2. Blog

20Aug18

Generally speaking, I would prefer to choose my own subject and will probably do so whenever permitted.

My first thought was to work on my variant on Square Mile, church congregations leaving after a service. This appeals as the variation in buildings used as churches is a significant social development. Years ago there were cathedrals, churches and chapels (in descending order of size and magnificence, ascending order of noise and enthusiasm). Nowadays, flourishing churches are to be found in ex cinemas, ex bingo halls and nondescript buildings on industrial estates. Examples of all of these are known locally. The addition of the congregation would also be interesting.
Eltham Parish Church

I tried it out yesterday and immediately ran into problems:
1. Cathedrals are relatively easy to photograph as they are usually set in grounds. Urban churches are not, they are surrounded by other buildings, or if not that, by trees. It is difficult to get a clear, representative shot.
2. The congregations do not co-operate. They leave slowly rather than en-masse, often, stopping for a chat or a tea at the end. There are some examples on the images page.
3. I also had concerns that the congregations might be suspicious of being photographed.
Conclusion: this is a nice idea but it will only work if I contact all of the churches and arrange to take the photographs. That is unlikely to happen.

I have not let go of the idea of churches, but perhaps a better starting point is the actual brief. This is a technical exercise and that is more important than the subject. It needs:
a) some medium, some wide angle;
b) large and small apertures to explore focus:
c) viewpoints;
d) the text includes, “small aperture and slow shutter speed” so some crowd movement would be possible.
e) use a “single format, either vertical or horizontal”. I will probably go for square.

I have in mind photographing a single church, possibly St Stephen Walbrook.


20Aug18

It was concluded early in the process that church congregations would not work for this assignment. 

congregation
Images timed at 11:15:23, 11:16:05, 11:16:51

11Sep

Given the requirement for cohesion in the set of images, this reinforces the idea of a single subject, such as a specific building. There is a OCA tutor-led walk this weekend at Canary Wharf: that would be sufficiently cohesive, but I will still photograph the church. It is perhaps unusual for a card-carrying humanist to take delight in photographing churches but that, as Forrest Gump might say, “is all I’ve got to say about that”.
1. Close focus, good background
2. Exterior of building – stitch might be needed
3. Try to access other buildings for high shot
4. Deep dof wide angle
5. Subject movement
6. People shot
7. Dome from below – viewpoint
All the same format, probably square. Break the rule for double width pano?
That list will more or less do irrespective of the subject.


24Sep18

A first outing to St Stephen Walbrook today. No great shots but a few to give a flavour of the place.

Figs. 1-8 
St Stephen Walbrook
24 Sep18

Fig. 1 The church is approached from this direction up a narrow pedestrian-only road flanked by tall, contemporary office blocks and no lens I possess would capture the whole building and its surroundings in a single shot and so this is a composite Brenizer stitch (Wikipedia) using Affinity software. The image would have benefited from less harsh lighting and so will be repeated on a subsequent visit.
Fig. 2 This is the dark and spectacularly ugly pulpit. It is difficult to get an uncluttered angle. 
Fig. 3 In the centre of the church is a massive, plain, (roughly) circular Henry Moore altar. The plain window in figs. 5 and 6 can be seen.
Fig. 4. Candles on the altar.
Fig 5. The windows are clear but not flat glass (the Victorian stained glass was replaced). The church is closely surrounded by modern office blocks, which are visible but distorted by the glass. On a bright day, the lighting differential is extreme. Fig 6. is a merge of five exposure-bracketed images.
Fig. 7 The church doubly reflected in a large window on the recently-opened Bloomberg building.
Fig. 8 The tower.
Fig 9. Another reflection of the dome and tower in the building behind and a demonstration of three eras of London buildings in close proximity.


25Sep – Priority adjustment

A faintly Damascene moment last night when I realised that the subject was at least as important as the brief. In the post below, I wrote, “This is a technical exercise and that is more important than the subject”. Last night I revised this and blogged it today,

My stated goal prior to the visit was to go through the list of shots for this assignment … and use this location as the factor that makes them cohere. Last night I had a better idea – document the church photographically (first priority) and make sure I cover the brief’s technical requirements while doing so (second priority). That is more satisfying.

Before the course, I would just have snapped the outstanding features that were readily accessible and given no thought to trying to explore and reveal the subject as a whole.

Before the next visit, consider the aspects and features of the subject that need to be photographed and then tie those up with the technical requirements of the brief.


4Oct18

A second visit today using just the Fuji X100S with a fixed 35mm (equiv.) lens. They were preparing for a harvest festival service and so it was busier than usual. There’s good and bad news – there are no restrictions on careful tripod use inside the church, but my requests at both the neighbouring office blocks to photograph the church from above were turned down – I haven’t tried the one at the back yet.

Figs.9 – 15
4th October 2018, Fuji X100S

This time the weather was too dull for the exterior shot – no harsh shadows, but a tedious sky. Fig. 9 image is an 11-image stitch which nearly works.

Fig. 10, the altar is nearly there – it includes some detail in the windows. The blurred bottom left corner is part of the pillar I rested the camera on, the effect was supposed to be aesthetic, but it is too out of focus and a crop will be needed. It’s a good snap, though.

I am always drawn to this rack of candles (fig. 11). On my first visit there was only one candle but today, perhaps because of the forthcoming service, there were more. There must be some opportunities for shallow focus here, but it is difficult to frame a shot as there is a lot of clutter on the left that I am trying to avoid. I will try again next time with a wider angle lens.

A wider lens than 35mm (equiv.) is also needed for the dome. I have tried another Brenizer stitch this time (fig. 12), but that is silly because the solution is the right lens. Exposure is difficult because there is a central section with windows that always burns out: whatever the weather it is always much brighter than the gloomy interior of the dome.

I am still looking for a decent, (relatively) uncluttered angle on the pulpit (figs. 13-14). Settling for an incomplete image of the major feature might be the answer, perhaps supplemented by a close-up detail. The latter would provide an additional lens characteristic towards the brief.

The shot of the window is strengthened by the inclusion of the small round window to lift the dark surround. Recompose next time.


25Sep – Priority adjustment

A faintly Damascene moment last night when I realised that the subject was at least as important as the brief. In the post below, I wrote, “This is a technical exercise and that is more important than the subject”. Last night I revised this and blogged it today,

My stated goal prior to the visit was to go through the list of shots for this assignment … and use this location as the factor that makes them cohere. Last night I had a better idea – document the church photographically (first priority) and make sure I cover the brief’s technical requirements while doing so (second priority). That is more satisfying.

Before the course, I would just have snapped the outstanding features that were readily accessible and given no thought to trying to explore and reveal the subject as a whole.

Before the next visit, consider the aspects and features of the subject that need to be photographed and then tie those up with the technical requirements of the brief.


19Oct18

The third visit today with the notional targets of “front exterior, dome interior and the mosaic in the can. And perhaps another altar”.

dome
Figs. 16 – 27 
19th October 2018, Lumix G80

Fig. 16, Dome interior. I started with multiple shots, quartering the dome in case that proved necessary. The whole is just about manageable with the G80 and the slightly wider 12-16 (24-120) zoom. The problem is the Cupola (I had to look that up) which always overexposes. Even with a +/- 2 stop bracket the cupola has little detail – to achieve fig. 16 I have had to take the cupola from the -2 image, process it separately and paste it back on to the rest of the dome and there’s still very little detail there. Next time I might try the same general bracketed shot and then spot meter (or manually override) just for the cupola separately and paste that in. A less sunny day might be better, but then the rest of he dome’s interior becomes very dark. But is is an improvement. I will nominate fig. 16 as the first image for submission as it is nearly good enough but can be improved. It therefore has been granted the accolade of a border.

Fig. 17, front exterior is not good enough for reasons explored below.

Figs. 18-20 The mosaic of St. Stephen. This is located beside the stairwell leading up into the church (see fig. 18). There are two obvious shots, the whole piece from the top of the stairs (fig. 19) or a detail (fig. 20). Both of these options are rather ordinary. I might see how close I can get next time to pursue the “viewpoint” aspect of the brief: there’s an old Pentax manual macro lens in a cupboard upstairs and an M43 adapter somewhere.

Fig. 21 I am still banging away at the altar and candles, this time with the 45mm (90mm) prime at f/1.8. I have taken several similar images on each of my visits. I am trying to capture the complex surface of the altar’s side and to include the candles for a pretty composition and defocus the far candle composition and emphasise the scale of this ?-ton beast. They are ok but not great and there is always something in the background to distract from the composition (although the lectern is less noticeable this time than in fig. 4 above). I will try again next time.

Fig.22 The pulpit in its full hideous grandeur. This is difficult to photograph effectively because one image cannot convey how large it is and at once how ugly it is. Fig. 14 from 4th October shows just the canopy and part of the dome above, perhaps the full dome shot could incorporate the canopy. Alternatively, the Moore altar is to the right of fig. 23: maybe the alter and the pulpit could be shot as one.

Fig. 23 The Font is famous and should be included as a subject but the cover is dark and drab. I had thought to use a detail of the font as an example of shallow focus but this will only be possible with a little fill-in flash if HDR (as used in fig. 24) is to be avoided. Shoot it again.

Fig 24 The Old altar is similarly dark and dull and strongly back-lit on a sunny day. It should only be included in a general view.

Fig. 25 Back to the (relatively) new Henry Moore altar is a thing of beauty with two principal aspects, size and detailed surface texture. The latter is explored in the ongoing candle closeups, the altar as a whole could be shown as part of a general internal view or in combination with the pulpit, as discussed under fig. 22. A person is needed in the shot for scale.

Figs. 26-27 These are general interior views. Both are panorama stitches and both have problems. They are incomplete and will need reshooting with a wider view to form whole images that can be cropped satisfactorily. The assignment brief enjoins that all the images should be in the same format and I have tentatively chosen square.


Exterior

I now have four shots of the exterior, three of which were taken for the course and one in March this year on my first visit to St Stephen.

Walbrook
Fig. 1 Sony RX100Mk3, 24th September
Fig. 9 Fuji X100S, 4th October 
Fig. 17 Lumix G80, 19th October 
Fig. X iPhone 7+, 15th March

Of the four, the first is the most effective at establishing the immediate environment, notably the Starbucks on the church’s corner, but the lighting is ruinously harsh. The other three views are from similar directions which give a clearer view of the dome, but the March image (which I cannot use) is the best because it has diffused lighting and a leafless tree. This will have to be redone from both angles with better lighting before a winner can be chosen.


First draft (19Oct)

After a a false start on church congregations, I decided at some point in August or September (see text log) to photograph St Stephen Walbrook which is a small, unusual and delightful church conveniently near to Cannon Street station. It was designed by Christoper Wren after the Fire of London, includes a dome which is said to be his “trial run” for St Paul’s and is now surrounded by modern office blocks. It contains a massive (approximately) circular altar by Henry Moore. Three visits have been made so far, 24th September, 4th October and today, 19th October.

The plan is to: 1. “fully document” the church in 6-10 images (that will be 10, then); 2. aim to produce a set suitable to illustrate a booklet; and 3. cover the assignment brief in terms of ” test[ing] out combinations of focal length, aperture and viewpoint for the set”. An approximate list of targets was drawn up on 5th October and has been tinkered with since:

  • front exterior
  • dome exterior – might be impossible
  • dome interior
  • general interior (might be double-size)
  • altar – quite a good shot in the bag
  • pulpit
  • organ – can be dropped
  • font
  • mosaic of St Stephen
  • altar

Today [19Oct] I produced the first shot I am content with – I still intend to improve on it, but it’s good enough to have a border added. It is discussed at some length in the image log.

One enduring image from the first visit is fig. 2: all the windows are plain (i.e. unstained), distorted glass, through which the surrounding office buildings can be seen, in this case the new Bloomsbury building. The light was just right for this image and the colours have not been so intense since: there is a better composition available that includes a small subsidiary window, but this image might make the final cut, even though it is not on the target list.


25Oct

If there is a good general interior shot that includes and gives context to the main pieces, that might justify concentrating on details of the pieces themselves (the pulpit canopy, one figure from the font) rather than a more formal and traditional documentation.


26Oct18

The intended targets for today were:front exterior reflected in Bloomsberg’s window dome interior (a) full view bracketed, (b) ditto exposing for the cupola, (c) dome plus the pulpit canopy, general interior, front and rear facing font detail fill in flash mosaic of St Stephen, macro detail altar – keep trying window – bracket and include small window above

And it went pretty well. 16 images have been uploaded for consideration and they will be broken down into groups. Most of the shots were taken with the new 7-14mm (14-28mm equivalent) wide-angle zoom. It is a pleasure to use.

Exterior

St Stephen
Figs. 28-33 
26th October 2018, Lumix G80

Fig. 28 see the post above on exterior shots. The dull lighting was better than the previous harsh lighting, but some sky detail would have helped. Again, there is a better shot from a position to the left when the tree has shed its leaves.

Figs. 29-30 One of the specific targets for the day was the reflection of the church facade in the large Bloomberg window, as first seen on 24 September. It was learned that it is not possible to capture all of the church while simultaneously getting all of the window. It is also not possible to spend too long on this shot (which is next to the main entrance) without attracting the attention of security guards who, quite reasonably, think I am trying to photograph the inside of the building through the window. This shot will probably have to be dropped from the final selection.

Figs. 31-32 show the Starbucks in the separate building which adjoins the south-west corner of the church. It would be desirable to show the coffee shop in the front exterior shot as an example of commerce encroaching on heritage, but is, as seems likely, there is only space for one such shot, it is more likely to be from the north-west side as that gives a clearer view of the architecture.

Fig. 33, I spent some time chatting with the verger on this visit, mostly about access to the tower to photograph the dome exterior (answer – not possible). He told me about a raised courtyard behind the church which does give a view of the dome and the cupola and also emphasises the nearness of the office buildings. A variant on this shot is likely to be included in the final selection, again it will be improved with fewer leaves and a more interesting sky.


Dome

St Stephen
Figs. 34-37 
26th October 2018, Lumix G80

Figs. 34-36 The new wide-angle lens makes short work of the dome as a single shot but, inevitably, exposure is still an issue. Even on an overcast day, the light in the cupola obliterates any detail. Fig. 35 is exposed for the spot-meter setting centered on the cupola and even then it is over-exposed. Nevertheless, it is an improvement and the cupola from fig. 35 (1/125 sec; f/8; ISO 800) had been superimposed on fig. 34 (1/8 sec; f/8; ISO 800) to give fig.35. This needs to be shot with a tripod and even greater exposure variations applied.

Fig. 37 The possibility of including the pulpit canopy in the dome shot (thereby not devoting one of the 10 slots to such an ugly fixture) was considered (see 18th October). Although this would be possible with bracketing as regards exposure, this has been rejected on aesthetic grounds. A single shot incorporating the altar and pulpit might be a solution, see fig. 40 below.


General

St Stephen
Figs. 38-40 
26th October 2018, Lumix G80

Figs. 38-40 a general interior shot is needed to establish the unusual design, layout and contents of the church, not to mention its spectacular grandeur. The essential choices are West-East (fig. 38) or East-West (fig. 39). The former is the likely choice as the church entrance allows a wider shot.

Fig. 40 is the first attempt take the Henry Moore altar and the pulpit in one shot. this was taken with the wide angle zoom as this lens was used for all the interior shots on the day. Taking the shot with a longer lens from a more distant viewpoint will allow a larger image of the pulpit. Note, the “original altar” is that large piece at the “back” of the church in figs. 38 and 40: more dark wood.


Other

St Stephen
Figs. 41-43 
26th October 2018, Lumix G80

Fig. 41 The verger lifted the (dark wood) cover on the font to allow a photograph. It is difficult from any direction to show the whole font without a cluttered background. it is not an exciting piece. I am still inclined to photograph a detail of the cover as a shallow focus shot, as in fig. 23, 19th October. This is still on the to-do list.

Fig. 42 The best window shot is still the brightest day, 24th September.

Fig. 43 The plan to shoot a detail of the mosaic with an old macro lens did not work because the position on the stairs does not allow a close enough approach. I am still intending to show a detail, but possibly try a “head shot” with a telephoto next time.


28Oct

The structure of these initial pages into submission / images / text is breaking down somewhat as today’s analysis has been written on the submissions page. The conclusion will be copied below for preservation:

The new list, then, is:

  • 1. front exterior – fig. 3
  • 2. dome exterior – fig. 4
  • 3. dome interior – fig. 5
  • 4. general interior – to be done
  • 5. altar and pulpit – to be done
  • 6. altar detail – fig. 6
  • 7. font detail – to be done
  • 8. mosaic detail – to be done
  • 9. window – fig. 2
  • 10. one spare

In terms of the brief, which calls for “combinations of focal length, aperture and viewpoint”, a variety of focal lengths and viewpoints are already in play, shallow DoF is included but a demonstration of deep DoF is needed.


22Nov18

As noted in the blog, it was a dull day, so no sky interest and the leaves haven’t fallen off the trees yet. The targets set for the remaining trips were:general interior altar and pulpit font detail mosaic detail one spare

Font detail

Font
Figs. 44-45 
22nd November 2018, Fuji X100S

These were the first images taken. The shots of 19th October (fig. 23) established that fill-in flash would be needed and the Fuji is best suited for this. Flash is not favoured within the church and so only a couple of shots were taken when no-one was around. It took an HDR merge to produce the earlier shot (which has a prettier background) but the Fuji accomplished this admirably with one shot on the macro setting. Fig 44 is the better composition but fig. 45 is better focused. I will probably go with fig. 44.

Mosaic detail

Mosaic
Fig. 46-47
22nd November 2018, Lumix G80

Four shots were taken of the head within the mosaic, all at slightly different angles, of which fig. 46 is the pick. Fig. 47, a close-up, does not work because of the excessive perspective distortion and the lack of contextual information. Distortion is inevitable given its positioning, fairly high on an entrance wall (see figs. 18-20, 19th October) and fig. 46 this gives the best perspective of the set. It is a straight choice between this “head shot” and one showing the whole piece, fig. 19 or fig. 43 from 26th October.

Altar and Pulpit

Altar and Pulpit
Figs. 48-50 
22nd November 2018, Lumix G80

The altar is the most beautiful piece in the building and the pulpit the ugliest and so this image, combining the two, is rather pleasing. The camera was resting in slightly varying positions on one of the pillar ledges as the exposures were 0.4, 0.3 and 0.12 seconds. It is unfortunate that the church is cluttered with temporary furniture. It is difficult to choose which image to use: 
fig. 50 shows the subjects at their largest but the pillar on the left is badly placed. 
fig. 49 is a better arrangement of pillars and lights, but at the price of a smaller image of the main subjects.
fig. 48 is better again, with more window detail, but the subjects smaller still and pews in the foreground.

General interior

General
Figs. 51-54 
22nd November 2018, Lumix G80

An interesting general view remains elusive. Figs. 52-54 are spoiled by the table in the foreground, while fig. 51 is enhanced by the piano, that makes it the pick of this group. It is very similar to fig. 39 from 26th October.

Window

Not on the list for a reshoot, but always interesting to retry, this was the first truly satisfying shot on 24 September.

Window
Figs. 55-57 
22nd November 2018, Fuji X100S (figs. 55-56) Lumix G80 (fig. 57)

Fig. 56 is a 3-image HDR composite including fig. 55 as the darkest. he image taken on 26th September remains the most colourful and therefore the image of choice, largely because of the heavy sunlight on that day.

Dome

I now have several similar, quite competent images of the dome with an overexposed cupola (see also 26th October). The purchase of the wide angle zoom was a good idea. Just chose one.

Dome
Figs. 58-60 
22nd November 2018, Lumix G80

Exterior, front and rear

Previous versions of the front are explored in earlier enries. The tree is stubbornly refusing to shed its leaves and it was a dull day. I tried numerous viewpoints with the wide angle zoom and they are shown on this contact sheet. The aim is to get a clear idea of the structure of the church (so, including the down and the tower) and also a sense of its location, showing the surrounding office buildings. P1040654 works quite well, but fig. 9 above remains the best, or fig. 17 retaken when the tree has lost its leaves.

Regarding the rear, this was only “discovered” on the 26th October visit.  Fig. 33 is quite adequate with a more interesting sky a preferred option. All of the images are fairly similar, with different amounts of tree and leaf. The first of these images, P1040575 is just favoured as the dome is most prominent. Again, a more interesting sky would improve the shot.

Front
Figs. 61-64 
22nd November 2018, Lumix G80, contact sheets and chosen images

Reflections

This is a strong candidate for the spare tenth image. It was mentioned above that there was, unusually, a grand piano in the church. While the small choir was rehearsing for a lunchtime recital, they were photographed with the windows and lights reflecting in the piano’s closed lid. The camera was placed on the piano (on my hat to prevent scratches) to maximise the reflection and to add stability: the exposures in the chosen images were 1/9th and 1/10th seconds.
The camera was focused. on the choir before panning right to take the shot: the lens was set at f/2.8 to minimise the shutter speed.

Most of the images were shot using Fuji monochrome and these images are preferred (although this one needs straightening), but, if included, the colour version will used for consistency. The X100S offers “film simulation bracketing” and I might use this as a default in future.

Reflections
Figs. 65-67 
22nd November 2018, Fuji X100S

Artist

Towards the end of my visit, an artist arrived and started sketching the altar. I tried to take an image that incorporate, the drawing, the artist and the altar, but this was not possible in square format (at least, while not intruding in the artist’s space) so this cannot be included.

Artist
Figs. 68-69 
22nd November 2018, Fuji X100S

Summary

Some good new shots, some not as good as previous shots. Probably enough to finish the project with one final visit possible next week.


26Nov18

The final visit was fun, but nothing of new consequence was achieved.

altar
Figs. 70-74 
26th November 2018, Lumix G80

The mosaic might be a marginal improvement on the current image. There is a decision to be made on which candles on the altar to go with. And is this an improvement on the dome exterior? the sky has not improved and there are fewer leaves.


Submission text, first draft 28Nov18

Introduction
If an assignment has the option for “a subject of your own choosing” (REF) it is likely that I will take it. During the first assignment, I had thought of photographing church congregations as they left on Sunday mornings as this would illustrate the interesting variety of local religious establishments, but this was abandoned after the first run when it was discovered that they leave very gradually and not en masse (I was also a little concerned that some might be suspicious or disapproving of my presence). Staying with the religious theme, I decided to photograph my favourite church, St Stephen Walbrook which is conveniently accessible. My approach changed over the seven visits I made. At first my main intention was to concentrate on the technical requirements of the assignment and , “test out combinations of focal length, aperture and viewpoint” (REF); then I veered towards documenting the church as though for an article or pamphlet, taking my lead from an unillustrated A4 handout (REF); by the end it was a combination of the two, being subject-driven but always aware of the brief.
To set the context, the church is a small church with an unconventional layout, conveniently near to Cannon Street station. It was designed by Christopher Wren after the Fire of London, includes a dome which is said to be his “trial run” for St Paul’s and is now surrounded by modern office blocks. It contains a massive 8-ton (approximately) circular marble altar by Henry Moore.

247 words

Description
In terms of the brief, there are focal lengths from (35mm equivalent) 16mm to 106mm; apertures from f/1.7 to f/8; (and, incidentally, shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 0.3 sec); a variety of viewpoints has been used, but the dome exterior from above proved impossible. As regards “[using] the exercises from Part Two as a starting point”, there’s not much in the way of distortion (although anything using the wide zoom is arguably distorted, the dome and general interior do not have anything in the close foreground to manifest heavy distortion).There are examples of shallow depth of field, particularly image 5 where this was the specific goal and most of the images have appropriate depth of field with middle- and background detail, but there is no image with a foreground subject at f/22 and hyperfocal focusing because no such image made the final cut.
143 words

Evaluation
I believe the set makes a creditable effort in illustrating the main features of the church (as listed in their handout) while being visually interesting and exploring aspects of the lenses available.
The most difficult shot to achieve was the general interior view (Fig. 4) in which I try to illustrate that the building is (more-or-less) square, is broken up by the large, intrusive pillars that support the dome, and is dominated by the massive, central Henry Moore altar.
The dome interior was impossible to accommodate until I bought a new lens, whereupon this (Fig. 6) and the general interior become far easier to achieve without image stitching. Overexposure of the central cupola was always a problem.
I was disappointed not to get an exterior shot of the dome from above. The church is surrounded by office blocks but none would allow me access to an upper floor window: the church tower is too unsafe to allow access even to the church warden (who promised to send me some photographs he had taken several years ago but did not). Fig. 2, taken in the small churchyard is a pleasant substitute.
Perhaps the most important shot is Fig. 7 which shows the finest piece in the building, the Moore altar and also (in the background) the enormous and spectacularly ugly dark-wood pulpit.
Figs. 9 and 10 were serendipitous: the nearby Bloomberg building “staining” the plain glass window and the reflections on the lid of a grand piano which was only in place for one of the visits.
The mosaic of St. Stephen is not an interesting subject and it is inconveniently located in the entry stairwell but as an artifact is important to the church.
Both exterior shots can be improved when the leaves have fallen off the trees.
The images taken and the selection process are discussed in some detail on the web site (REF).

278 words
Part Two
There is nothing in particular I wish to emphasise from Part 2 of the course. My comments on the course text and my responses to the exercises are at http://baphot.co.uk/pages/eyv_part_2.php , making a rather long and unwieldy web page. I have separated the course text and the exercises for Part 3 to improve the navigation.          
55 words

Reflection
This will be done in more detail on the web site to meet the word count limits for this document.
Technical Skills – I feel that I have used the equipment reasonably well to illustrate my subject. I am not aware of anything I set out to show that has failed on technical grounds. The major learning point for this exercise was previously I have just photographed what is easily accessible and available and ignored the rest. Here I consciously tried to show “all” of the church and in doing so had to make compromises because the subjects are fixed, the background always cluttered and the interior lighting always difficult (mostly dark with intrusive highlights).
Quality – The coherence of the set is inherent in the subject and so, unlike the first assignment, this largely  takes care of itself. I struggled with deciding the order in which to show the photographs. The contact sheets are shown on the web site. http://baphot.co.uk/pages/asg_2_contacts.php
Creativity – I do not regard the set as particularly creative, but as my intention was essentially documentary, this is not a particular failure.
Context – I do not really understand this component yet and note that it is presented later on in this course and more particularly in Year 2.

208 words

247 + 143 + 278 + 55 + 208 = 931


Submission text, second draft 30Nov18

Introduction
If an assignment has the option for “a subject of your own choosing” (Bloomfield, 2017, p.52) it is likely that I will take it. During the first assignment, I had thought of photographing church congregations as they left on Sunday mornings as this would illustrate the interesting variety of local religious establishments, but this was abandoned after the first run when it was discovered that they leave very gradually and not en masse (I was also a little concerned that some might be suspicious or disapproving of being photographed). Staying with the religious theme, I decided to photograph a church, St Stephen Walbrook which is conveniently accessible. My approach changed over the seven visits I made. At first my intention was to concentrate on the technical requirements of the assignment and, “test out combinations of focal length, aperture and viewpoint” (Bloomfield, 2017, p.52); then I veered towards documenting the church as though for an article or pamphlet, taking my lead from an unillustrated A4 handout (Meyer, n.d.); by the end it was a combination of the two, being subject-driven but aware of the brief.
To set the context, St. Stephen Walbrook is a small church with an unconventional layout, conveniently near to Cannon Street station. It was designed by Christopher Wren after the Fire of London, includes a dome which is said to be his “trial run” for St Paul’s and is now surrounded by modern office blocks. It contains a massive 8-ton (approximately) circular marble altar by Henry Moore.

251 words

Description
In terms of the brief, there are focal lengths from (35mm equivalent) 16mm to 106mm; apertures from f/1.7 to f/8; (and, incidentally, shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 0.3 sec); a variety of viewpoints has been used, but the dome exterior from above proved impossible. As regards “[using] the exercises from Part Two as a starting point” (Bloomfield, 2017, p.52), there is little lens distortion (although anything using the wide zoom is arguably distorted, the dome and general interior do not have any close foreground to manifest heavy distortion). There are examples of shallow depth of field, particularly image 5 where this was the specific goal and most of the images have appropriate depth of field with middle- and background detail, but there is no image with a foreground subject at f/22 and hyperfocal focusing because no such image made the final cut.
In terms of processing, I experienced a late epiphany, attending a volunteers’ briefing session for ArtUK’s sculpture photography project. They require submissions in RAW with minimal processing (straighten and correct clipping) and I reprocessed all my chosen images in the last three days before submission to work from RAW. There are some extremes of dynamic range for the indoor shots that required bracketing, but the amount of post-processing has diminished significantly.
214 words

Evaluation
I believe the set makes a creditable effort in illustrating the main features of the church (as listed in their handout) while being visually interesting and exploring aspects of the lenses available.
The most difficult shot to achieve was the general interior view (Fig. 4) in which I try to illustrate that the building is (more-or-less) square, is broken up by the large, intrusive pillars that support the dome, and is dominated by the massive, central Henry Moore altar.
The dome interior was impossible to accommodate until I bought a new lens, whereupon this (Fig. 6) and the general interior become far easier to achieve without image stitching. Overexposure of the central cupola was always a problem.
I was disappointed not to get an exterior shot of the dome from above. The church is surrounded by office blocks but none would allow me access to an upper floor window: the church tower is too unsafe to allow access even to the church warden (who promised to send me some photographs he had taken several years ago but did not). Fig. 2, taken in the small churchyard is a pleasant substitute.
Perhaps the most important shot is Fig. 7 which shows the finest piece in the building, the Moore altar and also (in the background) the enormous and spectacularly ugly dark-wood pulpit. The altar inevitably appears in many of the interior shots and its colour variation colour variation between images has been noted but not addressed successfully.
Figs. 9 and 10 were serendipitous: the nearby Bloomberg building “staining” the plain glass window and the reflections on the lid of a grand piano which was only in place for one of the visits.
The mosaic of St. Stephen (fig. 3) is a mundane subject and it is inconveniently located in the entry stairwell but as an artifact it is important to the church.
Both exterior shots can be improved when the leaves have fallen off the trees.
The images taken and the selection process are discussed in some detail on the web site (Blackburn, 2018a).
343 words
Part Two
There is nothing in particular I wish to refer to from Part 2 of the course, but any comments and advice would be welcome. My comments on the course text and my responses to the exercises are on the web site (Blackburn, 2018b), making a rather long and unwieldy web page. I am separating the course text and the exercises for Part 3 to improve the navigation.  
69 words

Reflection
This will be done in more detail on the web site to meet the word count limits for this document.
Technical Skills – I feel that I have used the equipment reasonably well to illustrate my subject. I am not aware of anything I set out to show that has failed on technical grounds. The major learning point for this exercise was that previously I have just photographed what is easily accessible and available and ignored the rest. Here I consciously tried to show “all” of the church and in doing so had to make compromises because the subjects are fixed, the background always cluttered and the interior lighting always difficult (mostly dark with intrusive highlights). My late change of working method has already been noted.
Quality – The coherence of the set is inherent in the subject and so, unlike the first assignment, this largely takes care of itself. I struggled with deciding the order in which to show the photographs. The contact sheets are shown on the web site (Blackburn, 2018c).
Creativity – I do not regard the set as particularly creative, but as my intention was essentially documentary, this is not a particular failure.
Context – I do not really understand this component yet and note that it is presented later on in this course and more particularly in Year 2.

221 words

251 + 214 + 343 + 69 + 221 = 1098 words

References
Blackburn, N. (2018a) EyV: Assignment 2, Collecting – Images [online]. Available from: http://baphot.co.uk/pages/asg_2_images.php [Accessed 30 November 2018]
Blackburn, N. (2018b) EyV: Assignment 2, Collecting – Images [online]. Available from: http://baphot.co.uk/pages/eyv_part_2.php [Accessed 30 November 2018]
Blackburn, N. (2018c) EyV: Assignment 2, Collecting – Images [online]. Available from: http://baphot.co.uk/pages/asg_2_contacts.php [Accessed 30 November 2018]
Bloomfield, R. (2014) Expressing your vision. Updated 2017. Barnsley: Open College of the Arts
Meyer, H. (n.d.) A thousand years of the Church of St. Stephen Walbrook. s.l.:s.n.

Questions on referencing:
1. Bloomfield – how should “Copyright OCA 2014; Updated 2017” be shown?