Critique please... "Tsunami"

[Luna]

I haven't seen any video of the tsunami, just stills.

I don't know if you're joking, but if it's true, you are really missing some impressing records.

He could be telling the truth. Perhaps he lives in a place that doesn't have TVs, smart phones, and internet.

It's a good point Luna and the first link you have is... Lightstalkers, the subject off my thread yesterday. I've studied some off the great's in photography since I was a kid but I'm still unable to do what they did... Lack of confidence, lack of direction? I don't know, thats why I'm asking.

LS is great. I've learned some good info from the people there. And looking at a few people's essays/slides, I've learned a tad bit about the anatomy of a photo essay.

 

[Turtle]

I can't see the images due to firewall issues, but I will comment on some of the issues the OP raises.

Confidence to get in there comes with practice and the ability to keep going when you do not always get the response from people you might hope for. The more documentary shooting I do the more convinced I am that the skills that matter most have little to do with photography. Sure, being able to take a good picture is rather important, but its all the other stuff that dictates whether you get that far, get in close enough, have the right interactions with people and therefore have access to the righ images.

Come up with projects you can shoot in bits and pieces. Come up with projects that interest you and make you want to get out there and just gradually push yourself out of your comfort zone. Confidence makes so many things possible and it comes from familiarity. Theory contributes little and you will have to find your own 'patter'.

 

[emraphoto]

I can't see the images due to firewall issues, but I will comment on some of the issues the OP raises.

Confidence to get in there comes with practice and the ability to keep going when you do not always get the response from people you might hope for. The more documentary shooting I do the more convinced I am that the skills that matter most have little to do with photography. Sure, being able to take a good picture is rather important, but its all the other stuff that dictates whether you get that far, get in close enough, have the right interactions with people and therefore have access to the righ images.

Come up with projects you can shoot in bits and pieces. Come up with projects that interest you and make you want to get out there and just gradually push yourself out of your comfort zone. Confidence makes so many things possible and it comes from familiarity. Theory contributes little and you will have to find your own 'patter'.

hear, hear!

 

[Jamie123]

I think your missing my point. I'm not asking for a critique on the images but a critique on there connectivness (my made up word 🙂 ), are these images connected, are they able to convey any sense off a story? Or am I totally barking up the wrong tree.

What I want to be able to do is to create a story with a series off images. I'll admit these are nothing compared to the video's I've seen or the video's we shot from the bridge off the ship as we were spun round like a toy boat in a bathtub.

This is my first attempt to do this type off thing, there is plenty of Pro's and gifted photographers here, advice please.

The thing is, I see maybe one or two interesting shots in these images and the rest is just filler. One or two good frames is enough if you're illustrating a news story but for meaningful "connected" series of photographs it's just too little. This is why most photographers work on their projects for an extended time period. The "connectedness" is created on the editing table and for that there must be enough material to edit from.
So I think one cannot give a critique on the sequence of images without commenting on the quality of the images themselves.

 

[jsrockit]

I actually think some of the images are well done and that people are being a little rough on them (get close and personal with a distaster zone? I would imagine only a few exclusive people get that access). There is a hell of a lot worse stuff on RFF with plenty of fans. Now, I don't think they tell a story (we know the story already, so the images are informed by our knowledge of the situation), but they are not such bad images. Especially:

The before and after stuff is where you could tell a good story.

 

[Pherdinand]

the 'before' images don't have a clear subject. It is just an uninteresting, vague view without a central point. I look at them and i forget it immediately.
The 'after' images do have (most of them) a main subject.

 

[GSNfan]

I think your missing my point. I'm not asking for a critique on the images but a critique on there connectivness (my made up word 🙂 ), are these images connected, are they able to convey any sense off a story? Or am I totally barking up the wrong tree.

The story? We already know the story in great detail with a lot of footage and great footage at that. What part of 'this' story is left to be told? We know the extent of the destruction with the before and after image of a town that was wiped out, we've seen even inside the nuclear plant that had an accident, what else is left there to be told about this 'tsunami'?

You can't blame us for trying, we made it clear that from a PJ perspective the images are not really going to stand up to the task, and from pure photographic point of view, its hard to apply the rules of third to pictures of a disaster... I guess, you need to keep up-to-date with the zeitgeist of still photography at present. Things have changed.

 

[shadowfox]

Continued...

After the tsunami...

Mike,

These two grabbed me.

The first one sent a message about fragility (represented by the stack of papers) and devastation (in the background).

The second one because of the sheer shock-value of the scene.

I think by composing your set around these two ideas, you can come up with a set that tells *a* story.

Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for sharing your pictures, though. I followed your reports (as well as others') on the other thread since the beginning of this ordeal.

 

[jsrockit]

I guess, you need to keep up-to-date with the zeitgeist of still photography at present. Things have changed.

Really, is there a need to be this rude? Images of all types are still being made. The mainstream may have changed, but there is still room for everything if done well enough.

 

[Ranchu]

Cripes. I'm not going to lie and say I haven't seen video when I actually have. I don't have a TV, I also spend most of the time I devote to the tsunami trying to understand what the situation with the reactors is, rather than watching video. I generally find video not interesting or enlightening, but propagandistic. It's spiritually dead. Flat and sloppy, a chore to watch.

 

[Turtle]

Well for some reason I can see the images today 🙂 and here are some more thoughts:

The images don't really convey the facets of the disaster. While some are varied visually, they are of the same facet: damage to materiel. In this sense they do not feel varied. This also contributes to the sense that we, as the viewer, are seeing a very static situation. In one sense we are, but there is somehow little allusion to the cataclysmic event that created the scenes you have photographed. This is exacerbated by the absence of people. I know there were no people there, but might there have been greater human traces to be found and shown amongst the debris and details, that give a sense of what the disaster means, both in all its magnitude and also in its personal precision - the human connection that makes all this make sense?

Do not be too hard on yourself. From what I see, you will be fully capable of doing the things you say you cant if you just keep on going. You are asking the questions and your drive to expand your abilities and your photography is obviously there! What you have tried to do is extremely difficult, because people are not present to make things easier for the view to connect. In the absence of people it can really help to get abstract, or partially so. Perhaps look at the work of Koudelka (Chaos) for some inspiration and ideas as to how he weaves small human traces together into larger frames and relates them to the natural and man made world.

If you want some practical comments, perhaps try getting in closer. Almost all of your images possess a sense of 'stand off' to me. As if you feel you need to photograph whole or nearly whole things from far enough away for everything to be immediately recognisable. Perhaps try to be a bit more flexible, dynamic and experimental. Get right in there until you cant see things any more, get in until you cant recognise them and just try new things, even if they seem daft. Don't forget elevation and low view points to change relationships. This sort of work is often hard on the knees, muddy and sometimes requires the balance of a ballerina! 9 out of 10 don't work at all, but when you get that absolute gem that give you that rush as you see the frame take shape, you know why you bothered.

Keep on going!

 

[filmfan]

In my opinion, you need to work on your processing techniques and your basic photographic skills in general. Get back to the basics, and maybe read some tutorial books on basic black and white photography. Harsh words? Maybe, but harsh words always lead to the most improvement. I hope you respect an honest response to your question. I am by no means a photo pro myself, but to be honest, the photos are not very good. I think you need to be part of the action instead of being an observer of the action. In other words, get in there with your camera and don't just photograph from afar. The first photo with the smoke, if it were not poorly processed with overblown skies, would be decent as long as the next photo was taken on ground level in/closer to the smoke-filled area.
So, moving forward, I suggest looking into basic photo books and check out other well-done work.
Cheers.

 

[jsrockit]

I think you need to be part of the action instead of being an observer of the action.

What action?

 

[Turtle]

What action?

I think I know what he means. Its maybe the need to engage the (very static) subjects in a way that adds something more than the literal. A sense of the forces that created the scenes photographed, the impact etc. There was action to be sure and the scenes photographed are their record, but somehow they don't speak much about what happened and what it meant or means now (either to the people, the landscape, the humanscape or nature. At the same time, the images do not quite manage to convey the absurdity of the new order through a form of detachment and perhaps the use of the abstract to convey changes relationships, with vehicles upside down or on top of lamp posts. They show us how things look right now, but dont perhaps take us deeper. For sure, its a start, but to me the value is in making a person think, imagine, or somehow understand something new - a new perspective or insight. Just my thoughts!

 

[mgd711]

Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback, I know it's extremely hard to give good critiques via the Internet. In the past on other sites I've tried this and invariably it ends up as a pissing contest but there has been good points raised here. I will try something else in the near future and post it here again.