I have come to resent the landscape yet most of my photographs use it.

Landscape is a virtually endless fundamental source book of visual material for making photographs that comment on the physical world. It is a tool for picture production like a camera, film, or lens. I use panchromatic black and white film because colour filters enable me to unweave a full colour landscape into many different black and white landscapes. The chances therefore of finding a landscape that says what I need it to say it are much better in black and white than in colour.

Another advantage of black and white is that it announces itself as an abstraction. The photograph is not about what the landscape looks like but rather about what it may mean. To get this level of analysis the photograph needs to be sent to the intellectual centre of the brain because that is where abstract things get processed. A colour picture can be churned within the visual lobes where analysis usually finishes with identification of subject matter and the prompt "next picture please".

The trouble with landscape is that it is indifferent to what I want to do and it cannot be cajoled into co-operation. I am hostage to its changes and need to be on constant alert with a camera at hand when the light just happens to come good. On top of that it is often too hot, cold, wet, windy, steep, deep, or mosquito infested.

But, if I want to do the photographs that landscape makes possible, and I do, then a bit of suffering seems to be fair exchange for a successful photograph.