Snap Shots: by Harry Flashman

Viewpoint or point of view?

Any photograph is, or should be, a representation of what the photographer has seen, because photography really is all about the art of “seeing”. Successful photographers are very often ones who have discovered a “different” way of seeing the subjects they (and you and I) photograph.
One obvious example was the British photographer Bill Brand, famous for photographing nudes by using a wide-angle lens on the camera. This gave a very distorted figure, but one that became “arty” and produced fame for Brand. Whether you find Brand’s viewpoint aesthetic does not matter - the important fact to remember was that it was different.
Now, this does not mean that I suggest you race down to Jomtien Beach with a fish eye lens on the camera and try and persuade people to remove their outer garments! Far from it. You should stop for a while and consider something unusual, compared to your “standard” way of taking shots.
You see, it makes no difference whether you have an SLR with multiple lens choices, or just a humble point and shooter with a fixed lens, we eventually get into a “habit” while taking photographs. Habits include the lens you stick on the front of the camera. I will wager that you have a favorite lens that stays on the camera body, and the others are only used when you cannot get the subject in the frame and have to use an alternative. And habits certainly do die hard, even if it is just always taking shots in the horizontal (landscape) format. Got you! Haven’t I?
What I am suggesting this weekend is to devote one afternoon to some new or different ways of doing things. Many times it is impossible to predict what the final result may be. You may have discovered a radical new approach, a highly individualistic way of presentation. The end result may not be to everyone’s taste (like my idea about Bill Brand’s work), but you will never know till you try. And what is one afternoon worth compared to the fun (and fame and fortune, perhaps) that this weekend could produce for you.
To get you going, here are a few ideas you might like to explore. The first I will call the child’s eye view. Our viewpoint is generally around 1.7 meters from the ground. That’s where our eye level is and that is the viewpoint we use in 99 percent of our pictures. Now imagine you are a three year old child. Your viewpoint on life is very much closer to the ground. You spend more time looking up at the world. It would certainly be worth re-viewing some items from this very low viewpoint. OK, I know you will end up looking up people’s noses - but it just might work. You won’t know till you try.
The opposite end of the spectrum is the “Bird’s eye” view. This takes some more thought and planning - and sometimes a step ladder as well, but again you will get different shots. Ever noticed how many rock bands have photographs taken from above, with the members of the group looking up at the camera? It is because you end up getting a very powerful shot - and a different, memorable shot. Try standing on walls, on top of cars, or the aforementioned step ladder. Just don’t fall off! It is actually quite easy to become unbalanced looking through the viewfinder when up high.
For those who do have choices of lenses, or do have zoom facility in the point and shooter, you can try using the two extremes that you have, even though you may think that the lens choice is unsuitable for what you are photographing. After all, remember Bill Brand! It is even worthwhile taking the same subject matter with both of the two opposite extremes - wide angle and telephoto.
Even going back to the ‘landscape’ (horizontal) and ‘portrait (vertical) views, try taking a traditional landscape shot in the vertical format. It will make you see how much sky there is, and how much you want to contrast that with land. Likewise, a horizontal portrait is different.
Try another viewpoint this weekend and you might be amazed.

Modern Medicine: by Dr. Iain Corness, Consultant

A lump of 4x2 and terrible tantrums

I’ll bet when you read the title you thought, “What politically incorrect thing is he going to say now?” OK, I admit that being politically correct has never been high on my list of priorities. As far as I am concerned, PC means Personal Computer. I have also found that hugging trees does not do too much for me, other than leaving green bark stains on one’s shirt.
In response to the general thought that there is more “cancer” (for example, but you can add in many other conditions) these days, I read a very interesting article the other day in which the author suggested that there may not be increased incidence of some diseases, but just better diagnosis. I would have to agree.
Clinical medicine has always been an interesting field of endeavor, and I well remember one of my more enlightened tutors at medical school saying that the practice of Medicine was 90 percent mumbo-jumbo and 10 percent science. That is not quite the experience of today. My estimation is now 60 percent mumbo-jumbo and 40 percent science.
But back to better diagnosis. With all the new technology that is available today, such as MRI and color Doppler ultrasound, it means that diagnosis can be made earlier and with more confidence than before. In many instances, diagnosis of internal conditions can be done without resorting to surgery. This is all good news, but life is never a 100 percent certainty I am afraid, despite the fact that ‘death’ is.
There is also a tendency to act too quickly in some cases. Take prostate cancer, for example. With the PSA test we can show whether the level falls within the normal range, or otherwise. If higher than normal, does this mean that your number is almost up? Fortunately, no. The sheer numerical value does not immediately equate to terminal cancer.
With prostate cancer, more men die with prostate cancer - not from prostate cancer. In other words, most prostate cancers are slow growing, so a ‘watch and wait’ approach is quite justified. If the PSA creeps up very slowly, then continue the watchful appraisal. If however, it shoots up, then it is time to start action.
A recent study in the US, over some years, has shown that operations for low-grade, low-risk cancers of the prostate do not provide any worthwhile benefits for the older age group. But before you tell your surgeon to put away his scalpels, please note that I am talking about “low-grade, low-risk cancers of the prostate”. There’s a big difference, and you should discuss this with your urologist.
Oh yes, the reference to the lump of wood - the politically correct method of parenting in the developed world is to reason with your three year old who is lying screaming on the floor at Tesco’s kicking his legs in the air because you denied him a chocolate. The PC method would go as follows, “Mummy can’t buy you one just now, darling, because it will give you dental caries and you will have to have painful and expensive treatment later.” Mister Three then says, “Of course, Mummy, I had forgotten to look at the future possibilities. I am sorry and I won’t ask again!” Having been a parent and still being one, I can assure you that three year olds do not reason (even if they have developed that far). Three year olds are similar in responses to Pavlov’s dogs. The simple ‘cause and effect’ concept applies here. “Stop that right now, and if you don’t get up, Mummy will smack.” That has a far greater chance of working than entreaties to consider dental caries. Fortunately, my son Evan turned four the other day. Instead of three year old tantrums, he has adopted four year old tantrums.
However, I do not encourage brutality, that is why any nails should be removed before application of the wood to the nether regions. Just who dreamed up this politically correct nonsense anyway? It is interesting that the social experiment of ‘no smacking’ in New Zealand, which was then enacted as ‘law’ has not worked. The parents have rejected it. I wonder why?