Katrina Images - Advice?

[Ed Richards]

Lesson 1 - do not put up an example JPG file, everyone will waste their time starting at JPG and other artifacts. I have taken that file down. I am interested in comments about the images, if you want to look at scans, look at the thread about scanning with Vuescan and the 9950:

www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504125.html

[John Flavell]

Ed:

--There are going to be many, many galleries popping up on the web and in publications documenting the damage and recovery work after Katrina. An earlier thread here shows just how much interest there is among large format photographers in documenting the disaster.

--Your images are unique simply because they represent your view of it. The documentary method allows visual storytelling with some reflection and comtemplation. Allowing for a deeper look. That's why I brought up using YOUR visual voice. Use it, or develop it with this project. One great advantage about documentary projects the time allowed to contemplate your ongoing work. That would be a blessing to a photojournalist.

--There really is no 'deadpan' photojournalism style--we all have a different way of looking at things. If you look at the hundreds of pictures posted by the Baton Rouge and New Orleans newspapers, you'll see the differing styles of individual photographers. Another good source is the Dallas Morning News.

--If you're asking a photojournalist about how the images look, I would have to say you're not finished. The images I looked through are of the same meduim angle view. Could there have been some unique close-ups? Could there be some unique wide angles? I'm wondering what you will see if you return for another look.

--On the other hand, if you were from our area you would have been invited to submit a selection for publication in a Sunday edition of our newspaper. We've done this several times. We're photo-driven and we like presenting this kind of work by photographers that will interest our readers. Perhaps one of the newspapers in your area will do the same.

--You asked, what to do about PS setup? I would suggest you think about presenting them the way you would any project. However, a project like this may modify your style, that does happen and it's normal.

--Good luck

[Ed Richards]

Thanks John. My vision in these depends a lot on the LF asthetic - they make very striking large prints, where the detail tells a story. For example, the debris is a complex mix of personal items, garbage, and natural stuff such as reeds. That differentiates many of images which have much the same perspective, but it invisible on the WWW. Just as no knows you are a dog on the Internet, it is hard to a LF image from a digicam. Perhaps I should post some details.

[Ed Richards]

I have posted some addition images and rearranged a bit to increase the variety of the images.

[John Kasaian]

Ed

What a collection! The number of powerful images on your site make a powerful statement, 140 of them I think would be overwhealming---which is what your exhibit should be. BTW, the photos look fine on my monitor. The content certainly provokes a lot of thoughts about the power of the storm, It reminds me of the old photos of the '06 earthquake---and your photos are certainly a priceless historic record.

As LF photos I think they are well done and something to be excited about. It makes for an interesting compliment to the 'Before The Storm' link which I came across either here or on the APUG forum(I'm on my first cup of coffee this morning!) If you haven't seen it you may want to do a search. While the subject matter is very different, the way it was so tastefully put together, and portrays the tradgedy of the storm by showing elements of NO and the Gulf Coast pre-Katrina, it might give you some ideas as to presentation.
IMHO, your photos are awesum!

[Kirk Gittings]

"Should an image of destruction be pretty?" Not necesarily, but It must be interesting graphically, compositionally etc. to draw the viewer in to make them want to look at the details. The greatest documentary images also (to me at least) start out as abstractly visually intersting forms which draw the viewer in. Having said that I think there are a few very strong images here. I'm sure there are more strong ones in the larger group. I think editing of these is absolutely crucial, but not for "deadpan documents" a thousand photographers have been there already to do that and it is old news already, but there is a sense of irony in the stronger images, I think that reflects a more personal vision and where the strentgth of the images lie and with careful editing that can be brought out to do something different than what allot of newspaper journalists have been doing. If you can get 20 good images from these it would probably make a tight interesting show. To get a show going though unless you have a strong exhibit track record you are going to need finished prints to show people, the best prints you can do.

But, You have a ton of competition with this subject matter. I personally know of about a half dozen world class photographers working down there right now and I'm sure there are tons more I don't know about. Plus there are some emerging photographers from the area that are pushing their stuff. I recently helped a young black couple, emerging 9th Ward resident photographers, get published in a national magazine. Their stuff was killer street 35mm images, well printed from before and after Katrina, very poignant and moving.

[Roger Richards]

Well done, Ed. I would not in the least be concerned about what other photographers are doing on the same subject. One can have two master photographers working side by side shooting the same subject and the pictures could come out totally different. As Kirk said, you should think very carefully what and how you wish to present your vision of Katrina's aftermath and let the editing process be guided by this. For example, some photos could work smaller, others very large to emphasize minute detail or a sense of the scope of devastation. Random images are confusing.

[Ed Richards]

> If you can get 20 good images from these it would probably make a tight interesting show.

That is what I am thinking. I have three purposes in doing these images.

One is pure documentation. While NO has been crawling with photographers, I have images from out of the way places that you would not hit unless you were more familiar with the back roads.

The second is related to the first - the detail in a LF image catches things that you do not not see in 35mm - details in the debris and the like that are very poignant.

The third is my own artistic vision. Some of the WWW images show this, and some of the images that look like pure documentation on the WWW look very different as real prints, where the tonality and the detail work together. A lot, however, are just documentation.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Well done, Ed. I would not in the least be concerned about what other photographers are doing on the same subject. One can have two master photographers working side by side shooting the same subject and the pictures could come out totally different."

I agree with that in general and if you only want to post these on the web who cares what anyone else is doing, but if you want to show them or get them published, which I think he should try and do, you are entering a market and in a market situation you do have to concern yourself with these things. It shouldn't effect how or why or what you shoot, but it sure as hell effects how you market yourself and your work.

[Richard Fenner]

Ed, don't you just hate it when people tell you 'it's what YOU think that matters'!?

I think the shots are extremely good (meaning they seem to be a good example of a type of photography I like), but probably need editing, as others have suggested. One thing that troubled me slightly - I'm not a B&W photographer, so work with me if my terminology is confusing - the shots seem pretty 'flat' - it's not just that I think they'd be so much better in colour, but this flatness (and occasional areas of reasonably high contrast/overexposure) makes it a tiring experience to look at them all at once. I'm not talking major changes which would drastically alter what you seem to be after, just a little tweaking.