It is my view, that most places have not been photographed, and for those few places that have been, they have not been photographed well. So when someone tells me ‘Iceland has been done’, or ‘Yosemite has been done’, or even for that matter ‘Venice has been done’, I think they are missing the point. They might have been photographed a lot, but have they been photographed well? Or more specifically, do you see individuality in the photos you see of these known places, or do you many places photographed with a lack of individuality in the work?

Firstly, I think most of the world has not been photographed. There is still much out there that has not been recorded. So that is one thing. I remain positive and hopeful that I will continue to stumble onto new landscapes and new locations. I think all it takes is to look at a landscape and think laterally. Perhaps rather than assuming that a certain landscape fits into a certain genre or box, perhaps it can be tackled in another different way? To me, that is the more interesting prospect: to see someone photograph a place in an unexpected and delightful way.

Then there are the well known places. I have often tried to stay away from location magnets. I’d much rather find my own place if I can. But this November I decided to go to one of them. I realise that Venice has been photographed so many times, and I think I am just beginning to relax a little and say ‘well, that doesn’t mean that I should avoid it’, or more specifically ‘there is always room to do something new in a tried and tested place, and if not new, then maybe to produce a better work if possible’.

And that is where I think we are at now. Perhaps doing something ‘new’ in tried and tested places is to set the bar too high. But what we can at least attempt, is to produce the best work we can, and hopefully impart a sense of our own identity on it. Even if it’s just a little.