This is another photograph where I am faced with a dilemma. The composition is better horizontally flipped – the tree and the lamppost are stronger, more assertive and menacing. Normally I would have no hesitation in presenting a flipped image, but in this one the van’s registration plate gives the game away.
I appreciate that some, maybe many, viewers will feel cheated by the flipped version – but I have ultimately gone for what looks better – preferring to get the overall feel of the photo right, and have it spoiled by a minor detail, to getting a small detail right whilst diminishing the feel of the photograph.
Here are four more recent prints, all from quite old negatives, one from almost seventeen years ago!
I think I should apologise for (or at least explain) the self-portrait. It’s not the kind of photograph that wins many points in camera-club competitions. It is a precursor to the Distant-Figure self-portraits. At the time I was experimenting with an infrared remote-release. It turned out that it had a much shorter carrying distance than my feet, and it seduced me into a controlled, tripod-based, approach which made the results too predictable.
I like this photograph, or rather it interests me, because
Visitors to my blog may have noticed that the titles I give my photographs all follow the same format: where the photograph was taken followed by when it was taken. In this essay I sketch out the thinking behind this policy, and consider the title’s function.
Maybe we can address these questions through an experiment in which a variety of titling protocols are applied to the same photograph.
The image at the top of this page has no title whatsoever. In many contexts the lack of a title is not noticeable. But whenever one engages deeply with an image one inevitably