Derby Day Format

Joined a group of other students and tutors visiting the Format Photographic Exhibition in Derby. The exhibition itself has a number of venues across the City but it had been decided that we should visit just three. Clearly time was a constraint but I was left wondering why the particular three had been chosen Were they representative of the overall exhibition, more relevant to our studies, or simply because they were of more interest to the person who made the decision?

After a quick walk from the Railway station to the Quad we were advised to split into small groups and wander round the displays in this building. I wanted to experience my own reaction to the images and not have them coloured by the comments and questions from other people so I wandered off on my own. The first group of images I saw were taken from a Tram window. The overall impression I received was one of confusion and incoherence. The images themselves were not very good and things were not helped by the lighting in the building that was provided by large fluorescent tubes. The lighting was a problem in all areas, even the gallery, and did no favours to the photographer in presenting his/her work.

The most impressive collection for me was the group entitled Thirteen Twenty Lacuna by Katrin Koening. In brief this was a series of thirteen shots of different people walking through a spot lit area. My description does it an injustice and it needs to be seen. Unfortunately this group suffered particularly from the ambient lighting that in places put a large fluorescent tube behind the viewers head so that the dark areas of the image acted like a mirror so that the viewer became a distracting element in the image.

One other group consisted of 63 images taken from a moving train of the passing countryside. Each individual shot was approximately 4 x 3in and the group was arranged in 7 rows of nine images. I assume in sequence. Viewed individually nearly all the images were pretty poor and so I backed off and found a seat so that I could see them as a whole. Certainly this was better but an unfortunate combination provided a dark line (a hedgerow) across the middle row that had the visual effect of dividing the overall image into two separate blocks.

The Gallery was busy not only with my fellow students locked in earnest discussion but also many other visitors. It was difficult to get a clear line of vision for any length of time so that, for me, viewing the images was rather like seeing it in slices. I spent a lot of my time on the fringes listening to the discussions that proved very interesting and enlightening.

I wandered out of the building to get some fresh air and to ponder for a while on what I had seen and experienced. Overall I thought the general standard was poor with one or two exceptions. There was no single picture that I thought 'Wow I wish I was that good' although the Koening group as a whole gave me that reaction. Overall I thought it was very disappointing part of the exhibition.

And so to lunch. The idea was that the time would be used for a general discussion about what we had seen so far. Unfortunately we met and ate in the general public cafe so that the noise and the configuration of the tables made a general discussion impossible. However it was clear from the snatches of conversation that could be heard that what we had seen so far had generated a lot of questions and opinions.

Our next venue was a series of panels on street life showing work of the Magnum group. It is always difficult to judge 'old' photographs when you are conditioned to expect the quality that can be achieved by the use of all the technology that is available today. Should we be critical of blown highlights and blocked shadows given the difficulty the photographers faced? Are we fair in expecting that the blacks should be black and not muddy brown? How much has suffered in the printing process and how much of the slightly strange colouring is the effect of the film used and the original development process? You can guess that I was massively under-impressed. I was asked what was my favourite - colour or black & white -  to which I replied black & white (actually it is monochrome which is different). I was at the time looking at a panel of black & white images and was asked to comment. I thought that they were not good and lacked the range of tones that we expect today. (Is this fair?). My questioner pointed to one image (for those of you that remember it was the picture of the gentleman who had dropped a case of wine from his bike) and said that he liked it because it was 'high contrast'. Of course it was because the white of the cartons had ben blown completely and the blacks were indeed very dark.

He then took me to a panel of images that were in colour and again asked me what I felt. I asked him whether I was commenting on the panel as a whole or on individual images. In the first instance it was the panel. I have been fortunate in that I have witnessed on a number of occasions a very ordinary panel of 10 or 15 images (RPS Licentiate or Associateship) transformed by very careful attention to the placement of each individual image. If you ever get the chance to attend an Assessment day held by the RPS it is well worth going solely to witness this change. In this case every 'no-no' of the panel world had been incorporated.

He then chose one image and asked me to comment. It was a night scene and allowing for the limitations of the equipment used was good but I felt no emotional reaction to it at all. Apparently my questioner felt intimidated by it particularly the young man leaning on the building at the junction of the two streets. Here was a significant difference between the experiences of the two people judging the photograph. I spent 35 years working in prisons and on occasions with some very scary people. I am not easily intimidated in real life and never by a photograph. Obviously my questioner's experience was totally different. Both of us were right in our own world. Perhaps the phrase "My photograph is how I see the world; how you react is how you feel the world".

It was noticeable that whoever had put the images together of the individual photographers felt that there was value in providing some deep meaning quotation by them. I think there is a missed business opportunity here. Someone should provide a book of quotes for all occasions so that the poor photographer is able to show that he is really a deep thinker with meaningful pronouncements to be made. For example (in addition to the one I just made up in the last paragraph):

"My photography flips the finger at convention"

"Photography is an intellectual activity felt by the viewer"

"Photographic truth is what I want it to be"


"I don't care what you think; I do care what you feel..."


"I condition your thinking by telling you what I was thinking"

I am left with the feeling that the nothing should come between the photograph and the viewer. Even a title has a significant impact on our responses.

We then moved on to that part of the exhibition that was displayed in the Museum/Art Gallery. Here I found that the lighting was designed and placed for the job so that the images had a chance to be seen in the way that the photographer intended. Certainly it had a significant impact upon the way I approached the images and what I felt about them. Still none were outstanding and some were very ordinary. There was also the chance to see a couple of short films about the work of particular photographers. They were interesting but not that enlightening as the commentary seemed to be rehearsed rather than a conversation between two people when the shots were actually being taken. I subscribe to Kelby Training and one of my favourite training videos is "A Day with Jay Meisel". The camera follows him around the streets of New York which has been his work area for some 43 years. Accompanied by Scott Kelby he is commenting on how he works and there is a naturalness about it including the expletives as he misses a shot because he is talking.

Did I get anything out of the whole day apart from sore feet. Yes!! Meeting fellow students, listening to their take on the images and on general issues around photography and the Course was invaluable. The photographs we saw were the common means of providing a focus for the discussions. I only wish that we had had more time at the lunch break in better surroundings. Was I impressed by the exhibition No!! I recognise that how I see images is very much affected by my previous experience. I was fortunate in belonging to a very good Camera Club (Norfolk Photography Group) where the exceptional seemed often to be the norm. Successful in a number of competitions both Regionally and Nationally the standard of the Club, even in internal competitions, was always high. I have also seen work by Groups such as the Wigan 10 and the Beyond Group where again the norm is exceptional. With the one exception none of the work I saw was of that standard.

Perhaps like painters you need to be dead or very old to benefit from the 'halo' effect where your work is accepted uncritically simply because it has your name on it. It is as though you are incapable of taking a 'bad' photograph.

The whole experience left me wondering whether there is any real value in going to look at someone else's photographs. If I want to take images of horse should I go and look at the work of Stubbs or should I go and look at horses. When we look at someone else's photographs we are looking at something that has been through someone else's mind. Whilst there is an argument for training in the technical aspects I am not so sure that we should be bound by what is seen to be right or wrong in the subject matter.