Learning about the masters

I think most of you would be surprised at how truly ignorant I am of the work of some of the past masters of photography. Even well-known names are, to me, a largely unknown quantity. This might seem a bit weird when you consider that I've been taking photographs for just over 40 years. But the thing is that, never having studied photography in any formal way or spent much time in camera club circles, I've had little exposure to the photographers who are recognised as "the" names nor those who are on the next rung down, so to speak.

This has its good and bad points: I've been able to bash on without worrying too much about fashion or style but I've also missed out on a lot of inspirational photography. I suppose the negative point could be turned into a positive by saying that I've got years of enjoyable studying ahead of me whilst many of you will already be up to speed on the masters and have less to look forward to!

The recent TV shows about photography presented by Eamonn McCabe were a bit of an eye opener. He kept on dropping names that I suppose I should be familiar with but had never heard of. Some, of course, I had heard of but knew only a little about their photography. Here are a couple of examples for you: Bill Brandt and John Bulmer.

Obviously, I knew of Brandt although only in a very superficial way. I vaguely remembered his nudes and the odd gritty shot such as Top Withens and A Snicket in Halifax. Some of his other photographs revealed in the TV series just knocked me out. Take the one below, Hail Hell and Halifax. As Simon Cowell might say, OMG!

And then there's Shadow and Light. We've all seen plenty of stairwell shots - I've taken some myself - but I can't remember seeing a better one than this. It could be a giant's double helix.

Even Brandt's obviously contrived shots are excellent such as Eaton Square (top) and Belgravia 1951 below.

And here's a special treat courtesy of Vimeo - a short video showing Brandt's A Night in London page-by-page:



Now that I've whetted your interest, you might like to know that you can easily pick up a copy from Abe Books - providing you have four grand burning a hole in your pocket...

I smell the all pervasive whiff of Phil Rogers' algorithm here. Read his
comments on this post.

And now we turn to John Bulmer. OMG doesn't really do it for this photographer - he's right up there with the very best in my opinion. What about BHHG? Bloody hell, he's good! He catalogued the disappearance of much of the old industrial north of England in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of his images are stunning and just the sort of thing to which I aspire. Moody, sombre, poignant, touching - there are all sorts of emotions in his prints. A few really knock me out, such as these:

The interesting bit - for me, that is, you've probably all fallen asleep by now - is Bulmer's colour photography. I do as much colour as I do digital which is to say, none. But after seeing some of Bulmer's work I started getting an itch which I might have to scratch a little. It's not the garish sort of stuff a lot of DSLR users seem to like but very muted colour with a restricted palette. How much of that is just down to the film stock at the time is something I can't really speak about.

Bulmer only photographed in colour on days when the sun wasn't shining, hence the white, featureless skies in a lot of his shots. I tend to agree with that approach: skies can be a real distraction and a destroyer of composition. Bland skies let the viewer concentrate on the rest of the photograph. Bulmer was one of the first UK photographers to use colour for documentary work. I'm delighted to say that John Bulmer is still going strong at the age of 89. Here's his Wikipedia page which is an interesting read.

Here's a selection of his colour work, much of which was shot for the Sunday Times.

BUT! It begs the big question: If I were to have a go at colour after years of black and white would it be film or digital? I think I've said in the past on this blog that I think colour is better tackled these days with digital rather than film. I've got a DSLR so it would save quite a lot of money in terms of both film and developing.

Having just had a look at AG Photographic's website, it seems you can get basic Kodak film for under £3 for a 36 exposure roll but I think I'd prefer to use medium format since it scans better and that's around £5.50 a roll for Ektar 100. AG will also develop the film and make 18mb scans for £9 a roll, 35mm or 120. It soon adds up, doesn't it? £14.50 per film, not including postage. 

Since my only source of income is an early retirement pension and Cath plans on taking early retirement in October, we're not going to be awash with spare cash. £15 a film isn't really viable for two pensioners, even if they're as cool as we are. So it looks like it would have to be digital. The key to making it work would be to keep it as real as possible and avoid "post processing" a file to death as I was fond of doing in my Photoshop days. The whole idea needs some more thought.

But back to Brandt, Bulmer, et al. I've enjoyed researching these two so much that it's made me determined to find out more about all those photographers I should already be familiar with. It would be great if readers could recommend some names in the comments that I can chase up at my leisure.