The Razzle in Action (Portraits)

[Randy H]

Some people have a knack for landscapes. Some for architecture, some for portraiture. Having followed Sir Ash thus far, I really really enjoy his candid "people" shots, such as this protest march. Yes, I have looked at your work on the blog page, and I still like your style of "street" shooting. You seem to have an eye for composition, framing etc.for "the street" I agree with others, that this set of pics "IN MY OPINION) far exceed some (SOME) of your previous works. And the fact that it was hand-held in a crowd is pretty awesome. Reminiscent of 40's press photog. Or maybe I am just "kissing up" To take pics of African American, dressed in black, in less than ideal lighting and setting, and still get the detail....
'spretty cool.

[BrianShaw]

To take pics of African American, dressed in black, in less than ideal lighting and setting, and still get the detail.... 'spretty cool.

Err, umm, Randy... those probably weren't African AMERICAN people... but good point nonetheless!

(Nice shooting, Ash).

[jetcode]

Oh geez, I'm sorry I even commented now, it's worst than pnet. Critiques just don't work online without facial expressions and personal contact, and even then it's touchy.

No doubt but I am addressing the slash and burn crowd whom I've had the pleasure of being critiqued by and not in this forum.

Yes, I could be more tactful I suppose....

Frank, I wouldn't change you for the world. I just need to understand what it is you are saying when you are saying it and that takes some time to figure out. It takes time to know people and how they communicate.

but I think the damn hippies ought to buck up ;-)

I used to be a long hair but now I'm a short hair or no hair or wild hair depending on context. Why buck up when you can smoke out?

In terms of critiques I have experienced a few and some of them were more like sacrificial blood-baths then informative examinations. That wasn't exactly the case here.

Joe

[Randy H]

Err, umm, Randy... those probably weren't African AMERICAN people....

yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever...
I stand corrected. Those are some things you just don't think about, y'know? My apologies.

[stehei]

Hi,

I looked at the pictures of Ash, and for an photo-student, they are a good starting point. My two cents: I did a lot of demonstration photography myself, and what ash does well, is that he senses the atmosphere. IMHO, the compostion is lacking. Not because the action is not there, but because you need to get closer. Especially in these situations, it is relatively easy to get close to people, and they intensifty the image.

here are some lowres examples of what I mean, done a long time ago in the netherlands.

http://www.pbase.com/stehei/image/26985035
http://www.pbase.com/stehei/image/26985044

Another thing I sense is that the actual being around the protesters is overwhelming Ash. Demonstrations are sensotory overloading experiences, and can deverse ones attention on the actual image. I sense some of that in his pictures,

About the blacks/whites, I don't care too much, as long as he uses what he does deliberately, and not because of a lack of skills.

regards

stefan

www.stefanheijdendael.com

[Randy H]

but I think the damn hippies ought to buck up ;-)

Hey!! I think I resemble that remark!!

[walter23]

Hi,

I looked at the pictures of Ash, and for an photo-student, they are a good starting point. My two cents: I did a lot of demonstration photography myself, and what ash does well, is that he senses the atmosphere. IMHO, the compostion is lacking. Not because the action is not there, but because you need to get closer. Especially in these situations, it is relatively easy to get close to people, and they intensifty the image.

Yes, I agree. The focus and sharpness is good (except for a couple of them), and the quality of the images is good, but the compositions are a bit haphazard in ways. You have to be always watching for good compositions in these kinds of dynamic scenarios - moments that isolate individuals, or emphasize the crowds - that kind of thing. I think it's partly a matter of just getting comfortable with doing what you have to do to get your shots in a crowded public place. That means finding the right angle and position and acting decisively when the right composition appears. You've caught representative parts of the crowd but the decisions to pick particular people out and compose the way you did seem somewhat arbitrary, if that makes any sense. In some of them the arrangement of background & foreground is nice (e.g the one with the building framed by the tree overhead).

Like I said, these situations are very dynamic so it takes some practice to find your compositions.

[Peter Lewin]

Yes, I agree. The focus and sharpness is good (except for a couple of them), and the quality of the images is good, but the compositions are a bit haphazard in ways. You have to be always watching for good compositions in these kinds of dynamic scenarios - moments that isolate individuals, or emphasize the crowds - that kind of thing. I think it's partly a matter of just getting comfortable with doing what you have to do to get your shots in a crowded public place. That means finding the right angle and position and acting decisively when the right composition appears. You've caught representative parts of the crowd but the decisions to pick particular people out and compose the way you did seem somewhat arbitrary, if that makes any sense. In some of them the arrangement of background & foreground is nice (e.g the one with the building framed by the tree overhead).

Like I said, these situations are very dynamic so it takes some practice to find your compositions.

I've been having fun watching the critiques of Ash's work, but at this point I need to join in. Could anyone take a quick look at Adrian Tyler's posting back on page 3 with three attached Gary Winnograd pictures of demonstrations, and tell me how they are better or different from Ash's pictures (at least the first two thumbnails)? I too understand the desire to get closer (I remember Fred Picker's workshop, "get as close as you can, then take one step more...") and watching composition, but I don't see that in Winnograd's pictures of demonstrations either. Maybe Cartier Bresson did it better, but I can't think of any pictures he took of street demonstrations, and none of us are in his class. I can't help but feel that if Ash took the pictures with a 35mm Leica, none of us would have criticized his street shooting - but since he used the extremely unusual tool of a hand-held 4x5, we are applying a different, and possibly inappropriate, standard. I wish I could remember names, but over the years I've been lucky enough to attend lectures with a bunch of published "street shooters" and half of them, on occasion, "shoot from the hip" without even getting the viewfinder to their eye - what would we say about them? And was it Friedlander who could never keep his horizons level?

[keithwms]

Well done, I like these shots. I can imagine some interesting street possibilities with this approach.

Why use 4x5 instead of 35mm for this kind of thing? Well, why not use the same gear that everyone else uses , and have the exact same capabilities, and think the same way, and process the same way. That will really set you apart.

Look, at least 4x5 is offering some new capabilities. But it also imposing some limitations, and limitations can breed artistic creativity as well. Different gear can really bring out new directions.

So I'd say now that you have a good start, let this take you in a new direction. Originality of thought and process is the most important thing and they do feed off each other. No problem if not all of your 4x5 street photos are screaming originality at this point; over time, you will incorporate the greater creative latitude into your style.

[walter23]

I didn't look at that posting.

This is all highly subjective and I was just adding my view of things in a general way. I don't think I would feel comfortable in giving specific critique of each shot because often those kinds of critiques seem very trite. I mean, yeah, you can say "level the horizon" or "don't crop people partway" but those kinds of hard and fast rules, as you've said, aren't conducive to artistic expression or personalized takes on this kind of photojournalism or whatever.

From my standpoint these are nice images, but there's something about the composition of most of them that I find a bit awkward. I don't mean this in any kind of earth-shattering or cruel way, and I also am not applying this critique strictly because a 4x5 was used - I would have exactly the same reaction regardless of the format, whether 35mm, DSLR, or whatever. If anything perhaps I'm being a little bit biased by the fact that I'm used to seeing these scenes done with an interchangable lens SLR (often with zoom lenses) which probably gives the photographer many more options for cropping and subject isolation and perspective.

In some cases I do quite like the composition - like the one with the girls walking ahead of the larger group framed by overhead trees and the building in the background. That's really quite nice. In the case of the first one, I find that it's awkward that both the group carrying the banner & the group to the right are both kind of chopped off, and that there's no real relationship between the two that would justify (to me) this choice of framing. But like I said - it's very subjective, and my criticism isn't meant to cut down this perfectly fine photography but just to try to be constructive.

Cheers

I've been having fun watching the critiques of Ash's work, but at this point I need to join in. Could anyone take a quick look at Adrian Tyler's posting back on page 3 with three attached Gary Winnograd pictures of demonstrations, and tell me how they are better or different from Ash's pictures (at least the first two thumbnails)? I too understand the desire to get closer (I remember Fred Picker's workshop, "get as close as you can, then take one step more...") and watching composition, but I don't see that in Winnograd's pictures of demonstrations either. Maybe Cartier Bresson did it better, but I can't think of any pictures he took of street demonstrations, and none of us are in his class. I can't help but feel that if Ash took the pictures with a 35mm Leica, none of us would have criticized his street shooting - but since he used the extremely unusual tool of a hand-held 4x5, we are applying a different, and possibly inappropriate, standard. I wish I could remember names, but over the years I've been lucky enough to attend lectures with a bunch of published "street shooters" and half of them, on occasion, "shoot from the hip" without even getting the viewfinder to their eye - what would we say about them? And was it Friedlander who could never keep his horizons level?