The Razzle in Action (Portraits)

[David A. Goldfarb]

For me it comes down to the subjects response to the big camera.

I think this is absolutely true (at least today--perhaps not in Weegee's day), and it might make something of a case for a press camera over a Polaroid conversion. Walking around with the Technika in a situation where people are "on display," they'll walk up to me and pose, because it seems like something of an event--



Weegee did say that if you had a big camera like a Speed Graphic, you could get across police lines, because you looked like you were supposed to be there. I don't think that's true any more, but he did understand that shooting with the big camera is something of a performance.

[walter23]

Weegee did say that if you had a big camera like a Speed Graphic, you could get across police lines, because you looked like you were supposed to be there. I don't think that's true any more, but he did understand that shooting with the big camera is something of a performance.

That could make for a great performance in itself though. Hold up a little printed PRESS badge and try to push through a police line with a speed graphic & flash bulb

[Asher Kelman]

Using the RF 4x5 (Razzle, Dazzle or otherwise) is impressive. When someone suggest digital, there's a protest!

We've had the assertion of using a Leica and film with several lenses in that it is a "slower pace" than digital. Well, maybe for some. However, not necessarily!

Not to be sacriligious, having Leica with film is so far away from x5 and so very much like having digital in that with either one has freedom to stalk as people around separate and recollect in different ways. Both allow lots of instant chances and losses. With film, one comes home with 1-5 rolls. With digital one deletes continuously to keep the best. So I'll return with 30 shots but they are all the ones I want! Little difference!

For me with one prime lens I also have to slow down to think about the purpose of the shot and depth of focus and where the focal plane would be. I can alter ISO and aperture to control these at will, so there are more choices to think about creatively for each and every shot! If one piushes to 1600 with film, that is for the whole roll generally, unless you can remember where to cut up the film!

Winogrand would have few unsorted images with a 5D and a 50 1.2L lens!

While I love the idea of doing the Razzle Dazzle, and with Ashb it's impressive, I'd choose a Mamiya VII or a 5D any day because they fit the job better in my opinion. Still kudos for the work.

Asher

[r.e.]

When someone suggest digital, there's a protest!

I think that it would be a good idea to keep this focused on handheld 4x5 street/unposed photography.

I regret responding to Jetcode's remark about high-end DSLRs, given how my response has been construed. I have no problem with the use of digital cameras for street work, I just said that I prefer, personally, to use manual rangefinders. That's all, certainly not a protest. Indeed, I own, and use, two pretty good digital cameras, I just prefer to use them for other kinds of project.

If the thread is going to move in a new direction, the issue that Tim Atherton has raised is quite a bit more interesting than a debate about film and digital.

So is the issue that Frank Petronio and David Goldfarb have raised about photography and performance.

Cheers

[Asher Kelman]

I think that it would be a good idea to keep this focused on handheld 4x5 street/unposed photography.

I regret responding to Jetcode's remark about high-end DSLRs, given how my response has been construed. I have no problem with the use of digital cameras for street work, I just said that I prefer, personally, to use manual rangefinders. That's all, certainly not a protest. Indeed, I own, and use, two pretty good digital cameras, I just prefer to use them for other kinds of project.

If the thread is going to move in a new direction, the issue that Tim Atherton has raised is quite a bit more interesting than a debate about film and digital.

So is the issue that Frank Petronio and David Goldfarb have raised about photography and performance.

Cheers

R.E.,
Agreed that 4.5 hand held street photography is the topic but we are centered on. However, part of the evaluation is the relative compromises in going for the 4x5 format! I like the work. I just think one needs to also take a step back and ask "What is the best tool for the job?" That's where reference to MF and 35mm film and also digital if the task is to document well the march.

If the task is to harvest the march for the most compelling artistic forms and content, then the camera chosen should just be the camera which offers no barriers to the artistic work. Who of you would then choose the hand-held 4x5 given your experience with other cameras?

If it's the Razzle 4x5, then that's impressive and surprising!

If I'm just to comemnt on Ash's work, that's simple I like it and have respect for pulling off what he has achieved.

Asher

[stehei]

The reason I raised the question about the rationale for using 4x5 for street photography is that in my own work, I suppose the tradition would be to shoot it with a smaller format as well... I mean most fashion-beauty-environmental portrait type photographers tend to go for an RB-67 or something like that. So I'm asking myself why I am bothering with 4x5 too?

And David Burnett, using his Aero-Ektar and Speed Graphic amongst the throngs of photojournalists using dSLRs... well I think when Al Gore looked over he noticed Burnett and his Speed Graphic as a stand out, and human nature* being what it is, he responded to Burnett's antique Speed more than to all the interchangable generic cameras... which made for some interesting shots. And the Aero, shot wide open, looks unlike anything else too.

(*if Al Gore is indeed human?)

Hi frank

I said the camera does not matter in the sense that if one masters a camera for a specific purpose, all talk of resolution, lens power etc etc is irrelevant.
Still, the working method is different for different camera's. I use the burnett combo for portraits, and you're right, people react completely different to this camera than all my other camera's. The most noticable thing is that people take the portrait session completely seriously, and feel taken seriously. Then the technical drawbacks, since people HAVE to hold still in order for me to focus correctly (the dof is minimal), but in my experience it is exactly what I'm looking for, and there is a real connection.
Burnett uses that 'advantage' of the camera to its full potential, in my eyes, even in reportage situations. It needs a lot of good thinking to use this camera, and you have to be able to work really fast (which, in digital terms, is REAL slow) not to make mistakes. But it raises concentration. And indeed, it is something of a performance!

About weegee, take a look at his daylight pictures, there is some great work there without flash! Btw, I always crop too, sometimes like crazy

I would never take out the razzle to a demonstration. I would 1. take a real big camera, or 2, a nice Dslr with a wideangle. I've made prints from digital files that really have a clarity and luminance that has a quality of its own. Very clean images, its not chemical, but something elses I like for certain purposes. Or, like my master always told me, digital is a different medium, treat it like that!

Getting Off topic, I presume!

regards

s

[Frank Petronio]

Right. Look at Lois Conner's street portraits from Chna in the 1980s, done with a 7 x 17, well before the Chinese started building 7 x 17s....

She literally took control of the street...

I bet if Ash showed up at the demo with a 20x24 ULF he could have controlled the demonstrators (and the cops) too ;-)

[Randy H]

I just think one needs to also take a step back and ask "What is the best tool for the job?" That's where reference to MF and 35mm film and also digital if the task is to document well the march.

If the task is to harvest the march for the most compelling artistic forms and content, then the camera chosen should just be the camera which offers no barriers to the artistic work. Who of you would then choose the hand-held 4x5 given your experience with other cameras?

Valid point.
If you were shooting commercially, or for a newspaper/magazine, then hands-down the choice would be the dslr. Take a couple hundred shots and go back to the lab to see which ones work.
Artistically,the final look and feel you are going for would determine the camera used.
For example: "IN MY OPINION" Mr "little green men" Jim, hands-down, does the best Portrait work I've seen. He has The look, the feel. Could he do the same with a dslr and PhotoShop? Probably. So why doesn't he?
Again "IN MY OPINION" Gittings does some of the best architectural shots. I Love the vibrant colours in his work. Just guessing, and curious: are they all digi's?
"The best tool" is the one the individual craftsman is the most comfortable using.

A lot of my relatives were journeyman carpenters, as well as my dad. The first time I got on a roof with him, he asked to see the hammer I had. I was proud of it. Brand new! He and my uncle started laughing, tossed it back and forth, and threw it as far as they could, and told me to go get one of their "real" hammers out of the truck. DAMN! those thing weighed a TON. The "best" tool for someone that had been swingin a hammer for umpteen years was too heavy for the newbie. I was worn out after 30 minutes, and they were just warming up.
All that to say, who decides which "tool or camera is the "right" one? The photographer, or the critic?


Peace out.
"just an ass-kissin long-haired old hippie

[Struan Gray]

I know where this is going......

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...3305837&size=o

[Los]

lol!