Food Not Bombs, Tampa aka RNC Pre-Game

Quincy T

So, below are several pictures from the Food Not Bombs meeting held yesterday here in Tampa. I've been closely following all the events connected to the RNC, and this is one of them.

I'm primarily interested in your help culling these down, whether or not they tell a good story and are decent PJ work. As always, critique is respectfully requested...lay it on thick folks.

Quite a few images here.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Thanks for looking.

bdcolen

Quincy - I preface this by saying maybe I've been to too damn many things like this, and it is all mind-numbingly familiar, which is to say that I may not be the one to comment. And I do not want to discourage you. But I'm sad to say this shoot really leaves me flat. Yes, there are a few nice detail images. And the MLK-large woman photo is trying to say something, though I'm not sure what. But I think what you've got here are a bunch of images to file away and reconsider later, when things are really hopping. Then they may be fillers, background, bridges, in a more vital story. (I was somewhat drawn to the incongruity of woman wearing what I assume is body armor painting a poster.)

torags

I echo bds comments.

I think exclusion is very important to heighten impact on the strongest subject array in the image.

there is so much to shoot here, but so much is junk.

I would recommend to stay after dark where things get hopping. Bring fast glass

Angelo

Quincy

I have to agree with BD and I so want to see fabulous images and coverage of the event by you.

These are a series of images in search of a narrative. I think there's even some potentiality in some of this content if you just reassess your POV and focal points.

Quincy T

Angelo wrote: »

Quincy

I have to agree with BD and I so want to see fabulous images and coverage of the event by you.

These are a series of images in search of a narrative. I think there's even some potentiality in some of this content if you just reassess your POV and focal points.

Thanks, Angelo. It was difficult to find the narrative, I'll cover that in my response to B.D. below.

torags wrote: »

I echo bds comments.

I think exclusion is very important to heighten impact on the strongest subject array in the image.

there is so much to shoot here, but so much is junk.

I would recommend to stay after dark where things get hopping. Bring fast glass

Agreed about the junk, it wasn't easy finding many exciting moments. I wish I could've stayed!

bdcolen wrote: »

Quincy - I preface this by saying maybe I've been to too damn many things like this, and it is all mind-numbingly familiar, which is to say that I may not be the one to comment. And I do not want to discourage you. But I'm sad to say this shoot really leaves me flat. Yes, there are a few nice detail images. And the MLK-large woman photo is trying to say something, though I'm not sure what. But I think what you've got here are a bunch of images to file away and reconsider later, when things are really hopping. Then they may be fillers, background, bridges, in a more vital story. (I was somewhat drawn to the incongruity of woman wearing what I assume is body armor painting a poster.)

Mind numbing is certainly one way of describing it, B.D., and I have to say it was really a struggle to make something truly fascinating from this bunch. I do think, though, that my inexperience showed, because there were several professional organizations here, and I'm sure they covered it much better. Maybe I just got too deep into what was going on here. But, yes, I'd have to agree. Coming home afterwards, I felt these images weren't too profound, but provided a very shallow view of what occurred. In my own defense, though, there just wasn't too much happening.

I know I missed at least two shots which were filled with emotion...but wrong time, wrong place. Oh well.

Hopefully my RNC coverage won't be so lackluster, but I expect the content will be slightly more...incendiary.

bdcolen

As I said, Quincy - I do NOT want to discourage you. Without seeing what anyone else shot, I seriously doubt that it was markedly better than what you shot. It may well have been more selectively edited ;-), and they may have gotten the two moments you say you missed, but I believe the problem here really is the material. The other thing to think about is...what some of these might look like in black and white. :-)

Not sure this is any better, but...

i-K5bF6Nx-L.jpg

bdcolen

bdcolen wrote: »

as i said, quincy - i do not want to discourage you. Without seeing what anyone else shot, i seriously doubt that it was markedly better than what you shot. It may well have been more selectively edited ;-), and they may have gotten the two moments you say you missed, but i believe the problem here really is the material. The other thing to think about is...what some of these might look like in black and white. :-)

not sure this is any better, but...

i-K5bF6Nx-L.jpg

i-pDPjTFm-L.jpg

bdcolen

bdcolen wrote: »

i-pDPjTFm-L.jpg

i-FQTtBjX-L.jpg

bdcolen

bdcolen wrote: »

i-FQTtBjX-L.jpg

i-5zMXBJM-L.jpg

Quincy T

B.D., I, too, often thought they'd look great in black and white, but I don't see a lot of news printed with beautifully processed BW images!

I'm merely trying to prepare myself for the reality of having to work more in color, I guess, so that's why I chose to present these without conversion. You can see two converted images in my other thread, though.

MarkR

Black and white is ok if that is your style-- the photos gain some pop but lose their immediacy. I prefer the color for these myself.

The images where you get a lot closer to your subjects work a lot better -- a few of these feel somewhat stand-offish due to the distance between you and your subjects.

Also a few of them (13&14) your sharp focus is on the back of women's heads. This sort of works for #14, as it adds some ambivalance-- how does she feel about that sign?-- but #13 doesn't work for me at all.

I'd also consider reversing the order of 11&12-- that way you have an establishing shot for context and then a close-up. Although there is a little comic effect in seeing someone speak animatedly, only to pull back to see a lackluster crowd.

You are in a great location, can't wait to see more.

bdcolen

Quincy - virtually all newspapers run black and white photos - it's just that the conversions usually suck. ;-) But of course you have to really master color for a job in daily journalism. Mark, certainly it's a matter of taste, but I'd argue that the black and white versions of these four have far more immediacy than the color versions. The problem with most of these isn't that Quincy isn't close enough. Rather, it's the very mundane nature of what he's close to.

Richard

I think the problem is that there's no story here. Not so much in what you have captured as in the real event in the real world. Bombs vs. Food? That so 1962. The scant turnout that we see is a reflection of the political reality: nobody gives a shit--the bombs won, end of story. That said, I think there are a few good captures here and it was a good warmup exercise for (hopefully) better things to come. I think you need to get a little harsher in your culling--a number of these could just as well be from a rock concert as from a political demonstration. Detail shots work only to the extent that the event is truly of interest. If I were a photo editor for a newspaper, I think I would look for one shot that shows the demonstrators with nobody paying attention. Sadly, that's the story here.

MarkR

bdcolen wrote: »

Quincy - virtually all newspapers run black and white photos - it's just that the conversions usually suck. ;-) But of course you have to really master color for a job in daily journalism. Mark, certainly it's a matter of taste, but I'd argue that the black and white versions of these four have far more immediacy than the color versions. The problem with most of these isn't that Quincy isn't close enough. Rather, it's the very mundane nature of what he's close to.

Except for ads, the local paper in my area hasn't printed black and white since probably the early 90's at latest. (Wedding, birth and obituaries they print however supplied.) I think the local alternative (FREE) paper might print some b&w however. Certainly not on the front page, though, and not likely for a multi-page article.

As you and Richard and others point out, there's not much "big picture" story here-- except maybe a lack of turnout-- but there might be some nice smaller, more personal stories to be told.

Angelo

BD - with all due respect I don't think conversion is the problem here. The images still lack a message, a subject, an imaginative focal point

Quincy - head back out there...focus on the event in broad strokes before honing in on individuals and when you do lock on to individuals be certain there is context to the overall event.

.

bdcolen

I don't disagree, Angelo. I think the reality is that there was nothing vaguely novel or particularly interesting that caught Quincy's eye.

Angelo

bdcolen wrote: »

I don't disagree, Angelo. I think the reality is that there was nothing vaguely novel or particularly interesting that caught Quincy's eye.

Quincy T

Angelo wrote: »

BD - with all due respect I don't think conversion is the problem here. The images still lack a message, a subject, an imaginative focal point

Quincy - head back out there...focus on the event in broad strokes before honing in on individuals and when you do lock on to individuals be certain there is context to the overall event.

.

bdcolen wrote: »

I don't disagree, Angelo. I think the reality is that there was nothing vaguely novel or particularly interesting that caught Quincy's eye.

This is why I come back here everyday. You all know me, as well as fellow denizens of the internet can know one another.

I absolutely went out there with a storytelling mentality: set the scene, create a narrative with images, look for decisive moments and include some level of intimacy. The event was 3000 sq ft of nothing going on, at least after the initial setup.

I did practice my approaches to individuals, and came away with several names and background stories, I also met the press coordinator for the event, who will be orchestrating all the press interaction up to the end of RNC. I'm happy with what happened there, it was just a disappointing day photographically.

michswiss

Quincy T wrote: »

I did practice my approaches to individuals, and came away with several names and background stories, I also met the press coordinator for the event, who will be orchestrating all the press interaction up to the end of RNC. I'm happy with what happened there, it was just a disappointing day photographically.

It's good that you are approaching individuals. Have you thought of or are you getting environmental portraits or headshots of the people you speak to?

Quincy T

michswiss wrote: »

It's good that you are approaching individuals. Have you thought of or are you getting environmental portraits or headshots of the people you speak to?

I have thought of it, but I didn't execute, simply because I didn't run into an individual whom I felt was "worthy" (forgive that term) of the treatment. There was one young man who just happened upon the whole hoe-down and decided to help out. He was not associated with them in anyway. In hindsight, I perceived him as someone that wouldn't be interesting, but in a way, that could've been a very interesting thing to plunge into I guess.

Actually, there was a guy there, Mark Buckley, who does the Occupy Roadshow bus. I asked him if I could do something like that, he said alright, but he had to step away. When he got back, he was completely wasted.

@Richard - I wholeheartedly agree with you on the cull, Richard, but that's part of why I brought the images here. Out of about 400, this is the end result of what I did in the wee hours of last night. I was hoping I could get more cuts from the wealth of experience here. I would never submit this entire slew, but it's difficult for me to see the merits of each and every one objectively.

Quincy T

Also, I'd like to say I really appreciate you all taking the time to discuss this with me. This is really the only place I can turn to for reliable comments (my wife is getting much better in critiquing objectively, I will say) and criticism. That means a great deal.

MarkR

Quincy T wrote: »

I have thought of it, but I didn't execute, simply because I didn't run into an individual whom I felt was "worthy" (forgive that term) of the treatment. There was one young man who just happened upon the whole hoe-down and decided to help out. He was not associated with them in anyway. In hindsight, I perceived him as someone that wouldn't be interesting, but in a way, that could've been a very interesting thing to plunge into I guess.

That could have been interesting.

Quincy T wrote: »

Actually, there was a guy there, Mark Buckley, who does the Occupy Roadshow bus. I asked him if I could do something like that, he said alright, but he had to step away. When he got back, he was completely wasted.

That could have been interesting too!

Quincy T

MarkR wrote: »

That could have been interesting.



That could have been interesting too!

I guess something I haven't learned to do is turn my conversations with individuals from talking mode into editorial portrait mode.

TonyCooper

You know, Quincy, you could go a few blocks to Ybor City and take a photograph of
some guy dozing on a park bench and get rave reviews in this forum. The problem
with this series is that you've tried to do photo-journalism because this is the RNC
national convention, and you have images that aren't as interesting as a guy on
a park bench. What's happening in Tampa doesn't give everyone there gravitas.

You've done some good "street" stuff of people. But, I suspect, it's been good
stuff because you saw a photograph there. I think you'd do better stuff if you'd
see the people as photographs, not as part of something important going on
and therefore important by association.

bdcolen

Richard wrote: »

I think the problem is that there's no story here. Not so much in what you have captured as in the real event in the real world. Bombs vs. Food? That so 1962. The scant turnout that we see is a reflection of the political reality: nobody gives a shit--the bombs won, end of story. That said, I think there are a few good captures here and it was a good warmup exercise for (hopefully) better things to come. I think you need to get a little harsher in your culling--a number of these could just as well be from a rock concert as from a political demonstration. Detail shots work only to the extent that the event is truly of interest. If I were a photo editor for a newspaper, I think I would look for one shot that shows the demonstrators with nobody paying attention. Sadly, that's the story here.

thumb

bdcolen

MarkR wrote: »

Except for ads, the local paper in my area hasn't printed black and white since probably the early 90's at latest. (Wedding, birth and obituaries they print however supplied.) I think the local alternative (FREE) paper might print some b&w however. Certainly not on the front page, though, and not likely for a multi-page article.

As you and Richard and others point out, there's not much "big picture" story here-- except maybe a lack of turnout-- but there might be some nice smaller, more personal stories to be told.

Well, Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, and many other major papers routinely print black and whites, because they only have a certain number of full color pages. Additionally, the Times often runs B&Ws on its website.

But no, there isn't much of anything here. One of my students did a project on this group in Cambridge, and it was a real bomb - forgive the pun. The real problem is the group itself.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote: »

You know, Quincy, you could go a few blocks to Ybor City and take a photograph of
some guy dozing on a park bench and get rave reviews in this forum. The problem
with this series is that you've tried to do photo-journalism because this is the RNC
national convention, and you have images that aren't as interesting as a guy on
a park bench. What's happening in Tampa doesn't give everyone there gravitas.

You've done some good "street" stuff of people. But, I suspect, it's been good
stuff because you saw a photograph there. I think you'd do better stuff if you'd
see the people as photographs, not as part of something important going on
and therefore important by association.

Excellent point Tony. A photo journalist must simultaneously be a journalist and a PHOTOGRAPHER. The goal has to be to produce photographs of journalistic stories, but photographs that stand up as photographs.

Quincy T

TonyCooper wrote: »

You know, Quincy, you could go a few blocks to Ybor City and take a photograph of
some guy dozing on a park bench and get rave reviews in this forum. The problem
with this series is that you've tried to do photo-journalism because this is the RNC
national convention, and you have images that aren't as interesting as a guy on
a park bench. What's happening in Tampa doesn't give everyone there gravitas.

You've done some good "street" stuff of people. But, I suspect, it's been good
stuff because you saw a photograph there. I think you'd do better stuff if you'd
see the people as photographs, not as part of something important going on
and therefore important by association.

Point well taken, Tony.