ok my first portfolio is up! Critiques?

So feel free to tear me a new one.... I've been shooting for 4 months.

Any constructive criticism is more then welcome... I very much value the opinions of other photographers, probably more then anyone. I'm new at this so your advice is absolutely appreciated!

thanks in advance for taking the time to look


here she is:

http://www.wix.com/destroiphotography/destroi-photography

Not the kind of stuff I shoot myself so difficult to coment on it technically but I really enjoyed looking at it. Lots of energy and a great subject to work with.
We don't see alot of this area of photography around here so very well done !

Bill

"So feel free to tear me a new one...."

That's not my job here or anywhere. I have adopted the Toastmasters philosophy of evaluation, start out with a couple of positive thoughts, give at most two areas to work on as recommendations for improvement to incorporate next time, finally, end on a high note and conclude by inviting (the photographer in this case) back again to submit more pics.

Nice job! I like how you brought me into the event. And you did it with your camera! Wonderful! When my son was young he went to a few of these as well.

Recommendation for next time, submit more photographs!

I like what you did and I'd like to see more of your art. I like your web site!

Nice to have you here on APUG.

Wow! Great documentation of a culture I will (hopefully) never see first hand.

Nice pit photos! Being an old metalhead, I have to say well done. I realize this is probably more a hardcore scene, but you get my drift!

Up The Irons!

Great depiction of the raw energy and frenzy of the band and crowd! I would imagine you shot a lot more images than we see here. What made you choose the gallery images over others, beyond exposure and other technical considerations?

Back in the 70's I did a lot of rock concert photography and understand the constraints you must have been under. Exposure is always difficult as well as trying to keep the grain down due to push processing. What film did you use and did you push it at all? Seems like you might have used flash for some of the shots.

Great project and I am anxious to see you flesh it out.

Bad Dog (aka Eric)

Holy full frontal flash batman. Having said that, it works well with the subject matter.

i went to a lot of shows like this back in the 1980s
and this is exactly what i remember it being like.
great work!
john

It is flash..

Like the physicality of it. It's always a question of access with these kind of documentations of a musical subculture. To most of the audience here (Eric rose excepted), these seem exotic because we're old farts that don't go to heavy metal concerts. So you can expect a certain fascination there. But that is only a first step. Two questions could further your work:
What is my intended audience? The scene, the populace at large, newspaper readers, the art market?
And in the context of my intended viewership, what do I want to show them? Is it some insider feeling? Or do I want to present the participants as out-of-their-heads freaks?
Essentially, are you within or outside looking in?

Eric Rose said:

Great depiction of the raw energy and frenzy of the band and crowd! I would imagine you shot a lot more images than we see here. What made you choose the gallery images over others, beyond exposure and other technical considerations?

Back in the 70's I did a lot of rock concert photography and understand the constraints you must have been under. Exposure is always difficult as well as trying to keep the grain down due to push processing. What film did you use and did you push it at all? Seems like you might have used flash for some of the shots.

Great project and I am anxious to see you flesh it out.

Bad Dog (aka Eric)

Click to expand...

so primarily I chose most of these for technical issues. As you can tell, my negative scanner isn't exactly top of the line. For some reason it just won't scan my wide angle prime lens without a ton of grain. You can see it pretty clearly in those grainy online shots. In real prints they actually will look pristine (at least thats my experience from ones that I already have prints of). I had some much better shots that I simply couldn't digitally edit properly, and some bad shots that probably would come out great in an actual print. I shoot between 2-4 rolls a show, and this was my top 12 *scans* in the accumulation of about 20 shows.

My plan is to A)finish building darkroom B) make prints and C) scan the actual prints and not the negatives. That should improve the god awful quality seen here on the interweb... i hope!

Whats funny is the guy who taught me (who is amazing at this) taught me to pull the film while shooting, and process accordingly. That's what I do about half the time. It seems to work much better with my zoom lens, and only from particular spots (like on the stage). The film is HP5 plus, 400 iso.

and yes I use my giant flash for everything. you kind of have to, since these venues don't have the sort of stage lighting you'd see at a more reputable concert. A lot of the time I can't really see much through my viewfinder...

But my primary dificulties are A) flying beer getting on my equipment B) Flying people getting on my equipment (not.kidding.) C) vigilante 'bodygaurds' who see I am a female with camera equipment, on the frontline, that must be 'protected' by standing DIRECTLY in front of me and D) Shooting that guy flying across the other side of the venue exactly one half second after shooting the boot an inch away from my lens and getting the exposure right

I think its a great way to learn

phaedrus said:

Like the physicality of it. It's always a question of access with these kind of documentations of a musical subculture. To most of the audience here (Eric rose excepted), these seem exotic because we're old farts that don't go to heavy metal concerts. So you can expect a certain fascination there. But that is only a first step. Two questions could further your work:
What is my intended audience? The scene, the populace at large, newspaper readers, the art market?
And in the context of my intended viewership, what do I want to show them? Is it some insider feeling? Or do I want to present the participants as out-of-their-heads freaks?
Essentially, are you within or outside looking in?

Click to expand...

well by default i'm shooting from within, I've been part of the punk scene for 11 years. But really I feel like its just something important that many people don't get to see, and it should be documented. I figured where else better to learn then shooting all those crazy things I see all the time...

Gut reaction, it makes me realize how much I failed to take advantage of the bay area when I was down there. It definitely comes across as you being part of the scene, not an outsider. Most of the shots are really great.

One shot, while I loved the image, felt rough technically. The shot of two people with the mic - the third shot on the first row - looked a bit off. The lack of detail in his hair jumped out at me. I'm reluctant to say that to be honest given how hard it must have been to shoot there and how much I like everything else about the picture. I don't know if you can coax any more detail out of that shot, but if you could, I think that one would be a little stronger. Again, thats minor feedback on very nice set of images.

I think they are decent-enough pix of subject matter that does not interest me. I am into music, and shooting music has been a huge part of what I have shot, so I think I understand what you are doing, or trying to do, rather, with your pix. I don't personally find these bands or crowds interesting or out of the ordinary. I've seen all these people a million times, and I find most of them boring. However, if I was into this particular scene, the pix would be fun for me. You definitely understand that some of the most important parts of photography are just going for it with gusto, and not being afraid to fire the shutter and get yourself where you want to be to take the pix. They could definitely be focused better, and I think it would help your concept if they were. You misspelled "destroy" - obviously on purpose - and I am not sure why. Seems like a gimmick without an explanation. I think it is very good for shooting four months, and you should keep practicing film photography. It is working well for your subject matter in a way that digital would not.

jnanian said:

i went to a lot of shows like this back in the 1980s
and this is exactly what i remember it being like.
john

Click to expand...

Indeed! Takes me back to when I was shooting Dead Kennedys, MDC, shows. What I tried to capture was the freneticism via slow shutter-flash.

angrykitty said:

D) Shooting that guy flying across the other side of the venue exactly one half second after shooting the boot an inch away from my lens and getting the exposure right

I think its a great way to learn

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to explain your methodology. One thing that I found useful is to concentrate on one type of activity per show. At one show I would only shoot crazy crowd people, the next body surfers, the next lead singer etc etc, you get the idea. That way you aren't so scattered and can detach yourself from the frenzy. It's also easier to self critique your successes/failures at any one portion of the "event" and develop strategies/techniques to improve your imagery. You might find that you need a totally different setup depending on what part of the "event" you want to capture.

YMMV as they say.

I think the series is great.

I know you mentioned it in your post, but here is something to consider with the prints.

I would try to print these images on a grade 4 or harder paper, not worry too much about the blacks and print the highlights hard and crunchy.
The soft grade of these prints, IMO do not mix well with the content.

Something a bit off the wall.

Have you have considered a in-fared flash and film that will record the wavelength of light blast, I have alway thought that if one could combine the flash with appropiate film, events much like this, or raves or even crazy nightclub series would give you less of a prescence and more like a fly on the wall sequence.
I must say I have never tried this but have spoken to many photographers about attempting a flash system that does not give the particapants a heads up that you are there.

Maybe though the fact you are shooting with flash , intices/ pushes the participants to get more aggressive and vocal which in effect is very compelling with your work.

Pull the film and push process is the formula for lith printing which will give you wicked blacks and good highlight detail.

Anton Corjbin , Startrax book is a good source for this style of printing with dead blacks and great highlights.

Tri X or HP5 rated at 800-1200 , HC110 dilution B , 12 min. is what we recommend.

I like the effectiveness in how you captured the events but more work is needed in the printing department.

Iwagoshi said:

Indeed! Takes me back to when I was shooting Dead Kennedys, MDC, shows. What I tried to capture was the freneticism via slow shutter-flash.

Click to expand...

Ha! I shoot mdc all the time

2F/2F said:

I think they are decent-enough pix of subject matter that does not interest me. I am into music, and shooting music has been a huge part of what I have shot, so I think I understand what you are doing, or trying to do, rather, with your pix. I don't personally find these bands or crowds interesting or out of the ordinary. I've seen all these people a million times, and I find most of them boring. However, if I was into this particular scene, the pix would be fun for me. You definitely understand that some of the most important parts of photography are just going for it with gusto, and not being afraid to fire the shutter and get yourself where you want to be to take the pix. They could definitely be focused better, and I think it would help your concept if they were. You misspelled "destroy" - obviously on purpose - and I am not sure why. Seems like a gimmick without an explanation. I think it is very good for shooting four months, and you should keep practicing film photography. It is working well for your subject matter in a way that digital would not.

Click to expand...

oi is a style of music

Brian Legge said:

Gut reaction, it makes me realize how much I failed to take advantage of the bay area when I was down there. It definitely comes across as you being part of the scene, not an outsider. Most of the shots are really great.

One shot, while I loved the image, felt rough technically. The shot of two people with the mic - the third shot on the first row - looked a bit off. The lack of detail in his hair jumped out at me. I'm reluctant to say that to be honest given how hard it must have been to shoot there and how much I like everything else about the picture. I don't know if you can coax any more detail out of that shot, but if you could, I think that one would be a little stronger. Again, thats minor feedback on very nice set of images.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... but the funny thing is that the actual negative has tons of tight detail, its just the scanner and the digital editing that are sucking all the quality out of the shots. when I scan at high enough dpi to catch the detail, i get all this digital noise from the scanner. Then trying to remove that makes the whole image a little blurry. I figured it looked better soft and clear then hard detailed and noisy. But the bottom line is - I need to print these and scan the prints, not the negatives. I feel like if these were printed the quality would really be there. So that's the next step I guess!

For this style of picture, I'd rather see more gritty/noisy/grainy than anything overly smoothed. That is just a personal opinion though - your target market is what matters.

Eric Rose said:

Thanks for taking the time to explain your methodology. One thing that I found useful is to concentrate on one type of activity per show. At one show I would only shoot crazy crowd people, the next body surfers, the next lead singer etc etc, you get the idea. That way you aren't so scattered and can detach yourself from the frenzy. It's also easier to self critique your successes/failures at any one portion of the "event" and develop strategies/techniques to improve your imagery. You might find that you need a totally different setup depending on what part of the "event" you want to capture.

YMMV as they say.

Click to expand...

thats a pretty good idea. I used to move around a lot more, but you just made me realize that lately I've been planting myself in one (percievably the best) spot for the whole show. But come to think of it most of my best shots have come from spots that were a little messy.

aznative said:

I like the effectiveness in how you captured the events but more work is needed in the printing department.

Click to expand...

yep, it's the scanner. I'm pretty dissapointed with the quality that came out of this as well.

kind of silly to scan a negative, its like taking high quality film and forcing it into the digital box, where it really never fit in the first place. It came out looking like I'm putting my film through a bottom end digital camera. Well, lesson learned.

but the good news is the negatives are still there