B/W film in summer for urban documentary project, and come kit critique please

[koraks]

Thanks; I already assumed that this was the same project, but I couldn't be sure.

One thing that isn't clear to me yet (but maybe I just didn't oick it up from your other thread) is what the purpose of your project is. This matters for the question how to present yourself, given the fact that a pure "fly on the wall" approach is just not possible. There will be a degree of participation, however limited, and this automatically brings the aspect of interaction with your subject.

This is not like photographing wildlife, where you try to be basically invisible. In this case, you will actually be visible and this means you have to work out what your role is. And this begs the question why you're doing it in the first place. In many cases, transparency turns out to be the most effective tactic.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The purpose is "documentary" in its simplest meaning - to capture something and inform the rest of the world about it. With a neutral framing, without a political agenda. Ara Güler's Istanbul book, as mentioned in the intro.

Yeah, I think that description is really to the point.

 

[koraks]

Ok, well, taking that purpose as a point of departure, I think you can reason out details like clothing etc.
One concern you seem to have had was/is how people will respond to knowing they'll be photographed. You also mentioned that the protesters you photographed earlier might have been concerned about the images appearing online. If your intent is to inform the world, and at the same time you don't want to cross your subject, you're in a catch-22. You either have to listen to yourself and follow through on your goal, or pay heed the desire of at least some of your subjects to not be photographed/published.

Of course, in practice it isn't as black & white as that. You're not dealing with one subject, but with many, and they may all feel differently. So you may find yourself explaining patiently to some what you intend to do, while refraining from photographing others and happily shooting away with yet others who don't mind.

Since your goal seems to be intrinsically motivated, from your own convictions/desires, in terms of dressing up, I'd dress as...you. No need to pretend anything. If you wear a suit and tie all the time, wear that. If you wear jeans and a black T, then that's it. If you prefer to appear in a dress with flowers and an extravagant hat, then why not wear that. In the end, it'll be the most consistent in this project if you present yourself as genuine as possible. That your appearance, your gear or just the mere fact that you bring a camera to your eye will provoke a response from the subject - I'm afraid you'll have to live with that. The only way to prevent it, is to try and sneak your shots unseen, but this is (1) usually quite challenging especially if you want/need to get close and (2) ethically dubious.

With a neutral framing, without a political agenda.

You're probably not going to like this, but sorry, there's no such thing as "neutral" and free of a "political agenda". You'll choose subject matter based on your convictions, and there's not a damned thing you're ever going to do about it. Striving for neutrality in reporting as such is a conviction just the same. So even if you manage that (which you won't!), it'll still not be neutral. I'd move past this and approach it differently: be honest (especially to yourself) about your motivations, your agenda (there's always an agenda, even if it boils down to showing beauty, promoting yourself, learning something etc.), your ulterior motives etc. Once you're clear about that, you can also much more consciously choose what you'd like to avoid. As long as you don't choose, you're stuck with having to navigate the ethical challenges as they arise. And that invariably means you end up being inconsistent. Having seen a bit of you here on the forum, I think you're far too conscious and serious to like doing it that way.

Nobody's neutral. And hey - that's OK.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thanks.

Will leave it at that, nothing to add from my end.

 

[koraks]

That's OK; it's certainly also intended as take-it-or-leave-it advice. Feel free to selectively pick from it, ignore it altogether or embrace as you see fit.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Ok thanks

 

[MARTIE]

Ara Güler is an Armenian-Turkish photojournalist, so he doesn't have to 'fit-in' and being a native, is the best and most naturally suited to document and comment on his land, culture and people.

Empowering and supporting 'insiders' is generally considered the safest and best way of 'storytelling'. So if their story is your story, all's good.
Otherwise, there are issues surrounding documentary and photo-journalism from 'outsiders'.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thank you, I am aware of these aspects and agree with your view.

 

[Don_ih]

Wear whatever you'd normally wear. Use a camera that makes sense in the context - no big Hasselblad or 4x5 on a tripod or long-lensed huge dslr. Use your phone, if you want to go unnoticed. Use a digital point and shoot if you don't want to be pestered. Use a digital Leica if you want people to notice you. The pictures are of something, the absolute quality is secondary to the content. If you're fixated on using the "best" camera and getting the "best" photos, don't take any photos. Accept that you are infringing on the privacy of those you photograph and understand what that means. If you have a problem with that, don't take photos.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Hello Koraks

Hasselblad 80mm Planar or 60mm Distagon CF for urban documentary project

For my upcoming urban documentary project (capital city in Central Asia, Ara Güler style, available light, no tripod, B&W ASA 400 film) would you use a 80mm Planar (chrome version) or a 60mm Distagon (C, black), or should I buy a CF version of either of these?

www.photrio.com

Here is the missing bit - that is the plan, the region, the idea etc.

So, essentially, we're talking about Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and/or Uzbekistan. That makes it easier to visualize and understand the difficulties involved.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You're probably not going to like this, but sorry, there's no such thing as "neutral" and free of a "political agenda". You'll choose subject matter based on your convictions, and there's not a damned thing you're ever going to do about it. Striving for neutrality in reporting as such is a conviction just the same. So even if you manage that (which you won't!), it'll still not be neutral. I'd move past this and approach it differently: be honest (especially to yourself) about your motivations, your agenda (there's always an agenda, even if it boils down to showing beauty, promoting yourself, learning something etc.), your ulterior motives etc. Once you're clear about that, you can also much more consciously choose what you'd like to avoid. As long as you don't choose, you're stuck with having to navigate the ethical challenges as they arise. And that invariably means you end up being inconsistent.

I'm with koraks on this. I think not only is it possible but essential to be neutral going in, in order to be open to the possibilities offered to you, both visually and from a purely human perspective. Whether or not you will remain neutral, however, will in turn depend on what you see, what you hear, what you find. You have to be open to that also — to the idea that the way you look at things and approach them may change. If not, then it may mean that, paradoxically, your neutrality is biased and prevents you from seeing what's really going on.

And "neutral" doesn't have to mean "political". Güler's camera isn't neutral. It's full of love and affection for it's two main subjects: the city and its people.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I have now bought a 60mm Distagon, my first CF lens!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Use a digital Leica if you want people to notice you.

Or if you think like I do, use a Speed Graphic if you want people to notice you. Ten years ago, I'd have suggested having a 405 back available to make instant prints for those who show real interest.

 

[RezaLoghme]

My Distagon arrived! It is much nicer to handle than the C version.

 

[Don_ih]

Or if you think like I do, use a Speed Graphic if you want people to notice you.

I mean notice you in a suspicious way, not in an interested way. When you photograph a group of protesters that may be wary of officials or agents (or anyone else looking to add them to a list), they won't be suspicious if you have a Speed Graphic. Well, they'll probably think you're a surveyor.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Saturday, I am on another rehearsal mission. I have found an online calendar of (official, registered) demonstrations in one city, and I will use it to further develop my skills "on the ground".

Kit will be 553ELX with one of my new CF lenses, 3 backs (E12), usual Ilford C41 b/w, wide rubberized Hasselblad strap, "moon" release button, new Sekonic EM, and the X113 as backup.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

demonstrations in one city

Sounds indeed like good practice. Which city is this?

 

[chuckroast]

Ok, well, taking that purpose as a point of departure, I think you can reason out details like clothing etc.
One concern you seem to have had was/is how people will respond to knowing they'll be photographed. You also mentioned that the protesters you photographed earlier might have been concerned about the images appearing online. If your intent is to inform the world, and at the same time you don't want to cross your subject, you're in a catch-22. You either have to listen to yourself and follow through on your goal, or pay heed the desire of at least some of your subjects to not be photographed/published.

Of course, in practice it isn't as black & white as that. You're not dealing with one subject, but with many, and they may all feel differently. So you may find yourself explaining patiently to some what you intend to do, while refraining from photographing others and happily shooting away with yet others who don't mind.

Since your goal seems to be intrinsically motivated, from your own convictions/desires, in terms of dressing up, I'd dress as...you. No need to pretend anything. If you wear a suit and tie all the time, wear that. If you wear jeans and a black T, then that's it. If you prefer to appear in a dress with flowers and an extravagant hat, then why not wear that. In the end, it'll be the most consistent in this project if you present yourself as genuine as possible. That your appearance, your gear or just the mere fact that you bring a camera to your eye will provoke a response from the subject - I'm afraid you'll have to live with that. The only way to prevent it, is to try and sneak your shots unseen, but this is (1) usually quite challenging especially if you want/need to get close and (2) ethically dubious.



You're probably not going to like this, but sorry, there's no such thing as "neutral" and free of a "political agenda". You'll choose subject matter based on your convictions, and there's not a damned thing you're ever going to do about it. Striving for neutrality in reporting as such is a conviction just the same. So even if you manage that (which you won't!), it'll still not be neutral. I'd move past this and approach it differently: be honest (especially to yourself) about your motivations, your agenda (there's always an agenda, even if it boils down to showing beauty, promoting yourself, learning something etc.), your ulterior motives etc. Once you're clear about that, you can also much more consciously choose what you'd like to avoid. As long as you don't choose, you're stuck with having to navigate the ethical challenges as they arise. And that invariably means you end up being inconsistent. Having seen a bit of you here on the forum, I think you're far too conscious and serious to like doing it that way.

Nobody's neutral. And hey - that's OK.

I both a agree and disagree with this. Let me see if I can explain by example.

I don't care much at all about sports. I don't care who plays, who wins, who the coaches, and so forth. I am "neutral" because ... I am indifferent to the whole business.

But I deeply dislike the culture that surrounds Big Sports - the bad behavior of the fans, the multimillionaire (and billionaire) owners that bilk the taxpayer out of money to pay for their private stadium playgrounds, the personal excesses of the players, the bad manners exhibited on field and so forth are all things that I find pretty offensive. I cannot possibly be "neutral" about those things because ... I care about them.

But what I can be is fair. I can make sure that I take into account my own biases, I can consider the fact that many other people disagree with me and find great value in such events, and the the players and staff are there to do their jobs, and fans are there to have a good time. In doing so, I am able to fairly and conscientiously portray what is happening at such an event and thereby do it photographic justice.

I spent a brief part of my early years doing wedding photography on- and off. Nothing will make you hate the bridal party, the groomsmen, and the families more than shooting weddings. It's a stressful day for all involved and the resulting behaviors are sometimes pretty awful. But, if photographers couldn't put their own views aside, no one could be a wedding photographer (except, perhaps, for masochists

The only time this becomes an issue is when the photographer (or writer, or TV talking head, or columnist or ...) decide to insert themselves into the story, however subtly. The past 20 years or so have seen this noxious trend where people who are supposed to be describing what they see, are doing so through the filters of their own experience, beliefs and biases. That is their privilege, but that is not reportage', it's just agenda pimping, otherwise known as "propaganda". What is most noxious about this isn't that they have a point of view, but rather that they pretend their opinions are the truth.

So I wouldn't say that the goal of a documentary photographer is the be neutral. As you point out, it's nigh on impossible to be so. The goal is to faithful and fair to the story, preserving as much context as possible, and getting yourself out of the way to the degree possible.

Don't get me started on the latest form of currently popular mental cancer known as "My Truth" that is yet another kick in the head of reason and decency ...

 

[henryvk]

The only time this becomes an issue is when the photographer (or writer, or TV talking head, or columnist or ...) decide to insert themselves into the story, however subtly. The past 20 years or so have seen this noxious trend where people who are supposed to be describing what they see, are doing so through the filters of their own experience, beliefs and biases. That is their privilege, but that is not reportage', it's just agenda pimping, otherwise known as "propaganda". What is most noxious about this isn't that they have a point of view, but rather that they pretend their opinions are the truth.

Are you quite sure this is a modern phenomenon, though? I'd say that, if anything, opinion (or "agenda") journalism actually came first and objectivity came (back?) later with Walter Lippman. Especially in the United States, yellow journalism was bigger than anything in the late 19th century, and media oligarchs like William Randolph Hearst had a massive impact on public life and politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

 

[RezaLoghme]

So I wouldn't say that the goal of a documentary photographer is the be neutral. As you point out, it's nigh on impossible to be so. The goal is to faithful and fair to the story, preserving as much context as possible, and getting yourself out of the way to the degree possible.

Very good summary

 

[chuckroast]

Are you quite sure this is a modern phenomenon, though? I'd say that, if anything, opinion (or "agenda") journalism actually came first and objectivity came (back?) later with Walter Lippman. Especially in the United States, yellow journalism was bigger than anything in the late 19th century, and media oligarchs like William Randolph Hearst had a massive impact on public life and politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

I think what is modern it to overt attempt to disguise the agenda and pretend it's the "news" or "journalism". Yes, the yellow journalists long preceded this but I think most people knew they were grinding an axe. Or maybe they weren't, I dunno.


Brief diversion:

As recently as 20 years ago it was noticeably better. As one example, I spent several years traveling to places where the only national news provider was Fox News - an organization with a clear right leaning political agenda. What I found surprising - and refreshing - was that they made a clear distinction between when they were presenting news and when they were opining. In fact, their US White House coverage during that time wasn't just good, it was superb. It wasn't littered with agenda, half stories, or slanted coverage, it was first rate journalism. Sure, they did have very strong right biased shows but these were clearly - very clearly - presented as opinion not hard news. In one case I recall, Bill O'Reilly - very much of the right and their biggest star - came right out and said, "I am not a journalist, I am an entertainer."

Go look at what happens today on any of the major "news" outlets (including Fox). You can no longer tell where the news ends and the opinions start. The maker is now inserted themselves permanently into the artifact. Presumably, this is being done to try to move the viewer to their viewpoint.

And that's what I don't like. I don't care if a photographer or journalist has as strong political, social, religious, or whatever point of view ... just be honest about it and don't call it "news" or "journalism". You cannot get rid of your own bias, but you can openly acknowledge it and make clear distinctions between what you know to be true and what is just your opinion.

This seamless intermixing of fact and agenda is one of the primary reasons people are so suspicious of news sources. It's also given rise to the uncurated social media circus where every idiot who can pound out 160 characters is now a world class geopolitical analyst, economic sage, or quantum physicist. The lunacy is endless and it's sustained because the once-reliable journalistic sources have abdicated their responsibilities for factual reporting in favor of agenda pimping.

So, @RezaLoghme, as you go off to pursue what sounds like a marvelous project, I'd encourage you to deeply inspect your own biases as regards to the subject, plan how you will mute them, and just tell a great story. Great stories are valued by everyone, rich, poor, young, old, rightwingers, leftwingers, butchers, bakers, and candelstick makers ...

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thanks. Just had to accept that I will have to tweak the concept a bit, largely due current (geo-)political matters, but so be it. If life serves you lemons, make lemonade...

 

[eli griggs]

Make the photographs and let others put their viewpoints on those photographs, as they will anyway.

 

[RezaLoghme]

thank you

 

[Alex Benjamin]

My suggestion to OP would be to study the works of the great photographs who devoted their work to photo documentary. Dorothea Lange, W. Eugene Smith, Eugene Richards, Dany Lyon, Josef Koudelka, Gordon Parks, Susan Meiselas, John Davidson, Robert Adams, etc., all deeply cared about their subjects. No great photographic documentary was ever done by photographs who were "neutral". On the contrary.

In fact, the first thing they teach you in journalism school is that "neutrality" is a non-existant concept in journalism. There is no such thing. What we talk about is balance, fairness, impartiality, integrity, indepence and accuracy. In other words, a full commitment to investigating and telling the truth. The very foundation of this has nothing to do with being unbiased of "neutral". It has to do with how rigorous you are with your methods of investigation—i.e., fact checking—, with being able to understand the difference between fact and context ("Facts are neutral, context isn't", as the journalistic saying goes) and know when which is more important and how one influences the other.

You are not disengaged. And opinions are fine, as long as they are informed, as long as they are based on the same rigorous methods of investigation. In journalism, commitment to the truth, as Kovach and Rosenstiel stated, is not only "getting the facts straight" but also "making sense of the facts." Only thing is you need to get the first part right — opinions based on misinformation, purposely or unintentionally, will only lead away from the truth.

In general, the reason you will embark on a documentary project is because you care. This means you have a bias, one way or the other. Doesn't matter. On the contrary, if you don't care, chance are you will only make ordinary, boring photos. Every great journalist, and photojournalist, knows that the first thing you do is find your angle—what is the story about, what's important or interesting about it, and how am I going to tell it. You can't find an angle if you don't care, if you believe you have to be "neutral".

Gene Smith deeply cared about the what happened to the people in Minamata, Eugene Richards deeply cares about poverty in America, Gordon Parks deeply cared about segregation in the south, Koudelka cares about the lives of the Gypsies, Robert Adams cares about the environment, Dany Lyon, well, he just cares. Examples abound. All these photographers were all faced with a reality and chose the photographic method to tell the truth about it. What they all did is start by sticking to the facts and trying to make sense out of it: this is what is happening in front of me, what does it mean, how is it meaningful.

Remember, facts are neutral, you don't have to be. This is why the camera is in many ways an easier tool to work with than words. Stick to the facts, and that helps you not taking sides. Again, not taking sides doesn't mean being unbiased or uninvolved: most, if not all, great war photographers are always incensed by the idea of war; their indignation is often their motivation; they often hope that showing the absurdity and suffering inflicted by war will change people's conscience of it (this did indeed happen with Vietnam in the 60s). This doesn't mean they take sides. They aren't saying one side is good, the other one evil. They are just stating the facts, and helping viewers make sense out of it.