Is Majoli shooting with a Holga now?

tomasis said:
majoli works remind me more of henri cartier bresson. those photos are more photo journalistic type but he add a bit "art" touch to pictures compared to bresson. I like that way he does. I feel those images are more dramatic than ones of bresson. it seems so that majoli use some burn and dodge. Holga? I dont believe because all images look sharp for me :D it is maybe LEica :)
Click to expand...

Nope...he's using Olympus C-8080 and C-5050 "prosumer" digital cameras. The "flare/glare" people are referring to in his photos is likely the result plain old highlight blowout, sometimes rather severe. For most of the images, this doesn't get in the way of their power; in a few instances, it possibly enhances same.


- Barrett
 
From what I've read, he hasn't used C8080's and 5050's in several years. His use of them in 2003 seems to live on in websites and forums. He uses DSLR's, more modern P&S digital cameras, and has been spotted with both Hexar AF and RF cameras. From the photos over the last few years - and there are many very fine photos - it appears he uses a variety of equipment.

This work, though, IMHO, isn't some of his best work.
 
Ray Nalley said:
From what I've read, he hasn't used C8080's and 5050's in several years. His use of them in 2003 seems to live on in websites and forums. He uses DSLR's, more modern P&S digital cameras, and has been spotted with both Hexar AF and RF cameras. From the photos over the last few years - and there are many very fine photos - it appears he uses a variety of equipment.
Click to expand...
Ray: thanks for the update.

Hexars? Shooting a bit o' film? The man does get around, in more ways than one.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
yay Hexar. it is RF anyway. I did read somewhere that Majoli longed back to use a Leica M but I dont know what he thinks about M8 if he had work with digital? Maybe it is too expensive for a Magnum photog? haha. It doesnt matter (equipment) as many said in many millions threads in million times :)
 
Last edited:
one of the things I really like about majoli's body of work is that he is very dynamic and liquid with his compositional elements, he obviously has a command of light in the situation and is previsualizing his picture in his head in a slightly abstract/artisic manor which is something you will find common to many magnum photographers. I think that a couple people here have no grasp of what it takes to have your work judged and I mean truely judged by the establisted organizations like this and be recognized as a true master of what you do, I know I would not be rushing out to show my pictures to magnum...to really be in a place as a photographer who mentally is content to be exposed like that is far from the understanding of many people here and that is perfectly fine because it does not have to be nor is everyone here a pro.
 
Last edited:
tomasis said:
yay Hexar. it is RF anyway. I did read somewhere that Majoli longed back to use a Leica M but I dont know what he thinks about M8 if he had work with digital? Maybe it is too expensive for a Magnum photog? haha. It doesnt matter (equipment) as many said in many millions threads in million times :)
Click to expand...
Majoli mentioned "longing" for cameras like the Leica M and Olympus OM-1, which I suppose was a hint that he wasn't finished with film just yet, though he also mentioned his dream camera as a very compact, high-spec digital with really small, fixed focal-length, interchangeable lenses (Olympus, you guys getting this down finally?). But I really do grok his attraction (however brief) to those C-series Olympus digicams; they truly are special in what I regard a sea of ho-hum dSLRs and interesting but technically-kneecapped "prosumer" digitals. The digital camera that could make me ditch film for good hasn't materialized yet. But that C-8080 will certainly stay in rotation alongside my Hexars, and that's high enough praise.


- Barrett
 
Nh3 said:
He goes to one of the most dangerous places in the world and yet takes artsy blurry nonsensical bs pictures with flare and other nonsense.

The pretentiousness and magnum bloat also has its limits.
Click to expand...

IIRC you put up a shot of downtown Toronto a while ago. Some people provided commentary. You didn't like it. Why do you think people would like your caustic commentary of a photographer who is not around to respond.

Perhaps part of the problem here is this particular portion of this thread that I find in bad taste and inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to submit your work to a forum elsewhere on the net and never be able to respond as people slagged your work in a similar fashion. Just a thought and my 2 cents.
 
Certainly late to commenting on this thread, but after suffering all 68 images I felt a need to comment.

I think the set is very pedestrian, both in individual composition and any artsy approach. I dont buy the line that its dangerous so therefore you should be happy with anything the photographer gets. I know its dangerous; Ive had time photographing in Pakistan a couple of years ago so Im more than aware of that aspect. However, these photographers make their name going into conflict zones so I expect to see great images - this is what they choose to do!

On another (sort of similar) topic; A coffee table photo book on contemporary Thailand, put together for the 80th birthday of the King of Thailand, was published early last year called "Nine Days in the Kingdom" representing the works of some leading 55 international photographers, including the likes of Steve McCurry.

I recently spent quite some time going through the imagery in this book and again found myself highly disappointed (I was actually interesting in buying it). The statistics on the project indicated over 107,000 images were shot with only 425 chosen for the publication. Thats a less than an 0.4% keeper rate and for the photographers involved I would have just expected much better work. I have no idea about the selection process involved nor the impact of the publisher but that doesnt detract from what I would still consider another disappointment.

Collections of really good/ inspirational/ impacting photographic work seems to be getting harder to find lately...
 
I found this series by Majoli fascinating.

Maybe the problem is that some people have a too rigid and formulaic concept about how a photograph should look like.

Some photographers convey the impression of technical excellence, but this in turn can easily distract from the subject itself, i.e. this technical excellence can form a veil between the viewer and subject. Suddenly you don't see the subject anymore but a "beautiful picture".

What I see in some of contemporary documentary photography (e.g. by Majoli, Pellegrin, Anderson et.al) is an effort to tear apart that veil.
 
Last edited:
No doubt that Majoli is a brave guy and he is to be admired for having the nerve and skill to work in dangerous locations and come back alive.

But frankly I've never been impressed with him as a photographer. Composition is not his strength and I'm often left wanting for the decisive moment or an intimacy with his subject. His pictures lack focus and often struggle to sum up the story or event in a single frame.

Nachtwey, Christopher Morris, Gary Knight etc of VII and several of the other Magnum members, who do hard news are better in this respect.
 
If I, an unknown, had posted these same images to the gallery, would the same posters praising them have given me the same response?

Likely not.
 
Ray Nalley said:
If I, an unknown, had posted these same images to the gallery, would the same posters praising them have given me the same response?

Likely not.
Click to expand...

Aren't his images looked at by experienced and critical editors? People who have a dense and comprehensive knowledge of the history of photojournalism and documentary photography? Perhaps not anymore as some have opined, but this particular photographer is part of a particular group that signifies his images worthy of attention to me and thus changes the way I will look at them. I like most of the images, but I will not pretend to understand the content. I do trust that Magnum knows what they are doing, and that choice will decide whether one studies or dismissed the images.
 
Nh3 said:
He goes to one of the most dangerous places in the world and yet takes artsy blurry nonsensical bs pictures with flare and other nonsense.

The pretentiousness and magnum bloat also has its limits.
Click to expand...

Ah ... glad to have discovered the authority on pretentiousness.

Ray Nalley said:
It's an interesting direction Magnum is moving in if this is so. Never thought I would see Magnum become a mecca for "art" photographers.
Click to expand...
Uh, the very nature of Magnum means there is no "corporate direction". I acknowledge that it is a possibility that a trend among a number of Magnum photographers could be developed, that would be the extent of it.

Nh3 said:
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.

The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.

Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
Click to expand...

That's just silly, IMO.

Nh3 said:
Photography is a craft, and these days a technology which helps us capture what is visible to our eyes.

That is the essence of photography.


Everything else associated to photography from art to science is secondary.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for totally changing my aesthetic. You talk about "discussion" and "disagreement", but you have stated that "Photography is" [emphasis mine], not "My view is", or "I feel". It might be a benefit to loosen or expand your vision up a bit.

BTW, some of this series of Majoli's work are great because they evoke a deep response in me. And make me think. Thank God they are not simply mechanical craft. Am I wrong? If so, come to the GTA meet next month and educate me as to why.
 
I don't know. I think only the viewer can determine what is art. I've never considered myself an artist. I've been shooting photos a very long time. I've always considered myself a technician rather than an artist and have consistently told people that. But many people say to me that what I produce is art (and buy it as such). I insist they are wrong, that I'm technically competent rather than creatively so. Yet they still label it art. I have no control over how it is received or labeled. So I don't determine whether my photography is art or not. The people who view it do. YMMV
 
My photography is simple and unartistic but my posts in this forum are dazzling works of art because people can't seem to let them die away and they always resurrect old threads and quote me of all the other people.

:angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top