Rotation

pete4130

Bronica SQ, Fuji 400 H




Bronica SQ, Kodak Portra 400




Bronica SQ, Fuji 400 H




Bronica SQ, Fuji 400 H




Bronica SQ, Fuji 400 H

DaireQuinlan

These are construction workers in Australia right ? I want some narrative .

BlastedGlute

Impeccable and stunning set, each as engaging as the last.

Tallon

Outstanding photos.. Truly!

Makes me wanna pick up film again

BlastedGlute

I'd nearly have said the first one was the odd one out, but I think it may also have continuity to a running theme in the rest. Can anyone else see what I'm on about

dakar

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I'd nearly have said the first one was the odd one out, but I think it may also have continuity to a running theme in the rest. Can anyone else see what I'm on about

Yup!

EyeBlinks

Love them all !

PoleStar

What is your workflow for these?

Is there much PP?

pete4130

Thanks guys. The "Rotation" aspect is how my job works. I work away for 2-3 weeks at a time in rural Queensland, living in an accommodation camp like in the 2nd image, then I get 2 weeks off before my next "rotation". I've been out there for about 10 months slowly documenting the life out there, the places I work and its taken me that amount of time for people to get comfortable enough for me to take their portraits for no other reason than simply wanting to. The Bronica is really easy for approaching people because it looks so old and strange to people. It's also an amazing format for portraiture.

As for PP, I get my film developed in a pro lab that I recently found thats very good and very cheap. Then its a matter of scanning each image and spending about 45-60 min cleaning up any dust spots before a simple 30 second levels and curves adjustment and thats it.

The first one looks a little out of place because the guy is standing, as opposed to sitting and doesn't have any alcohol in the frame. There are more images that I haven't finished working on or posted yet and it will sit a whole lot better amongst the other images.

Alcohol is a massive part of the FIFO (Fly In Fly Out) culture. Your staying in a camp and its one of the only ways for people to unwind and socialise in the evenings.

humberklog

Something really special Pete.

jonniebgood1

These are very sharp portraits first of all (as per all the comments). However they lack interest to me- the photos are of working men but there is very little indication of what that work is (unless they are barmen!). What I mean is a more obvious context, as opposed to having to explain it in words- this could be signage or equipment if its not possible to have the workplace in the background. I do like them but just trying to be honest.

humberklog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

These are very sharp portraits first of all (as per all the comments). However they lack interest to me- the photos are of working men but there is very little indication of what that work is (unless they are barmen!). What I mean is a more obvious context, as opposed to having to explain it in words- this could be signage or equipment if its not possible to have the workplace in the background.

#

I don't wish to speak for Pete but his first post lacked narrative and he only explained when asked.


I enjoyed finding the post where Pete explained but I needed to be a little lost at the begininng to read the narrative.

The lovely artistry of Pete's shots is letting you be a little lost with strangers in a strange place. Well that's what I felt.

Although I'd love to see the finished article in a year or two when it's complete.

jonniebgood1

humberklog wrote: »

#

I don't wish to speak for Pete but his first post lacked narrative and he only explained when asked.


I enjoyed finding the post where Pete explained but I needed to be a little lost at the begininng to read the narrative.

The lovely artistry of Pete's shots is letting you be a little lost with strangers in a strange place. Well that's what I felt.

Although I'd love to see the finished article in a year or two when it's complete.

There is a saying "different horses run different courses".

My point is that without the explanation the photos could have been anywhere- a french caravan park, a mine in chile, backstage at a YMCA concert, etc. I think the photos need more context in themselves, without the written explanation. I also emphasise that I admire the sharpness of the portraits (although any added quality due to using film is lost on me) and the relevence of alcohol also has historical interest to me. This type of grouping of male immigrants (I'm presuming) goes back to the American railroads that many Irish immigrants in the 1800's ended up in. Alcohol played an important role in that era also in helping the men manage.

humberklog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There is a saying "different horses run different courses".

My point is that without the explanation the photos could have been anywhere- a french caravan park, a mine in chile, backstage at a YMCA concert, etc. I think the photos need more context in themselves, without the written explanation. I also emphasise that I admire the sharpness of the portraits (although any added quality due to using film is lost on me) and the relevence of alcohol also has historical interest to me. This type of grouping of male immigrants (I'm presuming) goes back to the American railroads that many Irish immigrants in the 1800's ended up in. Alcohol played an important role in that era also in helping the men manage.

Indeed. Well I'm with the artist on this one.

It'd be a little bit like saying "love it Vincent, but any chance of a slightly brighter yellow in the sunflowers so as they match the curtains in my kitchen better."

EyeBlinks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

These are very sharp portraits first of all (as per all the comments). However they lack interest to me-

Exactly the opposite for me.
Great stuff .. more please !

jonniebgood1

humberklog wrote: »

Indeed. Well I'm with the artist on this one.

It'd be a little bit like saying "love it Vincent, but any chance of a slightly brighter yellow in the sunflowers so as they match the curtains in my kitchen better."

My comments were on the photos on the OP and were given in an honest and constructive manner. I do not understand why you feel the need to comment on my comments. Would you like me to withdraw my comments and copy and paste yours???

I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what part of my initial comment you object to and why.

EyeBlinks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My comments were on the photos on the OP and were given in an honest and constructive manner. I do not understand why you feel the need to comment on my comments. Would you like me to withdraw my comments and copy and paste yours???

I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what part of my initial comment you object to and why.

Ah for god's sake, surely we're not debating comment on here. He's right, your wrong or just maybe you're wrong he's right ... or whatever !

humberklog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My comments were on the photos on the OP and were given in an honest and constructive manner. I do not understand why you feel the need to comment on my comments. Would you like me to withdraw my comments and copy and paste yours???

I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what part of my initial comment you object to and why.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend and can see how my comments could easily be seen as cranky with you. I apololgise.

I like the pics as they bring me into a world a million miles from what I know. If there were tools and obvious visual guidance I wouldn't have engaged with them as well as I did.

If it had tools and what not the photo would take me into a cold documentary style selection. The lack of these gimmicks brought me into the world the artist is feeling.

sineadw

Really fantastic stuff Pete

jonniebgood1

humberklog wrote: »

Sorry, didn't mean to offend and can see how my comments could easily be seen as cranky with you. I apololgise.

I like the pics as they bring me into a world a million miles from what I know. If there were tools and obvious visual guidance I wouldn't have engaged with them as well as I did.

If it had tools and what not the photo would take me into a cold documentary style selection. The lack of these gimmicks brought me into the world the artist is feeling.

I like them too!!

kelly1

Great shots. #2 is my fave.

BlastedGlute

My odd one out was the first one, only for the fact that I couldn't figure out if thats a bottle cap on the bottom left of the frame! Every photos has some liquor in frame its cool and subtle!

What is it you do exactly? Can you get me a job? :P

pete4130

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

These are very sharp portraits first of all (as per all the comments). However they lack interest to me- the photos are of working men but there is very little indication of what that work is (unless they are barmen!). What I mean is a more obvious context, as opposed to having to explain it in words- this could be signage or equipment if its not possible to have the workplace in the background. I do like them but just trying to be honest.

They are only 5 images out of a body of work that has been going on for over 10 months and probably go on for another 12 months at least. It's like I said, when they are seen as a whole body of work they will have more context.

BlastedGlute

pete4130 wrote: »

They are only 5 images out of a body of work that has been going on for over 10 months and probably go on for another 12 months at least. It's like I said, when they are seen as a whole body of work they will have more context.

To be fair, I like a few others can probably recall the running themes in the work you upload here and I've known for some time that you work in some kind of minerals or quarry type industry. You've posted several shots of the housing cabins and machinery. But I'd understand if some folks "don't get it", although they do make lovely portraits and it's not a common thing to request context for a capture of an individual smashing down a beer after work.

Kev.

Lovely set of pictures,

I love a photo with a blurred background

ThOnda

You know I like pictures from this set. It really shows you belong among those people, so you are not taking pictures of them, but portraits. Well done, keep them coming and I hope to get your signature into your book.

magicbastarder

i like the lack of narrative in the OP. it's obvious as they're presented that they're part of a series, but it doesn't really matter whether they're construction workers or gynaecologists on a team building exercise, as to whether they're good images or not.

one very minor niggle which i think disrupts the continuity is the coming and going of the film border. i think they'd tie together better if this was more consistent.

thefizz

I like them.

pete4130

Relaxation on rotation

Promac

Totally agree with jonniebgood1. The photographs are taken well enough, but on their own they aren't that interesting. I disagree with the Van Gogh reference - a more fitting analogy here is Van Gogh knowing how to mix paint and knowing which brush to use rather than being criticised on his creative choices. This is a documentary series, not a creative one. The photos are mostly rule of thirds, shallow depth of field, properly exposed - hardly rocket science. The quality of the capture is a function of the camera in this case.

"Well done on knowing how to use your camera Pete! Wow, amazeballs!"

Honestly though - don't take that as a criticism. I love documentary photography and I wish I were in more situations were it would be interesting to do some. I just wish people wouldn't fawn over photographs that are focused properly with a shallow depth of field.

I think Daire was spot on tbh.

Edit: Just because it wasn't obvious - I like the series. I'm just objecting to people going mad about individual photos that aren't amazing on their own and are simply people, photographed properly. "makes me want to take up film", etc. I find that kind of comment more of an insult - "What an amazing camera you have there!"

It's hard to find a subject for a series of images that other people will find interesting. Taking the actual photographs properly is just a given.

BlastedGlute

Came back to check these out again! Still as captivating as the first time!

sineadw

Promac wrote: »

This is a documentary series, not a creative one.

I find that a bit of a bizarre statement. So documentary photography is not creative? And i think there's a lot more to these shots than correct use of a camera. Portraiture (and to me these are documentary portraits) is a bit more complicated than that to get right.

Having said that, i'd agree they only really work as a larger body. I'd like to see the whole lot, printed large

Promac

What's bizarre about it? He's not trying to create anything in the picture, he's trying to capture what's already there. Sure, he's creating a photograph, that goes without saying obviously but after that it's pure documentary.

And I didn't say a documentary can't be creative as well but the idea of a documentary is to present the audience with unbiased, objective, information on your subject or topic. That doesn't mean you have to be unbiased and objective but it's the basic premise.

ThOnda

Promac wrote: »

... He's not trying to create anything in the picture, he's trying to capture what's already there...

Are you winding us up or what? Are you saying that those pictures are random snaps, because if you take picture of what exists in real, is NOT CREATIVE photography? And what about choice of camera and film? What about selection of photographs? What about the theme and idea of the project? What about narrative?
I really hope you are only joking here.

Does that mean, that creative photography is only of subject and scenes that were arranged?

Promac wrote: »

...the idea of a documentary is to present the audience with unbiased, objective, information on your subject or topic...

And where did you hear this? I bet in a camera club. There is NO OBJECTIVE documentary, as there is no objective truth. There are only subjective views of life and events. Documentary is extremely subjective. You are creating your own record of events.
If that wasn't truth, why there would be so many photographers covering the same event? One would be enough and everything is sorted.

Come on, it is not the Fool's day anymore, admit that you are only joking. Seriously.

alb

Really like these as a set. Someone earlier mentioned that about them not showing what the workers do, but for me that's a great part of it. You can tell these guys have done a hard days (even lifes) work and are enjoying a drink afterwards. IMHO it doesn't matter to the photos what they've been working at just that the photos capture so well that after-work-beer moment so well.

sineadw

Promac wrote: »

What's bizarre about it? He's not trying to create anything in the picture, he's trying to capture what's already there. Sure, he's creating a photograph, that goes without saying obviously but after that it's pure documentary.

And I didn't say a documentary can't be creative as well but the idea of a documentary is to present the audience with unbiased, objective, information on your subject or topic. That doesn't mean you have to be unbiased and objective but it's the basic premise.

*All* photography is capturing what's already there. When i work in the studio i'm adding light, when i work outside it i'm subtracting it. The skills and judgement calls i make on composition, lighting etc each time i press the trigger are basically the same after that. When i'm doing conceptual work, the ideas are what comes first, when i do documentary work they often flow more freely in editing, but that's by no means cut and dry. So yep, i'm still failing to understand your arguement here

Promac

ThOnda wrote: »

Are you winding us up or what? Are you saying that those pictures are random snaps, because if you take picture of what exists in real, is NOT CREATIVE photography? And what about choice of camera and film? What about selection of photographs? What about the theme and idea of the project? What about narrative?
I really hope you are only joking here.

Does that mean, that creative photography is only of subject and scenes that were arranged?



And where did you hear this? I bet in a camera club. There is NO OBJECTIVE documentary, as there is no objective truth. There are only subjective views of life and events. Documentary is extremely subjective. You are creating your own record of events.
If that wasn't truth, why there would be so many photographers covering the same event? One would be enough and everything is sorted.

Come on, it is not the Fool's day anymore, admit that you are only joking. Seriously.

Of course I don't think they're random snaps otherwise I'd just have said "Meh, those are just random snaps". Putting words into peoples' mouths that they very clearly aren't saying or implying is a guaranteed way to get a negative reaction from them - i.e. trolling.

And it would have to be fool's day to get into an argument about "objective truth". There is a very clearly defined activity called "documentary photography". I have a minute to spare so I googled it for you (next time you want to insult someone you might want to google it for yourself first).

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/documentary
"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

"emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art""

When people talk about being objective the very obvious implication is as objective as possible within the confines of being a human being with a personality and objectives. Not adding anything to what you're presenting to your audience. Again though, that's quite obvious and I think you're just trolling.

Promac

sineadw wrote: »

*All* photography is capturing what's already there. When i work in the studio i'm adding light, when i work outside it i'm subtracting it. The skills and judgement calls i make on composition, lighting etc each time i press the trigger are basically the same after that. When i'm doing conceptual work, the ideas are what comes first, when i do documentary work they often flow more freely in editing, but that's by no means cut and dry. So yep, i'm still failing to understand your arguement here

Where you use the term "conceptual" I've used "creative" but we're talking about the same thing. You obviously know the difference between conceptual work and documentary work. That's the same distinction I was making in my earlier post. Pete's series of photographs here are documentary, not conceptual (unless he's making up the story about his job and the other workers). He's presenting the subjects of the portraits as they are, without adding anything or any kind of embellishment or creation.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for creativity in how you set up a shot or what decisions you make on lighting or media or whatever but that's just being an individual photographer. Using black & white film for example is a creative decision but it doesn't mean that the photographs you take aren't documentary ones. Doesn't imply they are either - it's how you design the scene or don't that determines if it's documentary or otherwise.

My original point was that in this series of photographs the photographs themselves (ignoring the subject matter) aren't largely interesting. He isn't doing anything especially difficult or innovative and he isn't doing something so well as to be remarkable. He's doing a good job of taking photographs but that should be a given. You don't congratulate a painter on being able to mix paint and set up a canvas. As I said though, I like the series and I think it's an interesting theme that he's handling well and he should be applauded for that. It just annoys me that people are applauding his choice of using film when they should be talking about the content and not the medium. It's exactly the same as people saying things like "wow great picture, you must have a magic camera!" if you have a nice SLR, instead of recognising the ability to take a good photograph.

And before anyone jumps in with any pink guitar comments, I'm by no means saying that any of my photographs are more interesting or successful, I'm just speaking my mind about something related.

NooSixty

Promac wrote: »

Where you use the term "conceptual" I've used "creative" but we're talking about the same thing. You obviously know the difference between conceptual work and documentary work. That's the same distinction I was making in my earlier post. Pete's series of photographs here are documentary, not conceptual (unless he's making up the story about his job and the other workers). He's presenting the subjects of the portraits as they are, without adding anything or any kind of embellishment or creation.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for creativity in how you set up a shot or what decisions you make on lighting or media or whatever but that's just being an individual photographer. Using black & white film for example is a creative decision but it doesn't mean that the photographs you take aren't documentary ones. Doesn't imply they are either - it's how you design the scene or don't that determines if it's documentary or otherwise.

My original point was that in this series of photographs the photographs themselves (ignoring the subject matter) aren't largely interesting. He isn't doing anything especially difficult or innovative and he isn't doing something so well as to be remarkable. He's doing a good job of taking photographs but that should be a given. You don't congratulate a painter on being able to mix paint and set up a canvas. As I said though, I like the series and I think it's an interesting theme that he's handling well and he should be applauded for that. It just annoys me that people are applauding his choice of using film when they should be talking about the content and not the medium. It's exactly the same as people saying things like "wow great picture, you must have a magic camera!" if you have a nice SLR, instead of recognising the ability to take a good photograph.

And before anyone jumps in with any pink guitar comments, I'm by no means saying that any of my photographs are more interesting or successful, I'm just speaking my mind about something related.

But the subject matter is the whole point of the photos isn't it or am I missing something?? For me that is exactly what makes them interesting. What exactly do you feel Pete needed to add in order to make them creative in your eyes?? I am very curious to know what, for you, constitutes a creative photo??

Pete has obviously decided that he wanted to create a body of work that yes does "document" his experience working in rural Queensland, has a clear idea in his mind of what he wants to capture and has made conscious choices about how he would go about achieving his objective i.e camera choice, film choice, subject matter, setting etc etc.
Personally, it is the decisions an individual photographer makes in order to capture what they see in their mind that makes it creative.

I really don't think anyone is actually disputing the fact they are documentary photos, just the fact you seem to think that negates there being any creativity involved in the process.

ThOnda

Are you saying, that documentary photography is only good, when it is NOT creative, that means technically clean and clear records, like a photos from Argos catalog?
And what about selection of the topic? Selection of the situation? Framing, composition, work with the subjects?
Isn't the personal approach how the photographs are created that creative process? Isn't that human and personal attitude that creative part of CREATING photos?
We are not talking about propaganda or advertisement here, where pictures are created (made) to convey and carry a message. As you quoted above, documentary should present facts objectively. But how they are presented is the whole creative process.
Pete is not creating situations for the workers, or putting on them make-up, to make them look in some way, to portray them in some way, to subliminally (or directly) give you the idea what are the pictures about, what are the people like. Pete's creative process allows you to see how personally he could approach the other workers and portray them in their environment, without them being posed or choreographed.
One of my personally biggest inspiration comes from work of photographers in VII Photo agency. Majority of the work there is documentary. Are you telling me, that there is NOTHING creative about work of such renowned photographers, who's work is being published all over the world?

sineadw

Documentary work is often conceptual though, and conceptual work is often documentary. Look at struth, hoffer, roth - probably the biggest names in conceptual photography at the moment and there is none of the embellishment that you describe as necessary. I'm not getting why you're drawing such tight circles around things. Are Adams' landscapes not creative because he just went up there with a tripod and some film and got what the light gave him? I'm fairly certain (although you never know!) that HCB didn't set the guy up to jump across the puddle in front of the ballet poster. But he *saw* the shot. He made a value judgement that that was the moment to press the shutter. There were possibly more in the series and he edited them out.

I'm just trying to tease out where exactly you feel the creative process kicks in. If you're interchanging concept and creation, is that not negating the creativity involved in everything that comes after the original idea? There is vast importance and creative input in editing for example. Anyone who's done a large body of work will tell you that. It's as vital as the shots themselves.

Interested in Pete's view on this too...

Promac

NooSixty wrote: »

But the subject matter is the whole point of the photos isn't it or am I missing something?? For me that is exactly what makes them interesting. What exactly do you feel Pete needed to add in order to make them creative in your eyes?? I am very curious to know what, for you, constitutes a creative photo??

Pete has obviously decided that he wanted to create a body of work that yes does "document" his experience working in rural Queensland, has a clear idea in his mind of what he wants to capture and has made conscious choices about how he would go about achieving his objective i.e camera choice, film choice, subject matter, setting etc etc.
Personally, it is the decisions an individual photographer makes in order to capture what they see in their mind that makes it creative.

I really don't think anyone is actually disputing the fact they are documentary photos, just the fact you seem to think that negates there being any creativity involved in the process.

I have absolutely no idea why you're getting that from what I wrote. I specifically said that the subject matter is the only part that's interesting about his photos. And I also said that there is plenty of room for creativity in how a photographer sets up the shot - it was in the very next post above yours.

Promac

ThOnda wrote: »

Are you saying, that documentary photography is only good, when it is NOT creative, that means technically clean and clear records, like a photos from Argos catalog?

I said nothing of the sort, neither did I imply it. I described the difference between conceptual/creative photography and documentary photography - two very obviously different genres.

I honestly don't believe you're not trolling now so I think you and I are done here.

Promac

sineadw wrote: »

Documentary work is often conceptual though, and conceptual work is often documentary. Look at struth, hoffer, roth - probably the biggest names in conceptual photography at the moment and there is none of the embellishment that you describe as necessary. I'm not getting why you're drawing such tight circles around things. Are Adams' landscapes not creative because he just went up there with a tripod and some film and got what the light gave him? I'm fairly certain (although you never know!) that HCB didn't set the guy up to jump across the puddle in front of the ballet poster. But he *saw* the shot. He made a value judgement that that was the moment to press the shutter. There were possibly more in the series and he edited them out.

I'm just trying to tease out where exactly you feel the creative process kicks in. If you're interchanging concept and creation, is that not negating the creativity involved in everything that comes after the original idea? There is vast importance and creative input in editing for example. Anyone who's done a large body of work will tell you that. It's as vital as the shots themselves.

Interested in Pete's view on this too...

Again, I'm not saying that you can't be creative in a documentary. All I said about it was that "This is a documentary series, not a creative one." I wasn't implying that there is no creativity there at all, I was referring to the fact that these are not conceptual photos that are staged, they're just plain captures of people as they really are, i.e. documentary. That doesn't imply that you can't be creative in a documentary and doesn't imply that if there is creativity in a documentary that it's not good - I'm finding it totally bizarre that anyone would make those kinds of implications from what I said. I'd love to know why you think I'm drawing any circles around any of this. Is it my using the word "creative" in place of "conceptual" that has people thinking I'm anti-creativity or something? I'm probably confusing the matter by doing that - I much prefer conceptual now that I actually think about the two together.

I'll probably dig a deeper hole here but I enjoy this kind of discussion so here goes -

HCB was extremely interesting but he was very clear about the fact that he went around pointing his camera at the world taking a lot of pictures and that sometimes interesting things happened while he was there. I'm not saying he wasn't great but he said himself he did very little that was creative when it came to his subjects, he just took a lot of photographs over a very long career and sometimes he was lucky - he was very clear about that "luck and geometry". There's a very good documentary where he talks about it at length. He's very clear that he was extremely lucky to be able to travel around the world and spend time walking around with a camera.

Again though, I'm not saying he wasn't creative or producing great images, nor that there's no room for creativity in what he was doing - the simple act of framing the scene is creative. Choosing which direction to point the camera was creative. Going out with a camera, intending to produce photographs at all is creative. He didn't have any concept that he was trying to reproduce in photographs though, he was documenting what he saw around him in his own personal way - it's blindingly obvious that even the strictest documentary is full of personal bias and creative choices but it's still documentary, still distinct from purely (again, to a reasonable extent) conceptual work.

Here's a clip from the documentary ("The impassioned eye") that shows exactly what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6eRuIxMtbk

Promac

Just to further derail the thread -

This video is extremely interesting because it shows a lot of his contact sheets. You can see how much he shoots and then cherry-picks later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnMTpL5GQ9E

pete4130

I've deliberately not replied to this thread. It's been interesting to see/hear other peoples views.

For me it seems insulting to photography to say documentary photography isn't creative. It's definition is meant to be objective, the realisation is more often not objective. The creativity of a person, their vision determins what images, and how the images are conveyed. Thats the creativity behind documentary photography.

I agree they are very very simple and obey the most basic rules of photography. Being well exposed, mostly centred in a square frame, shallow depth of field, deliberate use of medium square format, deliberate use of film. These were my creative choices, to have very simple images of people, that was purely about the people. In context its also to do with the work they do, where they work but ultimately its the people that are there doing the work.

The portraits are one sliver of the body of work. They put the work into context and the work puts them into context so they relate to each other. It could be argued that this is the creativity and also argued that its a direct relation that the people are needed for the work.

I see some of Promacs points make some sense and so do the points others make.
I would disagree that I did not have a creative input into the portraits. I did think about who I wanted to shoot, how I wanted to shoot them, the best time of day to shoot them regarding light, shadows, contrast (how the subtle diffused light relates to relaxation compared to harsh light of the middle of the day....and the harsh evening light while playing sports is a conscious choice too). There are more subtle creative decisions going on that aren't immediately noticeable at a first glance.

As for being unbiased, its difficult to escape that. These are people I know, people I relax with and they relax around me. They would be very different images if I asked random people to take their portrait around the camps, a different feel. This implicit un-bias is also a creative choice. I could have chosen to ask people I don't know directly that work up here to take their portraits and chose not to. For the moment I'm concentrating on the people I directly work with and these images will have a much different feel than people I'm not familiar with.

Away from the big debate or discussion, the pictures are ultimately images I want to take of the people I work with right now. They are images I look at and I am pleased with. I'm happy with how they look, how they feel for me.

They are pictures of my lifestyle, my work environment, a massive part of my social life (working up here for 2-3 weeks at a time. It becomes some of the older guys main social outlet and they don't want to go home on R&R because they get lonely/bored).

These are my friends.

Promac

There's only so many times I can affirm that I did not say that you aren't being creative by producing documentary images and that there is creativity in how you set up the shot and the decisions you make in that entire process. I think I've clarified it pretty well at this stage.

I neither said nor implied that documentary photography isn't creative. I've spent a lot of time here explaining that that's absolutely not what I think or what I said. I didn't say you don't have a creative input into the portraits. It's not even the point of the post I made in the first place...

For the life of me I can't understand why people keep reading that I don't think there is creativity in documentary - it's totally mad! How many times do you have to say something for people to actually understand it? It's not like you can't go back and read what I wrote before posting in response to whatever it is you thought you read.

If anyone's going to reply to this, please don't criticise me for saying you can't be creative in a documentary because I never bloody said it!

Promac

And just to clarify for the people with obvious learning difficulties - My original point was that people shouldn't have orgasms over the fact that someone shoots portraits in film with a nice shallow depth of field. We're past that now - there is far too much really good photography in this group for mindless flatterers who think putting a roll of film in a camera is an act of high art and talent.

I was saying that the series of photographs that Pete is producing is interesting and that I like it because it's good documentary. As Pete has said himself, they're "very very simple and obey the most basic rules of photography". That's as much "criticism" as I was doing. The actual photographs aren't hugely remarkable - but the series is. That's what people should be looking at. Not the camera the shots were taken with or the fact they were done with film. It's happened loads here and in pretty much any photography group I've joined. Someone takes pictures in film and covers the basic rules of photography and people gush about the pictures, regardless of the actual content, ignoring the thought and creativity and talent that goes into producing a series of images like this. Perfectly demonstrated by Tallon saying Pete's pictures make him want to take up film photography. Way to miss the point there Tallon.

And it's not limited to film - "Oh you have a 5d mark 2? That camera is amazing!" It's never "Oh wow, you're a great photographer", it's always "oh wow, you have an amazing camera".

I wasn't criticising Pete. I wasn't saying he isn't being creative or that documentaries aren't creative.

pete4130

I think its a lot of crossed wires thats gotten out of hand Promac. I appreciate all the feedback from everyone. I didn't expect so much tbh.

It's been really interesting and constructive for me. It's made me think.

NooSixty

Promac wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea why you're getting that from what I wrote. I specifically said that the subject matter is the only part that's interesting about his photos. And I also said that there is plenty of room for creativity in how a photographer sets up the shot - it was in the very next post above yours.

Totally misread that sorry, lack of sleep does that to you :rolleyes: I was actually trying to point out as well that, at least for me, there doesn't have to be anything other than the subject matter to make a photo interesting or 'good'.

I do agree with Pete that a lot of what has gone on has been a lot of crossed wires between people. A lot of what you were saying did imply you were of the opinion that because they were documentary style photos that that negated them being creative, you even specifically made that distinction in an earlier post

Promac wrote: »

This is a documentary series, not a creative one.

...You can see how that might be misconstrued right??

To say that people who liked the photos only did so because they were taken on film is a very sweeping statement. For me I love the photos because they are just basically beautiful portraits, I get the sense of camaraderie, that these people are obviously friends as well as workmates, I personally don't need or want anything more added to them or have any desire to take anything more from the photos then that.

Calling people names isn't very nice either :rolleyes:

ThOnda

From what I know Pete (but only a little), he is not posting pictures to get comments on DoF, processing or composition. That's what are camera clubs for.
Following Pete's work he publishes is really interesting, not only because he really lives and does something, but because he can also capture in his photographs a bit more than just random travel snaps. (Sorry, Pete, I had to use that expression for comparison.)
And I am following Pete exactly for his creativity. Does anybody remember Pete's winning photo for themed competition "Up close and personal"? But when I read that a bit unfortunate expression "This is a documentary series, not a creative one." by Promac, I couldn't believe my eyes. Honestly. It is so easy to get misunderstood or misinterpreted when you are not engaged in direct conversation among people, but on boards or by means of any other electronic media.