to achieve (I sold myself as an up and coming social documentary photographer)- very accommodating. What I will stress here, mind, is that both manager and the colonel were more than adamant I produced some pictures that would be of benefit to the home itself. I had no reservations about this arrangement.

I also sent an email to Ian Beesley, asking whether he had the portraits of the old Women of Oldham in digital form, that I could use as part of the research part of this brief. I have yet to have a reply. 


1)  Demolder, D (2011), Advanced Photography: Camera Skills, p36, free with Amateur Photographer, October 22nd 2011. 

Field of View: Bill Brandt

After basing my last research post on Joel Meyerorowitz, I thought the obvious choice for the next was his key inspiration, Robert Frank. But- since I've never been one for making things easy for myself- I considered    other influential photographers who made their mark shooting fine art Black and White photographs. I present to you, Mr. Bill Brandt.

Born in 1904, Brandt is famous for documenting British Working life using a trademark stark high contrast style. His work was often dark, epitomising Blake's 'dark satanic mills', a tag pinned to anything set against an industrial backdrop, "often achieved in the darkroom, by cropping under the enlarger and by emphasising tonal contrasts in printing" (1). Because of his use of cropping, Brandt is a good one to discuss in terms of field of view. The Victoria and Albert Museum (quoted above) offers a comparison of the full frame and cropped images of Hadrian's Wall taken in 1943:

Original full frame version

Cropped with heavy contrast added to accentuate one of the key contours of the rock face.

I prefer the original here, for I feel the latter compromises the level of detail and subtle tones of what is a pretty good landscape to start with (why fool around for the sake of the abstract?). That being said, this is a different story when considering Brandt's trademark urban scenes.

Newcastle, 1937.
Much of his work defies any kind of photographic technique, evoking age-old questions over what can be considered beautiful. This is hardly a photograph at all; more the harsh memory of light, or else a mere whisper from the darkness. Notice how the rich contrast highlights what is important in the scene: the train, the smog, the factories faded into the background. The is no foreground, but complete blackness.

Unknown Location, 1940s.
Now and again, in art, I think its important to try to appreciate the minimal. Nothing's happening here, but space itself; the dark empty space of the sky and the way the river intersects the mass of land in the foreground from right to left. It reminds me of some of Lowry's lake paintings, or others whose key motif is one of loneliness.

Fylde Farm, LS Lowry, 1953

Brandt also created abstract distortions of the human body, as he was equally conversant in making poetic images as he was the very real surroundings of working class Britain. 

Ear on the Beach, 1957.
Landscape or Portrait? Would it be fair to say what Brandt is doing here is merging the two? From my research it looks like he produced a series of images of parts of the human body shot amongst traditional landscapes, some more erotic than just an ear. In this we are able to appreciate the landscape in the background despite being drawn to the ear that subverts the image, prompting us to ask important question: "what does the sea sound like?" Maybe.

Camden Hill, 1949.
Here Brandt uses a slightly wider field f view to draw us into his sense of narrative, made more prominent by the silhouette of the chair in the foreground. However, the chair doesn't prove a distraction, for we know that- not only is there a figure in the background, but also that she is naked and looking forlorn. Why?

1)  http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/working-methods-bill-brandt/

Field of View: Joel Meyerorowitz

Joel Meyerorowitz is mainly a street photographer usually placed within the same bracket as the likes of Garry Winnogrand, Lee Friedlander and Tony Ray-Jones- big names associated with New York street photography from the 60s onwards- not to mention a  pioneer of colour fine art photography of the same ilk as William Eggleston. A key work of his, Cape Light (1979), is an influential work in the field of colour photography, shot using 8x10 Large Format film. He was also the only photographer responsible for putting together an archive of shots of the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, appropriately called Aftermath. I hope to take a cross-section of Meyerorowitz's work and discuss it here in terms of field of view.

New York City, 1975.

This is one of my favourite of his. Meyerorowitz has an interesting- almost mystical- view on his work and use of the frame, believing it to be more about ideas than pictures: "do the pictures sustain your ideas, or are they just good pictures?" (http://vimeo.com/38937942).

There's so much going on in the frame here. It stands to reason why Meyerowitz made a complete transfer to colour in the 60s. Everything is happening. Its the image I think about when reading the quote I used for the above caption. The 'happening' and the 'situation' were prominent in the 1960s, and I don't think I make too tenuous a point in linking these pictures to this.  In another interview he mentions 'multiple... fragmentary, simultaneous events" (http://timconnor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/everything-is-important-joel.html), all happening within the frame together. True enough.

Fallen Man, Paris, 1967.
This image is perhaps more akin to this idea of the 'happening' of the 1960s. Its unlikely it is staged. Indeed, whilst honing his craft New York, Meyerorowitz states: " My timing was good, I was getting better at it, and I could see these things coming. It became too easy" (http://www.foto8.com/new/online/reviews/181-joel-meyerowitz-early-work).

One from the influential Cape Light series.
Meyerorowitz has a rich understanding of light and situation, an understanding which leads him to interpret atmospheric landscapes such as this in exactly the same terms as his earlier street photography:  "where life is tumbling into the frame and he must make crucial decisions. He may centre an event or he may move it to the side so that it becomes one of many things happening within the frame" (http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/article_02.html).

Meyerorowitz spent 9 months photographing the site of the terrorist attack in New York, producing a scale of work that is both mesmerising and inspiring. This one leapt out at me, again because of the level of apocalyptic detail and craftsmanship in the image. The shells of buildings remind mimic cardboard cut-outs; the dust, smoke and water adding to the spectacle.

What he can't do with light isn't worth knowing, really. He must have studied the surrounding area for hours before pulling a shot like this out of the bag. Of course, shooting as he did with Large Format, it only serves to widen the sheer depth of the image; rich and busy in the foreground, whilst soft and hazy (much like Cape Cod) in the background.

Focusing and Metering Modes

Other than Manual focus, there are three focussing modes on my camera: Auto, Single Servo and Continuous.

Single Servo is the most common mode, and the one I use the most. With this the camera uses one focus point in the middle of the frame, allowing the photographer to decide on one single focus point that he/she deems more important than all other objects/people in the frame. The good thing about this, is it allows one to select said focus point, then recompose the shot. This is done by placing the spot onto our desired focus point, pressing the shutter half way, then moving to recompose before pressing it.

Continuous is largely used for moving subjects and/or when the camera needs to be 'panned' to follow the subject, as- once the shutter is pressed half-way and held- the focus will lock until said subject has left the frame.

With Auto-Focussing, the camera will choose its own focus point based on the scene, whether the subject(s) are stationery or moving. The problem with this, however, is-  much like the problem of choosing Auto as the overall exposure mode- you are basically allowing the camera to make its own decisions. If I was shooting a group of people scattered throughout the frame at an event , can I really trust that the camera will choose the one I want in focus?

Metering Modes

The metering mode refers to the system the camera uses to determine the 'correct' exposure for a given scene. A good exposure is one that contains an equal amount of tones across the whole tonal range, from perfect black through to perfect white. Ideally, we should be able to know whether an image has been exposed correctly by the the light metre provided on the view finder, a picture of which can be found below.

The numbers on the scale denote how under or over exposed an image is, as the centre represents a 'perfect' exposure according to the camera's metering system. This will read differently for each metering mode, for the camera is taking information from differing parts of the same scene.

There are normally three main metering modes on most of today's dSLRs : Spot, Centre-Weighted and Matrix.

Spot metering is the one I use the most. This is when the camera uses a very small area in the scene to determine the exposure (on my Nikon D3100, this is said to be "about 3.5mm in diameter, or about 2.5 percent of the frame") (1). This is most useful for situations where the subject is unlikely to move (e.g. still life). So why do I use this for near enough everything then? I suppose its because I deem the subject the most important part of the scene regardless of where it is set. I suppose, when using a shallow depth of field, you've already decided on a key focal point anyway. My camera is set to this mode all the time because I like to metre for the subject and not the scene. Not that I take much notice of the above scale. The main drawback of this, however, is- when we have a scene containing a mixture of varying tones (darks and lights)- the camera will struggle to interpret the subtle changes across the whole scene.

The symbol for Spot Metering.

The Matrix metering mode measures exposure by calculating an average of all the tones from the whole scene based on the information contained in the different areas of said scene. So if a scene has a mixture of lights and darks in it, it might be an idea to choose this mode. For this reason, this is often known as the default mode (for beginners?) due to the fact it places most of the decision-making in the hands of the camera.

Matrix symbol represents how the scene is divided into separate segments. After all, there has to be some science behind it.

Centre-Weighted is similar to Spot, in that it is measuring the exposure from one part of the scene. However, in this case the area is bigger and always in the centre ("Nikon D3100's Center-Weighted metering mode gives a weight of 75% to an 8mm diameter circle in center of frame") (2). With more sophisticated Nikon models users can widen the area the camera uses to metre, taking care of any subtle changes in tone outside of the centre circle.

Great representations, these symbols. The space metred is just like the Spot only larger.

1)  http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-select-an-exposure-metering-mode-with-a-nik.html

2)  http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3100/D3100A5.HTM

Field of View: Berenice Abbot

I'd heard the name slung around the classrooms by tutors and fellow students alike since the course began. Before this, I'd read her name in a small photography book I have, Masters of Photography: Classic Photographic Artists of our Time (given to me for my birthday last year; one of her images features on the front cover). But something inside of me prevented me from fully looking at her work... Until now.

Born in Springfield Ohio in 1898, Abbot seems a perfect one to use to discuss filed of view. After the death of her key inspiration, Eugene Atget, in 1927, who she produced famous portraits for, she became the main advocate of his work, almost to the extent of suffocating the publicity of her own. However, according to Reuel Golden, "the clarity of vision that she saw in Atget's photography, its direct and effective grasp of the texture of reality informed her own work" (1).

Abbot set about photographing New York City vigorously in 1935, after being hired by the Federal Art Project, producing 305 photographs (exhibited at The Museum of the City of New York), that later became her her most famous book, Changing New York, which published in 1939. It will be this book I will be extracting examples from to show the wide range and field of view employed in this mammoth of works.

This medium focal length shot (for wont of a better description) was shown to us by one of our tutors. Shot from below, Abbot manages to capture both the silhouetted girder in the foreground and the misty ambient light that fogs the rest of the scene. Nice image.

Fifth Avenue Houses.
I know from the kinds of pictures I take of buildings, that not only is field of view important, but also its close bosom buddy, composition. More often than not, architectural photography is most striking when the whole building dominates the scene. An obvious point maybe, but then the vantage point is also of relevance. Naturally shots are taken from the side, as in this case, capturing the light on the facade and shadow on the side. Below is one of mine I quite like:

Mohawk in Blue.
f11, 1/320, ISO100, 24mm.
A similar vantage point to Abbot's, and one whose aspect shows both the front and one side of the building.

I am going to very lazily state that this image is influenced by Atget. I myself love 'lots of different types of the same things in order' in an image. To quote Abbot: "the shrewd business sense which plastered them solid over the entire window area produced, as it were by chance, an esthetic by-product: the whole has homogeneity and variety of texture, simultaneously, which give the picture interest" (Berenice Abbott, New Guide to Better Photography, 1953) (2).

Chelsea Hotel, 222 West 23rd Street, 1936.

I was about to say: "here Abbot has dramatically reduced her field of view". But this would be to confuse field of view with an image's overall composition. Abbot has merely chose to 'home in' on one part of the building, yet the field of view remains quite wide. 

1)  Golden, R (2008), Masters of Photography: Classic Photographic Artists of our Time, London: Carlton.

2)  http://www.artsmia.org/get-the-picture/print/abbott.shtml#

Field of View: My Examples

What better pictures to use as examples than the last series that I shot (for my Exterior Location Brief, set over three different car boot sales/outdoor markets)? In these- and other examples- I aim to discuss field of view (via the selected focal length) is one of the central creative decisions when creating my images.

f5.6, 1/50, ISO800, 29mm.
Ignore the fact she isn't looking at me. This would be a decent shot of  couple that share time together on a Sunday morning selling their home made wares on the car boot. It shows us the activity they are taking part in, but with little wider context.

f5.6, 1/50, ISO400, 18mm.
The wide angle of view places the couple within a much wider context. Its less intimate than the last, and the subjects themselves would be less likely to have this on their mantlepiece. It was exactly that wider context I was after in this shoot, though, so I much prefer this. This would never stop me trying different focal lengths, mind.

f5.6, 1/125th, ISO200, 29mm.
With enough cropping this is the ideal field of view. It is cluttered, but this is part of the feel I was going for, because of how it fits with the others in the series. 

f5.6, 1/125th, ISO200, 18mm.
This is obviously the wider of the three. If the above image encourages the viewer to search for the subject, which adds to the appeal of the image, then this- for me- takes it too far: its downright cluttered. Sometimes, some subjects do not benefit from a larger field of view.

f5.6, 1/125th, ISO200, 40mm.
Again, by zooming I have excluded a lot of the context/setting (i.e. extraneous boots and parts of stalls). Maybe it would work more if she wasn't smiling, but this is another post entirely. It looks to basic.

Below are more examples of how different fields of view, this time from a music gig I shot over the summer. To make things easier I've used the same band.

f6.3, 1/100th, ISO200, 18mm.
This is quite typical of gig photography: to get the whole band in I needed to choose a wide field of view.

f6.3, 1/100th, ISO200, 55mm.
For all five of the bands I shot that day, I took the same types shots: wide shots of all of band members, portrait-type shots like this (where two members are in the field of view, allowing us to see their actual personalities) and close-ups of the lead singer for extra rock n roll intensity.

f5.6, 1/125, ISO200, 90mm.
This is an example of the close-ups. It worked particularly well with this lead singer because of the sheer energy and wackiness she brought to the performance.

In the next few posts I will speak about field of view in terms of the work of other known photographers.

Field of View (& Focal Length)

The field of view of an image is determined by the selected focal length of the lens. As discussed in my post on Aperture, the focal length is also detailed on the lens itself. Prime lenses have a fixed focal length, thus a fixed field of view. Zoom lenses- on the other hand- show the two focal lengths from the widest to the narrowest (often called the 'zoom' end). Perhaps the most common lens to discuss here is what is called our 'kit' lens, meaning the one we get as part of the kit when we first purchase our dSLRs. These days, the most common focal range of this lens is 18-55, which makes a lot of sense when we consider the types of shots the more amateur photographer will be taking as a starting point (landscapes at 18mm and portraits towards the 55mm end). I believe a couple of decades ago, most film SLRs came with a 50mm prime as standard. These have become popular once more over the past few years.

Crop Sensors:

One thing we must remember when thinking in terms of focal length is that the numbers we used are generally based on the old 35mm film negative. The dSLRs most of us buy these days have sensors roughly one and a half (Canon's are 1.6) smaller than 35mm, meaning the focal length has to be multiplied by this difference to arrive at what is known as the effective focal length. These crop sensors are called APS-C (Advanced Photo System- Type C) sensors.

What do the numbers mean?

This baffled me for years. Why does the smaller number represent a wider view through the lens? Well, this number refers to the distance between the camera sensor and the point within the lens where all the rays of light intersect at the point of focus. E.g. 18mm means the point where the rays cross are 18mm from the sensor. So the more the lens is 'zoomed' the further away this point is from the sensor. Below is a simple diagram of how this works:

The site I found this picture on offered a very comprehensive explanation of 'focal length': it imagines the eye (image sensor) looking through a magnifying glass (lens): "you have to hold it a certain distance from your eye for it to be in focus. This is because the magnifying glass has a set focal length. It must be a certain distance from your eye to focus in on your subject. This distance is referred to as the focal length". So magnifying glasses are- in effect- Prime Lenses, for there is a set distance at which the 'subject' can be seen (1)

How does this translate into Field of View?

As with everything in photography, there is a point where the scientific/technical must be translated into the aesthetic, for this is only a means to an end (the end being the taking of photographs pleasing to the eye). We use the focal length of our lenses to determine a field of view to create based upon what we aim to show in the image, and the elements we want to show to represent our interpretation of the real world (the field of view of the human eye is meant to be 50mm). For example, for landscapes we tend to use a very wide plain of view in order to include as much as the scene as possible, whereas for images of people and still life shots we narrow this view to focus/highlight on our chosen subject. However, there is nothing to say a portrait cannot be taken with a wider focal length (I'm thinking here of brides stood in fields).

Needless to say, the more accomplished we become as photographers the more it becomes second nature to select the particular view we want to portray in any given situation. Field of view, perspective and composition are all linked in this respect, in that we are constantly evaluating these three things when shooting a subject:

*  How wide do I want the scene? (FoV).
*  From what angle do I want the subject to be viewed (P).
*  Where in the frame will I position the subject? (C).

In the next post I will show some of my own examples of how I have used different fields of view for creative effect.



1)  http://moodleshare.org/mod/page/view.php?id=630

"Are You from the Social?": Exterior Location

So I finally managed to prize myself out of bed last Sunday morning, at the rather disgusting time of 4am, and carry my weary frame down to not one, not two, but three car boot sales. To say the light was bad at the first two would be an understatement, for there wasn't any. I used my flash here, but apart from the fact this was going against the brief, the results were in the main terrible, full of harsh shadows and overly-lit faces (as one may imagine). Indeed, it was only towards the end of the second venue that the light became workable. It was upon leaving here that I shot what I now feel is the flagship image of the whole series, and what is probably the best portrait I have ever taken, and the one I felt all others would work around. This and the rest of them can be seen below. I will then show some that I felt did not work and say why I thought this was.


f8, 1/40, ISO200, 34mm.
I think some people are just so laid-back that they're almost asking t be photographed. This character was one of them. I shot three pictures of him. The other two were of him smoking; equally as good, but there was just something about the way he looked at me for this first shot. Also of interest is the fact we are given a look in his van, and how this adds context. The reason I used f8 was because I was in rush and didn't have time to adjust settings. This image is akin to the example I used in my research post from Nick Dawe in my profile (below):



OK, there is a white van and bits of tat, but the pose is completely different. This chap has a very regal pose, whereas mine looks too cool for school. Here we cannot see what is inside his vam, whereas many have said it is the wicker basket in 'my' van that adds context. I tend to agree.

Its good- the smoking makes it very good- but because he had chance to relax and pose for it, it took something way from what could be called 'the decisive moment' in my first shot.

f4, 1/40th, ISO800, 50mm.
This struck me as a novel composition, not to mention slightly humorous because of the randomness sausages hanging down. I just liked it because there's a lot in it. Some would say it is a bit cramped, but I kind of like that in these types of shots: how the subject doesn't fully dominate the frame to the extent of not being the subject at all. Below is a better example of this.

Completely cluttered this one. The viewer almost has to look for the subject in amongst it all. This was in my short list, but one of the others just about pipped it at the post.
During a trip to the Xmas Markets with the class, I managed to 'nail' this sentiment (below):

I really like this. You have the myriad different coloured bags leading you to the subject, who takes up a very small part of the subject.

A similar one (taken before), but not as strong as the above image, I feel. Still, she had such a cue face, which seemed to compliment what she was selling (whatever that was).

Obvious what I was going for here. I seen him from afar, then asked him to assume his previous pose. A friend of mine said it looks 'too posed'. What does he know?

f5.6, 1/80th, ISO800, 26mm.
Again, clutter = environment. Many versions of the same thing reminds me of the typology stuff we were looking at a few weeks ago (Gursky et al), and the fluorescent light really swung it for me. It is a posed shot masquerading as a candid one. Way I see it, by asking them first you risk them saying no and ruin your chances of getting anything. But there's the obvious chance the moment will be lost forever, so I feel it best to snap away, THEN ask them to recreate the 'missed' moment (meanwhile Bresson spins in his grave). Click here for a link to a similar portrait by the photographer Manny Valejo.

f5.6, 1/320, ISO200, 40mm.
By the time I'd reached Smithfield market at around 9am, the light was outstanding. So crisp! What struck me here was the shadow of the man adjusting his gazebo, and the fact I managed to capture the activity without him realising I was there.

f5.6, 1/50th, ISO800, 52mm.
This chap was perhaps the most compliant of all my subjects. I did shoot him directly in front of his van first of all for another cluttered one (below), but eventually decided it wasn't as strong. There was also a difficulty in printing this image, largely due to the lack of detail in where hi coat meets the van. I've recently been shown the 'Shadows and Highlights' adjustment layer in Photoshop, setting me in good stead in the future.

I mean for one he had his eyes closed, but I still think its a strong composition. Below is one with his eyes open, but I tried it from the opposite side, and it didn't work. Looking at it now, I'm having second thoughts, but no: his eyes are closed.

See what I mean? Something awkward about van & man leaning to the left.

f5.6, 1/320, ISO200, 40mm.
Went for the comedy angle here. I call this one Rooster because of the way his Vileda mops appear to be sticking out from his head. Again, I asked him to assume his previous position to take this picture, and explained the 'cockrel' point. He looked at me like I'd just stepped off a spaceship. Again, this seems to reflect the humour of Matt Stuart and Martin Parr, whilst still retaining the human touch of Nick Dawe.

f5, 1/50th, ISO200, 35mm.
Another comedic one. Goes well with the image above I feel. She looked glum when I first came across her, but changed her facial expression when I explained what I was doing. Its all about the smiley face for me. Would it have worked better had she kept her initial expression as a contrast to the smiley face? Probably, but the way she was sat and the composition just about clinched it.

f5, 1/40, ISO800, 50mm.
I like this. Again, he was smoking and looking right at me from the off, but It just didn't look right. Only issue I have with this is the focus point. Can't help thinking it'd look better focussing on the man and not the bears. Conversely, there's something to be said for highlighting the fact that a chiselled old-timer is selling teddy bears. Introduces the element of masculinity, or the lengths people go to make a living. At the first site I went to, a guy didn't want his picture taken because he didn't want his son to see what he had to do to make a living. Throughout the whole morning, at least 10 different people asked me: "are you from the social" or "don't take a picture of me, I'm on the sick"; hence the title of the series. 

f3.5, 1/160, ISO400, 18mm.
Was after something that typified the British experience of 'carbooting'. I found table full of homemade mince pies on a white lace tablecloth. I used the kit lens for these, so could only go as wide as f3.5. Soon I will have my 50mm, and there'll be no stopping me in terms of these types of projects. Below is similar shot that didn't quite work as well.

Very Martin Parr this I feel, but still don't think it was strong enough to make the final 'cut'. Still, a tartan biscuit tin next to a Bob the Builder toy... Magic.

f5.6, 1/60, ISO200, 18mm.
Thought it'd be nice to go for the wider shot here. Took one without the person in middle, but decided- by way of the fact tit says 'keep out' on the door he is evidently going 'in'- that this would work better. I like the repetition of carpets here. Below is another favourite, which I was all for putting in, but it just didn't go with the rest of them. Shame.

Really loved the uniformity here. Again, it reminded me of the typology stuff. Be good to revisit and do a study of the types of things that get stored in vans. I really love this shot.

Below are some of the images I liked, but decided against. Of course, in order to do this I had to let go of the emotional attachment I had to various sub-themes and different moods that I felt had developed whilst sifting through the many images I shot.

I loved the light in this. Not only do I like Environmental portraits, but I like ones where parts of the scene are quite evidently underexposed save for the key areas (e.g. face). Of course, I did take some of the explicit blackness out of this in Camera RAW.

Was going to stick this in instead of the sausage stall one, but  didn't want to risk overdoing it with the 'shallow depth of field with an object thing'. Plus I felt it didn't really fit in the end.

Really like this, but it was taken with flash (just briefly removed the light from it in Curves), which is- I believe- against the Exterior Location Brief rules. It was posed, of course. His wife in the background wouldn't allow her face to be in the photo. Its a strong picture, and I still feel it would fit well with the rest.

Another strong composition and facial expression here. Also nice colours (blues) and iconography (they look like stolen goods, sorry), which is what I was after from the off. Still, another flash one. If we were allowed flash, the mood would take a completely different turn. Oh well!

There's nothing wrong with this images, really- closest guy looking at me, furthest looking away- but it just lacked the dynamism and sense of theme/environment of the others. For this reason it was impossible to include it.

Like the image above, there is nothing terribly wrong with this picture... If I was giving  it to a client (the two subjects are smiling etc etc.) But its absolutely what I didn't want from the shoot. I wanted environment. I wanted the seller's faces to tell a story, (e.g. "why the hell am I getting up at this time?), and wanted a sense of the actual ritual of the car boot sale (as I mentioned in my proposal).

I had to shoot this for the sheer brazenness of the seller in including it within his stock. It also introduces a slightly seedy undertone to the stall. It also reminds me of a more refined shot by the photographer, James Medcraft, who has also covered car boot sales (below):

Its similar the way it focusses on the types of stuff that typify British life (nothing more British than people's love of Charles and Di). And let's not forget The Daily Telegraph, which is very possibly worse than Men Only Magazine.

The Printing and Selection Process:

It didn't take me long to choose my final ten, due to my enthusiasm at having produced what I thought were high quality images (its rare for me to be happy with something after the first attempt). 

The difficulty, however, came in sending them to print. This was partly due to my arrogance of not listening properly to the explanation on colour profiles given by my tutors. I knew I had to all images to DS Colour Lab's own colour profile (I had been doing it for a good year before starting the course; hence my arrogance), but I didn't know there were two separate profiles for glossy and lustre papers (I always go for lustre, for I feel glossy causes harsh reflections when exhibited). 

My images came back really dark. I don't know, I think there's something about my judgement of my own work that has me erring towards the dark side and not the light (no change there then). I must have a natural fear of blown highlights and empty space in an image, thus subconsciously allow dark images to slip through the net into print.

I was livid when I seen them: all that hard work (not to mention money spent on the things), and upon first sight you can tell they're not good enough to submit. So I opened the PSDs for the images again, this time opening a new curves layer and setting the white point of each image separately, then reducing the opacity of the layer to avoid any overkill in brightness. This was quite simple with the portrait of the man in the back of his van (my fave), but more difficult where lights tended to dominate the frame (the one with the homemeade mince pies and coke cans). An alternative was to increase brightness by 30 in a Brightness and Contrast layer (not as reliable).