Gertsamtkunstwerk

The World's Most Boring Holiday Photos

I am slowly editing the photos I took on holiday in Goa. Not the most memorable holiday; one of wasted opportunities, and that is reflected in the appalling quality of the photos I took, when I could be bothered to. I haven't finished yet. I think I have photo-editor's block, not assisted by a mouse that is slightly broke. But I don't tend to replace things until they're totally broke. And I am horrified at how neglected my poor little photoblog is....

Jimmy took some pictures of me paddling topless in the sea, but I'm a bit shy to embed them in this entry, so if you want to see them, you'd best View this photo or View this photo

Don't look me, I'm boring. Don' t look at me getting my tits out, I'm shy

Monopoly

Have a look at Pewari's Monopoly photos - a photo for every square on the (London) Monopoly board.

I wonder if anyone will do (has done) a similar exercise for the numerous variants of the board

Photos

Mr D asks: Of all the photos you've taken, Gert, which one gives you most pleasure to look at again and again?

It's a difficult one! What are photos for ? Are they bring back memories? To document an event? Artistic expression?

And memories! If you want to remember a person is it better to have a portrait shot of them or a photo of somewhere you went together and contains pleasant memories?

Two of my favourite photos I do not possess in hard form, only on a video tape that my brother-in-law spent hours compiling of childhood photos, which was a brilliant thing to do. I'm still waiting for him to repeat the exercise with scanner and PC...

One is of a sailing dinghy off Aberystwyth in 1974, the first 'proper' photo I actually took, when, although I did not know the language, I knew it was important to frame the shot correctly. I even rested the camera on the wall because it was too heavy for my six-year-old hands.

Another photo dates from 1977 and is a shot of Lincoln Cathedral taken from the castle. My father took it, but under strict and precise instructions from me  - I think he was concerned I might drop the camera over the parapet. Me? Little brother, possibly, camera never!

My back room, where I sit now, is full of photos of people. Dominating are photos of No 1 Nephew and Favourite Niece. Lack of photos of Younger Nephew must be remedied forthwith, but are an unintended consequence of him being a product of the 21st Century. In the 1990s people used to post photos through the Royal Mail. This just doesn't happen nowadays. Photos are sent more frequently, but digitally, and there isn't the imperative to print them off, because they are stored for all eternity on PC.

There is also a photo I took of my father at Christmas 1987, not long before he died, and it's a photo I especially like. Very personal reasons, of course.

Throughout my adult life I have taken all sorts of photos of all sorts of people and places. I particularly like half a dozen or so of the fifty plus I shot on film of Niagara Falls (imagine if I went there with a digi camera!). I do like looking back at pictures of people, although it always intrigues me that so many of us - and this  has been the case for a century and a half - only take pictures of the good times, the smiles, the jolliness, so we and posterity remember people like that. We don't record the misery, the pain, the anger. Which, perhaps, is no bad thing, but does not give an accurate portrayal of life.

One of my most favourite pictures taken on film does not come out well when scanned

                                                                     

The simple answer is I don't really know. Just looking at my photoblog, which only covers photos taken since March 2001, there are photos I like because of the memories of a holiday. There are photos I like because I made the mundane interesting. There are photos I like because I got lucky.

I can't really answer, which is why I'm going through slowly and highlighting a selection of favourites. As it happens, this photo below has particularly appealed to me recently, and it's chronologically due to be highlighted. This was taken on the footferry between Harwich and Shotley.

I was that drunk

It seemed a good idea at the time. The whiskey, I mean. After all, I had only had...well, okay, I was seriously tipsy. No more than that. But, as they say, the camera never lies...

In our hotel bar last Friday.

From first glance, it may seem that I was attempting to bare my midriff. I can assure you that I never do that

Rubbish photos

It seems that everybody now has a camera in their mobile phone. Quite a useful little gimmick accessory. If you're carrying your phone around, it's no more effort to carry a camera. If you have the phone handy for calls, by definition it's also handy to grab a snapshot. Very useful for instant documentary.

But are they any good?

We have been watching Tom Ang's Digital Picture of Britain. Fascinating. For each programme he gets three professional photographers and randomly distributes to them a digital camera, either a top-of-the-range professional SLR, a mass market compact or a phone, albeit a rather high-end phone. They make of it what they will. Being professionals, they take some reasonably good photos with the phones, but nobody's fooled as to the quality.

However, that doesn't stop the masses. We have people taking photos with their phones and publishing them to the web, sort of. Mainly using Flickr.

I have always loved photography. Even at the age of seven I was bossing my father around over what pictures to take. I didn't like his camera, far too fiddly, and, more importantly, way too heavy and cumbersome for my hands which were even ickler then than now.

Bizarrely, I didn't get my own camera until I was 16. A Boots Instamatic, using 126 film and flashbulbs. Some of my friends mocked - they had 110 (or, later, disc-cameras) with built in flash. But, actually, until the 135 compacts became affordable, the 126s gave the best quality photos. And the use of external flash, however primitive, avoided red eye. The trouble was, flashbulbs were so expensive. Film was expensive. Processing was expensive. One film of 24 exposures had to do for a whole holiday.

There was no opportunity to experiment, to take risks. Every failure cost money. My money. My pocket money.

Every photo had to be special. And had to be retained.

As it seems that everybody is publishing extremely poor quality photos taken with their phones, I thought I would pause and reflect on whether we have come far in 21 years.

I took a photo album off the bookshelf and scanned a few photos.

I feel rather proud of them. They are so spectacularly crap that I feel tempted to set up a Flickr account and claim I took them with my phone. Only I can't be bothered to set up ways to transfer photos from my phone to my PC. Much easier to scan in old photos.

I'm not saying that this will be a regular occurrence, but from time to time, some old photos will appear. Hopefully, as we hit the 90s the quality of photography will improve. Hopefully, by the time we hit the 20teens, the quality of mophlogging will improve.

Mont Orgeuil, Jersey

As soon as I looked at this picture, I realised how badly taken it was. It never even crossed my mind at the time - March 2001 - that the camera would focus automatically on the stalks and grass in the foreground, and not on the castle. What I would probably do now is move the auto-focus oblong to focus on the castle, or maybe I would manually focus, or I would put the castle in the middle of the picture, lock the focus, and then compose the shot.

Alternatively, I would make more of a thing about the grass and stalks, using the castle just as backdrop.

Despite the snapshot nature, I do rather like this picture

Camera Policy

Jag's post about the camera policy at Twickers for U2 is well-timed.

I notice the long-list of rules for Live8 says

No professional cameras, video recorders or any form of audio visual or audio recording equipment allowed in the event site

On one level, this has a semblance of sense about it - it is saying that we really don't mind people bringing bog-standard cameras that are going to take really crap pictures at that distance. But the audio thing. Hmm, my camera and my phone are both capable of audio-visual recording (vv crap). Not that I ever use either of them for that. And my main reason for taking my phone will be in case we get separated.

Earlier this week I had an interesting exchange of emails with ENO. I wrote - in observation - that when I had attempted to take some pictures of Gerald Finley at the curtain call of Eugene Onegin, an usher had politely asked me to stop. I acknowledged that I recognised that photography is forbidden per the programme, and that I know that flash photography during the performance can be distracting to performers and audience alike, and therefore, I don't use it during performance. I noted that many other venues ignore the use of cameras, flash included, during curtain calls, applause and bows, and that some performers respond positively to cameras (although I know others don't like it). I also provided a link to my phlog, explaining that my photos are far from commercial standard, and exist just to give pleasure to fans.

I received a polite and constructive email back

Had the Press Office been advised in advance that you wished to take photographs we could then have cleared this with the appropriate people eg Gerald Finley and FOH staff etc and advised you accordingly if this would be possible.

Which is fair enough. The only thing is, I really can't imagine any circumstances in which I would feel comfortable calling up any Press Office of any professional company and asking to arrange such a thing. I'm just an amateur snapper who happens to have bought some webspace.

A few thoughts on photography

From time to time I get a few queries about my photographs, my camera and techniques.

I don't really know what I'm doing, having never studied photography, or Art, for that matter, so everything I do is trial and error.

I have always enjoyed photography and since going digital four years ago I have found the wherewithal to expand that enjoyment. The start-up costs of digital are much greater than film, but the incremental costs are negligible. With film, every shot taken costs money, for replacing the film and for D&P. Both times I visited Niagara Falls, I thought I had gone OTT by shooting an entire roll of 36 exposures. A three week holiday in the US came to five and a half films. In contrast, I feel that the thirty seven shots I took in Dublin on Wednesday were a meagre return; I took the equivalent of 5½ on what was basically a beach holiday in Egypt.

The downside of this is in general a lot of crap and repetitiveness, the upside is the confidence to take shots that I suspect will not turn out, but sometimes produce miraculous results. It also means far more opportunity to record the everyday, which, again, risks being boring, but in time may prove to be fascinating documentary. Going back 50 or 100 years , people generally only took photos of special occasions, in artifically posed groups, with artifical smiles.

The digital revolution has truly democratised photography in a way that few people could have seen as possible - or necessary - ten years ago. The fact that I can publish my photos to the world, hopefully giving pleasure to complete strangers never crossed my mind until very recently.

I was surprised at how many shops are advertising printing straight from memory cards - to me, one of the great things about digital is being able to manipulate the images on the PC. My cousin claims he has no use of photo-editing software, because every photo he takes is perfect. I would suggest he never takes chances!

On the whole I don't do a great deal of editing. I do a lot of slight rotating - I have a tendency to take photos that are not quite perpendicular. I try very hard to correct this by identifying a straight line on the screen, but when I'm pointing-and-shooting I just don't have the luxury of time. When I used film, I tended to have the subject accidentally off-centre, to the left. I also crop pretty freely - eliminating peripheral nonsense can transform a mediocre picture into a very good, or even, great picture.

I use MGI Photosuite, which I have read described as entry level, and I suppose I ought to be past Entry-Level. Indeed I have tried using Photoshop Limited Edition, and my brother-in-law even downloaded me a pirate version of Photoshop. But, although this is said to be the best software, and does contain some amazing special effects, I feel a lot happier with Photosuite.

I generally 'enhance' the photo, which is similar to Photoshop's Auto-levels, and I often sharpen, which makes the edges more precise. Although, with pictures of people, I find 'soften' or 'remove scratches' gives a better effect. The clone tool can be useful, although I use it sparingly - eg one shot taken from a boat was marred by a thin rope bisecting the photo. It's laborious to get it right but on occasion it can transform the shot. It's also useful for zapping annoying people who wander into the edge of the frame.

As for camera, I have a Canon G3, which has been superseded by the G5. It has been described as the best 'amateur level' digital camera and suits my needs perfectly. It has a 4 Megapixel capacity, which is plenty big enough. Some prat was boasting to me the other day that his camera was 5 Megapixels, but I don't see any advantage. I generally shoot at 1600x1200, which comes out at less than 2 megapixels. In certain circumstances - where I suspect I might want to magnify details - typically with 'performance' pictures - I go for 2272 x 1704, which is still less than 4 megs. There is some trade-off even then. If you have shot in portrait mode, Windows shows it in landscape, but if you click rotate it says "Because of the dimensions of this picture, rotating it might permanently reduce its quality." Under those circumstances I rotate in Photosuite. I find that at 2272, the photo tends to appear more grainy than at 1600.

About 18 months ago Marcie asked for my thoughts comparing my G3 with a Nikon I had on loan after I dropped my G3 (...!). I wrote:

I have a Canon G3 - which I luv, and call 'My Baby'. I had loan of a Nikon Coolpix 5000. The spec of the G3 is better (eg 4x optical zoom, up to 14x digital as compared to 3x up to 7x on the Nikon), and I find the controls more me. The minus points are an ultra-sensitive on switch, and rather too many different menus. The Nikon is lighter and probably better suited to my very small hands (I can't stretch an octave on a piano), also arguably, slightly more stylish looking in black than the rather clunky silver of the G3.

What I like about the G3 is that there is an easy-to-use dial that
switches between Movie-Nightsight-landscape-portrait-fully auto
-programmable-Aperture priority - Shutter priority -stitch assist. These modes combine the ease of point-and-shoot with a little bit more customability. Whereas, the Nikon requires selecting one of three custom settings from the menu and doesn't have stitch assist.

The manual focus is more intutive on the Nikon, and it has a function
where you can take three consecutive shots at -1, 0, +1 exposure
compensation. On the down side, it has something weird where the macro has to be taken with shutter delay (which, apparently, is good practice, but...). The Nikon's manual is much more helpful.

The Canon comes with a remote control, which has its uses...

A major plus point with the Canon is that the battery doesn't have to be exhausted to be recharged, whereas with the Nikon it does. The Nikon battery is recharged in a separate charger, whereas the Canon has to be done from within the camera. The Canon battery life is longer, anyway.

In the UK, the Canon retails at about £100 (about $150) more than the Nikon.

Lyle has recently posted on Digital SLRs, but I have never been interested in SLR, partly because the ones I have tried have alwas seemed too heavy.

As for taking performance photos, it can be a bit hit-and-miss. The first thing to consider is that, strictly speaking, it is forbidden in many venues. I have heard stories of perpetrators being ejected or their cameras, or film, being confiscated. If you took and published photos for commercial gain, the venue or the promoters would be within their rights to sue.

There are some basic rules to follow, a mixture of common sense and good manners. It's best to smuggle the camera in the inner compartment of a handbag - don't make it too obvious or some jobsworth will stop you. Don't use flash when the performance is under way - it can be very distracting to the performers and also to other members of the audience. There are occasions when it seems okay, but I would err on the side of caution. Having paid good money to see specific performers I wouldn't want them distracted, and being that they are people I like, I would be mortified at the thought that they might be cursing that awful woman with her camera.

I was at once in the stalls at the RFH and someone was using flash from the circle, which distracted me. At the interval an announcement came not to use flash photography. This was greeted with very loud and enthusiastic applause. It is very rare nowadays to go to a concert where flashes don't go off at applause time, and I'm sure that most performers regard that as an alternative but valid form of applause.

To get the best pictures requires practice - don't wait until you see your favourite, but practice on others first. I have found that the two most important factors are to have a wide aperture and a fast ISO, the wider and faster the better. If I set the aperture at f2, and then zoom into about 5 or 7x, the camera forces the f number up. Looking at the photos I took on Wednesday, the f numbers are hovering around the f3 mark, the shutter speed was decided by the camera (but I could have set it independently) at between 1/50 and 1/200. I generally don't force the digtial zoom beyond about 7 because I usually entirely misfocus beyond there. The other thing to remember if you want accurately to record the data of your photos is not to have the camera set to Egyptian Standard Time...!

And finally, when taking photos of your hero it can be very disconcerting when he spots you and decides to flirt with you. All semblance of trying to be a serious photographer disappears and you are left a trembling wreck...(thank you, Señor Domingo - not that I'm complaining...!)

Breasts, boobs, tits...

Confession time. I absolutely adore breasts, me. I love my own. I love looking at other women's. I was in the hairdressers last week, getting shampooed, and directly in my line of vision was a twenty-something woman in a moderately low cut top and very pert medium-sized breasts. I love it in summer when women display their silhouette. I can totally understand men who are breast-fixated, even though it can be irritating in a work context when they direct their eyes at my boobs rather than my eyes (look, I'm 5'2", isn't it easier to look at my gorgeous eyes than my boobs). I find the following in an interview with a fave celebrity crush to be a turn-on:

His charm packs more calories per square inch than clotted cream, but it is at least more winning than the usual lardy showbiz schmooze. Indeed, you are helpless before it; in all the interviews where the female journalist has been wooed, her assets covertly assessed and her hand warmly overgripped, nobody in this politically cautious age has ever minded in the least. People threaten legal action for less than his dark devouring eyes insinuate...

In my world, it would be socially acceptable for women to walk around topless in all the places men walk around topless.

I would be quite happy walking around my house topless except I don't have nets in the front window.

I've just been watching Gangs of New York. One scene stuck - in the whorehouse where the whores are wearing dresses that 'forget' to cover their nipples. For me, seriously erotic.

Then we get the Janet Jackson furore. If it was a publicity stunt, it was incredibly bad taste. Notwithstanding that, the reaction has been unbelievable. The contrived shock-and-horror doesn't seem to be about the cynically manipulative publicity stunt but simply about the unspeakable horrors of a bare breast being exposed -

a show that requires parents to send their kids out of the room is unconscionable.

Sure, anything sexual on telly has an uneasy inter-generational tension. I feel uncomfortable watching sex on the TV with my mother. The Christmas 98 special of Men Behaving Badly with Martin Clunes wanking into a Kleenex drew complaints, not because of the subject matter per se but because, as my incredibly liberal cousin put it, she's watching it with her then seventy-something mother and teenage sons.

I just kind of wonder - I'm more-or-less straight, but I am definitely turned on by breasts, naked or otherwise. I feel comfortable with that because I understand my sexuality. All my lovers, past-and-present, have been candid about their fascination for breasts; I know the power of lifting up a t-shirt, especially after I have removed my bra. I remember when Engand lost on penalties to Germany in Euro 96 and a crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square, and the BBC Nine O'Clock News showed a woman lifting her t-shirt and her partner fondling her boobs - what a way to mark defeat...! I would love to do that...

Breasts are powerful, and I suspect that many who complain about Janet Jackson do so because they are uncomfortable with their own reaction. Men, I don't really understand - I am puzzled at straight men who aren't turned on by breasts. Maybe a lot of the complainants were women who don't understand that being turned-on by breasts doesn't make you a lesbian.

Perhaps it's the penultimate taboo. Perhaps if it were socially acceptable for women to go topless wherever men go topless, naked breasts would cease to have their erotc appeal. Maybe it would be empowering, but perhaps it would be a matter of regret.

Dammit, I so don't fit the feminist stereotype...

Dunham Massey Park

Sulk

As I mentioned, my camera, my luvverly Canon G3 broke on Thursday night. The reasons behind the breaking will be glossed over. I contacted Jessops, from whence I bought it, and they said, "No problem, bring it in for repair." I mentioned that I am due to go to Haiti next week. They said they could lend me an equivalent camera. Which, you know, is cool, because there's nothing in the warranty that promises me that.

I duly took it in, and they have a lent me me a Nikon Coolpix5000. Which is not a bad camera, even though my initial perusal made me declare it a glorified point-and-shoot. It seriously isn't a point-and-shoot but I am utterly convinced that it is vastly inferior to the Canon G3. Simple things, such as Zoom: Canon 4x (14x); Nikon 3x (4x), Aperture: Canon 2.0-8.0; Nikon 2.8-4.8.

The Canon has a wireless remote control, the Nikon doesn't. The Canon has a number of specialist modes for snapshots - Portrait, Landscape, and Night. On the Canon, the varous modes are managed by a dial - so move from Auto, to default Programme, to Aperture priority just by turning one dial, and adjust using another. On the Nikon, you decide whether you want the auto, or not, by use of the menu, and then you have to fiddle round with far too many buttons just to widen the aperture, or whatever...

I simply don't like the controls on the Nikon, they seem unergonomical. The Canon can recharge the battery in the camera whereas the standard for the Nikon is an adaptor with battery removed. I suppose there is a disadvantage to having to have the camera recharging the battery. The battery specs are not directly comparable but the Canon seems better.

As I say, I shouldn't complain, but I am slightly pissed off that I am left with a somewhat inferior camera for my holiday. I just hope my G3 is mended in time for L'il Bro's wedding - five weeks time.

Exposure

I posted that picture of myself because I felt like it.

In the morning, I wondered whether I should have. I then thought 'sod it, why not?' I deliberately put it as pop-up rather than embedded.

All that aside, if another Blogger (okay, maybe not Pinky...) had posted such a picture, I would have been at least surprised, and depending on my mood, maybe even disapproving.

I have long been interested in society's attitude to nudity. Around us our culture bombards us with images of nude or partially nude women, from The Sun and Star newspapers to advertisers - often 'ironically'. The models are usually anonymous and objectified. If a 'proper' celebrity poses, or is clandestinely photographed, nude a wave of false shock reverberates around.

I have often wished that it was normal for women to remove their tops in environments where men do. In Britain, you rarely see a woman topless even on the beach, and then it's discreet.

The societal norms are to separate tits and people. Intelligent women don't have tits. Women who pose topless don't have a brain.

There is also the thorny issue of beautiful=young, not young=ugly/keep under wraps. Although I'm the same age as Kylie I'm well past the prime of my looks. Even as a young adult I never traded on my looks or body.

Not that I'm ashamed of the way I look, I just feel that I never fitted society's ideal Body Beautiful. Even though I know that few human bodies lack beauty, and all are intrinsically ugly.

I suspect that society doesn't distinguish properly between different reasons for portraying nudity. A deliberately provocative pose, even if done Sun-style, is different from something done for Art, which is different again from nudity for documentary. We live in an age of relatively open sexuality, and yet, because nudity is so closely associated with sexuality, it is an uncomfortable subject. The majority of us snigger at, and some disapprove of nudist colonies and naturist beaches. We think of them as weird. We use the word nude euphemistically when we want to say 'naked'. Naked is lacking, and we feel uncomfortable about 'lacking'. I think that many of us do not feel comfortable with our bodies.

Lovely lovely brand new camera

This gal has just got herself a brand spanking new Canon G3 and I'm lovin it lovin it lovin it...well, in between suffering disabling stomach cramps.

It's a beeyewtiful baby and it's mine all mine.

I spent some time messing around, just to get the feel of it, and I'm learning about things I've never needed to know before (I've always been a simple girl). I've posted a few photos at Under Developed, but I need to get rid of the shaky hand and I need to get out beyond my front door.

On the lake

I bought a scanner today. Okay, laugh at me, but I have seriously never owned a scanner before in my life.

So for your delight, I want to share with you my most favourite photo, ever, that I have ever taken.

I was revising for my exams at University and got to the point where I was loaded with facts, so I took off for a walk round the lake. As I left Hall, Top of the Pops was on, so I guess this was taken between half seven and eight on 14 June.

Sunday night telly

To find out what I thought of the Project, just click and scroll

Oh, I'll save you the bother:

As a Labour activist I was looking forward to a drama featuring history and events I could identify with. As a grassroots member, I was looking forward to the dissing of the "Millbank Tendency". I turned off after forty five minutes, bored by the two-dimensional characters and stilted dialogue.
Geraldine, UK

We watched 50 places to see before you die. I had feared it would be excruciating but it turned out not to be. I did have a momentary panic when Number50 was Bora Bora and I thought they meant Tora Bora! I have to confess there were places  I had not even heard of. There were other places that I would go to if offered free tickets or if I won the proverbial lottery, but otherwise I wouldn't want to.

As we watched and spectacular places - most notably the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon - Jimmy was saying "Oh you'd love to go there and take photos. " Possibly, but what can I do to improve the vast wealth of photos that already exist of such places? I don't have the resources to return day-after-day, and in all seasons to capture the definitive photograph.

Just before we watched it, I was looking through some old photo albums. About eight years ago I decided that I would journal every aspect of my life photographically. I have some incredibly boring photographs of Basingstoke and Chessington South stations. And some surprisingly interesting ones of my desk at the time.

For me, the most fascinating ones of are people. Some of the most boring are of when Helen and I toured round Ireland. We saw the most gorgeous scenery, and had a ball, but, I think, my mojo was missing.

When I look at other people's weblogs, I find it fascinating to look at photos of the blogger. When I first started blogging, I was determined not to publish photos of myself. I feared that my appearance would be ridiculed. But the more blogs I see, the more I see people who do not conform to media stereotypes of what is beautiful. I find it refreshing to see fat people. I find it refreshing to see ugly people. I see very few classic beauties/hunks.  I see a great number of people who, when you look at them as a whole, are ordinary looking, or vaguely pretty, or even tending to the quite attractive. But you see that person when their eyes shine, or when they give that smile. Well, it's rather refreshing.