View Full Version : The Razzle in Action (Portraits)
I decided to post these separately, although they'd fit in the portrait or new picture posts.
A little while ago (many thanks to ManGo, and the others from rfcameras forum) there was a small meet of RF users at the UFFC Protest in London.
Here are the shots from that. 4x5 in the Razzle. It was surprisingly easy to use. Shot at f/8 with around 1/125 I can't remember - pushed to 800iso (that much I do remember).
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-004sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-005sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-006sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-007sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-008sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-009sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-010sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-011sm.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-012sm.jpg
Colin Robertson
8-Nov-2007, 15:07
Ash, this might be the best stuff you've posted yet. Calm, engaged, direct. Very fine.
Thanks Colin :)
I do like my ad-hoc portraity stuff.
Asher Kelman
8-Nov-2007, 15:24
I have enjoyed this set of pictures especially and bookemarked this page!
Ash, you have done a great job in recording them mood of the demonstation. The one with the priest is a real character shot!
Tell us, how many shots in all did you take? Were these ready loads and what film? Did you use the RF or did you zone focus.
What film?
Did anyone else have shots too with Mamiya VII, Leica'a and the like?
Anyway, this is a magnificent job and great that you share.
Asher
Frank Petronio
8-Nov-2007, 16:23
Ash - gotta teach you to find the black eyedropper tool on curves...
I hate to be a prick (but I am one, so what the hell) but how are these any different than what you would have shot with a 35mm? They look like they were shot with a Nikon, which speaks well to the fast-footed nature of the Razzle and your growing skill, BUT they don't really exhibit any of the character of the large format format that you've gone to such great pains and expense to use.
C. D. Keth
8-Nov-2007, 16:54
Ash - gotta teach you to find the black eyedropper tool on curves...
I was about to mention the same. The darkest tones on there are around 30 in RGB.
a prick (
I am one,
how are these any different than what you would have shot with a 35mm? They look like they were shot with a Nikon, which speaks well to the fast-footed nature of the Razzle and your growing skill, BUT they don't really exhibit any of the character of the large format format that you've gone to such great pains and expense to use.yep. you could just get a 35mm P&S and go to the local roach-hotel... :rolleyes: seems I've seena few of them shots around here....
And in what manner should it "exhibit the character of..." if you gonna crit, at least elaborate.
Lookin good Ash.
Keep shootin'
Frank Petronio
8-Nov-2007, 18:13
Ash can take it, he is in art school ;-) Besides, have you seen his piercings?
By "exhibit the character of..." I mean that the pont of going through the trouble of using 4x5 over 35mm or digital is to gain something... whether it be the increased resolution (impossible to see on a 600 pixel wide jpg online) or richer tonality or a more dramatic difference in the depth of field and edge separation... or maybe in how the subjects react to being photographed with a larger camera? To my thinking at least one of those factors needs to be the reason for using the larger camera.
Now I could take my roach motel P&S and go shoot a shot of Half Dome in Yosemite and the resolution of the one-hour photo CD might be good enough that I could Photoshop it and post it online here and claim that I did it with my 12x20 Ebony with the Super Symar XXL lens. And maybe I could fool you over the interweb. But when you see the actual prints side by side, even the most dense casual observer will see a huge difference between the P&S and the large format.
But with this work, I don't know that I would. They are fine photos in themselves. I just don't see the point of using 4x5 to get them.
And yes of course, all encouragements to Ash, he has come a long ways. But kissing up to him isn't going to make him a better photographer, and yeah, he should understand how to talk about his work and also how to get a black in his scans.
Ash, I'm impressed that you used a 4x5 hand held in this type of situation.
Personally I have no idea what Frank is ranting about. Issue #1, who cares if you use 4x5 or 35mm, the images either speak or they don't. Issue #2, I am getting good contrast and solid blacks on my calibrated monitor. What's the problem? Issue #3, Because your in art school this means you have to "take it"? I get that crap at work where the inbred crowd (I'm a contractor) think every piece of communication has to start with a swift kick in the ass. What a colossal waste of time and energy. If art school is about becoming an asshole, no thanks. If it's about improving your game great, but leave the ego, emotional instability, and control games at home, thank you.
Ash, I like your work. There are a couple of images here that are striking and some that are ordinary, and so it goes. The point is that you took the initiative to make this happen and I think you did well.
Frank, you are a master at portrait work. The last images you posted in the portrait section were pretty amazing. I respect your talent and wisdom but that tone is one of the reasons I didn't enter images in the second book you put together. Who needs it?
Now I suppose a good ass kicking opens new doors but what's wrong with straight forward communication without the edge? I guess that's the game, the initiation.
Daniel_Buck
8-Nov-2007, 19:38
I agree, it seems like an odd combo to shoot street photography, but what does it matter? They turned out great, and if you are scanning the images as apart of your printing process, I would much rather scan 4x5 sheets than a 35mm strip, that's for sure! And he mentioned, "It was surprisingly easy to use.", so why not use it! :-)
I like the photos, I'm not much of a street photography person myself, but I do enjoy the images, thanks for posting :-)
A quick auto levels might do before you post them, a few of them seem a bit lifted in the dark levels and maybe not bright enough in the highlights (where others seem just fine). A quick auto levels would even them all out, as others mentioned. Doesn't bother me with out the levels though, it's just a web image :-)
Frank Petronio
8-Nov-2007, 19:38
Pfft... I thought my comments nuking the Middle East into a sea of glass was a bigger turn off ;-)
Ash and I talk outside this forum, if he wasn't cool with it I'd know.
But OK, no more opinions or criticisms...
Frank
Hi Ash,
Just a few quick words of encouragement. It's been fun watching you make progress, and this is the best work you've shared to date--at least that I'm aware of. As with most pursuits there will always be more to learn, and more things to improve upon. Keep embracing that (as you obviously have been doing) and you'll be well on your way to finding your own personal excellence. I think the feedback you receive here can be very helpful, but remember that it's important to make sure that you're happy with the work first.
On my color-calibrated monitor the blacks look pretty darn good by the way.
Keep up the good work!
Cheers, Rob
Asher Kelman
8-Nov-2007, 20:09
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-007sm.jpg
This is the one I like best! The "priest" (the guy with the white hair), does seem to be a careful and thoughtful fellow! That shot hand held is so impressive! The image is outstanding. The cutting person of the last guy, gives us the feeling of more people to come. I hate to use the word, but "wow!"
Asher
There's no reason that dark tones have to reach 0 % brightness - especially under overcast skies. Most of these images feel like light.
Subject matter aside, many of the images have a lovely quality.
It makes me want to get one of these cameras !
But OK, no more opinions or criticisms...
Frank
I'm completely fine with opinions and critiques, it's how I learn. I happen to think you are an interesting character with lots of color and experience. I wouldn't want to change that. My rant targets an attitude in humanity that I've never been comfortable with. As Lemmy from Motorhead says, "Good manners are free". I'm not pointing fingers I'm just saying that to remind myself.
Joe
Woah that's a lot of comments!
Right well first of all, the levels are ALWAYS off for some. With monitors, the images look fine on my own monitors (mum's Sony Vaio attached to 35mm scanner, and my old ibook G4, and the college's iMacs connected to 4x5/10x8 scanner) but I think IBM compatibles look a bit different. I don't spend forever with levelling on the computer, as these are going to be exhibited in digital form, they are a representation of the negative for those who might never see the physical version. When I print, my negatives Do have a full tonal range from black and above.
So responses to crit, my choice in tones are due to the fact that a vast majority of the people in the shots are black. I wanted to get shadow detail with them, that meant the contrast suffers a little. Of course looking at http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-006sm.jpg you can't complain. The film is pushed and the image quality doesn't suffer at all.
Using that same image as an example, I can compare it to an earlier shot on 35mm, http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-18a-1.jpg a much worse shot for many reasons. The composition isn't as good, I wouldn't be able to enlarge it very far without loss of quality, the old lens on my leica flares, even with a hood.
As for using it instead of a smaller format. I took 9 shots on LF, out of a total of 12 possible shots - 6 DDS's (to answer the other question, no readyloads, usual DDS holders). I enjoy each of the shots and probably would print 2/3 of them, if not all for various reasons, even down to criticism for the sketchbook/research book work. I took two or three rolls of 35mm and wasn't impressed with any really. Possibly the film choice, but they were lacking in many regards.
With LF I HAD to slow down and concentrate on whether the shot was worth taking. I also gained a greater view. I could possibly enlarge 3 sections of a crowd for separate images with no loss of quality compared to a smaller format. I shot without a lens hood (forgot to put it on) and the images are reliably sharp and little or no flaring. The camera WAS heavy and slow to use compared to 35mm, but that didn't bother me for all the above reasons.
I used RF focusing and f/8 (fairly shallow on 150mm for this type of event) so focusing was critical. This is still a lot faster than using a pro-slr in either 35mm or mf format.
If I've missed any crits let me know and I'll respond.
As Frank stated, I'm absolutely happy to receive a horrible response, so long as it's well founded and I can respond in a similar academic sense. Encouragement is great as it boosts my confidence to go and DO it, but crit forces me to consider what I'm doing wrong and act on the advice.
Of course, I never bother acting on the advice with digital images and levelling, I just have a bad habit of putting my digital versions lower contrast!
For those who are having problems with black check the brightness/contrast levels. On two machines now the black has been excellent. When I print with Septone anything below 30 cannot be mapped to a monitor; i.e. it all appears black and in fact the image is rendered useless for visual display on a monitor.
I had a teacher who would never tell you how your photograph failed directly. He would ask questions in a way that led you to a new viewpoint, a new understanding.
Greg Lockrey
9-Nov-2007, 01:11
I was about to mention the same. The darkest tones on there are around 30 in RGB.
Not to nit pick but that's where you want it if your printing with an Epson 9600 on Enhanced Matt paper. :)
adrian tyler
9-Nov-2007, 01:33
i'm a great believer in learning the non-academic way, so i'd direct ash towards a winnogrand book that contains some of his anti-vietnam demo work. each and everyone of those images contains all the criticism you need relating to these shots.
good luck! and hard work"
!
also, it's the hardest thing to do - but using a 4x5 is a good excuse - why not ask for a formal shot, really engage, you don't seem to lack any patter... those 3 dudes in the back tee shirts could have been a cracker.
Asher Kelman
9-Nov-2007, 01:39
i'm a great believer in learning the non-academic way, so i'd direct ash towards a winnogrand book that contains some of his anti-vietnam demo work. each and everyone of those images contains all the criticism you need relating to these shots.
good luck! and hard work"
!......and that book is? You have my interested piqued!
And BTW, what is it that Ash needs to learn that is not happening in his pictures? Is it written in the critique in the Winnograd book or just inherently obvious?
Certainly, one will always learn from Winograd, so the book has to be good anyway!
Thanks in advance for sharing your ideas and reference to this book!
Asher :)
I will only add a simple comment or two. I am using a calibrated Viewsonic flat screen CRT monitor on a PC, with a fairly high end graphics card (128 mb, and not configured for gaming). I see some very black blacks. The priest is holding the arm of a lady in a black sweater. On my monitor it is the darkest black it could be. The three black people wearing black outfits come out the same way, and yet there is good detail in their faces. That picture all looks appropriate to me.
So, the critiques on blacks surprised me.
Interesting pics, and whatever one might think about the large format vs the 35mm for street photos, I would bet they couldn't get much bigger than shown here if they were 35. At the same time I will say these would probably hold up well, enlarged much larger than shown here as a result of the 4X5.
Asher Kelman
9-Nov-2007, 02:35
I will only add a simple comment or two. I am using a calibrated Viewsonic flat screen CRT monitor on a PC, with a fairly high end graphics card (128 mb, and not configured for gaming). I see some very black blacks. The priest is holding the arm of a lady in a black sweater. On my monitor it is the darkest black it could be. The three black people wearing black outfits come out the same way, and yet there is good detail in their faces. That picture all looks appropriate to me.
So, the critiques on blacks surprised me.
Interesting pics, and whatever one might think about the large format vs the 35mm for street photos, I would bet they couldn't get much bigger than shown here if they were 35. At the same time I will say these would probably hold up well, enlarged much larger than shown here as a result of the 4X5.
Kuzano,
So right!
I'm looking at the images on a profiled Eizo monitor and they are fine. The final judgements and tweaks must be done at the time of printing and that depends on the output deivce: wet chemicals, which paper and or which inks and printer. There is no such thing as a completed file without reference to how it will be printed. Same with a negative! For my monitor and eyes the distribution of tonalities works. I know anything one needed could be delivered in a B&W print by processing digital files. So there's nothing I'd lose sleep about!
Asher
adrian tyler
9-Nov-2007, 07:09
And BTW, what is it that Ash needs to learn that is not happening in his pictures? Is it written in the critique in the Winnograd book or just inherently obvious?
he(we) need to discover it for himself, then it stays in forever. he (we) tend to forget what someone else has told us quickly.
here are a few searching "winogrand peace demonstration"
George Kara
9-Nov-2007, 07:45
In my opinion Frank is one of the best people photographers around. He doesnt do reportage and loves young girls with tatoos. He is a master photographer and his points should always be considered.
but crit forces me to consider what I'm doing wrong and act on the advice.
In my opinion never let a critique rob you of your vision and passion. A good critique exposes but does not condemn.
Frank Petronio
9-Nov-2007, 08:36
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.
I know Ash is a serious photo student who wants to make this his career, I challenged him on a few points. If we just do nothing but praise everything then praise becomes worthless and how do you learn from that?
As I look at these, yes I see blacks... I just wish there was more separation but flat English light being what it is, whatever.
And as i study them closer, I see the subtle hints that they are large format and not 35mm, where he chose to focus is well done and all that.
But, my first impressions were, yeah, they reminded me of so many other protest shots I've seen. I guess what I find interesting about reportage done with a large format camera is the sort of work people like David Burnett (and his many copiers) are doing with the very selective focus that pulls the individuals out from the crowd and that sort of thing. These are pretty deadpan straight.
Yes, I could be more tactful I suppose.... but I think the damn hippies ought to buck up ;-)
Frank, don't stop what you do or how you say it. If people just want nice things said then show your images to your better half. I'm sure they won't be too mean. Take whatever 'advice' anyone has to offer and put your own weight on their comments. I value Franks skill with his images so I would take note of his comments. That's just me.
But then I'm not brave enough to show anyone but my wife my images.....
Photomax
9-Nov-2007, 10:01
Does it really matter that the images need to shout "taken with a large format camera"???? All we see here are compressed jpegs anyway.
What is missing in this discussion is that we have a young guy here, Ash, who is pushing the boundaries by using different formats, films, cameras, techniques, chemistry etc. How many students are using anything but digital these days anyway?
The end photo is one thing, how the photo came to be is all about the photographer. I shot the US Open tennis tournament for years. Most of the pros used the latest trendy gear. And then there were those that used ND filtered Hasselblads, panoramic cameras, and cheap Polaroids whose developing prints would get manipulated with tooth picks. Ash has a new 4x5 camera that can be used hand held which is pretty cool. I am sure that he used this camera in this interesting situation to see "how it went." To my eye it went very well. Some might say that these online images don't look like a traditional Ansel Adams moonrise print, but that's missing the point, no?
Max
O/T: I am truly fascinated how many caring self-appointed saviors we have here. Some people just can't stop acting on behalf of someone else's good, can they? :eek:
I am thankful for the mix of people here. I guess the balance is maintained - we are lucky Frank and other critical members are here otherwise it would be as bad as....say.... DeviantArt; "Hey great pic. Can't wait to see more. xxxxxxx" etc.
I didn't manage to get GREAT shots, but as I said, they aren't too bad for a first time at a fairly tame protest march. The people were moving slow, there was silence during the walk, and the shouting was shortlived outside Downing Street (where the Prime Minister lives). For such a tame protest, I had to battle my way through about 20 other photographers, 15 of which had digital, and 5 were part of the group I went with! :D
Colin Robertson
9-Nov-2007, 12:28
Wow. Lots of opinion. So . . back to look at the pictures.
First, I DO like them. Ash has been posting stuff here for a while, quite courageously I think (there are some regulars here who REALLY know their stuff). For a while I have been thinking that he could do some mentoring in the darkroom, but now here he is with smooth, well developed negs. Great. His 'protest' shots work- he's in close, we see faces and expressions, we get mood. In the real world- could we all do it?
Now, Frank's comments. The only weblink on this forum I visit on a regular basis is, yes, frankpetronio.com (sorry others). I shoot still-life and landscape for fun.
Frank is a people-shooter and has used more cameras than some folk have hot dinners, so I reckon he's well worth listening to.
Cameras are tools. A tool should be fit for purpose. He's right to question the selection of 5x4 for this use, but, there are other issues. It's like working out. Conquer the impossible, and the difficult becomes easy. If Ash can shoot street stuff well on 5x4, which might be overkill, how easy will small camera shooting be? Also, I have a (purely personal) thing about volume shooting. On another forum I visit I hear amateur shooters talking about shooting 6000 frames in a month. Jesus christ.
When do they even look at them?? Going out to shoot knowing you have a limited number of sheets at your disposal is DISCIPLINE, and DISCIPLINE is GOOD.
Okay.
Shoot me down.
When dealing with a subjective such as art who truly has the knowledge of what is right or wrong?
Photomax
9-Nov-2007, 12:50
Colin,
Shoot you down? Why? Some great points there...
Photography is not always about the result. Quite often it is about the experience of the photographic outing. A fews back I visited some great towns in the south. On a walking day's outing in Charleston, SC I decided to walk with a Pentax LX & the awesome SMC 40mm/2.8 "Pancake lens". This being a really nice film camera I decided to shoot pictures in a way that the contact sheet would be the end result. My intention was to create an enlarged contact sheet. I wanted each exposure to be a singular, unique photo, so no multiple images or "working the situation" was allowed etc. The resulting 20x24 "contact sheet" was pretty cool. Was each image great? Hell no! But the experiment was great fun, and a valuable learning experience as well.
What Ash did/does seems to fit into this as well. Some serious photographic artists will shoot the Half Dome at Yosemite with a 20 inch plate camera and some with a plastic Holga...
Oh and just for the record, I had to develop those negatives one at a time in a Paterson orbital. It took me from about 9:30pm til well after 1am. THAT is discipline :)
Asher Kelman
9-Nov-2007, 13:20
he(we) need to discover it for himself, then it stays in forever. he (we) tend to forget what someone else has told us quickly.
here are a few searching "winogrand peace demonstration"
Yes, these are amazing! A great choice of images illustrating your point.
However, Garry Winogrand did have more experience, took a lot more pictures with his Leica, often 10 rolls of Tri-X at a time. This is one great man. Ash by contrast has a new camera and can work only slowly.
Winogrand would not have wanted Ash to follow in his footsteps, rather be an ordinary person and find his own path. However, you are very helpful in showing the heights that can be reached by dedication to form and content.
I believe, contrary to Winograds own strong belief, that he might have omitted a subconscious drive, (that we might recognize) which buttresses these images: metaphor based on our own rich experience and mythology.
To me, the 3 Winogrand pictures you selected are supported and boosted in our minds by images we already know: Trotsky as political speaker in Russia, the Crucifixion and the apocolypse fear of the nuclear world.
Every so often we need a kick to remind us of what is possible. Thanks Adrian!
Asher
Asher Kelman
9-Nov-2007, 13:34
On another forum I visit I hear amateur shooters talking about shooting 6000 frames in a month. Jesus christ.
When do they even look at them?? Going out to shoot knowing you have a limited number of sheets at your disposal is DISCIPLINE, and DISCIPLINE is GOOD.
Okay.
Shoot me down.
Good points on choosing the right tool!
With his Lecia, Winograd left 1/3 of a million images not developed or sorted through!
Every 3 outings 1,000 shots!! A potential of 10,000 a month! Of course he didn't get to go through everything. In his mind I guess he knew what he had.
His selection may have been which rolls of film to develop! I wonder?
Asher
I saw a video showing Winogrand's draws full of undeveloped film. It was a moment that made me realise the worth of both the photo's you take, and the time you have to develop and print them.
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" :rolleyes: To take pics of African American, dressed in black, in less than ideal lighting and setting, and still get the detail....
'spretty cool.
BrianShaw
9-Nov-2007, 15:23
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! :D
(Nice shooting, Ash).
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
Err, umm, Randy... those probably weren't African AMERICAN people....
yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever...:rolleyes:
I stand corrected. Those are some things you just don't think about, y'know? My apologies.
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
but I think the damn hippies ought to buck up ;-)
Hey!! I think I resemble that remark!! :rolleyes:
walter23
9-Nov-2007, 18:58
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
9-Nov-2007, 19:58
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
9-Nov-2007, 20:39
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
9-Nov-2007, 22:09
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?
Asher Kelman
9-Nov-2007, 23:09
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. (my emphasis) 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.
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.
Steven I did enjoy visiting your work and these two pictures do show what can be done up close. You use that style well, but that's what it is, a style.
There is an almost religious demand of photographers to frame close and crop closer! Sounds great but that may be for one particular esthetic where the context is in itself the main subject.
Ash however has taken a perspective with more atmospheric context. He wants to include more and I like it.
Now let's look at this picture, the one I find most distinguished. For a picture to record such a profound depth of sincere dedication is moving to me, at least.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/uffc45/uffc-007sm.jpg
The white haired man and his lady being present injects a special sense of dignity and idea of the outrage people that had that brought them all out. This event obviously wounded the society and the knife went deep across social boundaries of the otherwise rather class conscious British society. This, unlike the Winogrand NY Demonstrations shows quiet outrage.
Ash could have had one of my Canon cameras and zoomed in on the senior couple and they would be framed perfectly. More, the tonality might be even better drawn since we could reassign colors to tones.
However, Ash's 4x5 picture represents the creative work of capturing the sense of the elderly couple in the milieu of the other far more robust marchers. That context would have been lost with a perfectly framed zoomed-in picture. Social issues benefit from context. This is what Ash has succeeded in exploiting. That he did it with what I'd consider a slow clumsy camera speaks to his thoughtful aproach. I'd have used a Mamiya II or a 5D and work at getting more.
Being used to form, content and rulers in one's pocket from the masters of what Ash is "supposed to do" if he were to walk in the steps of some dead photographer is, to my mind, too destructive.
One can only ask whether Ash engraved into the medium a compelling image that we'd want to revisit. Is that a picture that would interview the viewer and move boundaries that we thought we fixed? Of course! This picture just works. Could one of us do better? For sure it would be different. I'd have taken 20 pictures of the couple against the skies, buildings other people and so on. However this is not my picture either! So what I might do or anyone else, for that matter, doesn't count at all.
To me Ash saw something that energized his passion for photography and then guided that image through processing to what he delivered. I look at it and am moved. As far as I'm concerned if he likes it and I do too, that's enough for me.
To me this is potentially great photography, not perhaps the greatest photography, but it needs no apology or reference to him "learning". Maybe there will be no other of his image that ever moves me, who knows, but we should stop measuring his work in Bresson, Adams or Winogrand units, when this is just Ash's photograph! I just feel that the Razzle, as good as it is cannot do justice to Ash's mind.
Also this picture has much more of a journey in order to be ready for printing, for my sensibilities. Whether with silver or pigment inks, this print has work to be done. If the couple are the main subject, then the focus and light should say that too. That is a lot of iterative effort, but will deliver a better print. Still that's just what I'd do and perhaps is not important.
Steven, we either like a photograph or not. If not, "So what?” it's just not for us! It doesn't mean the composition was wrong! The composition could be "wrong" and even help it to work or perfect and it could be a snapshot to be forgotten.
Asher
BTW, my wife saw the picture and reacted thus, "It's a mess! Things all over the place. This is not a planned photograph, you're just looking at the social value!" So there it is! We all have our bias!
Let me be clear (think I was),
I was not 'judging' the work like if I knew how to
do things better, (why would I ) I just wrote down what
I felt when I saw them, from my point of experience.
My remarks were meant like
a stimulus to expand Ash s view, in the sence that
he could also give the close-approach, which I think
could result (for my eyes) in more intense pictures.
If people like the pictures, that's just fine. I think I
would like them better with a bit more work.
But let me be clear, The pictures I posted were made
with high adrenalin levels, since it is a daring experience
to get into a crowd with a camera. In that sense I can
only applaud the work of Ash, since he obviously took
the leap to get into a crowd.
About the camera, I really don't care what the pictures
were made with. My teacher in photography really gave
me hard time when I wouldn't stop talking about gear.
He always started to shout (in a nice way): Stefan,
all you need is a praktica with a 50mm to make the
most beautiful pictures in the world. Stop talking
gear, GO TAKE PICTURES. Some like a rangefinder in these
situations (I don't), some like a SLR (I do), some
like LF (fine, but limits your ability to focus close fast).
BTW, IMHO Winogrand is the master in commenting
on the unease of crowds, like this one for example":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1881337057/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4976604-8523805#reader-link
for those who haven;t seen this, Winogrand in Action,
and an interview, 4th item, if I remember correctly.
http://blog.walterundspehr.ch/?m=200705
BTW, may I add that I really like the civilised tone in this forum?
Finally feel I found a place with some very skilled people who dislike ranting
and want to talk about the things that matter in photography,
regards
stefan
It's quite interesting how the opinions are spreading across the field now, and I had no idea what the reactions were going to be. More surprising still is the interest a few pictures have gained!
I guess six pages of comments is the ego boost, that I have compelled you to talk about the photo's I've taken, and keep it on subject too.
I wasn't so much overwhelmed by the protest, as it was fairly small. I was more conscious of the reason that the protest was happening. Perhaps I should have mentioned;
The protest UFFC, as the banners suggest, is for the friends and families of those who have died whilst in the custody of police, or whilst in jail. This means that there is a deep personal reason for each of those people to be there.
I felt obliged to keep some distance in this respect. I agree that a few (like the first shot) are way off, but it was to gain a feel of what was happening from my own perspective.
These aren't shots of certain people, these are what I saw, and when you look across a crowd you don't necessarily focus on the person who's fully in the frame (with reference to focus being off).
People are moving all the time. I was a few feet away in some cases, but with a 150mm lens the field of view is quite wide - too wide it seems for a lot of posters here.
The full neg scans aren't necessarily as I'd framed them either, the Razzle gives a little breathing room around the framelines in the VF, so the composition isn't as tight (but IS accurate). This can be said for all rangefinders really. I'm grateful for that extra room around - in some cases it has included people I'd not seen, and in others simply gives a little room to crop comfortably when enlarged.
The protest was fairly small, although some more experienced photographers will have almost stalked various people in the crowd, please remember I DID shoot two or three rolls of 35mm as well, so I'm standing out from the DSLR users (needing to dodge them to get the shot) and I'm getting into the faces of those trying to protest. I cannot zoom, so there is no subtlety, there is simply taking the shot.
As an aside, I framed a shot on 35mm of part of a crowd. A guy came RIGHT up to me as I was walking away,
"You just took a photo of me"
"...err? Did I?"
"You just pointed your camera RIGHT at me and took a photo"
"There's loads of people, I didn't even see you in the crowd"
"You took my photo, I don't like it, don't take my photo"
And so he went, and I forgot his face instantly. I might have photographed him again for all I know.
EDIT: Stefan, I am grateful for your comments, as I am grateful for everyone's. I've no hard feelings over any criticisms, and gained no favouritism from compliments. :)
Hi Ahs,
good to see the discussion stimulates your photography, and ego :)
A small anekdote on people not wanting to be photographed,
the picture of the lady with the baby in the buggy and the picture
an iranion leader on top (in my previous post) was made in a very
hostile demonstration. A colleage almost got beaten up because
he was taking pictures of the women. I work fast, and avoid looking
like a pro in those situations, which helped me keep my camera ;)
One more story, when testing a telezoom in front of a camerastore
a guy (who I really had not seen at all, aiming at a 4 story building)
came up and demanded the film, since I 'took his picture'
Those are the less fun things about taking pictures of people :)
Just keep take pictures and think about what you really want, and
all will be fine, ash. To be honest, if I thought the work was no good,
I would not have taken the trouble to comment,
regards
stefan
www.stefanheijdendael.com
Gary Tarbert
10-Nov-2007, 03:05
Hi all interesting thread,i would much rather recieve open criticism of my work while i am learning than people pussyfooting around with me .
Then when you go out into the big bad world the phone doesn't ring and your prints don't sell.
Because the critics now have cheque books and the competition is hot!!
BTW Ash keep shooting and keep exsperimenting .:)
cheers Gary
Hi Ash,
Great pics. Can't wait to see more. :D
What I like about this series is that you've got a pretty high hit rate. IIRC these are all the shots you took on the day with the Razzle. There are a couple which I think are a little weak; the longer shots (but that's probably because I like a more up close approach to this kind of photography), and also "The Cover" which on first viewing I think lacks a little focus. Notwithstanding these points, I don't think you have any "bad" shots here and definitely a couple which I wouldn't mind hanging on my wall (if it wasn't already covered with my own pics!:) ) - namely the shot known as "Priest" and in particular "Justice Died".
ManGo
Mick Fagan
10-Nov-2007, 04:32
Ash, having actually held your camera in my hands, I do appreciate how you have gotten a very good strike rate with a possible 12 sheets.
My desire to have the enlarging possibilities of the 4x5 sheet, coupled with a compact unit for motorcycle travelling, was what made me think of this route.
Your preceding pictures, in what is essentially a learning phase with the camera, have told me I'm on the right track. When I get my Razzle next year, I'll be aware of what is possible.
I too think the one with the tall old fella and his missus, is the pick of the bunch. As for the near misses, well, that is part and parcel of shooting, regardless of whether or not you are in a studio, national park or in the street. It was good to see your not so good and your quite good stuff, from this outing.
You're getting a well rounded education in basic photography, this will stand you in good stead for whatever branch you end up on.
Mick.
I think that Frank Petronio hits the nail on the head when he says that one ought to have a reason/objective if one is going to use a large format camera for street photography.
I find this thread interesting because I currently use a Leica and a Mamiya 7II for this kind of subject matter, and I have been thinking about trying a handheld 4x5.
What strikes me about Ash's photographs is that he shot with a 150mm lens at f8 and about 1/125, with the film pushed, presumably one stop, to ISO 800.
I don't share the view that a 150mm lens is too wide for street photography. Many people do this kind of work with wider focal lengths. What's common on a Graphic, 135mm? On a 35mm camera, 50mm and 35mm are ubiquitous. Indeed, as I understand it, one of the complaints that photojournalists had about the Leica M3 was that the viewfinder lacked 35mm frame lines :)
Rather, I think that the photographs underscore how much skill is required, in a street environment, to use a 150mm lens at f8 on a 4x5 camera. I suspect that it takes a fair bit of practice to get to the point where one can make a fast decision about what the subject is and at the same time control the plane of focus and apparent depth of field. To my eye, most of the photographs in this series demonstrate the problem. There is a disconnect in the relationship between the subject matter and placement of the plane of focus/apparent depth of field. Notable exceptions, probably because they represent less of a focusing challenge, are photographs 1 and 3.
What I learn from looking at these photographs is how important it is, with that focal length and aperture, to have the apparent depth of field at the front of one's mind when composing. I don't think that that happened here. Several of these photographs, given the choices made when composing, should have been taken at f11 or f16, pushing the film two or three stops. Perhaps it would have been a good idea, for some of them, to zone focus. What I get from this series, in addition to an appreciation for Arthur Fellig's approach to aperture and shutter speed, is that if a decision is made to go with one, fairly wide, aperture, every composition has to be made with that in mind.
The other thing that I learn from this series is how important it is with this kind of photography to tell a story. I think that photographs 1 and 3 begin to do that, but the rest of the photographs do nothing to advance the narrative. I am struck that several people like photograph 4 of a minister and an elderly woman. For me, it doesn't work. The question is, who are these people? As far as I can tell, the minister is a bit player. The elderly woman is somewhat marginalized in the frame. If she is no more than a sympathizer, or maybe the minister's wife, it doesn't matter, but in that case, neither of them matter. However, if she is a relative of one of the men who died at the hands of the police, she should have been the principal subject of the photograph, and the photographer missed an opportunity.
I want to thank Ash for posting this series. As someone who is himself thinking about using a 4x5 camera for street photography, the images helped me think through some issues.
I also want to thank Frank Petronio for raising a question that is fundamental, unless the idea is to use a 4x5 for street photography just for the hell of it.
Cheers
I think that this is the picture that Asher is seeing and I know why.
http://www.studio-beni.net/preist.jpg
Pictures have to 'say' something, have to express a specific thought and emotion to really work rather than general coverage which is too wide to provoke the link between the artist and viewers mind. The third picture (needs slightly wider framing) is a great example of where it all comes together as well as the shouting guy in the second to last photo, again with better framing needed (why all the empty space above?). Composition is used to lead the eye into the photo so as to show what the subject and point of the photo is, without that the eye bounces backwards and forwards without settling anywhere. If there is no subject or the composition and framing doesn't lead there then the photo leaves one lacking...
All the Winograd pictures shown on the second page have very specific compostional and focal points, each one tells a very specific and powerful story. The beauty of the 4X5 of course is that you can make stupidly large crops and still get incredible quality!
Every time you pull the trigger you have to have in mind (albeit subconsicously), what is the point of this photo, why am I taking it, what am I trying to say with this photo. What is the subject and what elements are going to distract from it and what elements are going to be used for context. Once you know the above you will know what composition, focus point and depth of field you need to achieve what you already have in your mind. A photo is constructed not just taken and you need to have a mental image of what you want to achieve to make it work through the viewfinder onto that film or sensor.
Ben,
Good, that illustrates part of what I am trying to get at. If that woman is related to Brian Douglas, the crop makes a major difference. There is still a problem, and it is not a minor one, namely the half head of the guy staring at the camera on the left. There are a couple of ways to fix that, one of them, from a street photography point of view, ethically questionable (where's the clone stamp?).
But we are back at Frank's question. The film has been pushed to ISO 800 (and in my view some of those shots should have been made at an aperture that would require a push to ISO 1600 or 3200), and your crop relegates at least 50% of this particular negative to the trash bin.
The question is, as Frank says, what is the objective? With a Mamiya 7II and an 80mm lens, one would have more freedom to move and more flexibility in composition for this shot. Furthermore, if one desired, one could shoot at ISO 125 or 400. The negative, given the extensive crop of Ash's photo, would enlarge just as well. I'm not trashing 4x5, especially since I'm thinking of trying it, but there is some point to understanding the limitations and having an objective that makes it sensible to accept those limitations.
Not sure R.E, I think he provides context of a march together with the other person in the background, the fact that the others are out of focus gives a good context without being distracting. My point is that those two out of focus people are enough to provide background context while the whole photo as it is provides a story. The original photo has far more context than subject and hence is very dilluted.
Frank Petronio
10-Nov-2007, 13:27
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?
I don't usually make huge prints, but I've made 40x60s from P3200 35mm, so I am not exactly overly concerned about getting the last drop of resolution out of my images... And when I used a Rollei TLR I shot a lot of portraits wide open at f/2.8 and they seem to have just as much separation and nice bokeh as any large format lens used wide open too... so using large format isn't really out of technical or print quality concerns. (And I've seen plenty of wonderful large high quality prints from smaller format stuff anyway.)
For me it comes down to the subjects response to the big camera. It was even more so when I used 8x10 before I dropped down to 4x5 for practical reasons (expense, airline travel, etc.) Once I set down the little digital dslr that I use to "warm up" or figure out the shot, it seems like my subjects really do react differently to the large camera. And I like how they react. I might only do a few sheets of any one set-up, but usually those few sheets tend to capture the best expressions and moments -- far better than when I am rapid-firing dozens and hundreds of shots with the little digital.
(I like a lot of the digital shots too though, they do tend to compliment each other but they really different mediums, like watercolors are to oil paintings.)
So... OK, street photography with a 4x5. If the people aren't aware of the camera, and you're compromising the technical aspects that might make the large format shot somehow superior, then what are you left with?
It is a nice technical skill and great practice -- kudos to Ash for that -- but I just don't see it as a working methodolgy that has "legs". I'm not so sure Ash thought like that either, I am just pointing out that I find the idea of large format street photographing lacking once I really investigate it.
Now for walking around Florence, like an earlier thread was asking about, I think that handheld Razzle and a bunch of Grafmatics would be the bomb... having that extra 30 seconds to compose the shot would make all the difference in the world.
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?)
The camera does not matter,
take a look at weegee,
this kind of photography needs
a lot of experience, a complete
mastering of the camera, and a
vision.
from the a learning point of view curve,
this is a good start.
but there is a lot to be learned if Ash wants
to make a living in photography with this kind of pictures,
I think that is what Frank is referring too, and I have
to agree. So go out with whatever camera Ash, and
show us some more, I would like to see you improve
your work!
regards
stefan
jetcode
10-Nov-2007, 13:42
Ben,
Good, that illustrates part of what I am trying to get at. If that woman is related to Brian Douglas, the crop makes a major difference. There is still a problem, and it is not a minor one, namely the half head of the guy staring at the camera on the left. There are a couple of ways to fix that, one of them, from a street photography point of view, ethically questionable (where's the clone stamp?).
... that is unless you consider the man in the left witness to the scene and witness to the observer to the scene which in my mind is a worthy element that adds spice and need not be removed.
But we are back at Frank's question. The film has been pushed to ISO 800 (and in my view some of those shots should have been made at an aperture that would require a push to ISO 1600 or 3200), and your crop relegates at least 50% of this particular negative to the trash bin.
The question is, as Frank says, what is the objective? With a Mamiya 7II and an 80mm lens, one would have more freedom to move and more flexibility in composition for this shot. Furthermore, if one desired, one could shoot at ISO 125 or 400. The negative, given the extensive crop of Ash's photo, would enlarge just as well. I'm not trashing 4x5, especially since I'm thinking of trying it, but there is some point to understanding the limitations and having an objective that makes it sensible to accept those limitations.
150mm on a 4x5, 80mm on a 6x7 what's the difference they're both "normal" lenses. You will get the same ratio of negative relegated to the trash bin with either format.
Most certainly a high end digital SLR would be the most convenient system for this work but the Razzle is what the artist had at his disposal and as we all know most artists are highly underpaid. If Ash had used a 35mm or a Mamiya he would have not been able to post these images here due to forum regulations:
See #6 in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=30016
As it stands I think Ash has some nice images that if further edited for publication would stand up well.
I certainly get Frank's take and agree. If fast moving action is required as in a portrait or fashion session LF is not exactly the most covenient format. If indeed there is plenty of time to setup for the page spread or front cover that's another story.
Personally I think pointing a camera at someone is a ballsy thing to do unless they have fully subscribed to the event. At a protest the photographer can be more acceptable as protesters typically want their cause to be well publicized.
Hi Jetcode,
Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. If I were shooting this with a Mamiya/80, I would be much closer to the subjects. It would be a fairly easy matter to fill the frame with the image shown in Ben's crop. I could shoot with ISO 125 film or up, maybe with ISO 50. I could shoot from 1/60 sec, because the lens has a leaf shutter, to 1/500th. I could shoot anywhere from f4 to f22. If I had a full roll, I would have 10 shots, and you can be assured, if that woman is related to one of the men who was the subject of the demonstration, I would have worked at it until I got it right. Right means that you don't have a guy staring at the camera and, with a little effort, you don't have a woman blocking the foreground. It also means that you vary your angle, maybe try something with your knees bent real low. If I can't get close? That's when my M3 with a 90mm lens comes in real handy.
I don't know why you think that a high-end digital SLR is "most certainly" the most convenient system for street work. While I own a pretty good DSLR, for street photography I much prefer a Leica M3 and/or Mamiya 7, a couple of lenses, and a handheld light meter in incident mode. For whatever reason, I like how that setup affects my rhythm. It keeps everything really simple, using film instead of an 8GB flash card makes me think, and reloading film gives me time to think :)
Hey, if you and Ben think that the composition of Ash's photograph is helped by having half a head on the edge of the frame, it only goes to show that tastes differ. Myself, either he's in, or he's gone. The deep meaning that you ascribe to half a head eludes me :)
Frank,
I think that there is something to your comment on Burnett, and I am intrigued by this idea that a large format camera, in some circumstances, has a positive impact on the result. Apparently, we are now at a point where any film camera has an impact. In August, I photographed an outdoor concert with an M3 and a Mamiya around my neck, and it not only attracted notice, including from other photographers, but I believe gave me more freedom of movement in the stage area than I would have had otherwise.
Stefan,
I agree, look at Weegee, aka Arthur Fellig, to whom I referred in my earlier post. His approach to handheld 4x5 shooting is instructive, especially his choice of aperture, shutter speed and regular use of flash.
Cheers.
Frank Petronio
10-Nov-2007, 14:51
Ah but Weegee shot tons of film, cropped like crazy, using flash at f/16-22, he did really meatball tactics to get the thing in focus. It was standard operating procedure in the days before smaller formats took over, I think thousands of other press photographers did the same things. What Weegee did different was that he seemed to care about the gore and the subject matter enough to realize that he was an artist. (Which is why he did all those awful double exposures late in his life when he was trying to be a "real" artist.)
tim atherton
10-Nov-2007, 15:39
Pictures have to 'say' something, have to express a specific thought and emotion to really work rather than general coverage which is too wide to provoke the link between the artist and viewers mind. The third picture (needs slightly wider framing) is a great example of where it all comes together as well as the shouting guy in the second to last photo, again with better framing needed (why all the empty space above?). Composition is used to lead the eye into the photo so as to show what the subject and point of the photo is, without that the eye bounces backwards and forwards without settling anywhere. If there is no subject or the composition and framing doesn't lead there then the photo leaves one lacking...
.
Of course a photograph can say multiple things at once rather than just expressing a specific though or emotion (if a photograph can actually "say" anything significant at all that is). In which case, a simplistic graphic form of composition directing our eyes to a single element is a mistake. Having "the eye bounces backwards and forwards without settling anywhere" can often be a good thing.
I agree that there can be a picture within a picture but I would have to disagree with a photo not having to have a specific aim or purpose in its composition.
tim atherton
10-Nov-2007, 16:18
I agree that there can be a picture within a picture but I would have to disagree with a photo not having to have a specific aim or purpose in its composition.
just talking of "a" picture within "a" picture seems to reduce photographs to very simplistic things. Some (and some of the best) can be almost infinitely complex with multiple layers, focii and levels of potential meaning.
And as an aside, taking a photograph standing alone, how do we know what is the specific aim and/or purpose in it's composition?
What, I wonder, was the specific aim or purpose in composition of this fairly well known photograph for example?:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_023w4hdG0iI/RhaT4MnKvuI/AAAAAAAABec/xsmvRMmyL8Y/s400/Atget3_bis_.jpg
or even this
http://www3.telus.net/kairos/images/IMAGE4a.jpg
jetcode
10-Nov-2007, 16:32
Hi Jetcode,
Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. If I were shooting this with a Mamiya/80, I would be much closer to the subjects. It would be a fairly easy matter to fill the frame with the image shown in Ben's crop. I could shoot with ISO 125 film or up, maybe with ISO 50. I could shoot from 1/60 sec, because the lens has a leaf shutter, to 1/500th. I could shoot anywhere from f4 to f22. If I had a full roll, I would have 10 shots, and you can be assured, if that woman is related to one of the men who was the subject of the demonstration, I would have worked at it until I got it right. Right means that you don't have a guy staring at the camera and, with a little effort, you don't have a woman blocking the foreground. It also means that you vary your angle, maybe try something with your knees bent real low. If I can't get close? That's when my M3 with a 90mm lens comes in real handy.
The smaller the camera the less intimidating to the photographed yet for close up work you still have to get close regardless of format. I suspect that a 20x24 would generate instant fright of being gobbled up by the funny green men that carry these huge film holders around. I had a Mamiya 645, a Fuji 6x7, and Fuji 645. Most convenient yet nothing like my 5D and say a 50mm and 85mm and a couple of 2G cards. Fast, meaning no film to process, histograms, etc.
I think the subject of the protest is of african decent. The woman appears to be caucasion. They very well could be related but not genetically as far as I can tell.
Hey, if you and Ben think that the composition of Ash's photograph is helped by having half a head on the edge of the frame, it only goes to show that tastes differ. Myself, either he's in, or he's gone. The deep meaning that you ascribe to half a head eludes me :)
Most definitely tastes are different and without that the world would indeed be bland.
David A. Goldfarb
10-Nov-2007, 16:43
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--
http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/halloween/drag.jpg
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
10-Nov-2007, 17:34
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
10-Nov-2007, 18:36
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
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
11-Nov-2007, 00:10
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 :)
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
11-Nov-2007, 07:47
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
11-Nov-2007, 12:18
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 :rolleyes:
Struan Gray
12-Nov-2007, 02:57
I know where this is going......
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1577736509&context=set-72157602433305837&size=o
Los asked me a few questions via pm, I'm sure they have been answered already, but just in case, here are the answers:
-how clear is the finder
As clear as the camera is made to be (different Polaroids will be in a different overal state - mine is super-clear)
-how bright are the framelines
Fairly bright. Bright enough to see in all situations, but not as bright as a high-end 35mm or MF rangefinder.
-and how contrasty is the rangefinder patch
Again this depends on each Polaroid. Mine is good enough to focus in most if not all light conditions, and is fairly contrasty. It all depends on how the camera has aged - just like any RF camera.
-i'm currently shooting with a canon VT and fuji 67 rangefinder, both with recent CLA's, so both are a pleasure to use when it comes to the viewer. how would you rate the viewer in your 900?
This has been answered by those questions above, no?
-is the ground glass bright?
Yes
-would it benefit from adding a fresnel?
No
-is the ground glass actually glass or a type of plastic?
Glass
i would expect to use the viewfinder most often, but when on a tripod i would use the ground glass. how would you rate the ground glass?
Good.
This camera isn't really for tripod work as far as I'm concerned. Of course, it can be used for it successfully.
ash,
thank you for answering my questions. i saw a 900 sample (unconverted) in a mom-n-pop shop today. the patch was bright and contrasty, as were the framelines. finder could use a little cleaning, though. i also liked the size and weight of the camera, not much more cumbersome than my fuji rangefinder. i think i'll give it a try.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.