Bandung, Indonesia

Bandung is the capital of West Java province in Indonesia, the country's third largest city, and second largest metropolitan area in Indonesia with a population in excess of 2.4 million people.

Located 768 metres above sea level, and approximately 140 kilometers south east of Jakarta, Bandung has cooler temperatures year-round than most other Indonesian cities.

The city lies on a river basin surrounded by volcanic mountains. This topology provides a good natural defence system, which was the primary reason for the Dutch East Indies government's plan to move the colony capital from Batavia to Bandung.

Stasiun Senen, Jakarta

Stasiun Senen (Senen Train Station) is representative of much of the railway lines around Jakarta. Even though there remains an abundance of open spaces in Jakarta, many squatters find the edge of the railway tracks their ideal location for living. Many of the houses they occupy are made of cardboard. Some squatters even have more than one cardboard house that they lease to others.

Critics have repeatedly condemned the Jakarta administration and the central government for the simplified approaches, such as evictions and relocation, when it come to the perennial issue of squatters, arguing that to settle the problem and control urbanisation, authorities should focus on village development, decentralisation of education, healthcare, the economy and life necessities.

Muara Karang, Jakarta

Muara Karang is an administrative village (kelurahan) of Penjaringan, North Jakarta that is predominantly residential.

Most of the inhabitants are Chinese Indonesians, who also run many Hokkien restaurants. In recent times, however, the settlement has attracted Chinese immigrants of many other origins.

The place is famous as a trading centre and fishing port but behind it all are issues of poverty , low education and pollution where waste is being indiscriminately dumped into the sea which has exhibited huge increases in dangerous pollutants in recent years.

This is why your pictures suck

An article by Ibarionex Perello



Dear Charlie,

You've asked me in evaluating your work to be brutally honest. Admittedly, it's something that other photographers have asked for, but I've always been reticent about honestly fulfilling such a request. I have often perceived it as the equivalent of a wife or girlfriend asking, "Do I look fat in this?" A frank, honest answer to that question is likely not going to end well.

However, you have been insistent about receiving such concise, unrestrained and to-the-point-feedback. So, I feel inspired to share with you why your pictures suck.

1. You're Lazy
Admittedly, you talk a good game. You talk much and well about your passion for photography, deftly demonstrating both your technical knowledge and proudly showing off your latest bit of kit. You  know a good amount of photographic history and you are very insightful with your comments about the craft.

But Charlie, when was the last time you actually went out and made a significant body of work for yourself? I'm not talking about that  job you did for pay, or the workshop you attended or that photo walk where you spotted that cute brunette with the Leica M9. No,  when did you last go out and commit to producing  images that truly challenged you; images that the mere thought of creating them got you excited about getting up in the morning?

I  can tell it's been a long time, because you seem to have put more effort into uploading images to Instagram, Facebook and Google Plus, obsessively returning to those posts to check to see how many people provided you a virtual pat on the head. "Great capture". Really?

2. You're Preoccupied with Gear
I get it. There's obviously something primal in both us when it comes to new kit. I have shared that same rush of endorphins on taking a deep whiff of styrofoam peanuts when opening a freshly delivered FedEx package.

But honestly, how often have you used it since you got it? Yes, the unpacking video you posted on YouTube was wonderful. (My wife, by the way, likes the new haircut). But besides that first weekend burst of temporary inspiration, what you have done with it? What have you created that you truly are proud of? And no, fondling it and firing dry frames doesn't count. It seems like you've spent more hours  reading blog posts, forums  and watching videos about the gear than actually shooting with it. And what's this thing with you reading reviews after you already made the purchase? Aren't your images enough to discern whether you made the right choice or not?

3. You're Sloppy
It seems like you think that "good technique" is a filter in Photoshop. And if you defined a good photographer by how fast they can fill a 32GB CF card, you might be in the running to be one of the greats, but it's hard to see anything in your final result that warrants even the battery being charged.

You seem to be completely absent when you press that shutter release, taking no ownership of what you include in the frame. Yes, the bokeh is scrumptious and creamy, but this is supposed to be a photograph not bloody creme brulee.

Whatever happened to good composition? Good light? Good taste?

And no, I don't care that there is virtually no noise at ISO 128,000, the images are still devoid of anything that would even qualify it as a snapshot.

4. Photoshopping is not Photographing
Yes, Photoshop is an important and invaluable tool. We couldn't do much of what we do without it, or its equivalent. But how long do you actually have to sit at the computer, weaving that Wacom stylus like an orchestra leader, before you admit that most of that energy is being expended on putting lipstick on a pig?

Yes, those plug-ins and actions are awesome and that compositing technique you learned from Matt Koslowski is pure genius, but I'm sorry to tell you that there is no there, there. I could wash, wax and detail that AMC Hornet I drove in college as dutifully and passionately as humanly possible, but in the end, it would still be an AMC Hornet. Those are the facts.

What ever happened to your passion for making a single good, exemplary photograph in the camera? When did everything become fodder for over-saturation, over-sharpening, over-everything?

5. You Refuse to Edit Your Own Work
Though you are asking for my feedback, you must not think much of me. If you did, why else would you inundate me a batch of good, bad and near-misses? When did it become my job to figure out what you are trying to do as a photographer?

What am I supposed t make of this mish-mash of portraits, landscapes, close-ups, abstracts and those picture of your cat (which, okay I'll admit is just adorable)? I have a hard enough time trying to edit and assess my own work, much less yours. I just needed to see 10-12 images I wasn't expecting the entire photographic catalog of the International Center of Photography. If I wanted this kind of punishment, I could just put on a pair of headphones and listen to Debbie Boone singing 'You Light Up My Life" on a continuous loop for 24 hours.

If you can't sit down and decide which of your photographs captures who you are and aspire to be as a photographer, how do you expect me to? I am challenged in just finding a pair of matching socks in the morning.

I could say more, but I think I should show a little restraint.

I know you love photography as much as I do. You couldn't spend as much time and effort, subject yourself to the occasional ego-bruising, if you weren't as in love as you obviously are with making photographs. But the reality is that becoming a good photographer, hell becoming a good anything, involves commitment, diligence and the willingness to regularly fall on one's face. You obviously have some of that in you, because you are still around making images, when everyone else has taken up golf or knitting.

I hope that what I shared is helpful to you, but if it wasn't,  I completely understand.

There's always Flickr.

Daido Moriyama

His approach, style and sense of what makes a great image always fascinates me. Personally I love photographing in Tokyo and watching this just re-enforces a need to return...


Daido Moriyama: In Pictures from Tate on Vimeo.

After a year working on digital B&W rather seriously, it's back to film for a while. There's just something about the simplicity of working with in the medium. Although my approach is going to change - for a while. I intend to only use a fixed-lens compact camera; my Fujifilm Klasse W with its 28mm lens and HP5+ pushed to an EI of either 800 or 1600.

In the meantime, in the theme of Moriyama, some of my work in Tokyo on pushed film...

Digital B&W Evaluations

I've been pursuing digital B&W in earnest for almost 12 months now and although I'm still not convinced it surpasses B&W film. However, this view needs to be couched in what is "my" framework for evaluating digital B&W. B&W to me is about the tonality; good strong blacks and whites with midtones that don't "grey" out the image. On the other hand, I dislike hard "pepper & salt" B&W images, devoid of midtones with absolutely no shadow details. Hopefully this provides an outline as to what I'm chasing...

Recently, Leica release its M Monochrom dedicated B&W version of the M9, but as much as I'm both a B&W fan and an avid Leica M user, I have reservations about this camera. The first thing it does especially when paired with Leica glass, is offer oodles of resolution - and that is where my problem begins! To me, B&W is an abstraction and uber sharpness just doesn't feel right or necessary. In addition, in recent weeks, even Leica has been recognising the work of a number of named photographers who were early adopters of the M Monochrom. This started me evaluating again...

The images above are a small crop from one of these photographers images, which I am only using to navigate to my next point about digital B&W conversions. The top crop is the original (in the sense this is how the original photographer chose to render the image). To my eye this offers an image too smooth for a B&W feel so I started looking at generating simulated grain. The following 3 crops have had nothing more than grain added via three different applications.

The grain filter supplied with PS CS5 is not too bad at all; it lacks some subtlety in its application but overall it was acceptable. The only "got ya" and its a show stopper is that it only works on 8-bit images.

Nik Silver Efex seems to be everybody's favourite for B&W conversions. I tried it and have been using it in parts for most of the last year. It's been a like, but mostly hate, relationship as I find it useful for somethings but never capable of producing a consistent "look" B&W conversion to begin working from. I custom work every image, however, because digital is so malleable I find it very difficult to maintain a consistent look across conversions with Nik Silver Efex. In addition, which is more retrospective now, I feel a good part of the problem is 1) Nik Software having a "half-hearted" attempt at providing a list of film stock appearance which in turn 2) is separate from the treatment of the image. In the end I'm never happy with the output.

Given I'm referring to the crops above, I have only seriously investigated the simulated grain component recently on the back of looking at Leica M Monochrom images. The original upper image - especially the complete image - was turning out to be my B&W image equivalent of fingernails down a blackboard.

A downside I was seeing with Nik Silver Efex, specifically as it related to grain simulation, was no ability to control grain in the highlights - especially as they started to blow out. As I hunted around for options I came across DxO Labs FilmPack 3, which solved a number of issues I wasn't even looking to solve at the time. Basically, the software provides a number of pre-canned B&W film stocks (also has transparency and colour neg offerings too), and in the expert version, which I would recommend, allows you control over the intensity of the effects as well as colour filtering.

So what did DxO FilmPack 3 solve... From the lower crop above, for me, it gave the best simulated grain available, which comes back to my initial framework of what B&W is to me. I've come to the conclusion that one important aspect of B&W tonality comes from the grain structure. When its not there, even fine grain, something just doesn't feel right. The other issue it solved was achieving a good and consistent digital conversion-base. I don't get too caught up in what specific film stock the selection is trying to emulate as this in itself is somewhat impacted by the colour rendering of the image being offered to the software to begin with. Rather, I tend to choose between four or five that work for me tending to increase grain on fine structure films stocks or reducing it on the grainier ones. The result being that I can consistently get very good base conversions before starting any custom work.

 Same location: top is HP5+, lower is Nex 5n + DxO Labs Filmpack 3

The outcome of this has resulted in firstly purchasing the software well within the 31 day trial limit, and secondly - and probably more importantly - I'm now redoing EVERY digital B&W conversion I've done over the last year. The difference is that good; output looks much more like film and for some conversions that I could "never" get right, DxO Filmpack solved.

With no affiliation to DxO, in my opinion, this is the best B&W conversion software on the market today...

Further developments in digital B&W

As a continuation from the previous post, I have been spending a considerable amount of time lately investigating whether or not digital capture can produce B&W images with the tonality of silver halide films - the lack of this characteristic has been the stumbling block for any move to digital for me to date. I am not trying to emulate a specific emulsion although individual attempts are looking like certain film types, although its varied. The caveat here is that I have not, nor have I attempted, to replicate such. My only objective has been to find a workflow that, outside of controlled lighting environments, can give me the tonality I love in traditional films.

As with all images I will post in this discussion, the camera is the Sony Nex 5n. This image above had been my first, what I would call, success in this direction. Given other work I have done previously, I think its very reminiscent of HP5+. The downside was that this outcome took me a long time to achieve. A lot of experimentation, rework and going down numerous unproductive rabbit holes. I was beginning to feel I knew what the basic secret was but not everything so the next was to try and achieve this with some repetition and start to build an end-to-end workflow.

Last weekend I went shooting for 45 minutes in Singapore's Little India on the way home with the Sony. I felt I had a few interesting shots and proceeded to work on them that evening. What follows is the result of structuring a new workflow with a number of shots under some varying circumstances...

As a note, my object in B&W images is not to achieve that high contrast look with blocked up shadow that is common today. I like to see a full tonal range with smooth transitions and good mid-tone separation.

 

The end result of this is that I'm reasonably happy with the output. To my eyes, the tonality is aesthetically as I might expect from traditional B&W, with a tendency to have a more modern look such as a Delta film  - that part I can live with. Although I'm sure it will get tweaked as I keeping working images, I am happy with the results of the new workflow.

In summary, I find digital B&W, with this workflow, usable for a lot of my volume work. However, it still lacks the true tonal qualities of traditional B&W - especially in the larger formats. I will still continue to use and work digital for B&W but my heart remains with film. To that end, I just bought another film camera - a Rolleiflex TLR