About
“Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer
and often the supreme disappointment.” Ansel Adams
I was born in England in 1966 in a market town in the Chilterns and I still live close to this area. I started taking photographs at around the age of eight after being given a Kodak Instamatic 233 camera, whilst on a summer holiday. This was my rather basic introduction to photography.
Largely self taught, I progressed to an all manual SLR in my early teens before eventually migrating to a Canon EOS650 in late '87. I believe that an in depth understanding of the fundamentals of photography is essential and can only be gained through time spent working with a manual camera - something easily forgotten in today's world of auto-everything! I have stayed with the EOS system, going to digital in recent years, despite being so nearly tempted to expand to medium or large format. Developments in digital have pursuaded me against this. Camera format (and brand!) is an incredibly personal and at times contentious issue. For me however, with currently available equipment, image size and workflow mean that there is no longer any compelling argument for a move back to idiosyncrasies of film.
I have a debt of gratitude to Light and Land and especially Charlie Waite for reinvigorating my photography, with their continued encouragement to do more and develop further.
I am an advocate of Lightroom and Photoshop as essential tools for reliable workflow and digital asset management. In addition to my photography interest, I provide guidance to photographers looking for help with digital workflow, from colour management, managing image storage and metadata, to optimising workflow, image quality and getting the most out of Lightroom. This is an area of the technology that is constantly changing and requires an ongoing investment in continual learning in order to keep up to date with capabilities.
Even though the tools of photography continue to change, the fundamentals remain the same. No amount of manipulation will disguise a poor image, in much the same way as no amount of darkroom work could historically rescue a poor negative. It has to be first and foremost right "in camera" and I tend towards the view that if an adjustment wasn't possible in a traditional darkroom, then it is probably a step too far in a "digital darkroom". Anything further detracts from the purity of photography as a craft.