Well, Is Black and White Photography Just A Gimmick?

flea market cutlery shot illford c41
Cutlery in a flea market in Cannes. Shot on Illford XP2, a B+W negative film made for .processing in C41 colour chemicals.

Click on images for larger view

No less an authority than Allen Murabayashi, Chairman and Co-founder of Photoshelter, posted an article on his site’s blog posing this very question. I was somewhat surprised when I saw the title of the article, and at first I dismissed it as someone seeking a bit of controversy for the sake of it.

Then I began to  ponder the question. Is Black + White a gimmick?

Originally, all photography was b+w, and, apart from some early pioneers, it remained that way for several decades. The question then was not “is b+w a gimmick?”, but rather “is photography a gimmick?” B+W was all you had. In the 1930s, as Murabayashi states, Kodak introduced Kodakchrome, and colour became “mainstream”.

b+w portrait shot with kodak brownie
This is a picture of me shot by my brother in the 1960s, on a Kodak Brownie camera. At that time we didn’t ponder whether B+W was a gimmick or not…it was all we had.

Growing up in the 50s and 60s I can remember very few (perhaps only two) people who used Kodachrome, or colour slides as we plebs used to call them. The vast majority of us still used “normal” black and white film. Colour slides were for people who took their photography seriously. But there was no getting away from it, those Kodachrome pictures were impressive. I’m not talking about impressive from a colour rendition perspective – who the heck knew anything about colour rendering back then? – I’m talking about impressive due to the simple fact that they were in colour. Of course we saw colour photographs in magazines, but here was a picture, shot by Uncle George, who was just “one of us”, that was also in colour.

This is a shot from the very first roll of colour film I ever used. Kodakchrome loaded into my (then new) Olympus OM1. The picture was shot from a moving train. January, 1976.
This is a shot from the very first roll of colour film I ever used. Kodachrome loaded into my (then new) Olympus OM1. The picture was shot from a moving train. January, 1976. I didn’t choose Kodachrome because of its amazing qualities, I chose it because it was easy to get processed; just drop it into the envelope provided, pop it in the post and a short while later your slides would arrive all nicely mounted. Wow.
colour print from kodak
A colour print from Kodak. The smaller picture on the right was for cutting off and giving to someone else. Automation and C41 processes now made colour easy to do. From the collection of Annemieke Hall (how’s that for pretentious?)

Only b+w film went into our family camera, a Kodak Brownie. We didn’t even think of it as black and white, to us it was just film. We didn’t even know if the camera could shoot colour! If someone had asked us “Why don’t you take colour pictures?” we would probably have replied “because we only have a black and white camera.” In that context one may well have asked “Is colour photography a gimmick?”

Colour really came into its own when cheap, fast, print emulsions appeared on the scene. Easy to process with non-proprietary processes, suddenly everyone could “take” colour pictures – even people who weren’t interested in photography per se.

And with the arrival of the automated one-hour photo lab, it appeared black and white photography was headed for the “remember when” basket.

As colour film and processing became the dominant force in photography, the use of b+w became more of a creative choice. Black and white photography still relied on traditional developing and printing skills which relatively few people were interested in mastering.

But, here’s the thing; even when black and white was all we had, there were still relatively few people who were interested in mastering processing and printing skills. By far the majority of us were happy to drop our film off at the chemist and pick up the negatives and enlargements a few days later. Only “serious” photographers did their own processing. What’s more, the same later applied to colour processing as well. Because no matter how easy colour became, there were still a few people who wanted to do it themselves. Let’s face it, no one-hour lab could do the job as well as a skill;ed darkroom technician. Still, no-one asked if black and white photography was a gimmick.

Another aspect to this conundrum is of course that “older” photographers learned their craft on black and white. Those who took their craft seriously only began to experiment with colour after they had mastered black and white. Some, like Alfred Eisenstaedt, never really moved on to colour in any significant way. I remember seeing the legendary Mr. Eisenstaedt when he gave a lecture at an exhibition of his work at the Johannesburg Art Gallery. In the closing minutes of that lecture he put up a few colour shots he’d done on his travels in South Africa. During question time he was asked if his approach to colour was any different to his approach to black and white. “Oh yes,” he replied, “very different. When I want to shoot in colour I put colour film in my camera.”

First train of the day arriving at Fishoek.This picture would lose all meaning in black & white. Shot on colour transparency, Olympus OM4Ti. Jan '93.
The first train of the day arriving at Fishoek, near Cape Town. This picture would lose all meaning in black & white. Shot on colour transparency, Olympus OM4Ti. Jan ’93.
houseboats on the thames
This pic was originally shot on colour negative film, but I think the image works better in B+W, so I converted the scan in iPhoto. Pentax PZ1.

It may have been a creative choice, but it wasn’t a gimmick any more than colour was. And there were still enough enthusiasts willing to pursue monochrome to make it a viable proposition for companies making the necessary tools for it; film, chemicals, paper, enlargers, trays, and all the other accoutrements of the analogue dark room, well into the 1990s.

The Digital Age

Everything, of course, has to start somewhere. The first digital camera to hit the consumer market was the Logitech Photoman, released in 1990. And guess what? It only shot black and white pictures. That’s right, if you wanted to shoot digital pictures in 1990, you could only do so in glorious greyscale. And with only 376×240 pixels, the pictures were not great. In some ways the dawn of digital photography was quite similar to the ascendance of analogue.

These days, everyone who carries a cell phone also carries a camera. The world has never been as photographed as it is today. And whether we carry a smart phone or stand-alone camera, we’ve never been this spoiled for choice. Switching from colour to black and white is as easy as pressing a button.

walter sizulu botanical gardens
A shade shelter at Walter Sizulu Botanical Gardens. I never even shot this in colour; it seemed pointless.

With each advancement in photography the photographer’s choices have increased. At one time large format was the only format. Then small and medium format became available. Once there was only black and white. Then along came colour transparency and suddenly we could choose colour or mono. Then colour print technology arrived on the scene so we could choose how we wanted to shoot our colour. Then SLRs gave us a massively expanded range of lenses to choose from. And so on, and so on. It’s simply a matter of choice. And our choice depends on what we want to say. In fact, I believe it’s what we are trying to say, or convey to the world, that should be the underlying reason for any choice we make about both equipment and treatment.

monaco tourists 1993
I was first attracted to the shot by the bright colours of the tourists’ clothing and their casual footwear, which combine to give the impression of relaxed people enjoying a summer holiday. In that sense the colour version more accurately conveys the intent I had when I pressed the shutter, in other words, it says what I wanted it to say.
tourists in monaco 1993
Whether we choose colour or B+W should really only depend on what we are trying to convey. Does this image work better in colour or B+W? Actually, the question is irrelevant – each picture conveys a different feeling. Whether you prefer one or the other is simply a matter of preference. And if I had only presented one of the two versions, you wouldn’t miss the other.

With this underlying attitude to photography, there are really only two questions to answer: 1.) Will the equipment I’m using help me realise my vision as a photographer? and 2.) Will the treatment I have in mind for this picture (or body of work) help me convey the message I want to convey? If a black and white treatment will better convey your message then that’s what you should use. It’s not about is which is better, or if one is a gimmick or not. They are equal. But different.

That’s why I don’t believe b+w in this day and age is a gimmick. If it is, then shooting in colour is just as much of a gimmick.

In all fairness, Murabayashi doesn’t conclude that black and white is a gimmick. I think he takes a very very balanced view of the subject. My response is more a response to the title, which poses an interesting question, rather than the entire post. His post quotes several photographers and makes for interesting reading if this topic interests you. You can find his original Photoshelter article here

Advertisements

Actually, Photography Isn’t Art.

Click on images for larger view

An article in Digital Photographer Magazine is headlined “Photography is Art and Always Will Be”.  I, of course, take a contrary view.

I don’t believe photography is art. Frankly, I don’t understand the obsession of some people in the world of photography to equate photography with art. Do they have an inferiority complex about photography? Or do they think they can stand on an equal footing with Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Goya, Degas, Constable, Picasso, or Miro?

Recently, the Internet lit up with the news a photograph had fetched $6+ million at auction. (This story remains unconfirmed.) If true, this is an impressive price for a photograph. But it pales into insignificance when compared to what you’d get for a van Gogh or a <i>Titian.<i/> One reason photographs can never reach these stratospheric values lies in their reproducibility. As long as a half decent print is available, negatives can be made and reproduced. And unless one was “in the know”, you’d never be any the wiser.

The digital age makes it even more difficult to know with certainty if a photograph is an “original” or not. Who can say for certain if any file has been deleted, especially after a version of it has been uploaded to the Web. This isn’t the case with art. A painting or drawing is a once-off event. This “rarity factor” gives art its value.

Photography is easy. Art is difficult.

It would have been a lot easier to photograph this tree than it was to paint.
It would have been a lot easier to photograph this tree than it was to paint.

You can hardly equate the effort required to paint, say, The Night Watch or The Haywain, with the effort expended in shooting a Vogue fashion spread, even though it may be quite labour intensive.

When I say photography is “easy”, I’m not suggesting that it’s “easy” to take great photographs in the mold of a Cartier-Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, or Steve McCurry. But it’s much easier than doing a painting. If you doubt this statement, I suggest the next time you want to head out with your camera, take a sketch pad and a couple of pencils instead. I know how difficult drawing is, I spent almost three years of my life trying to learn how to do it. At the end of it, I still had barely a clue. It may be have been easier for those with more talent, but it was never “easy” for anyone.

In the time it takes you to bang off 300 frames of that rainy Paris street scene, an artist may have made a few lines on a piece of paper. How can you equate these two endeavours? Quite simply, you can’t. Anyone walking out of a modern camera shop with even a modest point and shoot is, theoretically at least, capable of producing great photographs. Does this make them an “artist”? Not really. Walk out of an art shop, however, with your first sketch pad and pencils in hand and you know you’ve got years, maybe decades, of learning ahead of you.

Photography is photography, and art is art.

This is not to say that photographer doesn’t have an artist’s sensibility. In fact, I think most photographers are artists at heart. Cartier-Bresson started his life as an artist but later got into photography. In his very early days as a photographer, he called himself a surrealist. When someone suggested he would probably make more money if he called himself a photojournalist that’s what he became. But it’s interesting to note that in his latter years he hung up his Leica and returned to his sketchpad and his easel. I think he felt that photography was too ephemeral, too fleeting, not weighty enough, to express what he wanted to say. I think when you look at Cartier-Bresson’s work there is definitely an element of the surreal about it.

drawing of stormwater drains
I think I could have photographed these a lot better than I drew them.

And I don’t think Elliot Erwitt, Richard Avedon, David Bailey, Robert Capa, or countless others spent too much time obsessing about whether they were artists or photographers.

How Photography Changed Art

When photography first arrived on the scene, many artists were horrified. If a machine, they reasoned, could reproduce nature and faces with such unerring accuracy, what need would there be for artists? If you wanted a representation of your family you no longer make an appointment with your local portrait painter, but with your local photographer. He was much cheaper…and much faster.

Art had to change. And it did. It became less realistic and more abstract. Ultimately, art may have gone down that road anyway. But I think photography gave it quite a strong push. Of course, some photographers have followed suit and produce work that is more abstract and conceptual in nature. But it remains photography.

trees in the hogsback eastern cape
How long would it take to paint this scene? Photographed in the Hogsback, Eastern Cape in 1986.
drawings from beatles let it be
The photographs were better. I did these drawings of The Beatles based on photographs that appeared in the book accompanying the “Let it Be” album.
my bedroom during my art school days
Your favourite blogger during his art school days, East London, South Africa, 1973. The framed artwork on the wall was a Norman Catherine silk screen print which went missing many years ago, and the picture below that is an art school exercise for a cover design for a David Bowie album.

You can see my other photographic efforts on Flickr. Apart from this blog post, none of my other art efforts are online.

ARE YOUR ONLINE PICTURES GATHERING PIXELDUST IN A DIGITAL SHOEBOX?

You upload your best shots for the world to see. You wait a few weeks for comments and kudos to roll in. You check the stats…no-one’s looking.

 One of the great things about the Internet is the ability it gives us to share photos with a wide audience. Prior to the development of this communication revolution the only way to share photos was through physical photo albums, pictures on the wall, slide shows for bored relatives, or, if you were really lucky, to get them published in a magazine or newspaper. Even truly remarkable amateur photographers could only ever hope to find a somewhat limited audience for their pictures.

For most of us, though, no-one except a few friends and relatives ever got to see the pictures we made. Now we can all share our pictures with the world via social networking sites like Flickr, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, 500px and  Twitter, among others.  This assumes, of course, that we actually want people to see the results of our creative efforts, and that we believe we have images worth sharing.

I’m always amazed when I see pictures loaded up to websites with nothing more than the camera-assigned file number as their title. I mean, who’s ever searched for DCSF0295862013? If you want people to find your pictures a title like this isn’t going to do the job. Just as bad as this is “Untitled” .  When people are conducting searches on the web they are hardly likely to use a camera file name name, or the word “untitled” as their search term. Below is a search result doing exactly that:

untitled - Google Search As you can see there are 594 million results matching the term “untitled”. If you post a picture titled “untitled” you are competing with each and every one of those results…no easy task! Actually, typing in a specific, camera-assigned file name narrows the field down considerably, as the screen grab below illustrates: dscf6288 - Google Search-1 Now we are down to just over 44 000 results, which is really quite manageable, I suppose. “DSCF” is part of the file naming protocol for Fuji cameras. Other manufacturers have different, but similar, protocols. However, the fact is that although typing in an image file name narrows down the field considerably, there are not too many people out there who are ever likely to use this method to find pictures. If you look at the screen grab above, you’ll notice that the two entries I’ve shown both link to shots posted to Flickr. (Neither of these pictures is mine, btw.) I’ve had a look at both of them. One is a  shot of the back end of a zebra standing in a room of sorts, peering out through a doorway covered with one of those translucent plastic strip doors that you normally see in industrial settings. Now lets say I have an idea for an ad that depends on a picture of a zebra looking through a doorway. “Maybe,” I think, “I’ll find the shot somewhere on the ‘Net. After all, with billions of pictures online someone is bound to have uploaded a picture of a zebra looking through a doorway, right? Hmm, what should I use as my search term? Oh! I know, I’ll type in DSCF6228 and see what comes up.” Well, I’d be pretty dumb if I did that. Surely I’d be more likely to type “zebra looking through doorway”? And that’s exactly what I did: zebra looking through doorway - Google Search Surprisingly, we’re now up to over 18 million results. At first this may seem counter-intuitive. I mean, why name pictures in a way that increases the competition? But that’s missing the point. Because what’s interesting in the above result is not so much what does turn up, but what doesn’t. And what doesn’t show up is the exact picture I’m looking for. Nor will it ever show up, because “DCSF6228” doesn’t match my search query. If the owner of the zebra pic had simply added the title “zebra looking through doorway” it would be an exact match and, more than likely, show up as the #1 result. I could then ask the picture’s owner for permission to use the shot and quite possibly they’d get a nice little cash bonus as a result. You don’t have to get ridiculously creative with your titles and descriptions either, just a simple description of the subject of the picture should be enough. You may think that it’s pointless to have a picture of a couple walking on a beach titled “Couple walking on beach”, after all, anyone can see that’s the subject of the picture. But you’re not writing the title for your human visitors…you’re writing it for search engine spiders. If your picture is competing with thousands of others of a similar nature, then you want to make sure you use every opportunity a site gives you…title, description, tags, hashtags, “@” symbols or whatever.

Even though I don’t post pictures for commercial gain I’ve had several requests over the years to use one or other of my shots in ads or for other commercial uses. These pictures would never have been found if they were either posted as “untitled”, or had a “DCSF” type of title. But even if no-one ever asked to use my pictures it wouldn’t bother me. The reason I post anything at all is so that I can share them with anyone who cares to look. Hopefully they bring a little pleasure to someone, somewhere.

© 2013. All images copyright Grahame Hall and may not be used without written permission of the copyright owner. Please respect the rights of others.

ADVICE FOR PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS…FROM AN AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER

Arteries, veins, capillaries
The picture above is by far my most viewed picture on Flickr. I’m not saying it’s a particularly good picture, or that it’s my best picture. There’s a little story as to how it became my most viewed picture, and if you’re a photographer, professional or amateur, who wants to get a few more views of  your shots by having them show up in search engines more often, then this article may offer you some useful information.

Firstly, a disclaimer; I’m not presenting myself here as some sort of SEO “guru”. I’m interested in SEO from a marketing perspective and, as a copywriter, I’ve spend some time learning about it. This post is not a comprehensive discussion of the subject. It just highlights some things I’ve learned over the years and noticed through looking at my Flickr stats, which are available to anyone who has what Flickr calls a “Pro” account, i.e. a paid account.

Secondly, I’m not affiliated to Flickr in any manner or form, so if I advise you to get a “Pro” account with the photo sharing site, I do  not stand to benefit in any way.

Thirdly, you may get better results from other photo services – in this article I’m talking about Flickr because it’s my photo website of choice. Apart from this WordPress blog, I have accounts at other sites such as 500px.com,  jpgmag.com, tumblr.com and Google+, but Flickr is what I use 99% of the time. Google+ is also getting good reports from photographers and I’m sure that from an SEO perspective, the fact that its a part of Google won’t do any harm.

Okay, with that background info let’s dive right in. The story of the picture above is that shortly after I posted it to Flickr it started getting hits from search results. At first it was just one or two a month, but eventually it became almost daily and often several hits in one day. I also noticed  there was another picture on Flickr, of a similar subject and similarly titled, that consistently showed up higher in those same results. This made me curious about what the other poster had done to “optimise” her photograph. When I checked I didn’t notice anything obvious that should have resulted in her picture coming in higher in the rankings; her picture didn’t even have a description, just a title.

As a bit of fun, really, and also to just see if I could affect the results, I made a small change to the title of my picture and repeated  the title in the flow of copy in the description. It wasn’t long before my picture regularly appeared above hers in the search results and, eventually, I stopped seeing her picture at all.

However there is another element in the SEO of this picture that I think help it get a few hits, at least in the normal search results. Obviously, in an image search people can actually see the picture, so this technique won’t have as great an effect as it does in normal organic search. The little trick is in the picture description.

Here is the page title and description for this picture as they appear in a search result:

picture of arteries veins and capularies - Bing

“For some reason I looked up and thought this could be a page in a medical textbook discussing arteries, veins, and capillaries…”  The link, on its own, appears to be just another link to a picture of arteries, veins and capillaries, among many other links to similar info and pictures available. But the description makes the link different to the others. “What did he see when he looked up?” “Why does it look like a page in medical textbook?” These are questions a curious surfer may want answered so they’ll risk a quick diversion from their real search to get answers. The phrase “Dunno if you agree.” is another encouragement to look at the picture.

Anyone stumbling upon this link in the search results knows full well they will not be seeing an actual picture of the subject matter they are searching for. But they are prepared to risk a couple of minutes of their time to satisfy the curiosity the description arouses.

Photography is not my living, so I don’t spend a lot of time figuring out how to optimise each and every picture I upload, but I do it give it some thought whenever I post pictures. The exercise I conducted on this picture was more for fun than anything else. Nevertheless, here are a few pointers that may help you

Firstly –  if I were a professional photographer I’d learn everything I could about SEO. These days it’s absolutely essential to have a web presence, but I see many professional photographer sites that don’t make the most of that presence. Images are not enough for SEO, you need text. In fact, for SEO purposes, the text on your site is far more important than the images.

Secondly – if you upload images to web services other than your own website, you should give them captions and titles that’ll help search engines and potential clients find you. Don’t just assume people will find you just by your name…there are many potential clients who don’t know your name – probably they don’t even know you exist – but if they saw your work they just might be more inclined to work with you.

Thirdly – spread yourself far and wide across the web. Instead of just one or other platform, use as many as you can. Every picture you post is another opportunity for someone to find you.

I hope this post helps you land a few more clients whatever your field of photography, be it landscape, portraiture, weddings, travel, photojournalism, or anything else.

UPDATE: Since I started working on this post one of my pictures was selected for the Flickr blog, and that particular picture has now surpassed this tree shot as my most viewed picture, but that’s another story entirely.

© 2013. All images copyright Grahame Hall and may not be used without written permission of the copyright owner. Please respect the rights of others.

VIEWS OF JOHANNESBURG FROM LANGEMAN’S KOP

ruins on langeman's kop looking west towards johannesburg
Ruins on Langeman’s Kop, looking west towards Johannesburg

WARNING! High Crime Area. If you’re planning to go to Langeman’s Kop to photograph the views of Johannesburg, please be aware that it is something of a crime hot spot. It’s inadvisable to go alone, or even with one or two other people. Photographers have been robbed at gunpoint and had all their possessions removed, as well as being assaulted and quite badly injured. Please read the last couple of comments below for more information.

Click on images for larger view

Finding new bits of one’s home city to explore is always a very rewarding experience. A few days ago I found myself atop Langeman’s Kop, a koppie that rises in the suburb of Kensington, and of which I had never heard until a few days prior when Joburg Photowalkers announced a sunrise walk on the koppie. I never got to join the group as I got lost, having left the directions at home. But I did eventually find the place at about 8 a.m., a bit too late for sunrise. So there I was, alone,  on Langerman’s Kop. Anyone who knows Johannesburg will know that this is not the wisest move, but it all turned out okay…I wasn’t mugged, and encountered only one other soul – a man taking his hound for a morning constitutional. The views of Johannesburg from this vantage point are spectacular. Although I’d missed the dawn light I was nevertheless blown away by the vistas that opened up before me. It’s claimed the notorious “Stander Gang” holed up in caves on Langeman’s Kop after one of their bank robberies, but I’m not sure if this is, in fact, true.

Johannesburg's CBD and eastern suburbs viewed from the top of Langeman's Kop
Johannesburg’s CBD and eastern suburbs viewed from the top of Langeman’s Kop

Below is a view of the suburbs of Hillbrow and Berea. The tall circular structure topped with the Vodacom sign is the landmark Ponte building, a 50-story residential block in which I lived for several months back in the early 80s. Although there are grandiose views to be had from Ponte apartments, it’s a depressing building inside. There was talk at one time of converting it into a prison!  The Telkom Tower is a telecommunication tower which is still bedecked in it’s 2010 World Cup finery, hence the large soccer ball towards the top. I lived in Hillbrow for several years, at one time just as few blocks from the tower. The the 270 m (885 ft) Hillbrow Tower was built between 1968 and 1971, and is one of the tallest structures in Africa with a lift (elevator) inside. It was closed to the public in 1981 for security reasons, but while open it was one of Johannesburg’s major tourist attractions, housing two revolving restaurants and a disco called Cloud Nine. The building, which gives Johannesburg its distinctive skyline, has become a real icon and is even incorporated into the city’s logo.

Hillbrow and Berea viewed from the top Langeman's Kop, Kensington, Johannesburg
Hillbrow and Berea

Pointing the camera in a different direction takes us to Johannesburg’s main CBD, with the 50-floor Carlton Centre office block prominent under the tree branches. I worked in this building twice, at advertising agency Goodgoll-Said in 1979-80, and at JWT in 1981-82. Behind the office tower, but not visible from this vantage point, is the former five-star Carlton Hotel, a part of the same complex, which also houses a shopping centre (mostly below ground level). The hotel building is still there but no longer serves its original purpose.  The 50th floor of the office building serves as an observation deck and is open to the public. If you’re in Johannesburg at any time try to include a trip to the top in your itinerary – you’ll be rewarded with awesome views of the city and its surrounds.

johannesburg cbd viewed from the top Langemans Kop looking west
Johannesburg CBD with Carlton Centre office tower.

In the shot below we can see some of Johannesburg’s eastern suburbs; Judith’s Paarl, Lorentzville, Bertrams, Highlands, Ellis Park, Berea and Hillbrow.

Johannesburg and eastern suburbs viewed from the top of Langeman's Kop
Eastern suburbs

I always enjoy the views afforded by elevation. Patterns form that you just don’t get from ground level and everything looks…well…different. The picture below shows a small section the suburb of Bezhuidenhout Valley, or, Bez Valley as locals call it.

A small section of bezuidenhout valley from the top of langemans kop, johannesburg
Bezuidenhout Valley, one of Johannesburg’s eastern suburbs.

On the crest of Langeman’s Kop one encounters the ruins of a building which, according to a map reference, is the old Langeman’s Hotel. I’ve not yet found any further info on the hotel but I’m sure it played its part in the history of the city.

ruins of langeman's hotel atop langeman's kop, johannesburg
Ruins of the old Langeman’s Hotel.
ruins of langeman's hotel on top of langeman's kop, johannesburg
Langeman’s Hotel ruins.

Turning to face the east offers us a completely different view and feeling. Below, we are looking towards Ekhuruleni, a conurbation comprising the towns of Germiston, Bedfordview, Edenvale, Kempton Park, Boksburg, Benoni, Brakpan, Springs and Alberton. O.R. Tambo Intl. airport is located in Ekhuruleni, which is the major industrial hub of Gauteng Province. The freeway in the far distance in this photo will take you there. Now you know where it is, hopefully you won’t miss your plane.

looking towards the east rand and o. r. tambo international airport from the top of langermans kop, johannesburg
A man walking his trusty mutt on “the ‘Kop”

You can see two more pictures from this trip over at my Flickr stream

langemans kop from yoeville johannesburg
Just to provide some context, the koppie in the background of this picture, with the water tower and cell phone mast, is Langeman’s Kop.

 
Till next time…

© 2011. All images copyright Grahame Hall and may not be used without the written permission of the copyright owner. Please respect the rights of others.