06 Thursday Oct 2011
Posted in inspiration
Tags
“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” (Steve Jobs – June 2005.)
01 Saturday Oct 2011
Posted in inspiration
Tags
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. – William Blake
….or is the fool simply avoiding the tree? – Les Wilcockson
12 Thursday May 2011
Posted in Landscape, Photograph, Place
Tags
B+W, Chesterfileld, Church, Crooked Spire, Devil, Les Wilcockson, Trees
Image ©Les Wilcockson
THE MYTHS:
Many myths have been woven around St Marys and All Saints Parish Church (The Crooked Spire) and the reasons for the twisted spire…
SHOD DEVIL: The story asserts that a magician persuaded a local blacksmith to shoe the Devil. The man was so nervous that he drove a nail into the Devil’s foot. The Devil flew off howling and, as he was passing the church, felt a twinge of real agony. He lashed out savagely with his foot which caught the Spire and twisted it, leaving also a footprint on one of the buttresses.
VIRGIN: A story of Chaucerian flavour. The spire was so amazed to hear of a virgin being married in the church that it developed its intricate twist in an attempt to see such a wonder with its own eyes. In a slightly amended version the Spire owes its twist to its admiration of a virtuous maiden of such beauty entering the church that the spire bowed in admiration, and could not resume its normal position.
INCENSED DEVIL: Some attribute the deflection to His Satanic Majesty. The legend goes that Lucifer, after a long day’s journey, alighted for a moment on the apex of the Spire. It so happened that midnight mass was being celebrated and that the abundant incense from below so irritated his unholy nostrils that he gave a violent sneeze. He managed to keep his hold with his claws and tail around the Spire; next morning, however, the damage was there for all to see.
THE FACTS:
| The spire was added to the 14th century tower about the year 1362. The structure is an oak frame, clad with lead, and an interior view of the timber frame is one of the most remarkable sights in the whole church. Where the top of the stone tower and base of the wooden spire meet no fixing is apparent, so that the spire merely sits balanced unattached on the top of the tower.It rises to a height of 70m (228 ‘) above the ground and leans 2.89m (9′ 6”) to the south-west. The spiral twist at the base is about 45° from west to east. | |
| Why is it crooked? It is important to distinguish two elements in the spire’s ‘crookedness’ : The inclination and the twist. It is unfortunate that most people use the word ‘crooked’ unhelpfully, combining the above two features.The inclination (lean) is due to a number of factors: the use of unseasoned (green) timber, the absence of skilled craftsmen (Black Death) and the neglect of cross-bracing.The spiral twist is considered to be by design.Why was the spire built from ‘green timber’? The use of ‘green timber’ was a normal part of medieval carpentry, owing to the fact that it could be bent and shaped during construction. It was also less wearing on tools.Recent examples of the use of ‘green oak’ are to be found in York Minster, Windsor Castle and the Globe Theatre in London. |
|
01 Friday Apr 2011
Tags
Artist, Barbara Hepworth, Chesterfield, Cornwall, Form, Nebrasina, Post Office, Reclining, Reclining Form, Rosewall, Royal Mail, Sculpture
Rosewall was sold to Chesterfield Borough Council (UK) by Royal Mail, the sculpture’s previous owners, for £500,000. Rosewall was originally acquired by the Post Office in 1963 to mark the relocation of the Post Office Accountant Generals Department to Chesterfield, and installed outside its then newly-completed office complex. Barbara Hepworth was closely involved in the original siting of the sculpture, which she had completed the previous year. Rosewall’s form evolved from the artist’s experience of sitting atop a hillside of the same name in Cornwall, looking out at the fields below and the sea beyond. It captures both the experience of looking out at the landscape and the shape of the land itself. Hand carved in white Nebrasina stone and over two metres long, Rosewall took Hepworth almost three years to create.
19 Saturday Mar 2011
Posted in Equipment, The Madness Of It
I’ve been following a few on-line photography forums (not for long though!) that have been full of everyone’s idea of the perfect camera. I’ve now fed everyone’s camera choices and desired specifications into my Nintendo DS and after much groaning, and soul-searching, it has computed that the ultimate camera based on all the available data is…
…a SenikcannenxZorBludWeltzer MK6 with the double centrifugelknockometer switch and integral fu-fu valve..sounds great doesn’t it!
It takes film, clingfilm, super 8 film, glass negatives, plus negatives, minus negatives, digital film, film digital, plus it has a built-in two-legged tripod and you can send it out to take pictures while you’re at the pub…all this in something just the size of a small family car.
It also has a special Henri-Cartier Bresson button for those rare magical moments too!
You can programme it to take the dog for a walk (if you don’t have a dog it’ll even find one for you!)
I’m going to put it straight into production, for the body I need a cardboard container…now where did I put that old Hasselblad camera box?
Will it take great photographs?
Well, according to those forums mentioned earlier, it seems that actually taking photographs is not really the priority…it’s a question of having something around your neck that makes you look good!
30 Sunday Jan 2011
Posted in inspiration, The Madness Of It
Tags
Definition, Drawing With Light, Graphi, Greek, Lines, Phos, Smell, Stylus
I’d been following an on-line discussion that purported to explain why digital photography cannot even be called ‘photography’.
However I don’t think anything that’s produced by a chemical process fits the definition either…”Photography” from the Greek words phos (“light”), and graphis (“stylus”, “paintbrush”) or graphí, together meaning “drawing with light” or “representation by means of lines”, “drawing”, said one.
Other definitions say the same too…’drawing with light’.
I was further intrigued to then follow another discussion on the same forum explaining how prints from even ‘the best inkjet printers on the market can’t match the quality, and feel, of a print produced in a darkroom’.
In fact one person went on to explain that ‘digital prints don’t even smell real’ (?!?)
I fast became bored by the stupidity of the digital versus traditional debate so I moved onto other things, like actually taking photographs, or ‘drawing with light’ as it should be called.
On a recent trip to a museum I stood looking at one particular Henri Cartier Bresson photograph. I was undecided. I looked at it for some time longer yet still I remained undecided.
I finally asked the nearby attendant…’can I touch and smell it please?’
‘Of course not!’ he said, ‘I’ll have you thrown out for even saying that’…’why would you want to touch and smell it anyway?’ he said…
…’to help me decide if I like it of course’ I replied.
08 Wednesday Dec 2010
Posted in inspiration, Photograph
This is the photograph that started my interest in photography.
I first saw it in ‘The Print’, Time Life Library of Photography, 1972.
It is made from a single negative, each of the principle figures were exposed separately during printing.
Giacomelli conceded at the time that “it is the most difficult print I have ever made”.
Why did I like it, and still like it?
I actually don’t know why I like it but I can sit and stare at it now for long periods of time just like I did back in 1972.
So, thirty eight years later I’m still moved by this photograph but I still don’t know why.
What could it be?
Have you ever felt the same about a single image?
18 Thursday Nov 2010
Posted in Equipment, The Madness Of It
Tags
I stumbled across a website by a photographer recently and something rather caught my eye.
The photographer described his photographs as having been ‘shot using Lexar digital film’
Digital Film? Is that ‘film made of digital’ or ‘digital made of film’?
When I first read it I thought that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one but then, upon reflection, I thought maybe some new technology was out there and I’d somehow missed it.
The more I thought about it the more excited I became.
‘Wow’, I thought, ‘bring it on. I’ll have a bit of this!’ (I was already planning how to convince my wife that this technology demanded a new camera.)
So, I thought, I must visit the Lexar web site and make myself familiar with this very latest cutting-edge technology.
I duly visited Lexar’s site and searched for their ‘digital film’. I found something about ‘35mm cameras need film and digital cameras need digital film’
My heart was pounding, I began to get excited, a new technology!
Perhaps I wouldn’t need any more compact flash cards for my Nikon digital SLR, I’ll just buy some ‘digital film’
But after spending many a long time looking around their site all I could find no reference to ‘digital film’.
Did this mean I didn’t have an excuse to buy the latest technology, a super-duper camera that uses the very latest ‘Digital Film’ technology?
My heart sank…you mean I’ve still got to use this old-fashioned Nikon D3 digital camera?
I checked the on-line Oxford English Dictionary’ only to find out there is NO reference to ‘digital film’.
However, there is a definition for ‘film’, as used in photography:
… A thin pellicle or coating of collodion, gelatin, etc. spread on photographic paper or plates, or used by itself instead of a plate. Now esp. a thin, flexible, transparent material consisting essentially of a plastic base or support (formerly of celluloid, now commonly of cellulose acetate) coated on one side with one or more layers of emulsion and sold as a rolled strip and as separate sheets; also, a single roll of this material, allowing a small number of exposures for use in still photography or a large number for use in cinematography.’
Doesn’t seem to me that this description could be prefixed by the word ‘digital’
So who invented the term ‘digital film’ first and why doesn’t the OED know about it?
You may think that ‘digital film’ is either a term invented by marketing people working for flash card manufacturers (although I couldn’t find any such reference by them) or, more scarily, by photographers trying to hold onto cellulose dreams while at the same time using a modern-day digital camera.
What do I think?
A bit obvious really…digital film was developed, in top-secret, for Hasselblad cameras at Area 51 for use in the Apollo moon landings.
How do I know…you’ve only to ask yourself the following questions.
‘Why didn’t they bring the cameras back, and which planet is that photographer from?
17 Wednesday Nov 2010
Posted in Photograph, Place
13 Saturday Nov 2010
Posted in Photograph, Still Life
