[Ran Morrissett]

This is David’s twentieth (!) year as a freelance photographer during which time he has risen to the top of his profession.
 
Along the way, he has seen more international courses than just about anyone with whom I am familiar. By looking at the twenty plus photos of his in this month’s Feature Interview, ranging from Ria Bintan to Oubaai to Koga   , apart from making you green with envy, they highlight a few things: Obviously, the job can take you to many neat places. Also, you get to see a great variety of the different golf architects and their work at wildly different sites/climates. No real worries that you fall in the rut of seeing the same architect’s work over and over. In addition, David clearly spends his time out on the courses during the prettiest times of the day (early morning and late afternoon).
 
Importantly, as he notes in question one, he typically spends two and half days at each course. Unlike most of us, he isn’t just in and out in an afternoon. He actually gets time to study each and every course. Thus, we wanted to do this Feature Interview so that he could share his likes/dislikes and what his trained eye has come to appreciate over the past twenty years as it relates to golf course architecture and photography. Though he shouldn’t necessarily be, it turns out that David is an excellent writer too.
 
All us amateur golf course photographers can learn from reading David’s answers. I personally believe that taking photos helps one understand the architecture better. Obviously, after leaving a course, you are free to examine your photos at your leisure. Do the holes sit well upon the land or is the architect’s hand heavy in spots? If it is heavy, was it intentional or merely clumsy? Was Ballyneal really as good as I thought it was? Every time I look at its photos, I say yes: nature and man’s work blend seamlessly together. One thing is for sure: the camera lens doesn’t lie. When you look through it, perhaps you are struck by the purity of the natural landscape or conversely, may be all you notice are any number of man-made disturbances (houses, cart paths, etc.).
 
Hope you appreciate this pro’s eye and thoughtful responses in this month’s Feature Interview.

Cheers,

[Dan Herrmann]

Very nicely done.  What great photographs.

My favorite quote from Mr. Scaletti: " I think pretty much all golf clubs consider themselves to be the best undiscovered gift to golf.  And that is perfectly understandable. Members of golf clubs have an almost proprietorial pride in their club and usually believe it is unjustly under-rated in the latest “Best of…” list. I think that self-belief in your home club is healthy and desirable."

It's so true.

I was also intrigued by his photographs of Kawana in Japan, and National Moonah in AUS (which has a My Home Course profile!)

Do you know if he uses film or digital?

[cary lichtenstein]

great photos...bravo...thanks for sharing with us

[David Scaletti]

Dan, in answer to your question I use a digital camera, although the shots of the Moonah which you refer to were taken a few years ago when I was still using film.

And please....not so formal! David is fine, "Mr Scaletti" makes me feel as old as my daughters think I am.

[ed_getka]

David,
  Keep up the great work, I look forward to seeing your future efforts.

[Ian Andrew]

I would like to add that David is as much a first class gentlemen as he is a fantastic photographer.

He knows more about architecture than he lets on in this interview - but as he says - playing golf and taking photos are two completely different tasks.

David, get to Toronto and I will arrange the game for you myself.

[David Scaletti]

Ian, thanks for the fine character reference. I think we are even…...I tell the world that the best barbecue steak is to be had on the back porch of the Andrew’s establishment in Toronto!

In all honesty I can’t wait to get back to Toronto and embark on some unfinished business at St George’s. Oh the frustration of a glitch in a new computer booking system that a few years ago precluded a game I had greatly looked forward to. Que sera sera!

I look at myself as an observer of golf course architecture, in that it is a part of my day to day work. Reading the thoughts of the contributors to GCA I see a group of very passionate people who are active and educated in the process of evaluating golf course architecture. They seem much more sophisticated in the nuances of golf design than me and it is a little intimidating to get in to the nuts and bolts of what makes a great golf course, why a particular hole is problematical, or why all the elements have combined to make a great test of golf. You may be right, perhaps I do know more about design than I make obvious. Certainly I have seen many more examples of great golf courses than many people and therefore have a large catalogue of experience to draw from.

A question was posed in the interview about man made lakes and whether I had found any that looked natural when photographed. To some degree I evaded the question in the interview as I could hardly think of any. Les Bordes has them, and I think they are really quite well done and rather easily pass as being natural. But other than that I really had trouble thinking of other examples, despite my experience with Planet Golf. This afternoon I went through the book to see just how many courses had lakes. There were very few. Valderramma has a couple, the most notable being on the 17th, and that hardly looks natural. Circolo de Borgogna in Italy has a number of water hazards which in retrospect did look reasonably natural, although I am not sure if they were man made. Other than that not many came to mind. The original question stated that man made lakes are ubiquitous, yet from what I photographed in the course of Planet Golf, I didn’t find this to be the case. Perhaps the plethora of man made lakes alluded to in the question is a North American phenomenon, of which I saw only a small selection.

[Brian_Ewen]

David
Maybe its my eye , but I see an awful lot of photographers , when photgraphing golf holes , square the picture by the flagstick .

I think it looks worse when you can see water in the distance and its not level , but I often see a level looking green/flagstick with the clubhouse roof 'squint' , that equally doesnt look right.

As an amatuer , when tidying up a pic. , I always start by leveling it off , of the horizon , rather than the subject .

Is it just my eye , or do you feel the same way ?

Best Regards , & thanks for the great feature interview
Brian

[David Scaletti]

Brian, I always use the horizon as my reference for leveling a shot. Water in the background is the most difficult, you have to be very careful to make that horizontal. Very few of my shots are cropped in any way and I try to level  the image  right from the start.

Buildings can be difficult if they are in the picture, particularly when they are near to the edge of the frame. Any distortion of the lens can make the edges look strange, particularly if you are using a wide angle lens.

Considering your points I would say we feel much the same in regard to keeping the horizon straight.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()