Recent Documentary Work - Please Critique

[touchel berne]

So, on Saturday there was a large pro-war rally here in Chicago,

Illinois. You may have seen footage of it on the national news. I

was there photographing the rally for several hours. This <a

href="http://www.podgehodge.com/hawks/index.html"

target="new">LINK</a> is the resulting body of work. Now, here's

what interests me. I photographed these people with a great

deal of antipathy. The people who gathered may have been cast

as mainstream war supporters by the media, but in actuality they

were very extreme right folks who had been gathered by a

website called freerepublic.com, which is by no means

mainstream. <br><br>They weren't reasonable, and the things

that they were yelling at the anti-war folks who had gathered in

one corner of the plaza are unprintable. <br><br> So, my

question is this: to what extent does my own viewpoint come

across in this work? (My viewpoint being decidedly anti-war and

against the people in the photos). Do you think these photos are

supportive, neutral, or hostile to the people in them.<br><br>And

then, of course, I'm interested in anything else you have to

suggest. I'd like to make more photo essay type things, so if you

have any comments about how what I've presented can be

strengthened, I'd be really interested in that as well. Thanks.<div></div>

[ricardojmendez]

I was having an interesting discussion with a friend one of these days. The conclusion that came out was that while there is an idea that journalism should be objective, it is being created by basically subjective human beings, and that subjectivity comes across no matter how hard we try. So what journalists should do, was his suggestion, was not only try to be as objective as possible but also to state their biases so that people could judge appropriately. I think that you did both on the essay.

 

Photos don't need to be hostile to a subject to present an opposing viewpoint. While the photos don't come across as hostile to your subjects, your bias is clear: most of those that you chose to portray seem hostile or stubborn themselves.

 

Some specific images I'm talking about are:

 

http://www.podgehodge.com/hawks/index.html

http://www.podgehodge.com/hawks/09.html

http://www.podgehodge.com/hawks/11.html

http://www.podgehodge.com/hawks/12.html

 

These have a look of righteousness to them that I can't help but find worrying. Then again, that might be my own viewpoint interferring.

 

Perhaps a point where you own subjectivity showed through was when you decided which images to show us. Were there any peaceful demonstrators willing to listen to what the anti-war people had to say? We won't know, probably because they weren't appropriate for your topic.

 

As for how it can be strenghtened, I would suggest including a brief explanatory page at the beginning, putting it in context. Something a bit like what you've done here (including the reference to freerepublic.com)

 

Cheers,

[ron_l]

If your point was to make a statement about how wrong the war is and how repugnant the people who do not share your view of the world are, then you have made your point (although only through your words not through your images which are nuetral).

 

If you were interested in getting photographical critique regarding whether or not your photoessay tells a story then you should have just posted the pictures and asked the forum members what the images said to them visually. IMO you cannot get honest, unbiased critiques of a photoessay if you preface the images with commentary describing to viewers the story you are trying to tell. The viewer needs to be able to come to that conclusion by viewing the images on their own. without the commentary. If they get it without the words, IMO, it is a successful photoessay.

[matt_m__toronto_]

you have a picture in there of a little girl in a stroller holding a sign. you can't read half of the sign! i would really like to know what it says. in this case, i find that some of your shots are a little tight.

[andrew_lee2]

I think the viewpoint is decidedly neutral. They aren't cast as villains - nasty or malicious caricatures of the people - nor are they heroes. If you're trying to do it the photo-journalistic way I'd imagine this is a good thing, trying (as much as possible) to report events simply as they are. The photos themselves are quite alright but - my opinion only - not outstanding. I think it's so hard to shoot these types of parades, rallys, or events in such a manner that the quality of the photographs go above and beyond everyone else's very similar photo-reportage.

[andrew_lee2]

Keep at it though, definitely - as will I - and let us know of your progress.

[klix]

A photo essay must tell a story, caught in images which evoke emotions. And it must contain compelling images. An example might be the picture you have of the boy, framed against images of belligerent pro-war activists --which would inherently bring to mind that old adage: "Innocence is the first casualty of war." Instead, what you have is the boy in the middle of a sea of faceless people -- not very compelling.

 

As for the back-to-back images of the same man (which you uploaded), I don't know what it is -- but, right away, I thought "villains!!!" -- Not that there's anything wrong with that -- I agree that a PJ should show neutrality when documenting a rally as a newsworthy event, but IMHO, that is very different than a photo essay -- I happen to emphatize with your views, and at that rally, I would've made damn sure the pictures I took shouted my views out loud.

[blago]

I like your work, Touchel. Your viewpoint is clearly seen, especially in No 13 - an expressive caricature. I like also 6 and 11. In 10 an important sign is badly cropped. If your goal is to show stronger your anti-war attitude you could use more distortions, motion blur, unexpected angles of view, "improper" framing, selective focus (as in 13). And work in colour, as you did. Blago

[yance_marti]

I'd say you did a good job of documenting the event but as has been noted the images don't convey what is going on without words. I don't feel any bias or hostility except in #11. But even in that picture there is no sense of the direction of that hostility. I assume the two groups were separated by barricades which would make a picture of any confrontation difficult. Purposefully making a bias evident in a photo is a difficult thing to do and you must have a clear idea of how framing or distortion can be used to cast someone in a bad light. And of course the image has to be able to capture the emotions of the subject or at least to appear to capture an emotion. Capturing disgust is not as easy as capturing anger.

 

The best suggestion I can offer in that circumstance is to follow someone who is a visual icon of the pro-war stance, like the older guy in the dress uniform. Maybe as he goes back to his car or lleaves the demonstration he may be near someone who is iconic of the anti-war movement. Try to capture some sort of interaction between the two even if it is ony a glance or anything that contrasts the two people. Think in terms of extreme visual archetypes. Chicago is definitely a city where the extremes on both sides will be visible in force.

[touchel berne]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I think what

I'm going to do is sit on this for a little while and then re-edit the

whole. When I was making the scans I focused on portraits,

simply because those are the photos that I found most

interesting when I was making scans. I have more contextual

shots however that would serve to improve the storytelling

aspect of the whole. At best what I have put on line is a portfolio

of shots from an event, not really an essay. I need to work on this

a little harder.

 

Does anyone have any links to skillful photo essays online that I

could take a look at? I'd like to see what works before I begin

again.

 

Thanks.

[klix]

See the link below -- I realize the essay includes photos from several photographers over a span of many years, but it consists of several compelling photos that, taken chronologically, speaks volumes about the Depression Era... The only thing I would add to this essay would be a denouement -- maybe some reference to WWII, which pulled the US out of the Depression.

 

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm

 

You may also want to look through the works of Horace Bristol, who, along with Dorothea Lange, documented the plight of migrant farm workers in the CA Dust Bowl in the Great Depression. In fact, if you've read "Grapes of Wrath," then you already know Horace Bristol's work, since John Steinbeck drew a lot of his fictional characters for that classic from Bristol's photos.

 

Good luck!!!

[mafud]

To tell a story, you must write captions that... tell the story. Find a software which will allow you to write captions. Your photos are "lifeless" without them.<P> As a former photo editor, you have a few which might be chosen for publishing in a newspaper. That said, at rallies like that one, you <i>must</i> always include the words for the signs or face the frustrations already expressed here. Next, as you did in some instances, find and focus on individuals who are of interest or the most active.<BR> Of all the shots, and assuming we were going to publish, the one with the man with the bullhorn, along with a well written caption, would have been the one I picked to publish.<BR>

As for "objectivity". If you are going to be a photojournalist, your one and only job is to get the shots, with absolutely <i>no</i> politics involved. Once you descend into self-indugence, your objectivity vanishes and so, your photography suffers.<P> Shoot more film because 1. film is cheap 2. film is cheap 3. you won't have a chance to do it over 4. film is cheap 5.you'll have more shots to choose from.

[andrew_hull]

T:

 

The only bias I noticed is that the only banners that I could make out were the anti-war banners. All of the shots that I saw of the pro-War rally didn't have banners, or they were cropped out (in camera or on computer). In essence, you have given a voice to the anti-war, yet cut out the expression of the pro-war.

 

You wording in the questions, however, is extremely slanted; if not incorrect.( I happen to know several people who went and not at the behest of free republic.com, I also wouldn't categorize them as "extreme right wing" in the least).

[gauthier]

I'd say that there is a mild hostile bias. As the other noted, it shows in two ways. First, you don't show the signs these people were carrying. Second, no happy faces here. All the people you portrait have serious or even grim faces. They don't look too friendly.

[michael_bender]

did I find expressive enough. To simplify a lot, there are 2 things, generally: strong and geometrical pattern formed by the moving bodies, limbs, objects, i.e. composition, and

how meaningful the moment/expressions etc. are (timing). I did not find most of them very "decisive" as far as the timing is concerned. Geometrically they are not formless snapshots, but neither strong and complex compositions (check www.magnumphotos.com).

<p>

Except number 11: that one is good.

I did not feel any bias/point of view coming across, they are all pretty neutral.

<p>

My own attempts at crown photography you can check here:<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/march/march.html><b>February protest march in Los Angeles</b></a> and here:<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/march2/march.html><b>"die-in" staged in recent protests in LA</b></a>

[tom_musselman]

Touchel, as others have said, pictures don't tell stories, words do. Photo essays must have words, also a beginning and an end. Your collection of photos has none of these.

 

I think you have made a good start. You covered one aspect of a photo essay on this subject: tight face shots. Next time, with a plan, you might include shots of interactions between people, and some opening and closing shots. In addition to working on a story, try giving us more visual variety. Try varying your focal length more. Maybe get to a high vantage point to give us a feel for the physical context. Try a low vantage point as well. And, as many others have said, show us what the signs say!

 

One thing I try to do in these situations, with varying success, is to keep notes about what shots I still need to complete the story. Sometimes they are simple mental notes, but often I write notes on paper and keep it in my pocket.

 

I am looking forward to seeing more of your work.

[touchel berne]

First of all, thanks everyone. This has been really positive for me,

I have plenty to think about before I go out next time to cover

some type of event. There were two problems I think, first what I

was drawn to photograph, and second what I scanned and

worked from in developing the sequence that I presented. When

I get a chance, I'm going to do some more scanning and re-edit

the sequence keeping these criticisms in mind.

 

* Jack, I took a look at the Depression photo essay that you

mentioned. It's really great, but I think I need some examples that

operate on a more narrow scale. Great stuff though.

 

* Suda, various experiences in my life have taught me that I

would make a terrible photojournalist. Principally, I seem to be

incapable of photographing anyone who is experiencing

anything tragic. On September 11th, I watched a parade of the

most distraught and damaged people I have ever seen walk

across the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn. I had a camera

hanging around my neck the entire time, several different lenses

and plenty of film. I didn't take any pictures at all, except for one of

two cops standing next to a subway entrance (viewable on my

website). It wasn't because I didn't see anything to photograph, I

was just rendered motionless by the awfulness of what I was

seeing.

 

I think that for me the most natural place to be is the photo

essay, which is why I care very much to develop a good

understanding of how to construct one. I'm attracted because it's

a.) the type of photography I love doing, b.) has a social/cultural

purpose, c.) and is a richer way to express something specific

than having a body of one-off street photographs. So, this is my

project for the coming months.

 

* Andrew, I'm not really interested in being objective. What I'm

curious about is how evident my bias is - I'm more worried that

my bias is not coming through than the reverse. Free republic is

extreme right wing by any measure - it's certainly not centrist or

mainstream. But this probably isn't the right forum for this.

 

* Phillipe, you're right about the signs. When I was taking the

pictures, I was thinking mainly in terms of taking tight portraits. I

should have had a photo essay in mind from the beginning, and

next time I will.

 

* Michael, good stuff.

 

* Tom, you have some really great suggestions. I've done some

wedding work, so I know about having a 'shot list.' I just hadn't

really thought of applying it to this kind of work. You're totally right.

You're also right about focal length, I shot most of this with a

50mm, I had a 135 and 35 with me, but I didn't use them much.

Visual variety, that's good. With all of this advice, I wish I could

think of something go out and document in the next two hours

before the sun goes down. I don't yet agree that a story can't be

told without words, I'm going to try awhile longer and see what I

can do.

 

Thanks.

[tom_musselman]

Touchel, I'm glad I could help. I am also glad you didn't see my suggestions as rules. Of course, there are no rules. A photo essay is whatever you think it is. Many of us documentary photographers started learning our skills by shooting photo essays and having more experienced people review them. I consider a photo essay as a "mini documentary project". Once you feel comfortable with those, and that can happen pretty fast, maybe you can try a larger project.

[still_man]

I clicked the link and looked at your photos before I read your message. As I was looking at them, I kept thinking how you disliked your subjects. It is apparent that you tried to capture them at their worst, and that several of the photos you decided to show were chosen for that reason. (#5 - it looks like you chose this one because of the guy's, uh, well, ugly butt. I would have left that one out of an essay even if I didn't like the people because it is a cheap shot. The guy's behind has nothing to do with his politics, there are plenty of unsightly posteriors at anti-war rallies.)

<p>

Your photos were made to be commentary. You have shown your bias, you have shown how you see the people involved. (It would be a good thing for the people from the Free Republic to see your photos - it is good to see how others see you, especially when you are trying to influence public opinion.) Were you shooting for the newspaper, your bias would be out of place, as they do not tell the story of what happened in an objective way. Since you were shooting for your own Web site, your bias is yours, and much blood has been shed to give you the freedom to show it.

[touchel berne]

Still Man, I was actually thinking about the wallet in the guy's back

pocket, which, I guess, is also evidence of bias. I think I failed to

give it adequate focus maybe, somebody else pointed that out to

me. But yes, freedom of expression is one of the reasons I love

this country.

[jkantor]

I think you have strong people shots here. But I looked at them before I read all of your post and I didn't get any point of view at all from them (exept their being committed to their cause) - partly because they were cropped so tightly that the messages they carried are obscured.

 

I'm extremely pro-war by the way, and I have seen very few reasonable people on the other side (mostly just simplistic isolationists and naive pacifists). I think your work would be stronger if you looked at both sides as objectively as possible. (How about pairs of pictures of the opposing sides?)

 

The only real answer, of course, will be to talk to these people and some Iraqis in a year and see how they feel about it then. Maybe you can do that too.

[jon_fernquest]

I live far away from all the war and the protests in Asia

and to me it all seems like a ten ring circus with at most

symbolic meaning, but occasionally I come across some hard facts

that really disturb me like the U.S. is only now grudgingly giving

a paltry 4 million to the Iraqi opposition to start T.V. broadcasts

(I would assume that this is the price of a few missiles):

 

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030407-9384304.htm

 

This is like finding a logical contradiction in a very

expensive and tediously constructed mathematical proof

that seriously undermines its credibility.

 

IMHO the main use that photos are being made of in this

war is emotional manipulation of public opinion.

I'd exchange all the protest shots I've ever seen for a good

historical photo essay on the Iraqi Opposition.

[touchel berne]

Hello John. I think you're right. I would like to do a better job with

the anti-war folk. After I took the pictures shown, I joined the

counter-demonstration (where I belong ideologically) with the

intention of taking photos. But I found that I wasn't interested in

doing it. Everything seemed very normal to me over there. Maybe

the best thing would be for us to team up and take pictures of the

sides that we oppose politically. Take care.