The rooftop of the EU: At the top of the Shard

At the beginning of December, I learned via Twitter that the owners of the Shard, the EU's tallest building which has recently being completed, had donated 4000 tickets to access The View from the Shard, the viewing galleries on the 68th and 72nd floors of the giant to Southwark residents. All we had to do was go to our local library with proof of residence and collect our tickets.

I did and this Saturday, a week before the viewing galleries open to the public, I got to admire the views over London. Luckily, after a week of snow, the weather had turn to a more sunny disposition and we were treated to the extra spectacle of window cleaners abseiling the southern side of the building and playing to the gallery.

As can be expected the views over London are unparalleled and my worry, based on the pictures I had seen so far, that we may end up being too high and therefore at the wrong angle were unfounded.

From the entrance on Joiner Street, we queued to have our bags scanned and our picture taken in front of a green screen before taking a lift to the 32nd floor where we got on a second lift to the 67th floor. The lifts, travelling at 6m per second, are very fast and very smooth.

From the 67th floor, we are free to wander to the floors above; the windows directly opposite the lift doors are partially blocked with images of clouds to avoid a bottle neck effect.

An hour and half and several dozen pictures later we made our way back to the ground where we were offered the possility to purchase the picture taken on the way in superimposed on a view of the city from the top. Prices seem to vary according to the options available by £20 seems to be what people are being asked for this.

There is a small souvenir shop on the 67th floor and a bigger one on the ground floor. It's quite clear that the owners are gearing up to milk the opportunity as much as possible. Tickets are £25 if you book online, £30 if you book in person and £100 if you book on the day!

For those not willing to pay so much another option may soon become available on the 31st floor, where the lobby of a posh restaurant will offer viewing opportunities. They plan on enforcing a cover charge to deter tourists but it may still be cheaper.

Otherwise the staff were very friendly (though they may get tired very quickly in repeating the same things all the time) and it's good that the visit does not seem to be time limited.

Of course I brought my camera with me. My images can be viewed on flickr here.

Bye Bye Instagram

Last night, The news that Instagram has decided to assume ownership of the content generated by its users with the view of possibly selling it on and make money from it spread through Facebook and Twitter like wild fire.

The change to the terms of use of the popular instant photography app took place very discreetly (if one excepts the online backlash already brewing). As a user I wasn't even aware that any change had occurred. And there is no option to opt out other than by deleting your account. We have kindly been given a month's notice to decide.

Instagram, which is now owned by Facebook, implementing a strategy familiar to its new parent company, is, it seems, already backpedaling, telling the BBC that "the updated policy will not change how it handles photo ownership or who is able to see a user's pictures". It's apparently all to do with better Facebook integration.

As far as I am concerned the damage is done, though, and I have decided to leave the app, as shown by my last post, reproduced above.

I started using the app at the end of March this year, out of curiosity rather than from a real urge to do so. To my surprise I did enjoy the experience and have found it somehow liberating. I got to experiment with the square format which I have grown to like and though I tend to use filters with moderation, they do sometimes help create some interesting effects.

In those eight months or so, I have gathered 252 followers, followed 43 people and uploaded 435 images.

Due to my enjoyment of the medium, I was a little reluctant to delete my account but, as luck would have it, Flickr, where I've had a paying account for several years, just happened to release its new app this week. It looks very good indeed and it includes Instagram-like functions (social media sharing, filters). This finally swayed me.

As one of my contact pointed out, deleting my account without really knowing how the new ToS would be implemented could appear to be a knee-jerk reaction. After all, Instagram may not actually plan to sell our images (most of which are probably not salable anyway) and even if they did, the chances of my own images being chosen are pretty slim.

However, beyond the facts that Instagram has recently been plagued by a lot of spam, that it is not really easy to see your images outside the app (ie online), and that I rather do like the idea of having all my images in the same place, there is a matter of principle at hand here.

For a company to lure people to entrust it with their images and at some point turn around and say that from now on that company will own those images and make money out of them is simply astounding and should not be allowed to happen unchallenged.

Things may have been different if that transfer of ownership had always been there or if they were offering to share the proceed of the potential sales. As it is they would be profiteering from the vision of other people without offering any real compensation.

This is simply not right and this is why I am saying goodbye to Instagram and I hope many others will do the same.

Update (18/12/12 - 22:39): Instagram's co-founder has released a statement explaining that it was all a big misunderstanding. Fair enough. For it's too late though, I won't come back. Because of it's limitations I don't feel a particularly strong brand loyalty to Instagram, certainly not as strong as the one I feel for flickr, which is now offering what I was getting from Instagram without any worry of future cock-ups. So Flickr, it is. It's good that content producers have been perceived to win though in this story. That should make other company think a bit harder before make similar moves in the future. fingers crossed.

Photoshoot - Ross

During the summer I stumbled on a photographic exhibition installed over the 21 floors of an empty office block in Vauxhall. I have to admit I didn't pay much attention to the exhibition so focused was I on the fabulous views of London I had been given access to. I was lucky to have my camera with me, and of course I took loads of pictures.

Having visited the website of the exhibition's organisers, I had discovered that they would be back with a different set of images in December and so, thinking this was too good an opportunity to miss, and despite not knowing if the set up would be similar, I decided to take the chance and bring a model with me for a spot of guerrilla photography.

Ross had never modelled before and was introduced to me by Mark, one of my previous victims, but he took to it like a fish to water. He's even asked for more, so watch this space.

We did get access to the top floor and the views, and it was a beautiful, light day out there, but we couldn't get to the roof. There were also issues with lighting. Knowing This could be a problem, I had brought parts of my lighting kit. Unfortunately, power had been cut off in most of the building and none of the plugs seemed to work. While I did manage to get some decent shots, the experience didn't completely fulfill my expectations. Something not uncommon in life, I hear...

The images can be viewed on Flickr, here.

But is it art: A visit to the Klein + Moriyama exhibition at Tate Modern

This afternoon, thanks to a friend's generosity, I went to see the William Klein + Daido Moriyama exhibition currently being shown at Tate Modern. As the photographer I am striving to become, I found what I saw very thought provoking. 

I was totally ignorant of either artist before entering the rooms of the exhibition and I only recognised one image of all those that where on display, yet I didn't find myself in totally unfamiliar territory.

Perhaps due to the influence that those two photographers have had on our modern visual landscape, I found myself pointing out the Instagram-like qualities of several decade-old pictures. I was also pleasantly surprised to look at images, the sisters of which, by virtue of their subjects and compositions, adorn my flickr photostream.

I am currently at a point where, trying to take a more serious approach to photography, I am strongly questioning the quality of my output. A few of my pictures are reasonably good but I feel that the vast majority are mediocre at best. I am confident of my eye for composition but I feel let down by the technical side of things much too often.

I approached today's visit as a means to further my reflection on my own work by looking at that of recognised fellow practitioners of the art (however pompous that sounds).

It didn't really help.

It was amusing to see books on the rules of photography on sales at the end of the exhibition when it is evident that for Klein and Moriyama rules were made to be broken. I can't help but wonder however if they went too far in that direction.

For me, too many of the works on display were blurred, too grainy, and not particularly well composed. I can certainly admit to regularly deleting many of those shots from my own camera. Perhaps this is where I am going wrong!

A random selection of Moriyama's 1972 work (Farewell Photography) only slightly made more unclear by my cameraphone.

This display of what seemed shoddy photographic work, nothing more than bad snapshots, felt at times like disrespect toward the viewer and toward other photographers who work hard to add technical quality to the artistic merit of their work. 

Hanging next to those images were also beautifully composed, razor-sharp shots; testaments to the artists' technical abilities. This was particularly striking in Moriyama's 1980s close ups, towards the end of the exhibition.

That the artists released those images proves that they were happy with how they looked and what they expressed but I was led to question what makes a "good image"; the eternal "my five year old could do just as well" dilemma. If it is at all possible to define one, which yard-stick can we use to measure the quality of a photograph? 

Has it to do with the technical qualities of the image; how sharp and well-lit it is? Has it to do solely with the subject? Has it to do with the artist's creative decision only ("this is a good picture" and so it is)? Is it a mixture of all this?

Or has it to do with the fame of artist? The cynic in me can't help but wonder how the public would consider the same shots if they weren't on display in one of the world's major art galleries, claimed by a recognised photographer.

The viewing figures of my more unorthodox output on flickr (which doesn't resemble what I say today), seem to indicate that such images generally elicit little interest.

Of course much of art's appreciation is highly subjective but it is one thing for an artist to decide that one particular piece is of value, and it is quite another to convince other people that this is the case and to build the type of consensus (however limited) enjoyed by renowned artists. 

Most probably it is only a measure of my own limitations that I failed to see merit in so many images displayed in that show.

Unfortunately, there were no answers along with all those questions I stumbled upon today and I am possibly even more confused than I was before. I am going to have to carry on looking for them and hopefully have fun creating interesting images in the process...

Photoshoot - Bruno

Firmly blaming the Gay Photographers Network (GPN), I recently took the step of buying a lighting kit to be able to do my own studio work at home. The kit includes three lights and ancillary paraphernalia (softboxes, barn doors, umbrellas, trigger, gels). I'll probably have to spend more money on some sort of background. The white sheet I am currently using is not ideal.

This week, after doing a few test on myself and other similarly boring objects, I had my first session with a live model.

Bruno is a fellow photographer I met at the last GPN meeting. During that meeting, I was intrigued by the way the light had been playing with his features, in a way similar to the picture above, so when he mentioned that he'd be willing to let me shoot him, I jump at the opportunity.

Aside from the image above I had another concept in mind for him: wrapping part of my background around his head. I am not totally happy with the result but Bruno's lovely smile makes up for the other deficiencies of those images. After that we just tried a few things without anything particular in mind.

I had a third idea which we didn't get to work on, so expect to see more of him in the future.

The images can be viewed on Flickr, here.

Measured religious reactions to marriage equality in France

Below is a non-edited version of my first comment piece for Gay Star News.

Just like in the UK, marriage equality features high up on the news agenda in France. And like in the UK, the most vocal voices against equality come from the right and usually with a religious flavoring.

From the fringes of the main conservative party, Sarkozy's UMP, there have been various mentions of paedophilia, incest or zoophilia as possible consequences of a change in the law. Brigitte Barèges, Christian Vanneste and François Lebel are the main culprits here.

A handful of Mayors have warned that they would disobey the law if it passes, and refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Christine Boutin, who had already distinguished herself by the virulence of her homophobia during the parliamentary debates on PACS in 1999, has called for a referendum on the subject.

So far so sadly familiar.

Religious leaders have, of course, also made themselves heard, none more vocally than the Catholic Archbishop of Lyon, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, who also went for paedophilia and incest.

Interestingly though, as the Chief Rabbi publishes a 25 page essay declaring his opposition to extending marriage and adoption rights to same-sex couples, the rhetoric used by religious leaders seems much more measured than that used in the UK.

This may be due to the well-estabished secular tradition of the country that the arguments presented by the religious to oppose le mariage pour tous (marriage for all) seem to be contained within fairly legitimate and almost reasonable limits.

They seem to be more genuinely against a change in the definition of marriage than we find them in the UK where words usually quickly turn into a homophobic rants or hysterical protestations of persecution.

Even the Catholic Conference of French Bishops, who's leader has declare the idea a "mistake" and ordered a prayer to be read in all churches during a major festival in August this year, seems willing to consider some form of solemnised unions for same-sex couples that would go beyond PACS, as long as it's not called marriage.

The Chief Rabbi acknowledges that it is not possible to negate the reality of same-sex couples and refuses to judge gay people, placing homophobic hate crimes on the same level as racism and anti-semitism. He just can't see marriage being open to non-heterosexual couples for a series of religious and cultural reasons.

Muslims leaders declare themselves mildly "opposed" to the idea for, it seems, no other reason than that Islam forbids it. Again we are very far from the vitriolic statements we have heard here in the UK.

Because of the way marriage celebrations are arranged by the law, British religious organisations feel a keen sense of ownership on the institution. In France, where only civil ceremonies at the Town Hall have legal value (religious ceremonies are nothing but an optional extra), religious groups can not claim marriage for themselves so easily. This may explain the more restrained approached we observe.

Yet it seems that the temptation is still too difficult to resist and religious leaders just can't help sharing their views on the subject with the world.

The tendency, however, seems to be to forget that the propositions only affect civil marriage (it is the same in the UK). As such they have nothing to do with religion. Further more, all those arguments we hear from the French religious only hold if taken in the context of the faith in which they are expressed.

While religious leaders are, of course, welcome to express their views, they shouldn't expect to be given too much credit by a government who seems thankfully determined to press on with the bill and move away for the segregationist regime those people want to perpetuate so dearly.

Separate but equal is, emphatically, not equal.

Equal marriage, the Nazis and Lord Carey's irony bypass [UPDATED]

UPDATE: Since I wrote and published this, I have been made aware of the fact that things may not be quite as they have been reported in the press (and I saw several reports before taking to my keyboard). It's seems that Carey didn't quite say what everyone says he did. Of course much of what I argue below is still relevant but some of it is now also wrong. An amended version of the post reflecting the above has been published in PinkNews.

Yesterday during a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party Conference, a 1000 or so Tory militants gathered to hear speakers vituperate against marriage equality, thus showing the world that, ten years on, Teresa May's Nasty Party is alive and well.

Aside from David Burrowes, the backbench MP for Enfield Southgate, and former MP Ann Widdecombe, Lord Carey was at hand to share his views on the subject. And the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the once leader of the established Church of this country, could not resist getting on his favourite hobby-horse: bemoaning how British Christians are being persecuted.

Going much further than that other prelate, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who earlier this year said that David Cameron is acting like a dictator by "forcing" marriage equality on the UK, Lord Carey, when asked about opponents of gay marriage being described as "bigots", said:

“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”

"And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state. We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way."

We already knew that Carey had problems with keeping a sense of perspective or even possibly a grasp on reality. Someone as ensconced as he is in the establishment of the country thanks to his faith, complaining that he and his fellow Christians are being discriminated against is quite risible. However his latest tirade shows him as not only hysterical with paranoia but also perniciously mendacious.

It is ironic of course that Carey should start by calling for a "sensible debate", asking for the avoidance of name-calling, only to immediately abandon any pretence of being sensible and, yes, call people names...

Putting aside the fact that the good Lord doesn't seem to be aware of Godwin's Law, of how offensive his comments will be to families of deportation victims and their communities, or of the fact that someone invoking Hitler and the Nazis sounds very much like they have lost the argument they are so badly trying to make, the most cursory examination of Carey's statement shows us how much liberty he is ready to take with history to try and make a very weak point.

In that short statement, Carey conveniently brushes aside the fact that, unlike Christians, homosexuals were at the receiving end of Nazi attacks (A regime on whose activities the hierarchy of Catholic Church turned a blind eye).

He brushes aside the fact that even after the war, homosexuals carried on being victimised; concentration camp survivors being sent directly to jail, since the law criminalising homosexuality in Germany (Paragraph 175) was still extent (and remained so until the 1988).

He brushes aside the fact that to this day LGBT people are not only the brunt of name-calling much worse than what "bigot" can represent for him and his ilk but that all too often the verbal violence becomes physical.

He brushes aside the fact that such violence happens because the perpetrators feel empowered and justified by statements and stances like his.

Lord Carey also told the meeting at Birmingham Town Hall that re-defining marriage would “strike at the very fabric of society” before asking the question: "Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?"

If we are going to play that hideous little game of who is more like the Nazis it seems to me that Lord Carey is on very dangerous ground indeed. His rhetoric and that generally used by various Christian hierarchies when it comes to gay people is very much in danger of sounding like it would not have been repudiated by the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion.

Another thing that the former Archbishop fails to understand in his blinkered gesticulations is that he and people like him are quite probably doing our work for us. The more extreme and ridiculous their statements become, and goodness knows that they are little else these days, the more people are likely to realise where the reasonable and reasoned arguments are.

We can only hope for our sakes and for that of Carey's mental health that the government presses on with its plans. The sooner marriage equality happens, the sooner the mad barking will stop and the sooner everyone will realise that things are carrying on pretty much unchanged for most, except for a society more welcoming for all and that much further from that totalitarian state Carey fears so much.

Studio shoot - Steven

On Saturday I found myself trying to make my way to Brighton and the studio of Manel Ortega for a photoshoot with my friend Steven. As last time, the trip was not the most straight forward but I finally made it more or less on time, even after missing my train. It took me longer to get to the station by bus than it would have walking there!

Once we got started, things went very well indeed and Steven seem to enjoy himself a lot after the usual period of nerves.

I got a good crop of very decent shots. However, for some reason due solely to my incompetence, lots of the shots turned out grainy. They look fine viewed in small sizes but not so good when you start blowing them up. I'll have to figure out what I did wrong there.

On the whole, I am happy though. I think the images have moved a step or two further than those of previous shoots in terms of quality.

I need to find more victims to sit for me now...

The images can be viewed on Flickr, here.