What are photography sketches?
It is something that I struggle with defining, though I do admit to doing it myself (see my previous post). I may ramble a bit, so I apologise now, but please bear with me.
Film photography for me is about slowing the process down – particularity when (like me) you start to wander in to the realms of medium format and now large format photography. That process is slowed down further once you start to get all your kit out; tripod, lightmeter, cable release and pour a cup of coffee.
As a photographer whose main medium is film, for me sketching is going about using a small compact (I use a Canon G15 or indeed my phone) taking photographs of things that interest me without having deploy in to action my heavy weight kit. My sketches are primarily for reference to come back to a location if I have ease of access to a place and know that I can return. particularly if I can visualise a shot, but the conditions aren’t quite right.
-
Uist Croft 4
-
Uist Croft 2
-
Uist Croft 3
-
Uist Croft 2
-
Huisnis Rocks II
-
Huisnis Rocks II
-
Huisnis Rocks I
Photography sketches are also useful if you are just playing around and don’t want to waste film on something if you are experimenting. You get to see the results in camera, or at home on your PC without the extra “anticipation” of film whilst you wait for the film to be developed. Importantly too, photographic sketching allows for a degree of spontaneity that you don’t necessarily have with larger cameras and equipment (film or otherwise), the Uist shots above, must have been taken in less than 10 minutes.
I purposefully went for a walk on my recent holiday in the Outer Hebrides just with my compact camera to see if I saw things differently without being incumbered with my full kt. Not quite sure if I took anything that different, but I did take more photographs than I would normally. Also, I took less time I feel than I would if I took my full kit with me. Putting set up times to one side, I also tend to take my time when composing my shots – sometimes it involves drinking a full cup of coffee between setup and pressing the shutter!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Huisnis Rocks I
When does a photograph move beyond being a sketch?
A good question and possibly one that I can’t answer.
Okay, I have to admit it; I am a wee bit of a film snob – with no reason I hasten to add. Just look at my portfolio website – www.alastairrossphotography.co.uk – all the photographs on that are film/slide based. I have taken sketches in the past that I have hesitated over and thought “That would really compliment my portfolio”, but then the best that happens is that it gets added to my blog and not the portfolio site. There is no rhyme nor reason, as Canon Powershot G’s are capable little cameras with all the control (and RAW) functionality of a DSLR, so quality isn’t the issue. A3 sized prints are not an issue with the files that they produce and this is where a bit of a reality check is needed for the “serious amateur” (like myself), is anyone really going to see your work at anything bigger than A3? Is it any less of a photograph because it hasn’t been taken on film – “No” – I (think) is my answer.
There is a large element as well, for me anyway, of feeling like a bit fraud when a shot comes out well when seen and taken in seconds as opposed to going through the full physical and intellectual rigor of a “proper” shot that is measured in minutes. It makes me doubt all the times when I have set up, walked and taken in the area, drunk that cup of coffee and then pressed the shutter. Because of that, does a photographic sketch have less integrity? How I address that I do not know, but it is a feeling that nags me now as I type this.
(After Joe Wright)
In conclusion, in writing this I think I have started to address in my own head at least from a quality perspective that a photography sketch is no less of a photograph. However, I still struggle to reconcile in my head how something considered in seconds is of equal merit to something that has been given more than a passing thought.
What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Alastair,
Great post and one that I most definitely identify with being predominantly a film shooter too. I know what you mean when you say you feel a bit of a fraud when an ‘easy’ digital shot comes out just as good, or better, than a ‘proper’ film one. Perhaps we feel we must earn a picture to justify the status of it’s filmic medium (in true film snob fashion!)?
I think it comes down to intention. Sketch shots are meant to be just that- sketches, so we don’t put as much value in them because perhaps they don’t have the same depth of thought and intention as the more fully considered versions. I agree with you in that they are no less of a photograph though. I don’t think it is a film vs digital debate either- for the reasons you have given- the quality is definitely adequate in both mediums. My tutor once told me (and she’s a proper believer in analogue from capture to print) that she has had to take digital shots to complete series due to lack of time, which I found very interesting. When showing my work to tutors and fellow students, they can’t even tell the difference between the two anyway, though I like to think I could tell the difference every time! 😉
It’s strange because I take loads of sketch shots with my phone, snapping here there and everywhere to remember what was where and when, but more often than not I don’t even look at them after I take them. Maybe it’s just my way of doing things and all I need is the ‘mental’ snapshot/sketch from which to get the cogs turning for a full shot.
That having been said, I shoot in film for a number of reasons, the time, thought and consideration, the quality (aesthetic we could say) and also because I want that negative as a tangible, physical object- as a link to the moment the picture was taken. That’s something digital can’t do!
All the best,
Tom.
It is interesting to think about these things. I’ve been doing exactly the same this week: I went on a walk late morning with various family members and took a small Lumix digital camera with me, and made some images that I regarded as sketches. Then, the next day, I went back in ‘better’ light with the large format camera and spent about 45 minutes framing and setting up a single image. Looking at the ‘sketches’, I’m remarkably pleased with them, and I did find myself wondering if a 4×5 on Provia that will take me a while to get processed and scanned will actually add that much to the original image that I saw as I walked through the woods, being hurried along by others.
However, I DO think that it adds something, or better, that it is something – something different. I made about 20-30 sketch images on a 2 hour walk, but just one on the LF camera. I think for me the sketches are showing me what might be, and with the LF I made one image that spoke to me of something quite profound and different. They are different images, not least in that I was able to be more deliberate about the time I made the LF image, benefitting from the light coming at a certain angle, whereas the sketches are more representational – they are much more just a record of what I saw at the time, giving me space to think about other opportunities.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the sketches are worthless! They have the potential the communicate something as you have pointed to in your blog posting here. But they are different, in the same way that if the two of us were standing next to each other with the same view, we’d make very different images, as for example I noted here: http://marten.org.uk/2014/06/22/preview-the-wide-open-spaces-of-infinite-darkness/.
Hi Alastair, Tom & Michael – interesting thoughts and, following on from our ‘discussion’ on twitter… I came to the conclusion some time ago that time spent making/taking/thinking doesn’t equate to value or quality of the end result – or certainly not necessarily so.
I’ve also often gone back to improve upon a ‘sketch’ but found the original to be my favourite – I think there’s something to be said for our first instincts and for not thinking too hard about things. Perhaps sometimes we overwork something in our quest for perfection…
I also know that some of my best work has been opportunist – that doesn’t devalue it for me at all. That said, I love spending a few hours in one spot, working a scene – both approaches are highly rewarding for different reasons.
Thanks everyone for posting.
I am beginning to warm to the idea of putting sketches up in my galleries (on my website!). I’ll be updating my site over the weekend, so I may well be slipping one or two in along with some new film work.
I wonder if sketching comes down to ease of use? I have my G15 which sits on the belt loop of my camera bag, so it is readily accessible. I have my Ziess Ikon Nettar as well, which if it is out, sits in the top pocket of my camera bag. Both cameras easily accessible, both cameras easy to use – one through the view screen, and one through its very basic controls (aperture, exposure and guess the distance to focus). Some of my most original work (I think) has been taken with the Zeiss Ikon Nettar, because I have chosen to see differently with it and considered shots that I wouldn’t consider getting the bulkier Bronica out for in the first place. (Is that laziness on my part?)
So, do these cameras allow for a level of creative spontaneity that more unwieldy don’t allow?
Either way, watch this space as I will be uploading some sketches on to my portfolio site as a consequence of our conversations.