Cake 22 Ladyboy Sex Worker, Thailand 2008

great stuff.

i always wanted to shoot some lady boys while in thailand. i thought it would be a good series.

Thanks for adding some edge here! You've got some very well executed portraits on your web site as well.

What is a 'Razzle'?

Welcome, we need more of this kind of photography here, thanks. I wonder if you could bounce or difuse the flash, I found it too harsh, resting volume to the image.

David...

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/51369-new-razzle-4x5-camera.html

Agreed, this work has an edge to it.

I noticed your quote from Diane Arbus about photographs not evading facts, but you seem to be adding to the facts by including that large area of hi-light on the boys chest, surely that was not naturally there but was induced by your inability to control the flash output of your flashgun.
Apart from that your work has a certain edge to it.

Cheers
TEX

Very interesting photography! Thank you for bringing something different!
- Thomas

Eddie...yes it was fun to shoot the ladyboys, have shot them before a bit but this was the first time I concentrated on doing an extended series. I ended up shooting 20 different ladyboys mostly in the the shortime sex rooms they use with foreign sex tourists. Was a bit intimating at time and a bit dangerous to make the photos the only part I did not like was sexual come ons that happened in about 25% of the photo sessions. I can speak Thai well enough thou to get through things fairly safely, thanks for your interest.

David..a Razzle is a polaroid conversion camera made by Dean Jones. You can see my camera and others on this page (hope its allowed to post links!).

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Gallery/gallery.html

the Razzle I used to make the Ladyboy pics is the Bananarama (the yellow one on the page) it is a polaroid conversion to shoot 4x5 film with a fujinon 135mm lens.

Jose...I thought about diffusing the flash/bouncing it etc. I did not because I like the harshness of things, maybe it is the influence of Diane Arbus and Nan Goldin but I like images that are harshly lit. I think it also plays into the type of lives these people lead, soft beautiful lighting for people living harsh lives does not work that well for me(thou my on white background sex worker series of 2007 is softly lit!). Another more practical reason is I wanted to shoot everything at F32 which I could when I used direct flash with the Quantum flash and Tri-x rated at 250 ASA. Basically all the night shots and all the interior shots I do are done with direct flash.

Tex..hmm I think it is more of the fact that my work print is rather shitty. I just made up a quick work print from the first batch of 4x5 negs that I developed. I only made the images in July so still trying to catch up to things. I still have about 300 sheets to develop as well as 35 rolls of b/w 120 film and 60 rolls of color 220.

I think the area you refered to is a bit overexposed but well within what I can correct in the darkroom with a little burning. I will probably burn that down a tad when I make some 11x14 and 16x20 fiber prints.

The Diane Arbus quote hangs in my darkroom and in my mind it is more directed at the digi people. In my club for example landscapes are often collages of 5 images. I also think of the quote as meaning that you do not beautify your portraiture but try to make images that show people more honestly, show what they really look like.

Thanks for the suggestions.