I have been interested in photography since the mid 80s. My first camera was an Olympus XA3. This camera served me well, and I took many good photos with it.
Then in the early 90s I purchased my first SLR, a Pentax. After using this for a while and again
gaining good results, I bought a Canon EOS 100, with 2 lenses, and flash unit. I was now hooked and took many photos with this camera.
Unfortunately, after a couple of years of taking photos at friends' weddings and general use
my interest started to fade and I packed away the cameras.
In August 2001, before a holiday to Venice, I decided to get a new modern
compact camera. Persuaded by a friend I bought a digital camera. I knew nothing of digital
photography but had good computer knowledge, so decided it was the way to go. I purchased a
Fujifilm 6800z and was hooked again.
In 2003 I decided it was time to revisit the SLR arena, and with the introduction of the Canon 300D, it was the
obvious choice. After a couple of years I started to find the limitations of the 300D. This was mainly when taking the wildlife photos. I was finding the startup time and frame per second where too slow and I kept filling the buffer. I decided it wasn,t worth upgrading at the time to the 10D, so I waited and upgraded to the 20D. 2 years on and I now own a Canon 40D.
If you like the images you see on the website, many are available to buy as gifts. Please visit the Gifts Section to see a selection.
I am a great believer that photography is the art of capturing what you see using the camera, and not
editing it, (ie removing an intruding object) afterwards on the PC.
The word 'Photography' is defined as 'the process of making pictures by means of action of light by recording light patterns
on to sensitive material though a timed exposure'. I believe if that photograph is then modified by removing or adding an object, this then becomes graphic design.
I am not saying that the digital editing should not happen, but each has its
place and should be judged separately and not side by side and definitely shouldn't be compared, unless it is clearly stated that it has been modifed.
Some articles I have read in photography magazines on readers photos who sent them in for review I thought, thats a nice photo, only to read the magazine experts suggesting that it might have looked better with a few trees removed etc. Why, I thought it looked good and sure that is then digital art?
Like I said, I do not add or remove objects through editing. I will only crop the size or change the brightness of the image for printing, so it reflects what is seen on the screen. This is the same as when getting a film photo developed.