Sunday 28 January 2024

Brief Encounter



We spent most of last week in Bristol, as my partner had to take part in the viva voce interrogation of a PhD candidate there. Unfortunately for me, this coincided with not one but two "named storms", Isha and Jocelyn, so I spent much of the time admiring the view through the streaming rain being flung against our fourth-floor flat's window with surprising violence. So when the weather cleared up on Wednesday, I was keen to get out.

The extensive green area at the top of the Avon Gorge known as Clifton Downs is conveniently nearby, so that was where I headed. The atmosphere was still pretty waterlogged, so everything beyond a hundred yards or so was softened into a mist, which is not ideal for photographic purposes, mine anyway, but you work with what you're given. Unless, of course, it's an unwanted gift: Wednesday afternoons are traditionally devoted to "games" at British schools and universities, so the Downs get temporarily converted into a dozen or so football pitches where muddied oafs (oaves?) can chase balls and shout abuse at each other. It's very lively, but I lost interest in all that when I left school, and it's just not my thing; I don't even pretend to follow any football team, despite living among fervid Saints fans. But, running down through the western cliff of Clifton Downs, all the way down to the Portway 300 feet below, is a narrow rocky ravine once known as Walcombe Slade but now called Goat Gully, for the simple reason that it is inhabited by a small herd of goats, introduced in 2011. I decided to head there instead.

Goat Gully makes a remarkable contrast to the grassy plain of the Downs, which – even on non-Wednesdays – is always busy with runners, dog-walkers, and groups doing various outdoor exercise routines. You pass into a bit of woodland, through a narrow barrier gate, and suddenly you're in a different world: in summer, when the rock has been absorbing sunlight all morning, it can feel as if you were somewhere like the Dordogne: hot, scrubby, rocky, and precipitously steep. I love it, not least because it has that magic combination of elevation, voluminous void, and a spectacular view, plus surprisingly few people ever seem to go there, so it's always peaceful. For obvious, goat-related reasons, dogs are banned.

The misty, soft light meant it was clearly not going to be a great day for photography, so after clambering around for a bit I ended up standing on a rocky edge near the venerable rockslide, polished smooth by the backsides of many generations of Bristol's children, back when "children" were still a species often spotted in flocks playing out of doors, a rarity now. Like many people inclined towards visual art, I enjoy just gazing in a contemplative, switched-off mood which, paradoxically, seems to make one more, not less aware of what is going on around, especially at the periphery. I imagine our distant ancestors on the grassy plains of Africa entered a similar state of all-around unfocussed watchfulness as they foraged for roots and berries, or discussed the advantages of bipedalism. 


So it was no surprise that a movement off to my left interrupted my reverie. Now, there may no longer be large predators like wolves in these parts, but their human counterpart is not unknown, and there is a particular silhouette – narrow track-suit bottoms and dark hoodies – and a particular purposeful slouch that can trigger a mild alarm, particularly when three such silhouettes are heading towards you, when standing on the edge of a steep rocky drop.

But the closer they came, the more I relaxed. It was late afternoon, and these young lads were clearly coming off some labouring job – they were covered in what looked like plaster dust and shreds of paper – for a crafty spliff or a couple of beers and a laugh before heading home. It was also clear they realised they had nothing to fear from me: in the old formula, you can take the boy out of the tribe, but you can't take the tribe out of the boy. Fifty years may have passed since I was their age, but it seems you acquire some indelible markers in those youthful years. Perhaps it's the way I stand, perhaps it's the clothes I wear. Whatever, they sidled up in a friendly way – I was clearly standing in their favoured spot – and we began a companionable chat, gazing down towards the Suspension Bridge, only half visible in the mist.

After a while I decided I needed to head back, and leave them to their fun. But before I went, I said, "Listen, guys, do you want to know a secret?" And this is what I said, in spirit, but perhaps not entirely in these words:

You don't know it now, but these are the best years. You've got work, but no real responsibilities, and nothing to spend your money on beyond whatever fun and mischief you've got lined up for the coming weekend. You've got good friends – I bet you've known each other for years – and you're having adventures you'll remember for the rest of your life. Sure, if you're lucky sometime you'll meet a girl, settle down, have kids, maybe even start your own business and buy a house, and that will all be great, but when, like me, you're a few weeks away from turning seventy, it's these days that will start coming back to haunt you, and you'll wonder why you can't go back to the way it was at the beginning, when everything and anything was possible, and life was still your best friend. So, enjoy it now, and maybe in fifty years or so one of you will come up here again for old times' sake, sit on the edge and remember your old friends and the stuff you got up to, and perhaps even recall how, long ago, some white-haired geezer told you that this was how it was going to be.

And, to my enormous gratification, not one of them laughed as I walked away. Job done! And I didn't even tell them the thing about shooting the albatross...

Sunday 21 January 2024

What Just Happened?



I've been entertaining myself by compositing some recent photographs, mainly those taken with a telephoto lens on various cameras, including a Panasonic TZ70 (ZS50 in the USA) that I picked up surprisingly cheaply on eBay, looking for a more camera-like substitute for the Canon Zoom monocular (it has an insane 30x zoom, which is equivalent to 24-720mm in 35mm terms). Actually, this is not so surprising, really, as the camera's image quality is somewhat less than stellar (well, what do you expect from such a ridiculous lens on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor, even if it is badged "Leica"?), the image files are just 12MP in size, and the thing was launched in 2015, which is the digital equivalent of the Pleistocene; put those together, and I imagine that's why nobody else felt like bidding. Their loss: used with care, it's almost a decent camera...




Something interesting happened with the trees in this last picture below, but I'm still not entirely sure how. It has a certain Samuel Palmer vibe, I think.  When I "get in the zone" with digital imaging I keep trying things out quite rapidly until I've got something promising to work with. Sometimes I will have gone a number of steps beyond before I realise what just happened, and – as in this case – have no real idea how it came about. Photoshop Elements can step back through many stages in the image editing process, but frustratingly does not name or describe them: unless you yourself can remember or it's self-evident, there's often no way to know which filter, layer, blend mode, tool, etc., was used in any particular step. But that element of serendipity is a large part of what makes it so enjoyable to do, and can often lead to new "secret sauces" to add to your digital recipe book. Although only if you can remember how you got there, obviously... 
 

Monday 15 January 2024

Winter Woodland



Having become intrigued by the perspective and possibilities opened up by playing with a Canon Zoom (see the post Zoom!), but not really being satisfied by the quality of the results, I decided it would be worth mounting a decent telephoto lens onto an actual camera – something I rarely do – and venturing out on a recent sunny afternoon to see what I could see.

I have always been attracted to the shapes made by trees in winter, and a long lens enables you to get right in among the gnarlier, more baroque branches. These two pictures are not entirely "straight" photographs – I don't think anyone would guess, but the extra processing steps I had to use on the Canon files to get an attractive result did prove instructive – but they do manage to capture the feeling of sunlit winter woodland even better than the originals from which they have been derived, I think.

Thursday 11 January 2024

New Year, Same Old You


Postcard from Mephistopheles
(from Goethe's Faust, remembered from German A-Level, 1972)

The first weeks of a new year are a suitable time for self-reflection, even if those of us who blog might seem to be doing little else for the rest of the year, too.  Advice on leading a better, healthier, more successful life seems to be everywhere, but is mainly offered by the sort of semi-celebrity whose too-white teeth and addiction to "life hacks" instantly make me distrust anything they might have to say. Particularly if it has anything to do with alleviating the stress and unhappiness brought about by trying so hard to succeed and get ahead in whatever competitive game it is they imagine themselves to be playing. We rarely hear tips from the sort of quietly sane people who have arrived at a contented compromise with life, and in particular those people who have not been made unhappy or embittered by failing to measure up to some unrealistic metric of "success", whether self-imposed or the result of fashionable media-pressure. For most of us, a new year is just that: a date in the calendar with no particular magical resonance. When we wish each other a "Happy New Year!" it is in the understanding that everyone will have had highs and lows in the preceding 365 days, and will have them again in the next 365, but that it is not an unrealistic hope that these will average out into a state approximating "happiness". What, you want more than that?

Despite the witless urgings of "follow your dream" fantasists, for most people the pursuit of celebrity-scale "success" is not a question that has ever arisen. School does a pretty thorough job of squashing any illusions a child might have about their abilities and relative brain-power, swiftly followed by the ritual humiliations of working life. Pick that warehouse parcel, stack those supermarket shelves, work that call-centre headset! But the feeling that one might be cut out for better things is nonetheless not uncommon. It's one of the mixed blessings of the post-1945 settlements in Britain that the former reservoir of frustrated talent in working-class communities was drained by the opening of channels of opportunity previously kept firmly shut, such as – but not only – free access to secondary and higher education. It's a mixed blessing because – excellent as social mobility and meritocracy are (or, increasingly, would be) – much of the former progress of working people had been down to the efforts of precisely the sort of folk whom education and opportunity tend to remove from positions of community influence and solidarity.

Exhibit A has to be Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard", a poem once so well-known that, like Hamlet, it seems to have been entirely constructed out of quotations. I can never read lines like

Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
         Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd,
         Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.

without thinking of an Alan Johnson rising through the Post Office trade union ranks or a Tony Iommi plugging in a cheap guitar in a back bedroom. Post-war opportunities came thick and fast for those with the inclination and ability to take them, although always seasoned with a massive handful of luck. "Right place, right face, right time", and all that.

But for every stellar career there have always been a thousand that faltered, fizzled, or fell to earth. Exhibit B, I suppose, has to be that sad symphony of self-pity, Cyril Connolly's Enemies of Promise. But the realisation that you are not, or are not going to be the person you had imagined should never be characterised as "failure" if it has been a realistic revision of expectation, a putting away of childish things, and a strategic withdrawal in the face of unfavourable odds. For anyone cursed with talents but blessed with a counter-balancing sense of social obligation (or indeed of self-preservation), the attractions of a life spent on the road, climbing the proverbial greasy pole, or plugging away at yet another unpublished novel quickly fade before the more benign prospect of an ordinarily successful adult life of family, friends, and a quietly useful contribution to the smooth running of society; followed, if you're very lucky, by a decent, index-linked pension. Result!

So I have a question for some of those taciturn workaday sages who give every appearance of being well-adjusted to life in 2024. It is not, "Does taking a daily ice-bath enhance your well-being and attention span?" Neither is it, "Do you really need to go to the gym every morning? Or at all?" It is this: "So when was it that you realised you couldn't or shouldn't become who you thought you were going to be?"

If I may be allowed the honour of counting myself among those who have made that crucial recalibration of their expectations (if only temporarily for blogging purposes), in my case it was during the summer of 1977. (What follows is purely self-indulgent autobiographical reflection, lacking any self-improving life-hacks, so you can skip the next five paragraphs, if that won't be of interest to you).

In October 1976 I arrived as a postgraduate student at the University of East Anglia, to study for a master's degree in Comparative Literature. I suppose at the time I was still at least 90% committed to the idea of myself as a literary academic. I had initially signed up and been awarded funding for a three-year research degree at Oxford, pretty much as a reflex follow-on from my undergraduate years. But I had come to be interested in the new areas of study grouped under the blanket term "theory" that were emerging then, and realised that somewhere like lively, cross-disciplinary UEA was the place to go if I really wanted to find out what was going on rather than conservative Oxford, which was still stuck in the literary worldview of the 1960s. People thought I had made an odd choice, but it seemed pretty sound to me.

Stuck out on a campus on the outskirts of Norwich – a city pretty much on the edge of the known universe – with my future life-partner away backpacking somewhere in South America and with few other distractions, that year was the most serious spell of actual academic study I have ever engaged in, certainly in comparison with the idle, permanent essay-crisis mode of my three undergraduate years. It was fun, it was intense, it was challenging. At the end of the year I was awarded a distinction (no, really), but rejected the offer to stay on for a doctorate with an "adjunct" teaching role. I had decided, to the surprise and indeed the disbelief and derision of some, to become an academic librarian. Another odd choice, perhaps.

But it was one of the better decisions in my life: I had realised that, yes, this new "theory" stuff was interesting, but, no, I didn't want to spend my life pursuing it. This was mainly the result of the dawning self-knowledge that I simply didn't have the personality to be a professional scholar; I find things deeply interesting for a while, a year or so at the most, then move on. But there was also the insight (one that has proved prescient) that, if this was really the way things were going to go, then literary study was about to embark on a self-destructive collapse into irrelevance. To put it another way, it seemed to me that we were busily investigating multiple ways to saw off the branch we had been sitting on so comfortably for fifty years; I decided to climb down carefully to a more solid lower branch rather than fall.

It did take a few years for my self-image to adjust, but it wasn't as if I'd decided to become a plumber or to raise goats on a smallholding. I liked universities as an environment, loved accumulating the broad but shallow knowledge-base that is the stock-in-trade of an academic librarian, and the role seemed like a good-enough fit, at least until I had become the prize-winning literary author I realised I had really wanted to be all along. Duh, of course! How could I have forgotten? But, above all, what I wanted was to keep my evenings and weekends free for activities that had always been very close to my heart, but which had necessarily been side-lined during the years of earning my academic credentials. There was writing, of course, but also making pictures, and – finally! – simply reading for its own sake: I can still recall the feeling of absolute liberation when I was finally free to read whatever I wanted, without any need to make notes, analyse, extract quotations, or write essays. I had never before read so much for pleasure as I did in those years of the late 1970s. And let it be said, just as an aside, that "people reading for pleasure" is the whole point – the true subject matter – when it comes to literary study and, in the end, the only justification for studying novels, plays, and poetry for examination purposes. Something it is easy to forget (or even come to denigrate) when you're a professional literary scholar. 

But, hey, listen, whatever did happen to that prize-winning fiction you were going to write, I pretend to hear you ask, as if you were a character in a prize-winning novel? Well, you would need to put that same question to me once more: that is, when did you realise for the second time that you couldn't or shouldn't become who you thought you were going to be? But the truth is that some self-knowledge only comes gradually, in stages. It's so easy to keep moving the same pencilled-in personal goal or ambition down the "to-do" list for decades – that's what "New Year's resolutions" are for, isn't it? – until "this year" becomes a way of saying "never". But I know you're too polite to ask me about that.

If you read a few biographies of major figures in our culture, you will probably conclude that many, if not most were unhappy, driven monsters of ego, who left a trail of emotional and financial wreckage in their wake: great books, wonderful paintings, truly terrible people. Which is why, I suggest, those who have arrived at that happy compromise – the ones who have not been embittered by not measuring up to some foolish and ever-receding measure of "success", who have made a realistic revision of expectation, put away childish things, and conducted a strategic withdrawal in the face of unfavourable odds – are the real successes in life. In fact, "they" are most of us, even if we don't always realise it: the engaged citizens, the hobbyists, the readers, the willing tax-payers, the adequate parents, the caring friends, and the paying audiences.

So, well done, us! Never mind those attention-seeking, applause-hungry freaks up on the stage, let's turn the spotlight on the audience, please, and have everybody take a bow. New year, same old you... But in a good way. So, for whatever it's worth, let's all exchange with each other our sincere but silent best wishes for the coming year. You never know, despite everything, it might even turn out to be an exceptionally happy one for some of us. Sometimes it does, mostly it doesn't. What, you wanted more than that? Dream on...

"Whatever we were to each other, that we are still"

Thursday 4 January 2024

Zoom!

The price of cameras and lenses can seem outrageously high, camera bodies especially, which are mass-produced electronic items with very few mechanical moving parts these days. That a new camera body aimed primarily at hobbyists can approach £1.5K and still be described as "affordable" is just silly; insulting, even. So, despite my enthusiasm and a reasonably healthy bank balance, I usually buy my gear second-hand, and prefer to use bottom-of-the-line lenses such as kit zooms, together with cheap third-party accessories like lens hoods, grips, and so on. Admittedly, buyers of used kit depend on someone else somewhere having paid full price, but the same is true for cars and even books (except photo-books, which invariably seem to increase in value...). The fact is that I am instinctively tight-fisted, the sort of person who is still wearing shirts bought a decade or more ago (as I realised recently); but then that is why my bank balance remains healthy.

However, I do have a fascination with the more unusual byways of photography – the weirder and less-travelled the better – and, like anyone with a bit of cash to spare, I enjoy treating myself now and then. Being an incorrigible cheapskate, though, I mainly keep an eye out for items "on sale" online and browse the used-equipment sites to see which of yesterday's intriguing novelties are now being sold off at knock-down prices: my various experiments with the Light L16 "computational" camera were a typical bargain-basement adventure. So when it came to pass, back in October, that the Canon Powershot Zoom – a clearly absurd device (reviewed by a sensible person here) that had nonetheless intrigued me ever since it was announced in 2020 – could now be had at some outlets for under £200, I made my move. Well, OK! Here, take my money.

Actually, "absurd" is unfair. The concept of a digital, image-stabilised, step-zoom monocular combined with a camera able to record whatever you happened to point the thing at is actually a really great idea. Sadly, Canon either lost their nerve ("Wait, who the hell is actually going to buy this thing? Cut the specs!") or gave the design brief to an idiot. Whatever, the result looks like a timid toe-in-the-water compromise, and something no serious photographer or nature enthusiast was ever likely to buy. Optical focal lengths of 100mm and 400mm sound impressive (and are, in camera terms) but in binocular terms 400mm is only equivalent to "eight times" magnification, no better than your bog-standard birder's 8x30 bins [1]. The third zoom setting of 800mm is seriously impressive in camera terms (ever seen an 800mm lens?), but sadly is merely a digital crop of the 400mm lens. And the camera... Well, we'll get to that.

I'm not going to describe and review the thing, other than to mention its two obvious advantages: its size and its weight. The Powershot Zoom weighs just 145g, and fits comfortably in the palm of one hand, like a sleek pocket torch. Even the very smallest micro 4/3 camera – the truly tiny Panasonic GM1 – fitted with a 45-200mm lens (equivalent to 90-400mm in 35mm camera focal lengths) weighs 565g and is a cumbersome object, especially when zoomed out to its fullest extent. Here you go:

Little camera, meet Wooz!

Crazy!

Now, if the Zoom had a superb viewfinder and could record excellent pictures, it would be a wonderful thing to keep permanently in a coat pocket, wouldn't it? After all, it's not as if Canon don't know how to make a superb camera. But frustratingly it doesn't, and it can't: at best, in the absence of binoculars it's quite handy for deciding whether those are sheep or goats in that field on the other side of the valley. But, frankly, my first impression of the Zoom's photographs (12MP JPEGs) was: huh? WTF! And my second impression merely added another exclamation mark. These were quite possibly the worst digital photographs I had ever seen; hilariously bad, like something out of a toy camera.

"Out of the camera" JPEG...
Admittedly taken through the double-glazed window of our Bristol flat...

 But... They had something... And the thing is so convenient... And I have always really enjoyed the isolating effect of a long telephoto lens, but could never be bothered to tote one around on a just in case basis. Long-lens photography is never spontaneous, so something like this could and should have been a bit of a game-changer. So I began mucking about in Photoshop to see if the photos could be rescued, perhaps with a more graphical look in mind, and – behold! – some much better images started to emerge from the fog:



That's a bit more like it... In fact, after fiddling about with a few more, I realised that there was hidden potential in these pictures: with the application of various Secret Sauces and printed on an A4 sheet they look great. Of course, no pixel-peeping photo-enthusiast who lugs around a proper grown-up's camera and is possessed by an urge to print REALLY BIG would ever be happy with these, but a picture-maker with a taste for small prints (that would be me) might just have stumbled across something quite handy. Plus I really don't think anyone would imagine that shot of the far side of the Avon Gorge had been taken with a pocketable gizmo the size and weight of a bar of soap, and from a distance of 325 meters through a double-glazed window.

And who would ever imagine that a truly dreadful JPEG file like this:


might be hiding something rather more beautiful behind that drab and fuzzy facade:


Hey presto! It's magic!

Obviously, just as with stage magic, a certain amount of well-practised sleight of hand is required to deliver a convincingly polished performance. And, yes, such prestidigitation can be a lot of work, and not every shot can be rescued, but it is well worth the effort, I think, if only because this has opened up a whole new field of interest for me and, best of all, I'm having a lot of fun with my new bargain-basement toy, which has turned out, against all expectation, to be something of a pocket rocket.

1. These are "35mm equivalent" focal lengths, of course. To get the binocular magnification equivalent of a 35mm lens, the convention is to divide the lens focal length by 50 (a 50mm lens is assumed to be equivalent to "1x" magnification). Thus the equivalent to a "ten times" binocular magnification is a 500mm lens, which is why a decent pair of compact 10x25 binoculars are (is?) such a Good Thing to have hanging round your neck, whereas a camera mounted with a 500mm lens is not.