cambodia

Hitting a Lull

cameras, Lenses, Travel, fujifilm, pictures, photography, opinons, thoughts, street, cambodia, viltrox, nikon

There are days when I take a camera out and cannot see a picture. The street is busy enough. The light changes. People pass close by, stop, talk, turn their heads. All the things I normally look for are present, yet nothing seems to hold my attention for more than a second.

I used to think that meant I had lost my motivation. Now I am less certain. A photographer can be willing to work and still be unable to see clearly. The two are often mistaken for the same thing.

Photographer holding a Canon camera on a busy city street

Sometimes the problem begins before I leave the house. I have seen too many pictures, including my own. I know what a promising corner looks like, where the light will fall, how far I want to stand from a person. That knowledge helps me work quickly, but it can also make me predictable. I spot a possible frame and dismiss it because I think I know what it will look like. After a while, I am no longer responding to what is in front of me. I am responding to a catalogue of pictures already in my head.

The camera can make this worse. When I am in a lull, I become unusually interested in what to carry. Perhaps another lens will change the way I see. Perhaps the D700 will loosen me up, or the D850 will reward a more careful look. A change of camera can alter my pace and working distance, and that may help. But the question is usually settled within the first few minutes outside. If I am preoccupied, I can fail to see with any camera.

A woman in a blue outfit weighing vegetables at a market stall, surrounded by fresh green produce including chilies and herbs.

Then there is the weight of expectation. After a productive day, I want another one. After several poor days, I feel I need one. I start a walk with a result in mind: a strong portrait, a frame for an article, something worth printing. The pressure makes me impatient. I watch a scene develop for a few seconds, decide it will amount to nothing, and move on. On another day I might have stayed long enough to find out.

Street photography requires patience, but patience is difficult when you feel you ought to be making pictures. You can spend an hour in one place and come away with nothing. That does not necessarily mean you chose the wrong place. A person may have passed through the frame a minute after you left. Or nobody would have passed through at all. There is no way to know. Much of the work involves giving ordinary life time to do something interesting, without demanding that it do so on your schedule.

A lull can also follow a period of making a great many pictures. I may still enjoy going out, yet feel tired of the decisions that come with it. Where should I stand? Is there a picture here? Should I approach this person? Am I close enough? Have I misunderstood what I am looking at? Photographing people asks for attention and judgment as well as quick reflexes. If I am tired, I can raise the camera, but I may not have much to give the encounter.

That matters because people are not there to cure my lack of inspiration. A stranger’s face can be arresting without my having a reason to photograph it. If I find myself looking for someone unusual simply to make the day feel productive, it is worth putting the camera down. A lull may be telling me that I need to recover some interest in the people around me, rather than hunt more aggressively for a frame.

There are quieter causes. Life outside photography can take up the space in which attention usually works. Worry, poor sleep, physical discomfort and simple exhaustion all follow us into the street. We may expect photography to provide relief, and sometimes it does. At other times, even a short walk asks too much. There is little to be gained from treating every tired day as a crisis in one’s ability to make pictures.

Patient resting in hospital bed with intravenous line and monitoring equipment

The edit has its own part to play. If I sit down after a day’s work and see fifty ordinary frames, it is easy to think the day was wasted. But editing has always involved finding out that a promising moment did not survive the shutter. Perhaps the gesture was a fraction too late, or a person in the background pulled attention away. That disappointment is useful when it teaches me something specific. It becomes harmful when I turn it into a verdict on all the pictures I might make tomorrow.

Looking too often at other photographers’ work can have a similar effect. A finished photograph arrives without its hours of waiting, missed frames and uncertain choices. See enough excellent work in one sitting and your own contact sheets may look thin. I value looking at photographs; it helps me recognise possibilities I might otherwise miss. But when I begin measuring an ordinary Tuesday against someone else’s best picture from ten years of work, I have given myself a poor reason to stay home.

So what do I do when the lull arrives? Usually I make the day smaller.

I might go out without expecting a photograph. I take the camera because I want it there if something happens, but I allow myself to walk, stop and watch. Sometimes I choose a familiar place and try to see what I have stopped noticing. Sometimes I go somewhere else, even if the light is less promising. A new route is useful because it interrupts the little decisions I make without thinking.

I may give myself one modest task: watch how people enter and leave a particular patch of light; stay with a scene for ten minutes; speak to someone before considering a portrait. These are ways of paying attention, not assignments that require a successful frame. If no picture comes of them, the exercise has still taken me out of my own head.

Or I stay in and work with photographs I have already made. Printing an image can reveal strengths and faults I missed on a screen. Revisiting an older edit can remind me what first interested me in a subject. I have occasionally found a picture I passed over because I was looking for something else at the time. More often, the value is simply in spending time with the work without having to produce more of it.

And sometimes I leave photography alone for a day. There is a strange fear that a pause might become permanent, as though the ability to see were a machine that must be kept running. In my experience, forcing myself out when I am thoroughly spent rarely restores anything. Rest is a practical decision. It gives me a better chance of being present when I go back.

None of this guarantees that the next walk will be good. A lull has no neat ending. It may last an afternoon or several weeks. It may return just when I think I have worked my way through it. I can pay attention to its causes, change a habit, lower the pressure and look after myself. I cannot make the street give me a photograph.

What I can do is remain curious about why I stopped seeing. Was I tired? Was I rushing? Had I decided in advance that I knew the place too well? Was I judging every possible frame before it had a chance to become one? Those questions are more useful than asking whether I have lost whatever once made me a photographer.

Eventually I notice something without trying quite so hard: a brief exchange between two people, a face held in unexpected light, a gesture that changes the meaning of an otherwise ordinary scene. I might make the picture. I might miss it. Either way, I have begun to look again.

Snobbery in Photography

cameras, Lenses, Travel, fujifilm, pictures, photography, opinons, thoughts, street, cambodia

I have seen photographers dismiss a picture before they have really looked at it. They learn it was taken on a phone, or with an old camera, and their opinion is ready. The equipment has told them everything they think they need to know.

A group of photographers discussing techniques while one examines a camera, set against a scenic backdrop of mountains and water.

It is a strange habit for people whose work depends on looking closely.

Photography has always attracted its share of snobs. Some judge by the price of a camera. Some judge by format, brand, lens, film stock or editing method. Others have no interest in equipment but are just as certain that their chosen subject is the only one worth photographing. Street photographers can be dismissive of landscapes. Documentary photographers can sneer at carefully arranged portraits. People who shoot black and white sometimes talk as though colour were a lapse in judgment.

I have preferences of my own. After years of making pictures, it would be odd if I did not. I know which cameras I like carrying and which lenses suit the way I work. I am also perfectly capable of seeing a photograph made with something I would never choose and wishing I had made it myself.

That is the useful test. When the picture is in front of you, can you set aside what you know about how it was made long enough to see what is there?

My Nikon D700 bodies are old. My D850 was bought used with a shutter count that would frighten some people away. The Canon 1D Mark IV was the only camera I ever bought new. None of these facts makes a photograph better or worse. They tell you something about how I buy and use equipment. They do not tell you whether I noticed the gesture, dealt with the background or pressed the shutter at the right moment.

Good equipment can make work easier. A lens may focus more reliably, a sensor may give you more room to recover a difficult exposure, and a camera may let you work quickly without fighting its controls. I appreciate all of that. I also know what happens when the light is good, a person turns towards you and you hesitate. The specifications cannot take the picture for you.

The opposite kind of snobbery exists too. Owning an old camera does not confer wisdom. A battered body is a tool, not a certificate of authenticity. If a newer camera helps someone make the pictures they want to make, I see no reason to hold that against them.

Where snobbery does real damage is in criticism. Someone shows a photograph, perhaps one they are unsure about, and gets told what they should have bought or what sort of photography they ought to be doing. The comment may sound knowledgeable. It rarely helps.

A useful critique begins with the picture. What drew your eye? What gets in the way? Does the framing make the subject clearer? Is the exposure serving what the photographer appears to have seen? If the image is meant to show a person, have we learned anything from their expression or gesture, or have we merely been shown that they were there?

Those questions can lead to a blunt assessment. Respect does not require praise. I have seen plenty of technically perfect photographs that leave me cold, and plenty of rough ones that hold my attention. It is fair to say that an image fails. It is more useful to say where it fails and why.

Experience ought to make us more careful here. The longer I photograph, the more aware I am of how much depends on circumstances I cannot see in someone else’s finished frame. Perhaps they had half a second. Perhaps moving a step would have lost the subject. Perhaps the apparently awkward crop was the only way to keep something distracting out. I can judge what is in the photograph. I should be cautious about inventing the decisions that led to it.

A person rides a motorcycle along a curved path beside a canal, with trees and buildings in the background under a clear sky.

Street photography brings another sort of certainty. People make rules about how close a photographer must stand, whether a subject must know they are being photographed, or how much processing is acceptable. These are serious questions, especially when the person in the frame is vulnerable. They deserve more thought than a contest over who is the “real” street photographer.

The person photographed is not there to settle an argument about style. We have to consider what the picture shows, what it suggests and what publishing it might do. A photographer who is willing to ask those questions has something to teach me, even if their pictures look nothing like mine.

There are pictures I do not like. There are fashions in photography that I find tiresome. I do not intend to pretend otherwise. Taste is part of developing a way of working. The trouble starts when taste hardens into a refusal to look. At that point, a photographer may feel certain of their standards while missing the very thing that makes another person’s work interesting.

It is easy to talk about keeping an open mind. It is harder to do when a picture breaks every rule you would have followed and still succeeds. That is when it is worth staying with the image a little longer. Ask yourself why you stopped to look. You might learn something.

A group of hands holding a black and white photograph of an elderly man smiling, with a vintage camera visible in the background. The setting is a cozy wooden table surrounded by coffee cups.

Photography gives us enough difficult decisions without turning cameras and genres into ranks. We choose where to stand, what to include, when to press the shutter, what to keep and what to show. We can argue about those choices. We should. But first we have to look at the picture.

The name on the camera can wait.

Fear and Confrontation

cambodia, conflict, nikon, opinons, thoughts, photography, pictures, war

Fear changes the way we see. It sharpens some details and removes others. Time becomes uncertain. A few seconds can feel prolonged, while an entire sequence of events may pass before we fully understand what has happened.

I have photographed fear in several forms. Sometimes it was obvious: police lines, angry crowds, flying bottles and the noise of a demonstration turning violent. At other times, it was almost invisible—a child waiting for dental treatment, watching the instruments being prepared and trying not to show what they were feeling.

A line of police officers in riot gear, holding shields labeled 'POLICE'. They are standing in formation, ready for crowd control.
A large crowd of people gathered around a statue, with some individuals taking photos. The crowd is diverse, wearing various clothing styles and hats, under a cloudy sky.
Two police officers in helmets stand facing a crowd during a protest, with banners and signs visible in the background.
A young man holding a Cambodian flag, wearing a white t-shirt and a colorful sash, surrounded by greenery at a demonstration.
A line of police officers in riot gear standing on a street, with shields marked 'POLICE', amidst a city backdrop with trees and buildings.
A line of police officers in riot gear holding shields labeled 'POLICE' during a protest or disturbance in an urban setting.
A line of police officers in riot gear holding shields with the word 'POLICE' displayed, standing in front of a storefront with a sign for a restaurant in the background.
A large crowd of people standing behind a barbed wire barricade on a street, with some individuals appearing to be engaging in a discussion or protest.

The two situations are not the same, but the photographer carries a similar responsibility into both. Fear creates vulnerability. It also creates dramatic photographs, and that is where the moral difficulty begins.

At the political demonstrations around Freedom Park in Phnom Penh in 2013, the atmosphere did not become dangerous all at once. Crowds have moods, and those moods move through them before the cause is always apparent. A gathering may appear noisy but manageable. People talk, listen, watch and wait. Children remain near their families. Photographers move through the edges, looking for faces and gestures that might explain the occasion.

A crowd of people gathered at an event, with a man in the foreground shouting passionately. He is wearing a striped shirt and appears to be leaning on a barrier, while others around him watch intently.

Then something changes.

The sound becomes harder. A police line tightens. People begin looking in the same direction. Those near the front stop behaving like individuals and begin moving as part of the crowd. Experience teaches you to notice these signals, although experience does not guarantee safety.

The demonstrators were demanding a change of government. Local and military police faced them. Objects began to fly towards the police lines, and the children who had been present disappeared from sight. The gathering had crossed an invisible boundary.

When the glass bottles started flying, one struck me and a colleague was cut. There was pushing, shouting and the confused movement of people trying to advance, retreat or simply avoid being knocked down. I put on my crash helmet and continued working.

That was the job.

The phrase sounds harder than the reality. Remaining at the scene was not an act of heroism. It was a professional decision that had to be reconsidered every few seconds. Staying did not mean standing still or ignoring the danger. It meant watching the crowd, understanding where the police were positioned and knowing what was happening behind me as well as in front.

A camera can become dangerous because it narrows attention. Through the viewfinder, the world appears contained by four edges. The photographer concentrates on a face, a raised arm or an object in flight and temporarily loses sight of everything outside the frame. In a confrontation, that moment of exclusion can be enough for the situation to change.

A black and white image of a tense standoff between police in riot gear and a woman speaking to them, with a crowd of onlookers and media present.

You must make the photograph while remaining aware of the world the photograph leaves out.

Equipment needs to be familiar. There is no time to search through menus or look for a control. The camera must respond almost without thought. Raise it, focus, make the frame and lower it again to see what is approaching. Professional cameras such as the Canon 1D bodies and Nikon D2Hs were heavy, but they were built for this sort of treatment. Their strength was not merely technical. It was the confidence that they would work when the photographer had other things to worry about.

Confrontation does not always involve violence. It can exist between a photographer and the person being photographed.

A frightened child in a temporary dental clinic may face a quieter form of confrontation. The room is unfamiliar. The equipment looks threatening. Adults wearing masks speak in voices the child may not understand. The child is expected to sit still, open their mouth and accept that strangers are trying to help.

Then another stranger arrives with a camera.

Fear may appear as crying, but more often it is contained in smaller gestures: hands held tightly together, feet drawn backwards beneath a chair, eyes fixed upon the treatment table or a face turned away from the lens. Children may laugh, become restless or attempt to impress their friends. Bravery and fear frequently occupy the same expression.

A photograph of that uncertainty can explain something important about the work. It can show why patience, reassurance and trust are essential. But the camera must not become another instrument of pressure.

There is a difference between photographing fear and exploiting it.

The fact that a picture may help a charity does not automatically justify making or publishing it. Nor does permission from an organiser remove the photographer’s responsibility. The child may not be able to offer formal consent, but discomfort is still a form of communication. Turning away, covering the face or becoming visibly distressed should never be ignored simply because no one has said the word no.

The strongest photograph is not always the one we are entitled to take.

This is particularly difficult for photographers trained to react. We are taught not to hesitate when a decisive moment appears. News photography rewards presence, speed and the ability to keep working while others withdraw. Those instincts may be necessary near a police line, but they cannot be carried unchanged into a clinic, school or family home.

Professional courage sometimes means continuing to photograph. Ethical courage may mean stopping.

Fear should not be removed entirely from the story. To show every child smiling would be dishonest. Medical treatment can be frightening, and volunteering is not made more valuable by pretending otherwise. But there is a considerable difference between acknowledging a child’s apprehension and displaying their most helpless moment to strangers.

Context decides much of this. A close photograph of a distressed face may reduce a person to their fear. A wider frame can show the volunteer offering reassurance, the parent standing nearby or another child waiting. It allows the viewer to understand what is happening rather than merely react to suffering.

A tense moment captured in black and white, showing a young man surrounded by a crowd and cameras, appearing contemplative and serious.

The same principle applies to public confrontation. A photograph of an angry face may be powerful, but without the police line, the crowd or some indication of what produced the anger, it may also be misleading. The photographer decides what is included and excluded. That decision can turn fear into understanding, spectacle or propaganda.

Fear makes people appear at their most exposed. It can also make photographers feel at their most alive. The noise, danger and concentration produce an intensity that ordinary assignments seldom offer. We should be honest about that attraction. Denying it makes us less likely to control it.

The excitement belongs to the photographer. The consequences belong to the people in the pictures.

An old photographer eventually learns that courage is not measured by how close one stands to danger. Nor is honesty measured by how much suffering one is prepared to show. The work is to remain present without becoming reckless, and to record fear without taking ownership of it.

Sometimes that requires the crash helmet, a firm grip on the camera and the decision to stay.

Sometimes it requires lowering the camera.

Knowing which moment you are in is one of the hardest lessons photography can teach.

Volunteering with a Camera

cambodia, nikon, opinons, thoughts, philanthropy, photography, voluntary

A camera can be used to earn a living, record history or satisfy curiosity. It can also be used simply to help.

Some of the most worthwhile photography I have done has been as a volunteer. There was no agency waiting for the pictures, no editor demanding a deadline and no possibility of selling the results. The purpose was quieter: to show what was being done, who was being helped and why the work mattered.

Three men posing together in a casual outdoor setting, with trees and a building in the background. One man is wearing a dark shirt and jeans, another in a light-colored sweater and glasses, and the third in a black medical scrub with a name tag.

Photographing volunteers requires a different attitude from covering news. You are not there to manufacture heroism or turn hardship into spectacle. You are there to observe honestly, work discreetly and produce photographs that the organisation can use without diminishing the people it serves.

My work with Kids International Dental Services was a good example. Their teams came to Cambodia to provide dental treatment for children who might otherwise receive none. The clinics could be hot, crowded and exhausting. Dentists and assistants worked for long hours while children waited—some curious, some frightened, others trying very hard to appear brave.

The obvious photographs were easy enough to make: dentists leaning over their patients, instruments arranged on tables, volunteers wearing masks and gloves. But those pictures alone did not tell the whole story.

The more important moments were often found around the edges. A girl waiting quietly for her turn. A child holding another child’s hand. A volunteer attempting to reassure a nervous patient despite the language barrier. The expression of relief when treatment was finished. These were the small human details that gave meaning to the wider record.

Two healthcare professionals interact with children at a school, smiling and engaging in a cheerful conversation.

A photographer working in such circumstances must know when to step forward and when to lower the camera. Pain, fear and poverty do not remove a person’s dignity. A photograph may be useful to a charity, but that does not automatically make it ethical. The person in front of the lens must remain more important than the organisation’s publicity.

Children require particular care. A frightened child receiving treatment is not merely an interesting photographic subject. They are vulnerable and may not fully understand why they are being photographed. The pictures should never humiliate them or turn their discomfort into emotional advertising.

A young boy with black hair sitting outside, wearing a white shirt and a yellow undershirt. He has a piece of plastic in his mouth and looks directly at the camera.

Good volunteer photography does not need to exaggerate suffering. If the work is genuinely valuable, the truth is usually powerful enough.

The photographer also has a responsibility to show the volunteers as workers rather than visiting saviours. Most successful projects depend upon local teachers, organisers, translators, drivers and medical staff. Visiting specialists may bring valuable skills and equipment, but they do not operate alone. Leaving local people outside the frame can create a misleading story in which help always arrives from somewhere else.

The camera should reveal cooperation.

Working as a volunteer photographer also means accepting that photography is not always the most urgent task. Sometimes equipment needs carrying, people need directing or a nervous child needs reassurance. There is little value in recording other people’s generosity while refusing to put down the camera and help.

The pictures still matter. Small organisations often struggle to explain their work. A strong and honest photographic record can help them reach supporters, attract volunteers and show donors where assistance has gone. It can preserve the history of a project long after the temporary clinic has been packed away.

But the usefulness of a photograph depends upon trust. The people running the project must trust the photographer not to obstruct their work. The patients must not feel hunted by the lens. The audience must be able to believe that what they are seeing is real.

This is one reason I prefer to work quietly. I do not need every person to look at the camera. In fact, the most revealing pictures often happen when people have become accustomed to my presence and returned their attention to what they are doing. An old professional camera may be large and conspicuous, but patience can make even a large camera disappear.

The work is not glamorous. Rooms are often cramped and badly lit. Backgrounds are untidy. Fluorescent lights create unpleasant colour, while masks and lowered faces make expressions difficult to see. There may be little room to move without interfering with treatment.

These are technical problems, but they should not become excuses. You use the available light, choose a position that does not obstruct anyone and wait for the elements to come together. The photograph does not need to be perfect. It needs to be truthful, clear and useful.

A healthcare worker in green scrubs sits indoors, looking out a window at four children gathered outside, engaged in conversation.

Volunteering with a camera taught me that usefulness can be a better measure of photography than applause. A picture does not have to win a competition or gather admiration online. It may only need to persuade one person to donate, encourage a dentist to volunteer or help an organisation explain what it accomplished.

Years later, the photographs become something else as well. They become a record of people who gave their time, knowledge and energy to strangers. They preserve the faces of the children, the concentration of the medical teams and the atmosphere of those temporary clinics.

They also remind the photographer that being present carries an obligation.

A camera allows us to enter other people’s lives, sometimes at difficult and vulnerable moments. That access should never be taken lightly. We owe something in return: honesty, respect and photographs that serve a purpose beyond ourselves.

Volunteering with a camera is not about being the most important person in the room. It is about understanding that you are not—and making pictures that honour the people who are

Volunteering with Kids International Dental Services

cambodia, cameras, nikon, opinons, thoughts, philanthropy, photography, pictures, voluntary

An Old Photographer’s View

There are assignments where the photographer stands outside the story, observing it carefully and trying not to disturb its natural shape. Then there are days when standing outside feels inadequate.

Working alongside Kids International Dental Services belongs to the second category.

I am not a dentist. I cannot diagnose an abscess, repair a damaged tooth or calm a frightened child with the confidence of someone who has done it a thousand times. What I can do is make a record. I can watch, listen and photograph the human story unfolding around the clinical work.

That may sound like a modest contribution, but voluntary organisations also need witnesses. Treatment helps the child sitting in the chair. Photography can help explain why another team must return next year.

A close-up of a young boy with a serious expression, sitting at a desk, holding a pen, in a classroom setting.

Kids International Dental Services—usually known simply as KIDS—grew from a volunteer dental mission in 2009. A mixed group of dental and non-dental volunteers returned home from that journey convinced that the experience should become something more permanent.

Their idea had two equally important parts. The first was straightforward: provide free dental care to children who would otherwise receive little or none. The second was more ambitious: introduce young dentists and dental students to humanitarian service early enough for it to become part of their professional lives.

It was never meant to be a one-off charitable adventure followed by a few photographs and a sentimental speech. The intention was to build a culture of returning, mentoring and taking responsibility.

The organisation became a registered American nonprofit based in San Francisco. Cambodia, Guatemala and the Philippines were among its original areas of work. KIDS later expanded its missions to Cape Verde, Haiti, South Africa, Mongolia and Morocco. The organisation says that its volunteers have treated several thousand children across eight countries while developing a network of mentors, many of whom first joined as students or newly qualified dentists. KIDS’ official history

There appears to have been volunteer work associated with the KIDS name before the organisation’s formal establishment in 2009. A report on a 2012 Cambodia mission said that some children at Phnom Penh organisations had already been receiving KIDS-supported care for several years. The safest reading is that the organised charity emerged from an earlier tradition of volunteer dental work rather than appearing fully formed on a particular morning.

That is often how these things begin. Not in a grand office with a strategic plan, but with a few tired people coming home from somewhere difficult and deciding they cannot simply forget what they have seen.

Close-up portrait of a young boy with a serious expression, wearing a white shirt, captured in black and white.

In Cambodia, the need is not difficult to find. Dental treatment remains unaffordable or inaccessible for many poor families, particularly outside the larger towns. A small cavity can be ignored because there is no money, no nearby clinic and sometimes little understanding of what it may become. The cavity grows. Pain arrives. Infection follows.

A child in dental pain does not sleep properly. He may struggle to eat, lose concentration at school and become frightened of a condition nobody around him can cure. What appears on a medical form as “tooth decay” can quietly interfere with his education, confidence and daily life.

KIDS missions bring together dentists, hygienists, students, assistants and general volunteers. Classrooms, community buildings and other borrowed spaces may become temporary clinics. Equipment is unpacked, workstations assembled and children examined in numbers that would exhaust most ordinary practices.

During a 2012 mission, an international KIDS team treated children in Phnom Penh and in Prey Veng province. At a Buddhist monastery near the Vietnamese border, tables were adapted into makeshift dental units and the volunteers reportedly treated as many as 250 patients a day. The work included examinations, restorations, extractions and preventive care. Contemporary report on the 2012 mission

Those figures matter, but they are not what I remember most.

I remember the waiting.

A young boy with short hair and a serious expression is looking directly at the camera. He is wearing a white shirt and has a backpack with a colorful strap.

Children waiting for a dentist have a particular expression. It is part curiosity, part suspicion and part quiet calculation. They watch the child ahead of them. They study the gloves, masks and unfamiliar instruments. They listen for any sound that might confirm their worst expectations.

A photographer has to be careful here. A nervous child is not photographic material laid on for our benefit. Fear should not be exaggerated to manufacture an emotional picture. Poverty is not a studio backdrop, and voluntary work should never become a performance in which the visitor is made heroic and the local child reduced to a grateful recipient.

That is why I kept returning to the faces.

The first three photographs are not pictures of dentistry in the obvious sense. There are no instruments, white coats or open mouths. They show children waiting, looking and thinking. Each face restores individuality to a story that could easily become a parade of statistics.

The camera must not steal their dignity. If a picture depends upon humiliation, helplessness or the child’s inability to object, it is probably the wrong picture.

My role was to remain present without becoming the centre of attention. I watched the relationship between the volunteers and the children: a hand placed gently on a shoulder, an explanation delivered through an interpreter, a joke used to break the tension. The best volunteers did not treat the children as units passing through a system. They recognised that reassurance was part of the treatment.

A healthcare worker in scrubs is examining the hand of a child through a barred window, while several other children watch attentively.

One of my favourite photographs from the day is not of dental treatment at all. A volunteer is attending to a girl’s fingernails while other pupils crowd behind the railings to watch. It is a wonderfully ordinary moment amid the organised seriousness of the mission.

That small scene says something about volunteering that official reports seldom capture. Humanitarian work is made from hundreds of gestures that do not appear in the final totals. Someone sorts supplies. Someone translates. Someone keeps the queue moving. Someone notices that a child is frightened. Someone kneels down and talks to her at eye level.

The organisation’s wider purpose reflects this. KIDS describes its goals as educating communities about oral health, empowering them to protect children with the resources available, inspiring volunteers and returning to maintain relationships. KIDS’ mission and goals

Treatment brings immediate relief, but education gives that treatment a chance to last. A filling or extraction may deal with today’s pain. Toothbrushes, fluoride, demonstrations and clear advice may prevent tomorrow’s.

We should still be honest about the limitations. A visiting dental team cannot repair an unequal health system. A week of treatment cannot reach every child, and follow-up care is difficult when families live far from a permanent clinic. Portable equipment, unfamiliar locations, language differences and large numbers of patients all complicate the work.

Volunteer dentistry is not a substitute for accessible local healthcare. At its best, however, it does something real: it relieves pain, treats infection, introduces preventive habits and builds relationships with local schools and organisations. Its value should neither be romanticised nor dismissed.

A group of smiling adults and children posing together for a photo, with some individuals making peace signs. The image is in black and white.

The group photograph carries a different mood. The nervousness has lifted. Volunteers and children are crowded together, laughing and raising their fingers for the camera. It would be easy to call it the happy ending, but documentary photography should be wary of endings that are too neat.

The children will return to homes where money remains short. Some will continue to have limited access to professional care. New children will arrive at school with untreated decay, and others will develop problems after the volunteers have gone.

The photograph does not prove that everything has been fixed. It records a moment when something useful was done.

As an old photographer, I have become suspicious of pictures that congratulate the photographer. The camera can persuade us that being present is the same as being helpful. It is not. We can make a handsome image of suffering, accept the compliments and leave the circumstances unchanged.

Photographing for an organisation such as KIDS must have a purpose beyond filling a portfolio. The pictures should help explain the need, preserve a record of the work and encourage practical support. They should acknowledge the volunteers without turning them into saviours. Above all, they should allow the children to remain children—not symbols of misery and not decorations for someone else’s generosity.

That is why I volunteered with my camera.

I photographed because memory is unreliable and good work can disappear unnoticed. I photographed because a child’s face can make distant need understandable without robbing that child of dignity. I photographed because donors and future volunteers ought to see where the equipment, money and long hours go.

But I also photographed for the children themselves.

A smiling young girl in a colorful shirt, with dark hair and striking eyes, stands in the foreground, while two other children appear slightly blurred in the background.

For a few hours, they were not an anonymous mass described as poor, disadvantaged or in need. They were individuals with serious eyes, untidy hair, school shirts, nervous expressions and sudden laughter. They were seen.

The dentists dealt with the pain in front of them. My responsibility was to ensure that, once the chairs had been folded and the temporary clinic dismantled, the people did not simply vanish with it.

A healthcare worker in surgical scrubs and gloves, using a medical tool to attend to a child in a clinical setting.

That is the old photographer’s part in the job: not to claim the story, but to carry a truthful piece of it home.

The Quiet Violence of the Crop

cambodia, cameras, homelessness, Lenses, nikon, opinons, thoughts, photography, pictures, street, Travel

Old Photographer Series

Cropping is one of photography’s simplest tools. Move four edges inward and the photograph becomes cleaner. The unwanted car disappears. A distracting face is removed. The subject grows larger and the composition becomes stronger.

But something else may have happened.

We may also have changed the truth.

Every photograph is already a crop. The photographer chooses the lens, where to stand and what the viewer will never see. Cropping afterwards repeats that decision in the comfort of the editing room.

By then, the pressure of the moment has gone. We can quietly remove anything that weakens the composition—or complicates the story.

A hand entering the frame may appear untidy, but perhaps it belongs to someone offering help. Remove it and kindness becomes isolation.

An elderly woman sitting at a market stall, looking contemplative with her hand on her face, surrounded by fresh vegetables and herbs. In the background, another vendor is engaged with a customer.

A half-seen face may seem distracting. Crop it away and companionship becomes loneliness.

A sign may be ugly. Remove it and the picture loses its location, politics or social meaning.

Nothing has been added, yet everything has changed.

That is the quiet violence of the crop.

The viewer sees only the finished photograph and assumes it represents what the photographer witnessed. The rejected context remains hidden in the RAW file or on the contact sheet.

This does not make cropping dishonest. I crop my own photographs, although usually as little as possible. Sometimes a horizon needs straightening or empty space contributes nothing. Sometimes a slight crop brings the picture closer to what I believed I saw.

The question is not whether we crop.

The question is what disappears when we do.

Street photography depends upon collisions: faces, gestures, signs, traffic and accidents of timing. We naturally try to impose order on that confusion. But if we make the frame too clean, we may replace the street we encountered with the street we wish we had encountered.

The composition improves while the photograph becomes less honest.

The danger is greater in documentary photography and photojournalism. Removing a police officer, protest sign or surrounding crowd can completely alter an event. A peaceful gesture may appear threatening. A small gathering may look like a mass demonstration. An act of assistance may resemble exploitation.

A group of people engaged in a conversation in a public square, with a building visible in the background and cloudy skies above.

Even the tightness of the frame changes our response. A close crop creates urgency and confrontation. A wider frame provides distance and explanation. Neither version necessarily lies, but they do not tell the same story.

Cropping can also affect dignity. A tight portrait may reduce someone to the feature we find interesting: a lined face, damaged body, uniform or expression of distress.

A weary street cleaner in green overalls sits on a concrete ledge with a broom beside him, looking down thoughtfully with a backdrop of a cityscape and luxury buildings.

The wider frame may reveal where that person works, who stands beside them and how they fit into the world. It allows them to exist as more than a face selected for our attention.

The wider photograph may be less dramatic.

It may also be more truthful.

After many years, I have learned to pause before tightening a frame. I ask myself why I want something removed. Is it genuinely irrelevant, or does it disturb the simple story I am trying to tell?

Easy meaning is seductive. A clean frame tells the viewer where to look and what to feel. Real life is seldom so cooperative. It contains contradictions, clutter and inconvenient details.

Those details may be the point.

A protester raises his hand, passionately speaking to a police officer during a demonstration, with a group of supporters holding a peace sign in the background.

A good crop reveals the photograph already present within the frame. A bad crop manufactures a simpler event. The most dangerous crop may be the tiny adjustment that removes the one detail capable of challenging our interpretation.

So crop when the photograph needs it. Straighten the horizon. Strengthen the balance. Remove genuinely useless space. I have never believed that the untouched camera frame is sacred.

An elderly man with gray hair uses a cane while being assisted by another man as they navigate a street. The elderly man is stepping down from a curb with the younger man's help.

But look carefully at what you are sacrificing.

Look at the disappearing hand.

Look at the half-seen face.

Read the sign before cutting it away.

The border of a photograph is never innocent. Move it carelessly and we change more than the composition.

We change the story.

A smiling elderly monk wearing a brown robe, holding a blue flag, with younger monks in the background.

Appendix: Is Cropping Good, Bad—or Even Acceptable?

Cropping is entirely acceptable in photography. It has existed almost as long as photographs have been printed. Darkroom printers cropped negatives, altered proportions and excluded unwanted details long before Lightroom provided four convenient handles around an image.

Cropping does not make a photograph false simply because the whole camera frame is not shown. The original frame was already an act of exclusion. A different lens, another step forward or a slight movement to one side would have produced a different picture.

There is no sacred purity in the untouched rectangle.

Cropping becomes questionable when it changes meaning rather than improving expression. Removing an empty strip of pavement is one thing. Removing the person whose actions explain the central subject is quite another. Straightening a horizon does not trouble me. Making a peaceful gathering appear like a massive confrontation does.

Purpose matters.

In portraiture, landscape, art and much street photography, cropping is largely a creative decision. The photographer is shaping the image, and there is no obligation to display every pixel the camera recorded.

Documentary photography and photojournalism demand greater restraint. A crop must not remove essential context, manufacture drama or misrepresent what happened. The nearer a photograph comes to being presented as evidence, the greater the photographer’s responsibility to preserve its meaning.

Heavy cropping also raises another question: did I fail to compose properly when I made the photograph?

Sometimes the answer is yes. We all miss frames. Cropping can rescue them, but it should not become a substitute for looking carefully through the viewfinder. If I continually discover my compositions at the computer, I am editing photographs rather than seeing them.

My own position is straightforward. I prefer to crop very little, but I will crop if it makes the photograph closer to the picture I saw. I do not believe purity lies in keeping every accidental object at the edge of the frame. Nor do I believe a picture becomes dishonest merely because ten per cent has been removed.

The real test is not how much was cropped, but what the crop has done.

Has it concentrated the photograph—or rewritten it?

Has it removed clutter—or removed context?

Has it clarified the truth—or made the truth more convenient?

Cropping is neither good nor bad. It is a tool, and like every photographic tool, its morality lies in how and why it is used.

Crop the photograph if it needs cropping.

Just do not crop away its conscience.

A Good Photograph Does Not Need to Be Beautiful

cambodia, canon, conflict, homelessness, Lenses, nikon, opinons, thoughts, philanthropy, photography, pictures, street, Travel

Old Photographer Series

There is a great deal of beautiful photography in the world. Perhaps too much of it.

Perfect sunsets, wet streets glowing beneath neon signs, elderly faces caught in flattering light and backgrounds softened into creamy nothingness. The colours are polished, the composition balanced and everything is designed to please the eye.

There is nothing wrong with beauty. Light can be magnificent and a carefully composed picture can give genuine pleasure. But beauty alone does not make a photograph good.

Sometimes it merely makes it decorative.

A decorative photograph catches the eye, receives its compliment and is quickly replaced by the next attractive image. Once we have admired its colour, sharpness and clever composition, there may be nowhere else to go.

A good photograph makes us stay.

Two women sitting together outdoors, one wearing a green floral dress and the other in a brown top and purple skirt, both looking contemplative.

It may contain something unresolved: a look between two people, a hand gripping an arm, an empty chair or a child watching something beyond the frame. It may be awkwardly composed, poorly lit or slightly blurred, yet possess an emotional weight that technical perfection cannot provide.

Young girl sitting on the sidewalk, wearing a green shirt and striped pants, with bare feet, looking directly at the camera, next to a small plate of food and a green stool, with colorful shop signs in the background.

These are the pictures that follow us home.

When I was younger, I worried more about whether my pictures looked good. Most photographers do. We learn the rules, straighten horizons, control exposure and wait for flattering light. We are proving that we understand the machinery.

Eventually, another question becomes more important:

What are you trying to say?

A perfectly exposed photograph of nothing remains a photograph of nothing. An imperfect picture containing a moment of truth may stay with us for life.

A young boy sitting on the ground against a wall, looking at a smartphone, surrounded by plastic waste and boxes.

Truth in photography is complicated. A camera never records everything. The photographer chooses where to stand, when to press the shutter and what to exclude. Yet a picture can still feel honest.

Honesty may mean refusing to tidy up a difficult scene. It may mean showing poverty without making it picturesque, age without turning wrinkles into decoration, or loneliness without dressing it up as poetry.

A young boy sitting on the ground in a cluttered, trash-strewn environment, with a pot cooking over an open flame in front of him.

The temptation to beautify suffering is one of photography’s oldest problems. Golden light can make a desperate situation appear magnificent. Strong composition can turn chaos into elegance. The result may be visually impressive—and completely wrong.

Emotional weight does not require war, disaster or public grief. Drama and meaning are not the same thing.

A tired worker sitting alone. A market seller counting the day’s remaining notes. Two people sharing silence. An elderly couple walking at different speeds but still holding hands.

A young child sitting on the ground beside ornate stone carvings, with a bottle of water and some food scraps nearby, in a black and white setting.

Nothing spectacular has happened. That is precisely the point.

Life is mostly composed of these apparently insignificant moments. The photographer’s job is not always to beautify them. Sometimes it is simply to recognise that they matter.

Tension can also hold a photograph together. Wealth and poverty occupying the same frame. A cheerful advertisement hanging above an exhausted worker. One person looking directly at the camera while everybody else looks away.

A young woman gazes thoughtfully out of a window of a wooden house, surrounded by peeling paint and weathered wood. The image is in black and white.

Tension prevents the picture from settling comfortably. It leaves the viewer with a question rather than a neat answer.

The photographs I remember seldom surrender everything at first glance. I notice one detail, then another. My understanding changes as I move around the frame. Perhaps I never understand it completely.

That uncertainty gives the photograph life.

An elderly man with long gray hair and a beard, sitting with his knees drawn up to his chest, looking contemplative in a black and white photograph.

Discomfort also has a legitimate place in photography, provided it is not created through cruelty or exploitation.

Other people’s hardship should never become material for our own reputation. Misery is not made ethical because it has been photographed in black and white. The real question is not simply whether we were permitted to take the picture, but whether the photograph respects the person inside it.

Does it preserve dignity? Does it encourage understanding? Does it reveal something important—or merely invite strangers to stare?

If a photograph depends entirely upon another person’s humiliation, it is not brave. It is easy.

Processing cannot manufacture emotional weight. Converting a weak colour photograph to monochrome does not make it profound. Grain creates atmosphere, not substance.

An older man sitting on a plastic chair, using a smartphone, next to a small electric scooter. He is wearing glasses, a pink shirt, and a straw hat. Behind him is a colorful array of fabric and materials, along with a green trash bin.

Sometimes a picture needs ugly colour, damaged walls, tangled cables and unpleasant light. Streets are cluttered and indifferent to our compositional preferences. Removing all that disorder may also remove the truth.

A good photograph does not have to be unpleasant, and serious photographers do not need to reject beauty. The distinction is whether beauty is the destination or the vehicle.

Beautiful light can reveal tenderness. Colour can express joy or anxiety. Strong composition can direct attention towards injustice. The danger begins when beauty becomes camouflage.

An elderly man sitting on the ground with a slight smile, wearing black pants and sandals, in a cluttered environment. A child can be seen in the background.

The picture must remain answerable to its subject.

After many years, I am less interested in photographs demonstrating what a clever photographer can do. I am more interested in photographs showing what a patient photographer noticed.

When editing my work, I try to ask more than whether an image is sharp and attractive.

Does it hold me? Is there something I cannot immediately explain? Would I still care about it if nobody praised it? Most importantly, does it make me feel anything?

Technical flaws bother me less than emotional emptiness. I would rather keep a slightly soft photograph carrying genuine life than a clinically perfect frame saying nothing.

Craft matters, but craft is the language—not the message.

A good photograph may be beautiful, but it does not need to be. It may be rough, sombre, untidy or uncomfortable. Yet if it makes us look properly—at another person, at the world or at ourselves—it has achieved something greater than decoration.

It has mattered.

It may not brighten the room.

It may do something better.

It may disturb the silence.

Old Photographer Series: If I Were Still a Serious Street Hack

cambodia, cameras, canon, fujifilm, Lenses, nikon, opinons, thoughts, photography, street, Travel, voluntary, war

If I were still earning my living by selling pictures to newspapers and agencies, I would not begin by asking which camera produced the cleanest file at ISO 12,800. I would ask a much more important question: which camera could I operate quickly, instinctively and reliably while everything around me was going wrong?

That is the real test of a working press camera.

Agency photography is not camera-club photography. Nobody is waiting to admire the smoothness of the bokeh or inspect the corners at 200 per cent. The picture desk wants something relevant, honest, properly captioned and delivered while the story is still alive. A technically magnificent photograph arriving tomorrow morning may be considerably less valuable than a slightly noisy but compelling picture transmitted within twenty minutes.

A photographer capturing images at a protest with a large crowd of demonstrators holding flags and banners in a city street.

If I were starting again today, I would probably stay with Nikon. Not because Nikon is inherently superior, but because decades of handling Nikon cameras have left their controls embedded in my fingers. Under pressure, familiarity matters more than specifications.

My principal camera would probably be a Nikon Z8. It has the speed, autofocus, silent operation and file quality necessary for virtually any editorial assignment. It is also sufficiently rugged without becoming quite as burdensome as one of the enormous flagship bodies. The ability to move between still photographs and usable video would matter because agencies increasingly expect photographers to bring back more than one kind of material.

But I would not pretend that buying a Z8 would suddenly turn me into a better photographer.

A Nikon D850 could still do the job perfectly well. Indeed, if I were financing the operation myself, I might be inclined to use the D850 I already trusted and spend the money on travel, communications and access. Its files are more than good enough, its battery life is excellent and its controls belong to the traditional Nikon world I understand. The shutter makes a noise, certainly, but photographers managed to work around shutter noise for more than a century.

For faster news, demonstrations, political events or situations involving unpredictable movement, I might pair it with a used Nikon D5 or D6. Those cameras are not subtle, but subtlety is not always the first requirement when people are running, police lines are moving and the light is collapsing. They are built to continue working when smaller and more fashionable cameras begin contemplating their retirement.

Whatever I chose, I would carry two bodies. This would not be an indulgence. It would be insurance.

A wooden table with two cameras, multiple camera lenses, batteries, memory cards, a notebook, a pen, a smartphone, a power bank, and a coffee mug, set against a rainy window with a view of a city.

A professional cannot explain to a picture editor that the camera stopped working just as the minister was arrested, the crowd broke through the barricade or the monsoon turned the street into a river. Nor is there always time to change lenses. One camera would carry a standard zoom and the other something longer.

The sensible working combination would be a 24–70mm f/2.8 and a 70–200mm f/2.8. It is not romantic, but it covers an enormous amount of editorial work. The shorter zoom gives context, crowds, interiors and close human encounters. The longer lens isolates faces, reaches through security barriers and allows the photographer to work when physical access is restricted.

I would also keep an 85mm f/1.8 in the bag. Not because an agency requires shallow depth of field, but because I know that focal length. It gives me enough working distance to observe people without losing the intimacy of the moment. It is small, sharp and fast, and it does not turn the photographer into a mobile artillery position.

For quieter work around Phnom Penh, I might forget the big zooms altogether and use the D850 with the 50mm or 85mm. A smaller combination makes it easier to remain among people instead of towering over them. But if I had been commissioned to cover breaking news, I would carry the zooms. The assignment comes before my personal romance with prime lenses.

The cameras, however, would be only half the equipment.

I would carry a capable laptop, Photo Mechanic for rapid selection and captioning, Lightroom or Photoshop for restrained processing, several card readers and a phone with reliable mobile data. I would have a second network available, probably through another SIM card, because communications have an unpleasant habit of failing precisely when the pictures become important.

A man editing photos on a laptop at an outdoor café during a rainy evening, with a camera and notes on the table.

Pictures intended for an agency must leave the camera quickly. That means importing, selecting, toning, captioning and transmitting from a café, a press room, the back of a vehicle or a piece of pavement outside a government building. The photographer who can produce an accurate set of ten pictures in twenty minutes may be more useful than the photographer who requires three hours to perfect forty.

A young child sitting on the ground with a serious expression, holding a container, surrounded by cages in a black and white setting.

The edit would be severe. I would not send every frame merely because modern cameras allow me to make twenty pictures a second. Picture editors already have too much material. I would send the establishing image, the decisive moment, the principal personalities, the telling detail and perhaps one frame that carries some emotional or visual surprise.

Then I would caption them properly.

Who is in the picture? What is happening? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Why does it matter? Were the people photographed naturally, or was it a posed portrait? Is the spelling correct? Is the location precise? Have I identified people from left to right?

This clerical part of photography has never attracted much glamour, but a photograph with an inaccurate caption is a liability. The Associated Press states that it explains when a picture has been posed and requires photographs to represent events honestly. It also rejects false AI-generated depictions as news imagery. AP’s published standards make the principle plain: the circumstances in which a picture was made matter.

I would process gently. White balance, exposure, contrast, noise and sensible cropping are legitimate. Adding, removing or substantially changing content is not. An editorial photograph is evidence before it is decoration. Alamy’s current Live News rules similarly require truthful representation, complete IPTC information and rapid delivery; ordinarily, images more than 24 hours old are no longer treated as live news. Its submission guidance is a useful reminder that speed, accuracy and metadata are part of the photograph—not administrative jobs to be considered later.

I would carry spare batteries, more memory cards than I expected to need, a compact rain cover, a small power bank, lens cloths, ear protection, a notebook and two pens. In Cambodia I would add water, a hat and something to keep equipment dry during a sudden downpour. I would use comfortable shoes rather than heroic ones. A photographer with blistered feet is not much use when the story moves another three kilometres down the road.

I would also carry a small first-aid kit and proper identification. For demonstrations or conflict-related work, I would add protective equipment appropriate to the risk, but I would not dress like a soldier merely to appear serious. A journalist’s job is to observe and report, not to play at combat.

There would be one other piece of equipment, although it cannot be bought from a camera shop: local knowledge.

Knowing which street connects with which, who controls access, when a crowd is becoming frightened, which official can answer a question and when it is time to leave is worth more than another stop of dynamic range. So is learning names and speaking respectfully to the people being photographed. Agencies do not merely need photographers who happen to be nearby. They need people who understand what they are looking at.

A crowd of people gathered, with a woman in the foreground passionately speaking or shouting, holding a bag. Several others are taking photos and observing the scene, while security personnel are visible in the background.

That is why I would not spend all my time chasing spectacular breaking news. I would develop subjects I could cover repeatedly and with some authority: changing neighbourhoods, migration, labour, development, displacement, the lives of ordinary Cambodian families and the gradual disappearance of familiar parts of Phnom Penh.

The individual street picture might be excellent, but a connected body of photographs accompanied by accurate information is far easier to pitch. The photographer must become more than a man carrying a camera. He must become a source of informed visual reporting.

I would also be realistic about money. The old system in which a competent press photographer could expect regular newspaper assignments has been badly weakened. There are fewer picture desks, lower budgets and an ocean of free imagery arriving through social media. Simply uploading good photographs and waiting for cheques would be a poor business plan.

I would contact editors before an event, pitch specific stories and build direct relationships. I would maintain a clean online portfolio showing coherent editorial work—not hundreds of unrelated favourites. I would write short, intelligent pitches explaining the story, the access I possessed and why the photographs would be relevant now.

Stock and news agencies could provide another route. Alamy remains open to individual contributors, although access to its Live News service requires separate permission. Contributors retain copyright, while the agency licenses accepted material. Its current technical requirements include high-quality RGB JPEGs and appropriate metadata. Alamy’s contributor guidance confirms that professional DSLR and mirrorless files remain acceptable; the name printed on the camera is not the deciding factor.

Would I carry a smartphone? Certainly.

It would provide communications, maps, notes, recorded interviews, backup pictures and perhaps short video clips. In some situations it would be the least intrusive camera available. But I would not allow the convenience of the phone to make me careless. A picture made on a telephone carries exactly the same ethical responsibility as one made on a Nikon.

So, if I were still a serious street hack, my working kit would probably be two dependable Nikon bodies, a 24–70mm, a 70–200mm, an 85mm, a laptop and the means to transmit from almost anywhere. Yet none of that would secure a single sale.

The real equipment would remain what it always was: curiosity, judgement, stamina, honesty and the ability to recognise the moment before it disappears.

The cameras have become faster. Transmission has become almost instantaneous. The competition has become enormous. But the essential job has barely changed.

Be there. Understand what is happening. Make the picture. Get the names right. Tell the truth. Send it before somebody else does.

That is how a street hack earns his keep.

Photography as Life: Lessons from 45 Years Behind the Camera: Old Photographer Series

cambodia, cameras, fujifilm, homelessness, Lenses, nikon, opinons, thoughts, philanthropy, photography, pictures, street, Travel, voluntary, war

I have been making pictures for around forty-five years. Put like that, it sounds faintly ridiculous. Forty-five years of carrying cameras, buying cameras, selling cameras, regretting selling cameras, walking miles with cameras that were too heavy, and occasionally wondering why on earth I was still doing it.

And yet I am.

Photography has changed beyond recognition during those years. I started in a world where every press of the shutter cost money. Film had to be bought, processed and printed. You couldn’t look at the back of the camera to see whether you’d got the picture because there was nothing there to look at. You learned to trust the meter, the camera and, eventually, yourself.

Today I can put a memory card into a Nikon D850 and make more photographs in an afternoon than I might once have made in a month.

But strangely, the reason I make pictures hasn’t changed very much at all. I make pictures because I notice things. That may be the simplest explanation I can give.

Photography has trained me to look at the world differently. I notice the old man sitting alone outside a café. I notice the expression on somebody’s face when they think nobody is watching. I notice two people talking across a market stall, a shaft of afternoon light falling across a wall, a child staring curiously at a stranger, the hands of an elderly woman, the tired face of somebody finishing a day’s work.

Most people walk past these things. I stop.

Not always physically. Sometimes the stopping happens entirely inside my head. Something catches my attention and that little photographic instinct, developed over decades, whispers: There’s something there. After forty-five years, that instinct is almost impossible to switch off. I don’t think I would want to.

Photography has become less about cameras as I have grown older. That might sound strange coming from somebody who still enjoys old cameras enormously. I love them. I love the solid lump of a Nikon D700, the wonderful excess of a professional DSLR, the simplicity of a fifty millimeter lens and the satisfying clunk of a proper mechanical shutter.

Old cameras have character. But I know perfectly well that the camera isn’t the reason I go out. The camera gives me an excuse. It gives me permission to wander.

That is one of photography’s great gifts, and perhaps one we don’t talk about enough.

Give an old photographer a camera and suddenly walking around without any particular destination becomes perfectly reasonable. I can disappear down a side street simply because the light looks interesting. I can stand beside a market for twenty minutes watching people come and go. I can sit somewhere with a coffee and watch the theatre of ordinary life unfolding in front of me.

Without the camera, perhaps I would feel I should be going somewhere. With the camera, I already am. And after forty-five years, I have realised that these apparently insignificant wanderings have formed a considerable part of my life.

Thousands upon thousands of little journeys. Some produced photographs I still care about. Many produced absolutely nothing. That doesn’t mean they were wasted.

Because photography has never really been about collecting successful pictures. It is about being present while life is happening. That matters more to me now than it did when I was younger.

When you’re young, photography can become competitive. You want sharper lenses, better cameras, stronger pictures, publication, recognition, compliments. You compare yourself with other photographers. You worry about whether your photographs are good enough.

Age has a useful way of knocking some of that nonsense out of you. I still want to make good pictures. Of course I do. There would be little point otherwise. But I no longer need every photograph to prove something.

That is enormously liberating.

A photograph can simply say: I was here. I saw this. This person existed. This moment mattered to me. That is enough.

Perhaps that is also why pictures of people have always mattered so much to me.

Buildings change. Streets disappear. Shops close. Cars become old-fashioned. Entire neighbourhoods can be transformed almost beyond recognition.

But people make photographs breathe. A face gives a picture its humanity.

When I look through older photographs, it is rarely the technical perfection that interests me. I don’t sit there thinking, Wonderful corner sharpness.

I look at the people. Who were they? What happened to them? Where are they now?

Sometimes I remember everything about making the photograph. The weather. The conversation. The camera I was carrying. The walk home afterwards.

Other times I remember almost nothing. And that is when photography becomes slightly magical. Because the photograph remembers for me. That small rectangle of paper or collection of pixels has preserved something my own memory has lost.

After forty-five years, I increasingly understand that I have not simply been making photographs. I have been building an archive of a life. Not deliberately. Nobody begins photography at twenty or thirty thinking, I shall now document the next forty-five years of my existence. You simply keep taking pictures. One year becomes five. Five becomes twenty.

Then one day you look behind you and realise that the photographs have become breadcrumbs scattered along the road you travelled.

Cameras I once carried. Places where I once stood. People I once knew. People I loved. People I met for thirty seconds and never saw again. Cities before they changed. Streets before they disappeared. And versions of myself that no longer exist.

That is powerful stuff.

It also explains why printing photographs still matters to me. A photograph on a screen exists, certainly, but a print has presence. You can hold it. Put it on a table. Stick it on a wall. Find it unexpectedly twenty years later.

A print becomes an object. And objects survive us in peculiar ways. I sometimes wonder what will happen to all these photographs eventually. Every photographer who has worked long enough probably thinks about it. Will anybody care?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I’ve become surprisingly comfortable with that.

I didn’t make most of these pictures for an imaginary audience fifty years in the future. I made them because something in front of me made me raise the camera.

That’s enough. Photography has given me something far more valuable than a collection of images. It has given me curiosity.

Even after forty-five years I can walk down a street I have walked down a hundred times and still wonder whether today there might be a photograph there.

That possibility gets me out of the door. And some days, particularly as we get older, getting out of the door is no small thing. The camera provides purpose. Not some grand artistic purpose. Nothing quite so pompous. Just a reason to walk another street. Look around another corner. Talk to another stranger. Wait another five minutes because the light might change. Photography keeps me engaged with the world.

And the world, for all its madness, cruelty, stupidity and noise, remains endlessly interesting when viewed through a camera.

There are still faces I haven’t photographed. Still streets I haven’t walked. Still moments I haven’t seen. And perhaps somewhere tomorrow afternoon there will be one of those tiny combinations of person, expression, gesture and light that lasts for half a second and then disappears forever.

I’ll raise the camera.

Click. Gone. Except it isn’t. I caught a little piece of it.

After forty-five years, I think that is why making pictures remains so important to me.

Photography has been a companion for most of my adult life. Cameras have come and gone. Film became digital. Darkrooms became computers. Thirty-six exposures became memory cards holding thousands. Autofocus became astonishing. Cameras became capable of things we couldn’t have imagined when I started.

None of that is really important. The important part happens before the shutter is pressed. You notice. You care. You decide that this tiny fragment of ordinary life deserves to be remembered.

Then you make the picture.

Forty-five years later, I’m still looking. And I’m still curious about what might be around the next corner. As long as that curiosity remains, I’ll keep carrying a camera. Because somewhere along the way photography stopped being something I did. It became part of the way I live.

And perhaps that is the real privilege of being an old photographer.

You eventually understand that all those years you thought you were making pictures of the world. But quietly, picture by picture, the world was making a photographer out of you.

Nikon D850 + AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

cambodia, cameras, Lenses, nikon, opinons, thoughts, photography, pictures, street, Travel

One Camera One Lens

The Old Photographer Series

There is a peculiar disease among photographers. I have suffered from it myself for years.

We convince ourselves that we need another lens.

A 24mm for when things get tight. A 35mm because it is supposedly the perfect street lens. A 50mm because everybody ought to own one. An 85mm for portraits. A zoom because changing lenses is inconvenient. And perhaps a telephoto because, well, you never know.

Before long we’re heading out to take photographs carrying enough equipment to document the invasion of a small country.

Then, after walking around all day with several kilos hanging from our shoulders, we get home and discover that most of the pictures were taken with one lens.

Eventually an old photographer begins to see the absurdity of it.

So here is my alternative.

One Nikon D850. One AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. Nothing else.

Well, perhaps a spare battery.

I’m old, not stupid.

The Nikon D850 is hardly anybody’s idea of a small camera. It is a substantial DSLR, built in that wonderful Nikon tradition of cameras that feel as though they could survive considerably more punishment than their owners.

And I like that.

I’m not looking for a camera that disappears into a jacket pocket. I want something that sits properly in my hands. Something with a real grip, proper buttons and dials, and an optical viewfinder through which I can simply look at the world.

The D850 gives me that, together with a 45.7-megapixel FX sensor capable of producing quite extraordinary files.

But here’s the important bit.

I don’t need to think about any of it.

After enough years using Nikon DSLRs, the controls become familiar. Aperture. Shutter speed. ISO. Focus point. Exposure compensation.

Everything else can largely bugger off.

The camera is there to make photographs.

Then we put the little 50mm f/1.4G on the front.

And suddenly this enormous photographic machine becomes beautifully simple.

The AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G is an interesting lens because it isn’t one of Nikon’s modern optical monsters.

It dates from 2008. It has eight elements in seven groups, weighs only about 280 grams, focuses down to 45cm and uses a nine-bladed rounded diaphragm. Its Silent Wave Motor provides autofocus, while M/A mode allows immediate manual adjustment.

In other words, it is refreshingly ordinary.

And I mean that as a compliment.

On the D850’s FX sensor, 50mm gives us that classic normal perspective. Not dramatically wide. Not compressed like a telephoto.

Just 50mm.

You look. You frame. You photograph. There is nowhere to hide.

Your feet are the zoom

The first thing that happens when you spend an entire day with a prime lens is that you stop thinking about lenses.

At the beginning you might see something and think:

I wish I had the 35mm.

Twenty minutes later:

An 85mm would be handy here.

Ignore it. Keep walking.

Something rather interesting eventually happens. Your brain begins adjusting to 50mm.

You start seeing pictures in 50mm before the camera reaches your eye.

You know roughly what will be in the frame. You know how close you need to get. You begin moving instinctively.

Want the person larger? Walk closer.

Want more environment? Walk backwards.

Can’t walk backwards because there’s a wall behind you?

Good.

Find another photograph.

That limitation is part of the exercise.

Modern photography has become obsessed with eliminating limitations. I increasingly think limitations are good for us. They make us think.

And 50mm makes you participate

This is particularly important when photographing people.

With a long lens, I can stand well away from somebody and photograph them almost anonymously.

With a 50mm, I can’t.

If I want somebody to occupy a significant part of the frame, I have to get reasonably close. I have entered their world. That changes the photograph.

There’s an intimacy to 50mm street photography that I like. I’m not right under someone’s nose, as I might sometimes feel with a very wide lens, but neither am I standing across the road pretending I wasn’t there.

I’m part of the scene.

For the sort of photography I enjoy — people, faces, gestures, little human moments and the environment around them — that feels right.

About that f/1.4

Naturally, the great attraction of this particular 50mm is written around the front of the lens.

1:1.4.

That’s fast.

It means I can keep working when the light begins to disappear. It means I can isolate somebody against a distracting background. And that rounded nine-blade diaphragm can produce very pleasant out-of-focus areas. Nikon itself positions the lens for low-light work, portraits and general photography.

But here’s something I’ve learned. Just because I’ve bought an f/1.4 lens doesn’t mean I have to photograph everything at f/1.4.

There seems to be a modern fascination with obliterating backgrounds.

Eyes sharp. Ears blurred. Nose blurred. Background transformed into expensive-looking soup.

Very impressive.

But sometimes I actually want to know where the person is.

For street photography especially, the background frequently provides the story.

So I’ll happily use this lens at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 or f/8.

I want the aperture that makes the photograph work.

Not the aperture that proves what is engraved on the lens barrel.

The D850 will expose your mistakes

There is another reason I like this combination.

The D850 doesn’t flatter sloppy technique.

That enormous resolution records an extraordinary amount of detail, which means that when focus is right and the camera is steady, the results can be beautiful.

But miss focus slightly? You’ll know.

Use a shutter speed that’s a little too slow? You’ll know.

Get lazy with technique? Oh, you’ll definitely know.

And I rather like that.

A camera should occasionally remind the photographer that he is still involved in the process.

The D850 is capable of extraordinary image quality, but it doesn’t magically create good photographs.

Neither does the 50mm f/1.4G.

That’s still my job.

Leave the bloody camera bag at home

This might actually be the most important part.

Don’t put the D850 and 50mm into a bag containing another four lenses.

Because then the temptation remains.

Take the D850. Attach the 50mm. Put a spare battery and memory card in your pocket. Walk out of the door. That’s it.

For the next few hours, 50mm is the only focal length in existence.

It is remarkably liberating. No lens changes. No sensor dust. No wondering whether the photograph might look better at 35mm. No staring into a bag while the interesting human moment happening three meters away disappears forever.

Just photography.

One camera, One lens changes the way you work

The longer you use the combination, the less you notice it. And that’s when things become interesting.

The camera stops being the subject. You start noticing light.

A face appearing through a doorway. Someone sitting alone at a café.

A child running through a shaft of afternoon sunlight. Two people arguing. Someone laughing. A hand resting on a shoulder. A tired face on a bus.

The ordinary theatre of the street. These are the things that matter. Not whether Nikon has released something newer. Not whether another lens resolves another hundred lines on somebody’s laboratory chart. Not whether my autofocus system contains the latest artificial intelligence.

Did I see the picture?

That’s the question.

Could I really live with just this?

Photographically?

Yes.

The D850 and 50mm f/1.4G could cover an astonishing amount of what I enjoy photographing.

Street. Portraits. Environmental portraits. Travel. Documentary work. Family. Night photography. Details. Even landscapes, if I stop believing landscapes must automatically be photographed with wide-angle lenses.

Would there occasionally be photographs I couldn’t make?

Of course. That’s life. I’ve missed photographs while carrying three lenses as well. Usually because I was fiddling with the bloody equipment.

After decades around cameras, perhaps the greatest luxury isn’t owning more equipment. It’s needing less.

When I was younger, another lens represented another possibility. Now I increasingly see it differently. Every additional lens is another decision. And every second spent thinking about equipment is a second I’m not looking at what is happening around me.

So give me the Nikon D850. Put the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G on it. One battery in the camera. Another in my pocket. An empty memory card. Good walking shoes. And send me out onto the street.

No zoom. No second body. No bag full of alternatives.

If the photograph is too far away, I’ll walk towards it.

If I’m too close, I’ll walk backwards.

And if neither works, I’ll wait for another photograph. Because there is always another photograph. You just have to be looking.

One camera. One lens. One photographer.

After all these years, perhaps that is enough.

Perhaps it always was.

— The Old Photographer Series