On Landscape - Any Questions Private

Tim Parkin (00:01)
Hello and welcome to OnLandscape. Any questions? I'm here with my co-host Joe Cornish with our special guest, David Ward. Hello, David.

David (00:10)
Hi. I wanted to see how then. I don't know why, but you know, it's my age. It was a brilliant program. Yeah. I'd look nothing like Fred Dine.

Tim Parkin (00:16)
You're welcome to our program.

It was, it's a program. Anyway, we have a bunch of questions sent in by our readers. We have 10 questions, 10 people, and we'll start tweeting.

David (00:30)
Should I turn the post mode off? I mean ten questions. I mean that could that could be several hours

Tim Parkin (00:37)
I think it could be, we might have to do a sequel anyway. I think it could, if you have a tendency to diverge from the normal path.

David (00:39)
Hahaha

There's a lot, always a lot to talk about. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (00:45)
Never let it be said.

Tim Parkin (00:49)
First question from Ed Hannum. I think both of you and Joe have used the phrase, the curse of the masterpiece before. And could you expand on this, David?

David (01:03)
Yeah, so I think I was going to write a piece for On Landscape and I'm sorry Tim, it's one of those ones that I've not got around to finishing. Yeah, it's only been six years.

Tim Parkin (01:11)
It's only been six years.

David (01:20)
Most photographers seem to be looking to make masterpieces, standalone, amazing images that would be, let's say potentially competition winners. And the notion of the masterpiece has changed in two kind of distinct ways, I think. Originally the masterpiece was what an apprentice made at the end of their apprenticeship.

to show that they had mastered the skills necessary to carry on, whether it was woodworking or whether it was a painting in a studio or whatever. And so it was just really supposed to mark a point that you had acquired a certain amount of skill. And then the idea of the masterpiece was very much taken up by gallerists because the gallerists would like all the work that they're trying to sell to be masterpieces because that increases their...

Yeah, financial value. And they don't like the notion that somebody might be churning out 20 paintings a day, which I know for a fact some water colorists do. I'm not saying that it's not difficult to do that, but I'm just saying that they would like them to be, you know, ideally once every year or so, something that's amazing, or once every four or five years maybe with an oil painting, something that's absolutely amazing and therefore worth more money.

So it's a curse because I think the notion of the masterpiece restricts creative approaches. Because if we're always looking for some kind of aspect of perfection in the image that we're making, then we're probably turning away from taking some chances. And I think it's only through taking chances, only through

and also some extent through serendipity, that we really kind of advance. If we're always playing it safe, if we're always just trying to make something that's technically perfect and a safe composition, we're not going to advance, is my feeling on that.

Tim Parkin (03:36)
That reminds me of a story from a professor who gave his class, split them into two and gave one half of the class the task to in one month create one perfect piece and the other half the class he gave them one month to create as many pieces as possible. And unsurprisingly for a lot of people the class that produced as many pieces as possible produced some amazing works of art and the masterpiece was a bit staid and formulaic potentially.

David (04:03)
Yeah, well, it's I mean, the to produce as many pieces as possible, you're going to have to get into lateral thinking, aren't you? You're going to have to get into divergent thinking. And divergent thinking is really the core of creativity. Convergent thinking, which I think is what comes into play with the production of the notion of producing a masterpiece is because you're working towards a gold standard, you're working towards a summit towards some kind of

strictly speaking, unattainable goal. I mean, one of the things that comes into it also is this notion of perfection, you know, that there's something perfect about the masterpiece. You can't fault it in any way. And I know that any photographer will look at their own work and go, oh, yeah, I wish I'd kind of done that differently. And maybe if I'd stood a little bit to the right and a slightly longer exposure or, you know, whatever, I mean, that's all part of the craft.

and realizing that things can be improved. And the idealized version of the masterpiece of perfection is actually counters that. It negates that idea, I think.

Joe Cornish (05:17)
Well, it's sort of, yeah, it's not quite as bad as the Curse of the Pharaoh, but there's... I don't know, but trying to produce one. But yeah, I think it is a problem. It's more of a shadow really, that if people, well, if people, us, if any of us get obsessed with making pictures which are, you know, just right in every respect, then...

David (05:23)
Are you saying nobody's died while searching for a...

Joe Cornish (05:43)
I think it is very inhibiting on creativity. You've pretty much covered it, David. I think that was absolutely great. I did have a couple of other thoughts though, which might just add a little kind of flavor to it as well, which is, you know, you mentioned competitions early on and I can't help wondering if culturally this is something that's become more of a thing. Because there didn't used to be any competitions for landscape photographers at all 40 years ago.

And therefore, nobody, well, nobody that I was aware of really thought about making masterpieces. All the photographers whose work I admired and watched back then, they were in books or in sequences or at exhibitions. It wasn't an individual picture. It wasn't really about that. The pictures were great that we saw, but didn't appear to be about one being, you know, a masterpiece in any sense. Yeah, yeah, so a large extent, yes.

David (06:36)
No, it was about the body of work, wasn't it? So, yeah, yeah. And Tim said that to me as well, because I don't make series, and series are supposed to be the best way to kind of guide the viewer's interpretation. But I don't do that. But Tim said to me that all my work is kind of a series, because it's all connected, the kind of things that I'm interested in.

Joe Cornish (06:42)
Yeah, exactly.

Tim Parkin (07:02)
It's exploring your favourite ideas isn't it? Your...

Joe Cornish (07:05)
We, yeah, I think there's a couple of things on that because we, you know, I see projects quite frequently and portfolios that are based around a single theme. And that's a kind of noble and admirable way of, in a way of, if you like, of offsetting the idea of the masterpiece. However, sometimes that can feel a bit forced as well. Whereas I think, I mean, I would say in my own case, my own practice,

David (07:05)
Yeah.

Joe Cornish (07:32)
I just go out and photograph because I have probably a number of different things I love to do. And, you know, over the course of a lifetime, you keep returning to those scenes. David, which is the same as what you do, I think, maybe in a slightly different way.

Tim Parkin (07:45)
I think a lot of painters did that, didn't they? There's this perception that they worked on a blue theme or this theme or that theme, and it can continuous line from start to finish and then change to do something else. And they didn't work like that at all. They all overlapped. So, you might just have a painting that was like five years later, well, that fits that series. I'll do that.

David (07:45)
Yeah.

Joe Cornish (08:00)
Yeah.

David (08:07)
Well curation, post facto curation is a big part of it, isn't it? And you could curate my work or Joe's work or any photographer's work to make series, even though if they weren't originally shot to be series. And that's not necessarily a bad thing because if it truly reflects what the photographer is interested in,

know, if it truly reflects their concerns, then that's possibly a good way of getting some insight into their view of the world. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (08:44)
Exactly.

Tim Parkin (08:46)
Right, we have a few questions about large format and film, but one I think is a transition is in terms of this and my idea around having to, not creating masterpieces, but creating more work that you can diverse, divergent thinking as it were, has your move from large format to digital allowed you to experiment more and produce more work and hence different work?

David (09:13)
Yeah, I definitely think that's true because more subjects are available. When you've got a range of, I don't know, 10, 12, 14 stops, whatever it is, as opposed to five and a half on Velvia, if you're lucky, and if Tim scans it, anybody else you've probably got about four, then there are more things that you can shoot. So that allows me to experiment more than...

than I would have been able to do in the past. And also it's quicker to do that. It's, and you also, you get feedback. You get instant feedback, you know, with the film. I mean, one of the things that I loved about it was the delayed gratification. You shot it and then two weeks later, you got the film back from the processors. And as long as it was a wow moment and not a, oh God, I screwed it up again.

Joe Cornish (10:12)
Hahaha

David (10:12)
And it was, you know, you've got more reward, I think, than you do with digital photography, because with digital photography, you've got a pretty good idea when you've taken it, whether it's worked or not. You can check the histogram, you can review it 100% on the screen on the back. I know it's not the same as looking at it on a proper monitor, but so I kind of miss

delayed gratification but I don't because the other advantages of digital kind of outweigh it I think.

Tim Parkin (10:45)
Yes, different. Yeah. Carrie, Carrie Selvia. Apologies if I get that wrong. Has asked, um, has the transition been difficult and do you think it's changed your style?

David (10:58)
I definitely found it difficult and I know Joe found it difficult as well and one of the things that made it difficult for me was that it seemed very easy to make a lot of images and I spent 35, 36 years using a large format camera predominantly as my way of making images and that

I don't know if it's a reflection of me or chicken and egg, but I worked slowly. And it took me a while to kind of see a composition and to frame the composition and to make the image. And then you'd pick up a digital camera and you can go, OK, auto-focus, bing, there we go, that's done. And obviously, it's not. Because if you treat it like that, if you treat it with any less respect than I treated the 5.4, then you make a lot of very poor images.

And that's what I did to start off with. I mean, they were technically fine because the camera helps you so much, but they weren't considered. And I think at the core of my photography, the things that I like to, the images that I like to make are kind of meditations. They're things where, I like an image where somebody can spend some time looking at it and...

and get a lot out of it. I think Rachel Talibart said something about rewarding the lingering gaze, although she might have quoted somebody else for that. I don't know. And that's what I kind of aim to do. But so many, if you make images very quickly, I think it's unlikely that you will get many images that do that. Now, there's going to be a whole lot of people who say, what about street photographers? They make lots of images really quickly, and some of them are fantastic. That's just not the way my brain works.

So I found it difficult because of the easiness of making, which, you know, is what attracts most people to digital, is that it's easy. I found that difficult. I also found it difficult because I was giving up tilt for the first year or two that I was using a digital camera and it's just become so ingrained in the way that I make images that I think about.

uh placing the plane of focus within the within the composition that I found it really difficult to give that up now I mean if I went to a Sony a7r5 I could use focus stacking uh focus bracketing and then stacking um and um you know maybe that would overcome that problem

Tim Parkin (13:44)
question from me, do you think that I'm for Joe actually, do you think the drop focus when you have a tilted lens is it's obviously a unique look because it's impossible to achieve any other way. Do you think there's overlooked benefits of that drop focus? Interesting plane of drop focus.

Joe Cornish (14:04)
I'll give David a break here. Yes, I think there is. It's very difficult to empirically quantify that difference. But yes, there is still a plane of focus. And I think it can be quite... It's rewarding, there's something about it. I mean, there are times when it's difficult, and especially if you have a large three-dimensional object quite close to the camera. But I've found some of my favourite pictures

probably not deliberately has a certain softness in quite close zones, but which are not so important because they're not part of the picture. Being able to see that and then link the kind of primary areas of focus through the depth of field of the photograph, spatially speaking, is rewarding. It's difficult to describe it. Is it overlooked as an attribute?

I think possibly it is, but to me it's not as important as the fact that just it gives you that feeling, be able to make the photograph in one go rather than having to stack loads of pictures together, which does work and for some studies it's worked fine. But I think for a landscape, then tilt is nearly always a much more satisfactory way of, as it were, executing the process, the technique and it's easier.

David (15:33)
So historically, I mean, in the 80s, in advertising and specifically food photography, drop focus was using large format cameras was a real big thing. It was stylistically was very important that you just had the strawberry on top of the cake shop and then the rest of the cake went beautifully out of focus, you know, the using 10-8 maybe and the...

Joe Cornish (15:44)
big thing.

Tim Parkin (15:45)
Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

David (15:59)
The way the depth of field dropped off was really nice.

Tim Parkin (16:02)
Big, big Tessal lenses. Wonderful. Yeah.

David (16:04)
Yeah, yeah, but I'm going to I'm going to do something I probably shouldn't do. And I'm assuming that you're going to edit this afterwards, which is. So I don't know if you can see that.

Tim Parkin (16:14)
Across a bit, across a bit. Other way, right. Oh, there we go. Yeah. I'll insert the picture. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (16:17)
All the way. There you go.

David (16:17)
other way.

So, yeah, okay. So that, I took a picture in snow, in a wood near me a few years ago, and it was a beech tree. And the way the beech tree, lower branches come down, they come down in kind of sheets of beautiful tracery. And I used the tilt.

to lay the plane of focus along that tracery. So below the tracery, so the trunk that you can see through in the background is very much out of focus, the tracery is sharp. And that, I think, would be something that would be quite difficult to do with focus stacking. Because if you focus stack,

Although Photoshop might do it accidentally for you because it's not very good at subjects like that. If you focus bracket and focus stack, if you want all of that tracery to be sharp, then everything below it is also going to be sharp because it's parallel to the sensor plane. That is of using 5.4 like that or tilt lens on a Semi in this case, I think does give you a different view of the world.

I got a comment. Yeah, yeah. And then, you know, it's also been used in a kind of throw away sense, hasn't it, by people using Photoshop to kind of reverse engineer the tilt look. Make wider landscapes look like models. So it definitely gives you a different feel. I think it does give you a different feel. And I like the fact that I can just, like as Joe said, you just.

Tim Parkin (17:43)
It's just another option, isn't it, I suppose.

macro look yes

David (18:11)
If you get it right, maybe two adjustments and you've got your plan. I use a Myrex on the Sony. No longer made, sadly, because I think it's quite good. It's going to sound like such a clutch. I've got a Sony E-mount, obviously, on the camera. And then at the front of that, there's a Canon EF mount. And then there's a Nikon.

Tim Parkin (18:16)
What tilt system do you use then at the moment?

Okay. Yeah.

with Sigma lenses on it or something.

David (18:39)
Canon EF adapter and then Nikon. But the reason I did that was because the Canon EF at the time had the widest throat and the shortest flange distance so it allowed me to get more movement out of it and also allowed you to put adapters in.

Tim Parkin (18:41)
I wouldn't say it's a clue, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Yeah, more adapters in. And the Nikon lenses then have the manual focus levered, aperture lever.

David (18:57)
Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, so I've got a mix of Nikon's and Zeiss Nikon Fit lenses. Yeah. It's gone.

Tim Parkin (19:11)
Yeah, um, question from Robin Jones about the large format. You miss what do you miss? And what particularly do you miss about the five four workflow, if anything?

David (19:21)
Um, I...

Tim Parkin (19:23)
And delayed gratification. You can't have that when you've already said that one.

David (19:25)
No, I've said it, haven't I? I've shot my bolt on that one. What I don't miss is unloading and loading dark slides. What I miss is the slow ritual, I think, is the taking time. And also the, sorry, say again.

Tim Parkin (19:40)
Is it possible to fake that? Is it possible to fake that slow ritual? That's the thing I find difficult is to force myself to not take pictures with digital. It seemed you know, like when you get when you get a composition set up, one large format, I'm going to wait for the perfect conditions to take that picture and in the process, I might tune it slightly. Whereas in digital go, well, it's free, I'll just take a quick shot and then, and then I go, well, I've taken the shot now I could do something else.

David (19:56)
Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that was one of the things when I was swapping across that I left something too soon. Because it's a common problem. Because it's very easy to think you've got it. And I think it's easy not to apply quite the same standard of care as I would have done with

Tim Parkin (20:17)
premature exposure.

I'm going to go ahead and close the video.

David (20:39)
So yeah, I missed the ritual. I missed the rotating of the image, 380 degrees. I think that makes a big difference.

Tim Parkin (20:50)
Last question about the large format is, looking back over your career, would you say your best work or finest image is made using film or digital? Yeah.

David (20:59)
That's my so-called career.

No, I think there's as many good images on each, probably. In fact, I think there's quite a few.

Tim Parkin (21:11)
Yeah, for a lot of people, their favorite images are the last ones they've taken that they liked anyway.

David (21:15)
Well, but if I think back, I mean, especially somewhere like Iceland, I went to Iceland for 15 years or so, I think, before I first used the digital camera there. And I made very few pictures in Iceland, because it's windy, or it's raining, or, you know, and you've got something with the aerodynamics of a sub post office on top of a tripod, and it shakes like hell. And so, and what light there is, is often fleeting. So,

If I think I've probably made twice as many images in half the amount of time on digital and by that I mean images that I'm happy with. So. I think there are some standout images that I made them on five four when the conditions were just right. If I look back. I now think that I've probably made more in when did I swap I swapped fully I swapped in 2016.

Tim Parkin (21:54)
Yeah.

David (22:14)
So in eight years, I think I've made more good images than I did in the previous, I don't know how long that was. That's depressing, isn't it?

Tim Parkin (22:27)
Yeah, Adam Pichalla asked a question about ICM and multi exposure, etc. And he says unconventional photography such as this are gaining popularity, and he occasionally uses it as well, all by sparingly. Some photographers believe these to be beneath them, gimmicky and not art. What does our illustrious guests think? Be honest.

David (22:49)
Well, that's Joe, isn't it? No, illustrious, I mean. I don't think they're not art. I think in the right hands, I think they're fine. I think.

There are very few photographers whose work I've looked at using ICM, who I think have already mastered it. I think a lot of people use ICM as a way of getting out of a bind. You know, they're in a situation where they can't quite see what they'll do. So I'll use ICM here because I don't know what else to do in this situation. Whereas I would probably go, just walk away and find something else.

I mean, I certainly think that if you look at the work of somebody like Valda Bailey, I mean, her imagery is amazing. I'm not tempted to copy. I mean, Joe and I, we were we were we were guest leaders, weren't we, on a workshop with Valda and Doug, and we were asked the question. What? Hold on a second. I have to come up with a phrase here. Alda said something like it's pointless.

Joe Cornish (23:57)
That's always starting to...

David (24:01)
pointing the photocopier at the world again and again. But we were asked the question whether either of us would do it. And I think there was a fair degree of disappointment when we said no. I mean, what do you think, Jay?

Joe Cornish (24:19)
Well, I think this is one where, you know, if your whole, if your main emphasis in your work is around creating fine art and using any technique and every technique to create pictures that are exciting to look at using a camera, then of course it's totally legitimate and you don't have any restrictions. But I have a self-imposed restriction which might be...

be slightly different to how you would see it, David, but it's parallel, I suspect, which is that the world itself is the source of my creativity. I don't see what I could do to improve it. So the idea is to see well enough to see the world as it is and have it engage and maybe mystify or intrigue or interest.

And that's how I want to see the world, the beauty of things as they are. Beauty sometimes, you know, these are not the, there can be many, many emotions in the response to what you're looking at, but underlying it is this search for beauty. But the beauty of the facts as they, as they exist in the real world, which of course, it's a photograph. It's not reality. You're not looking at it with, you know, it's a two-dimensional flat surface, but

Photography's greatest power for me is its ability to render the world as if it was an illusion of reality. And that is what makes it powerful and engaging. And as soon as it doesn't do that, as soon as you see that it's a process primarily, then it's lost the interest for me. I'd rather paint, I think. So does that make sense? So the photography is about reality. And therefore...

I'm kind of locked into using high quality, reproducing the details of beauty and the atmosphere of the natural world as they are, because that for me is fundamental to my philosophy of photography. Sorry, to be long winded.

David (26:27)
No, no, not long-winded at all. And I agree with an awful lot of what you said there. I mean, for me, the images that I'm of my own that I'm most pleased with are what would have, you know, what would have been described by camera workers, straight photographs, but that are visually or spatially ambiguous that become puzzles. Because for me, the hardest thing to do

an image making apparatus that is of reality and you're shooting in a straight way is to make an image which becomes a visual puzzle. That's really difficult to do. And probably most people looking at them go, oh, well, you know, because they weren't there when I did it and they don't realize how difficult it was to get that. But so, and I think if you use techniques like ICM,

multiple exposures in camera or layering afterwards in Photoshop, that it becomes something else. It's montage basically and there's nothing wrong with montage. Montage has a very long fine tradition in art but for me it doesn't feel what I'm interested in doing with a camera. I don't look down on it, it's just not what I'm interested in doing with a camera. And Adam for instance,

Tim Parkin (27:50)
Yeah, I mean, without Alda's work, I look up at it because I think it's extraordinary. And I think it's so creative. Yeah.

David (27:54)
Oh, it's incredible. It's incredible. But, and Adam, you know, the poser of the question has made some amazing ICM images. I'm just unlikely to follow him.

Joe Cornish (27:57)
But the

Tim Parkin (28:01)
Mm.

Joe Cornish (28:04)
Yeah, and the difference is that that's their thing, whether it's Adam or Valda or whoever. I mean, in Adam's case, he's probably still experimenting a little bit, and I know he still likes to shoot straight pictures, I think too. Whereas Valda is, you know, her artistic background, and she just happens to enjoy using a camera to make amazing images that are mysteries and full of metaphor and fascination. She's an amazing, amazing artist.

Tim Parkin (28:33)
and think that.

David (28:34)
Yes, she is. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (28:35)
So, you know, but that's another thing. I certainly would agree. And it's not about making a judgment, any kind of value judgment. It's just about what you want to do and who you are. Yeah, and in my case, maybe I don't have the creativity to do it. And that's fine too. I just, that's not what I want to do. So I'm still finding it very, very challenging to make good photographs of nature as it is. And it, you know, I'm so familiar with David's work. I have to say that,

Tim Parkin (28:55)
the question.

Joe Cornish (29:05)
His work still amazes and intrigues and delights me because of the mysteries inherent in the way that he sees. There's only one David Ward, only David can see as he does. And anybody who tries to emulate his work will find out very quickly it's incredibly difficult or impossible to do that, which is why they shouldn't do that. Well, there you go. Whatever the answer is, I'm not necessarily recommending that as a medical solution.

David (29:24)
It's almost dropped on my head as a baby, that's why.

Hahaha!

Joe Cornish (29:33)
The loss of creativity for anyone, by the way. But I do think that, you know, one of the most important things in photography is to accept yourself and to recognize your own abilities and interests. And for me, I could tell stories forever about why I work the way that I do, but who would be interested. You know, it's just that I worked in a studio for...

for a year and a half with a brilliant American photographer who could create anything you could imagine in a studio, this is before digital. And I became so sick of working through the night until four o'clock in the morning that I decided I wanted to be a nature photographer. That resulted. And I also learned to recognize that actually photographing for me, that the reality of the world in all its...

extraordinary power and beauty was what drove the process, not creating something in the studio. You know, yes, I've had the personal experiences of working very long hours and it was very boring a lot of the time, which put me off. But then I had lots of positives about nature, going to the American Southwest and seeing these incredible sites and thinking, no artist could surpass what we're looking at here. You know, but the...

the kind of what makes it wonderful to me is that it is to be able to record to try to translate it effectively so you can share perhaps some of that sense of wonder. And that's what drove my creativity, if you like, ultimately. And that's the underlying philosophy.

Tim Parkin (31:17)
think when I've, when I've tried to take pictures, we're using ICM, because I experimented when I went out with Doug Chinnery once, it removed me a little bit from the experience of being out in nature. It stopped me looking at the looking at the nature and made me look at the camera to look at what was being produced rather than the source material as it were. And that's, that's not bad. Or, or it's not negative. It's just I didn't that's not how I wanted to work, which is part of the same sort of thing. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (31:43)
Yeah, you lost some of the connection.

Tim Parkin (31:46)
And I think asking somebody, would you take pictures like that? The answer saying no, isn't because you don't like that. But the question might as well be, why don't you use somebody else's style?

David (31:57)
Well, I think Ansel said something like that. He never particularly liked other people's photographs because if he really did, he'd be making pictures like them.

Tim Parkin (32:08)
Yeah.

David (32:10)
So, you know, it's a, that's an interesting discussion in itself, isn't it? Because so many people become followers of a fashion in photography, of a way of making images, of a look to images. Somebody becomes well known, and I know, Joe, you've suffered from this, people reusing your tripod holes, as it were.

In fact, I had a guy who came on a workshop with me many years ago and he presented a portfolio and they were all copies of your compositions, Joe, taken the same kind of time of year, the same kind of time of day. And and I asked him why, you know, these are great, you know, he was obviously technically very competent, but they're not your pictures, they're somebody else's compositions and he said, and I said, why, why did you do that? And he said, because I know that they're good.

and I don't have a lot of time. So I actually persuaded him that he ought to start shooting his own and he went off and he's become a very good photographer. But there's a sort of thing about, people want to be reassured that they're not being foolish. And because art, there are no absolutes because it's all relative. If they make images in a style,

that's recognised, that gets widespread praise, then there is this possibility that they will be reassured that they're not being foolish by doing that. Whereas if they made their own, ploughed their own furrow, they might feel that actually that it's of no value at all because nobody else is doing that. Whereas actually, if you look through the history of art, the ones who ploughed their own furrow, Van Gogh is always the one that comes to mind, but there were plenty of others.

they are the ones who in the end stand out as being the great creative spirits.

Joe Cornish (34:09)
It occurs to me that what you're saying is the difference between being a grown-up and being a child and actually how being a child is a much more useful model for creativity.

David (34:18)
Yeah. Well children, a fantastic ability for divergent thinking, haven't they? You know, lateral thinking, the Edward de Bono thing. You ask me to come up. Sorry, go on.

Joe Cornish (34:27)
They're not inhibited by the fear of being foolish, perhaps. Or at least not until...

David (34:35)
Yeah, they haven't been taught that they were being foolish. Yeah, I mean, that's, you know, an awful lot of what the educational process is about is teaching us what's wrong. Yeah, yeah, it's conform, yeah. Well, you know, education generally is designed to turn out employees, isn't it?

Tim Parkin (34:44)
conform. Yeah.

Joe Cornish (34:52)
Useful workers.

Tim Parkin (34:55)
Yeah, absolutely. Coming back off that, roughly the topic we're on there in a way is, Kai Thompson has asked, what is style and why is it important and how did you find your style?

David (35:07)
Ha ha

Tim Parkin (35:08)
And we've got a few days, I suppose.

Joe Cornish (35:10)
Ha ha.

David (35:14)
Yeah, I'll have to lay some food in.

Joe Cornish (35:14)
Ha ha

David (35:20)
So a couple of things. Style is often mistaken for stylism. So like a particular way of shooting, let's say high key or very wide angle lenses or there's lots of possibilities for that. True style, something that reflects is something that reflects the concern of the photographers. So if you think of somebody like Diane Arbus.

So you could be in a gallery with lots of different photographs of street photography and almost certainly you'd be able to pick out which ones were Diane Arbis because they reflected the way that she saw the world. So true style is a reflection of the concerns of the artist and so it grows, it grows as the artist's interests change, as the artist becomes

more deeply involved with their subject. It's not something that you can just decide to do. In fact, if we return to ICM, some people think that ICM is a style. It's a style for Valda because it's how she makes images that move people and move herself. For a lot of people, it's probably not a style. It's just a gloss.

It's just a way of making an engaging image, but not one that really reflects what they're about. Now, I don't want to denigrate people making ICM in blanket way like that, but there are definitely people who do that. There are definitely people who look at somebody like Mark Adamus' work and go, OK, well, I want to make pictures like Mark Adamus because they've been very successful in social media and blah, blah. Anyway, so style is important because

If it is true style, then it truly reflects the concern of the photographer, that it truly reflects how they see the world, how they interpret the world, how they transform the world through the action of making a photograph. And...

The problem about that is that when you look at a photographer's picture, because there are no maker's marks, although you can introduce them, you know, in a pictorialist way or in a, or in an ICM kind of way, because there are no maker's marks, there's nothing that fundamentally says this is so-and-so's picture. So the only way that you can make it be so-and-so's picture is by

really concentrating on those things alone that interest you. Does that make sense?

Tim Parkin (38:13)
Hmm, I think so. Yeah, because style, style in terms of what many people perceive as style is merely the tool with which style emerges. So the techniques and everything are, are a vehicle for style.

David (38:14)
You

Yeah, they're an addendum, aren't they? Yeah, they're something that is associated with. So for instance, you could say for me, I like using slightly longer than standard lenses, 70 mil or 100 mil or something, to compress the space slightly. I like using tilt. I like shooting in color. I do some black and white, but predominantly color.

And you could say all of those things were my style, but they're not my style. My style is actually about the way I compose images and the way I compose images is fundamentally linked to the way that I see those subjects.

Tim Parkin (39:12)
Yeah. So you can only really have a style if you're honest with yourself in how you produce, in what you produce. If you look into something externally, probably not style.

David (39:19)
Yeah, I think so. Well, honest with yourself. So, I mean, there's been lots of kind of naive artists over the years who have developed style and have no kind of knowledge of the wider art world. They're being honest with themselves without even knowing that there is a way of being dishonest, aren't they? I suppose, you know, because they... Yeah, yeah. So I don't think you have to consciously say I have to be honest.

Tim Parkin (39:41)
Yeah, you might be able to, yeah.

David (39:49)
But I think, well one of the things that I did, so at college, did a degree in photography, you get exposed to a lot of different kinds of photography and the history of the image making and a lot of stuff about philosophy of how images work. And then when I left college, I spent a lot of time not looking at other people's pictures.

because I was concerned that by looking at other people's pictures, that they would influence the way that I made my own images. And this was probably quite bad for me commercially. Um, but, um, but, um, and it's probably quite, you know, it's probably a fool's errand because we're surrounded by images all the time. We're absorbing them all the time. But I tried to develop my own style by concentrating on what I found.

interesting in the wider world. I mean, so people call me a landscape photographer. I'm not sure I'm a landscape photographer. I make images outside, I think is probably enough. Sometimes in wild places, sometimes not in wild places. So I just tried to develop a way of seeing that closely linked to what I'm concerned about. So I'm

I'm interested in the gap between how the camera sees and how the mind-eye combination sees. I'm interested in color, relationships. I think that for me, that's a fascinating area. It's obviously hugely important within the history of art. I'm interested in how perception, human perception works, and all these things play into how I make an image. And they're not in the forefront of my mind when I'm making a picture.

But because I've read reasonably widely on these subjects, they're obviously working away in the background. I think developing a kind of personal philosophy of photography was a big step for me. And I suppose the first book, Landscape Within, was my laying that down. I kind of see it almost as a...

prospectus, you know, because I'm, you know, like a like an election prospectus, I'm, I'm setting it. Yeah, yeah, I'm not sure about that Monica, I don't think I'm, I'm there yet. So I think that was very important to me, developing a style was to actually think very deeply about all the things that as deeply as I'm capable of all the things that

Joe Cornish (42:21)
Manifesto, Professor Wood.

Tim Parkin (42:22)
Yes, yes.

David (42:43)
that interests me and then try and relate that to what fascinates me photographically.

Tim Parkin (42:51)
If you were going to give somebody a recommendation on how to find an individual style or how to develop something, would you have any advice on like in terms of subject choice or anything else or just research? What sort of advice would you give Alastair first?

Joe Cornish (43:10)
Well, you probably would expect me to say this, but just be true to yourself. Is that a Shakespeare quote? I think, I mean, to thine own self be true, I think something like that, said the Bard. And essentially, I think that's what being an artist is. So, and Adam, Ansel Adams said, a photographer reflects every book they have read, every film they have seen, every.

symphony they've listened to, every person they have loved.

Tim Parkin (43:42)
Who was who was who said, if you want to take more interesting pictures, be a more interesting person. I think that's

Joe Cornish (43:46)
Well, that's also a good one. But I mean, I think as life goes by, you have more and more life experiences and you have to, you're just trying to be yourself and you do reflect your whole value system emerges in how you see. Where at least I think it should do. Yeah, and that's what, I mean, I hate the word style. I just.

Tim Parkin (44:07)
There's choices you make.

Joe Cornish (44:16)
In my family, I'm known for having none. So, I suppose maybe that's why I hate it, but it just, it feels superficial as a word. And so maybe I don't really relate to it. So I don't think it's an aspiration necessarily to look for a style in any way. I think it's very much a question of make your photography yourself for you, for no one else. And...

you know, make it with joy and passion and experimentation and, you know, and a sense of delight in the process. And it is a wonderful thing to do. I think that the camera's incredibly, can be really liberating and can be frustrating of course at times, but it's frustrating because we're often trying to achieve something, you know, and achievement isn't really what it's about. It's the process and the fact that it allows you to engage with a subject, you know.

a deeper way.

Tim Parkin (45:18)
David.

David (45:19)
Well, I think quite often what happens is this question is posed in an inverted kind of way, because what people are thinking about in style is the look, and actually it's what underlies that that's important. It's not the look. Ultimately the look comes from the thoughts, you know. I mean a big problem for me with a lot of photography is that

In other art forms, people start making images with an idea. In photography, because we have this ability to translate reality, they start making images with what's in front of the camera. And they don't often relate that to an idea at all. You know, well, that looks nice, bang, picture. So we start the wrong way around, I think, a lot of the time. And also we often mistake subject for object.

you know, in most, some of the finest paintings, the object may appear quite kind of non-descript or not important, but when you realise what the painter is trying to say by depicting that object, what the subject is, what social interaction is maybe, or something deeper on love, or human condition, or whatever it is, then you realise that the object and subject are not the same thing.

And the greatest photographs, they are always not the same thing. You know, a picture of a mountain, the subject is probably, if it's a good photograph, is probably not the mountain. You know, it's not that object. It's what it says about... Well, if I think of somebody like Peter Ambroskis, you know, if you look at his photographs of Tasmania, those images are...

kind of talking about the whole environment. They're not spectacular photographs of a particular place. They're talking about how all of these amazing, myriad life all works together and how the geology and the ecosystem all blend and that fantastic melange that results from that. So the objects photographed are not the subject of the photograph. And...

Style I think is almost always approached in the same way. People think that style is how something looks and actually style is really about where you started from. It's what underlies the making the phone.

Tim Parkin (47:56)
And it is an emergent property, so it's very difficult to see what's going on in your own work as style.

David (48:03)
Yeah, yeah, and so it's very difficult for me to give advice about, well, where do you start? You know, should I go off and photograph mountains? No, you should go off and photograph whatever it is that interests you. If it's mushrooms, then mushrooms, you know?

Tim Parkin (48:14)
I suppose, I suppose.

Partly good advice might maybe to not focus less on the gear because gear is often a crutch. And I think the old advice of one camera, one lens, I wouldn't go quite that far, but definitely get to the point where the equipment is invisible because it's so familiar.

David (48:35)
Yeah, well first ever time I went to Iceland, which was with Joe, I had two lenses for my 5.4 and on the first evening, I don't know if you remember Joe, the 90mm lens, the shutter jammed, well it was the aperture ring jammed, so I had one lens, I had a 150mm lens for the whole trip, which was not the lens that I generally used the most, but I think that played a key role in me shifting towards making the more intimate images that I've become known for because...

I had a limitation and I think limitations are really important in the artistic process. And in fact, one of the good things about film, you know, shooting transparency, was there were lots of limitations. You had to work within those limitations to make good images and that made you more concentrated on what was possible and what you should try and do.

Tim Parkin (49:26)
Another question? Less joke, you've got something.

Joe Cornish (49:27)
Sorry, just have to say that I've told that story of David's on numerous occasions when he wasn't there because I think it's one of the best examples of how creative he was up till now. And also, you know, of course I should say that I obviously, you know, obviously it was me who did that. So he heard it here for the first time, I destroyed your 1990s.

David (49:39)
It comes out now.

Tim Parkin (49:56)
Hahaha.

Joe Cornish (49:57)
I wish I could take credit for being the kind of catalyst for your extraordinary work since. But I do think that I'm pretty sure that we had lots of discussions on that trip around that and the fact that you were having to limit your perspective to the standard lens and how it made you think differently. And that it was an enormously powerful...

example because you had no choice, you had to do it. And then of course the other thing that you referred to is slightly less limiting, but you know, is the choice that we were both limited to at the time of using transparency film because we were both doing a fair amount of work for publishers and reproduction, that was what was expected of us. Working with a limited dynamic range hugely influenced the way you saw light. And I still think it does today.

David (50:26)
Hmm.

Joe Cornish (50:52)
And I think that is one of the biggest problems for contemporary photographers, contemporary landscape photographers, is they haven't had to learn how to manage limited dynamic range. And therefore you can almost make any lighting situation work. But any lighting situation is not the same as lighting that reveals in a powerful way. The aforementioned Peter Dombroskis typically most of the time photographs in very soft light.

Because to quote Paul Wakefield, strong light would have broken his composition. And that is, and he would have developed that technique because of his experience shooting transparency materials. And so in a way that was a limitation that created Peter's style or part of it at any rate. And just in, sorry, just in the same way, to some extent, that David's 150 experience in Iceland helped to at least guide him in that direction.

David (51:28)
Hmm.

Tim Parkin (51:44)
that time. Sorry.

On that transparency basis, I find it not coincidental that the dynamic range of transparency in VALVIA is almost exactly the same as the dynamic range of reflected light off paper. So when you take a picture and print straight off transparency, the light differences and the contrast in the piece of paper are the same as you would have seen in the actual view.

David (52:10)
All right.

Joe Cornish (52:22)
Yeah, and it's sorry, it is interesting that, you know, that those, those transparencies are still so powerful when you look at the originals. They are, you know, things that objects of extraordinary beauty. I'm not sure exactly whether that really matters ultimately, that it was only four, four stops or just over in practice, because it's still an advantage having a much bigger dynamic range.

Tim Parkin (52:47)
Yeah, I think it I think it helps sometimes because if you try and compress 14 stops of a really bright scene On to paper, it often looks very strange

Joe Cornish (52:56)
You have to know how to manage the file accordingly.

David (53:00)
Yeah, yeah. Well, and both of them are widely different from how a human eye sees, you know. But so you probably know this better than I do. How many stops does a Sony A7R IV give you? Yeah, 14, yeah. So, in my advanced years, I can probably see 25 stops. And when you're 16, you can see 40 stops.

Tim Parkin (53:15)
Probably about 14ish.

Joe Cornish (53:16)
14.

David (53:27)
You know, it's a huge, huge difference. And I know from having people in workshops that one of the things that happens early on is that when they're just kind of finding their feet is they will try to photograph something which has a much larger dynamic range than it is possible to render. And then they'll feel that it was their fault that they didn't manage to render it when actually it's as I like to say subject failure. So it's

That gap, which I mentioned earlier, between how we see and how the camera sees is really important to kind of get to grips with that. And I think Joe's perfectly right that if you can shoot in almost any light, or at least in much more wide conditions than you used to be able to, that maybe your appreciation of what's good light might be somewhat diluted.

Joe Cornish (54:20)
exactly.

Tim Parkin (54:23)
Question about the art world from Sue Parks. She said she would love to hear Joe and David talk a bit about why some landscape photographers has been taken on by the art world and why some haven't, and why an art gallery would consider representing a particular landscape photographer. She's thinking of people like Ellie Davis, Susan Durgis, Jen Southern. So basically what is it that makes art world landscape photographers?

Joe Cornish (54:51)
Gosh, that's a super question. It's not an easy one to answer. Because I...

David (54:54)
wish I knew.

Tim Parkin (54:57)
We have the option of having a part B for this talk, if you're interested at some point, David.

David (55:02)
So, well, if you look at somebody like, let's say, Gershki, who was a student of the Becker's, I think the Dusseldorf School, is that right? Yeah. So, partly he was being taught by people who already had strong connections within the art world, who no doubt told him what were good things to do in order to get connections.

Tim Parkin (55:26)
Yeah.

David (55:28)
and to be exhibited. His tutors were already moving in the right circles. Now, you know, there's, I can't try, Struth and Becker and Gershky, there's not, you know, that number of, huge number of people who came out of that despite the fact that they had advantages. So it still relies upon somebody having the vision, somebody having the...

Joe Cornish (55:56)
Thailand.

David (55:57)
the talent, the intelligence. But it's certainly an advantage if you've got some in into that. There's a story.

Tim Parkin (56:04)
I think all the Becker students had success, let's say, but not all as good as we were.

David (56:09)
Yeah, but not maybe in the quite same level, yeah. So there was a story about a chocolate bust. I'm trying to remember the story. BBC commissioned a chocolate bust of somebody for a TV program, a documentary. I'm gonna have to look this up afterwards and I'll tell you the full story. And they commissioned this chocolate bust because the...

director or the producer was at a dinner party with somebody who was a chocolatier, and they thought, do you know what, that'd be quite fun if we made a chocolate bust of so-and-so to go in. So quite often what happens is social interactions, you know, so that's part of it. The right circles, a certain degree of obfuscation, I think is important. So,

Tim Parkin (56:55)
right circles. Yeah, definitely.

David (57:04)
If you make images that appear to be too straightforward, chances are you're not gonna be picked up in the art world. And I think that's probably my problem. I have applied several times to galleries and being told, there was a wonderful one from the Flowers Gallery who said, "'We see no compelling reason why we should represent you.'" So...

Tim Parkin (57:29)
Nice.

David (57:34)
I think you need to make them in such a way that nobody really understands what you're doing. And then you need a critic to come along, tell everybody what you're doing. Now if we look at Ansel Adams, this is quite a good example. So Nancy and Bowman Newhall, very well established in the Eastern art world, wrote

Tim Parkin (57:46)
Yeah.

David (58:01)
a very famous biography of Ansel. Eloquent Light, is that the right one? I think it is. I've got it here somewhere. Yes, Eloquent Light. And some would call it a hagiography rather than the biography. I mean, that might be to do with the fact that Nancy and Ansel were having an affair, but we'll leave it there. So, and they introduced Ansel to...

the Eastern art market really, and they established his reputation as being a great artist. Although, you know, he'd sold portfolios since he was in his early 20s, I think, in San Francisco, because his parents were very well connected, what we would consider to be kind of upper middle class. But he didn't really establish his reputation as a photographic artist until much later on when the eloquent light came out.

So having a critique, a critical champion, I think is an important factor. You know, these are all things that are completely unobtainable. I don't know where Sue is going to find these things, you know, because they're chance. An awful lot of it is chance, isn't it? Winning a competition is probably quite...

Joe Cornish (59:14)
Thanks for watching!

Tim Parkin (59:19)
Well, this is where the art school and university system works so well, isn't it? Because they can introduce you to these opportunities and you can have your first exhibitions and they have the right people coming to them. So if you do university course, that first exhibition and that first body of work you produce is critical probably for the rest of your career.

David (59:31)
Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, so I was taught by Victor Bergen, who was one of the greatest theorists at the time on photography. And if I towed the line and cozyed up to Victor, maybe I would now be an established art photographer. Maybe not, I don't know. I mean, I'm probably too keen not to follow anybody's advice, probably.

Tim Parkin (1:00:07)
Contrarian.

David (1:00:08)
Contrarian, yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. Yeah, yeah.

Joe Cornish (1:00:12)
David, I think you've always indulged or not indulged. You've you've always enjoyed being ahead of your time. You know, so they'll discover you when you're gone.

David (1:00:22)
Oh, great. Yeah. Well, the thing is, I mean, tragically old isn't a thing, is it? You know, I'm way too old to die and then for the value of my works to, you know, hugely inflate as a result of that, you know, it's commonplace.

Tim Parkin (1:00:36)
There is an interesting one because when I've chatted with Jim Southern, he's pretty much said that he knows the art world is a game and you need to know how to play it. And things like when he produces the books for his bodies of work, they don't make any money for him. In fact, they cost a lot of money. But you have to produce under a certain publisher in order to get in the right circles. And you have to have those books.

your exhibitions to be able to hand out to people and give to the right promoters and critiques etc. So yeah there's definitely a game part of it.

David (1:01:11)
Yeah, yeah. And it's not a game that I'm particularly interested in playing, I suppose. You know, it would be lovely, wouldn't it? But to be in Gershky's position, you know, Henry, he's...

He's very much traduced by landscapists, I think, around the world, but he's an interesting, he's an interesting thinker on photography. I think most landscape artists would find Patinsky easier to relate to than Gursky, but they're both very interesting.

Tim Parkin (1:01:45)
Yeah. Well, that's reflective of it. Again, it's you have to be a salesman or you have to have an, an agent who's a salesman because it's all about sales and success in success in, um, regular landscape photography is often about sales as well. You know, you need to be a salesman and you can be successful without great work and you can do great work without being successful. I'd say they're probably contrary in linkage.

David (1:01:52)
Yeah.

Well, there's certainly no definite link between the two, is there? One doesn't follow on from the other.

Tim Parkin (1:02:20)
No. I've got a couple more questions. We'll try and fit them in fairly quickly. John Clifton says, is there anything AI-powered that you've found useful in your photography?

Where's the thumbset? Not yet. Where are you going Tom?

David (1:02:36)
Not yet. Well, I mean, I suppose I watched a video the other day somebody was going on about using AI to expand a frame because you'd crop too close to the edge. I suppose that might be useful. I mean, when you do content aware fill, you can do an AI version of that now, can't you? So yeah.

Tim Parkin (1:03:01)
That's pretty good. Yeah.

David (1:03:04)
If of course, you know, nobody ever clones or ever

Tim Parkin (1:03:11)
No, in our competition. AI sharpening, I think, is magical. An AI noise reduction is extraordinary. The two things work in almost... Arthur C. Clarke wrote about anything we can't understand is indistinguishable from magic. So, yeah.

David (1:03:19)
Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think yeah, I do use I don't use well, so I do now use the D noise in Lightroom, which is some sort of AI, I think is next. And occasionally use AI sharpening very occasionally. But well, yeah, the defaults, the defaults are pretty over the top.

Tim Parkin (1:03:44)
Yeah, it has to be very, very light hand on it as well, because it can go way over the top.

terrible.

Joe Cornish (1:03:53)
Oh gosh, that's interesting. I don't use either of those tools and in fact I don't sharpen or use any noise reduction. Never have.

Tim Parkin (1:04:00)
You got the right camera.

Joe Cornish (1:04:02)
Is that right? Okay.

David (1:04:03)
Thank you.

Tim Parkin (1:04:03)
Well, yeah, hardly any noise in it and it's enough megapixels to print the size of a house.

David (1:04:11)
Yeah, there is three.

Tim Parkin (1:04:11)
A last question from Katherine Avery. What advice would you give to people that haven't picked up their camera in years and feel left behind in a hobby they once enjoyed?

David (1:04:24)
What does left behind mean? Does Catherine mean that she, the technology has advanced, the techniques have advanced and she doesn't know where to reconnect?

Tim Parkin (1:04:36)
Maybe, I don't know context there.

David (1:04:38)
Yeah, because that I mean, I can see that that's probably quite, quite daunting in some in some respects. But I mean, I would say, pick up your camera. If you if you started in film, pick get a digital camera and put it on manual and work the same way as you would have done with film, much better because you can check the histogram and see if you've got the exposure right and all those kind of things. You can see if it's sharp by looking at it afterwards on the on the on the

and just get back up on the horse, I think is the thing. As we were saying right at the beginning, practice, that's the thing. And it's one of those things that I think certainly something that I suffer from and I think you suffer from too, Tim, is that the thought of doing something is often so much worse than actually doing it. Particularly with tax returns, but there are so many other...

Tim Parkin (1:05:31)
Yes. Yeah, definitely.

Joe Cornish (1:05:32)
Yeah.

David (1:05:37)
Other things about that. Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, I haven't been out of the house for days.

Tim Parkin (1:05:37)
It's getting out of the house to be honest.

Joe, any advice?

Joe Cornish (1:05:45)
Yeah, no, it's sort of, I immediately had this sort of surge of sympathy when I heard Catherine's question, because I have occasionally felt, gosh, everybody else is so brilliant, you know, why do I even bother? But that's actually, I don't really worry about that because I just love going out with my camera. And so I think if Catherine likes going out for a walk, and hopefully she does, then really the best advice is just remember to take your camera, and maybe you'll get excited to take a picture.

But isn't, I think maybe this is also to do, almost taking us full circle back to the beginning here that of masterpieces, is that if we put pressure on ourselves to make great pictures all the time, we're not gonna enjoy our photography. It becomes too transactional and kind of loaded with pressure. And really it's just, it's play. It's a...

David (1:06:40)
Yeah, play is the key.

Joe Cornish (1:06:42)
What if, what if I take a picture of this and sometimes you want to spend a long time fiddling around with it and left a bit, right a bit, down a bit, whatever. And that can be fun or fiddling around with the focus. It should be fun. And it doesn't matter if you don't make a great or even a good picture. The main thing is to try it. And perhaps the feedback, the digital camera that David alluded to, this is a massive difference between how it used to be.

In the past, the reason that we could make good living as photographers was that being a film photographer was really difficult. But we kind of, in a way, we cracked the code of making consistently well-focused, well-exposed, well-seen images on film, and especially on live-short film. That was a way of making a living. You can't do that now. So the priority has completely changed. I mean, you can still make good pictures, but anybody else can make a reasonably well-exposed, well-focused...

picture, the hard part is seeing well. And that's really just a question of seeing as you see and learning to make that step. And in Catherine's case, I just encourage her to go out and enjoy it and not worry.

Tim Parkin (1:07:55)
Yeah, I think that's just being outside in nature. And then if something does urge you to pick up a camera or to take a picture, that's great. If not, enjoy being out.

David (1:07:56)
I think.

I think the play thing that you've mentioned is really, really key. And we talked earlier about, you know, how children don't worry about whether it's going to work or not. You know, you just do something and if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. And you move on to something else. And I think that a lot of the times we don't give ourselves permission to do things. We tell ourselves that we're incapable of doing something before we've even done it. And and

play is really key. We learn, humans are designed to learn, mammals are designed to learn by play. And part of that process is, quotes unquote, failing. But you have to, that is inherent, it has to be done. And you shouldn't be worried about failing, you should just go, okay, well, what can I learn from the fact that didn't work?

Tim Parkin (1:09:03)
Yeah, that's great. I think that's it. We've got all the questions done and very enjoyable. Thank you very much, David and Joe.

Joe Cornish (1:09:03)
Exactly.

David (1:09:11)
Thank you.

Joe Cornish (1:09:11)
Thanks, Dan.