Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Nick Turpin’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

My father introduced me to photography when I was a teenager, still at school, he built a darkroom for me in our second toilet at home. I went on to specialise in photography on my foundation course for a year then moved to London to do a BA in Photography, Film and Video at The University of Westminster. In my second year I shot two black and white stories, one about children with Leukaemia living around the Nuclear Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield in Cumbria and one about the closure of the coal mine in the village of Aberfan in South Wales where a generation of children was lost in a landslide in 1966. I showed this work to the Picture Editor of the Independent Newspaper and ended up quitting my course to be a press photographer, I was 20 and had been taking pictures for just three and half years.

So my entry into professional photography was extremely rapid, I didn’t even really have time to think about what I wanted to do with the medium until much later. In a way I was working as a photographer daily for a number of years before I really discovered and came to understand it’s unique quality and power. It was when I eventually understood what photography could do that I left the Independent Newspaper in order to pursue it, that was seven years later.

‘Fallen Man, Paris, France 1967′ by Joel Meyerowitz is a photograph that I saw first in the college library and then later in the Street Photography book ‘Bystander’, this picture was enormously significant for me because it was the most extraordinary frozen moment of life and showed me how ‘revelatory’ the process of photographing could be. How could you even begin to set out to take a photograph like that? It was so exciting, I knew that was the kind of picture I wanted to make and I knew if I did, I would be working right in the sweet spot of the medium, utilising exactly what the camera does best.

Many lament the passing of film and criticise the digital camera but for me this is nostalgic nonsense, the digital camera is an enormous bonus for Street Photographers like myself who can pursue elusive moments endlessly with little real cost. I shoot a lot and I like to work that way, it allows for wonderful accidents and unique ‘untakeable’ photographs.

Continue reading →

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Emma Jay’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

I think I was about 6 or 7 years old when I started to be fascinated by photographs. There wasn’t any particular trigger, more that I was a “watcher” as a child. I would observe. I still do that. It wasn’t until I was at University that I took a serious interest – buying a good camera and experimenting in the dark room.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

I’m not so sure about this. One can alter an image digitally, but you still need an ‘eye’ for an image initially. Digital technology has made photography more accessible to people, but I don’t think it has made them all artists.

Continue reading →

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Tamara Bogolasky’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

I first got interested in photography when I was about 12 years old and I found my father’s old Canon AE-1 camera and I became obsessed with learning how to use it. I thought it was really cool to develop your own pictures and the darkroom became my favorite place.

I feel the trigger would be completely different now with most people learning from digital cameras and not even printing the pictures most of the time. I feel like now, people take pictures for the instant gratification and rarely go back and see what they took a month ago.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

Photography will always remain a mixture between art and science, no matter how technology advances, the principles remain the same and there is still science in the process. Besides, technology and science go hand in hand so maybe now photography has become a more complex mixture of art, science and technology.

Continue reading →

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Carlein van der Beek’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

My background is in painting, abstracts, and mixed media. At the art academy where I studied, I was also able to take photography classes. I loved it. It was analogue, of course: black and white, developing your own film, working in the dark room. I have always been purely visual and photography gave me the chance to make images when it was not possible to paint.

The trigger wouldn’t be any different now. As I don’t have space to paint right now, photography is the only way of expressing myself at the moment.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

I switched to digital only 10 years ago. Though I loved working in analogue, I wouldn’t want to go back anymore, or only for a special project. To me, Photoshopping or apping, is – in a way – a kind of chemistry, science as well.

But instead of working with your hands, you have to “see” the process in your head. It did change my way of taking pictures. As my background is mixed media pieces, I am used to “building” images. I did so with painting and now I am able to do so with photography as well. In a way I am painting with photos. So to me digital together with the Photoshopping and apping is a gift that enables me to work the way I want.

Continue reading →