Sydney Photo Fest

We are working around the clock to make this happen. This being an exhibit of the recently photographed ONE NIGHT IN RIO and the book/portfolio to launch simultaneous.  I will probably be here in my NY loft night and day for three weeks . Sequencing, choosing paper stock, size, interplay between photos etc etc.

The RIO book/portfolio is going to be unique. Unbound, unfettered, interactive. The limited edition will have an archival print and comes in a hand crafted box made in Rio. Finely printed by the best in Italy. For those of you interested in the special edition of this  book please contact me directly:

If you are anywhere near Australia in May or have been thinking of an Australia adventure, now is the time. The HeadOn Photo Festival is going to be buzzing. There are  many great exhibitions including a very special exhibition of BURN 02. Our very own Imants Krummins is going to be mounting a small exhibition of his students in Sydney. I will be doing a one week photo essay class at Bondi Beach. Anyway, check it all out. We will keep you updated on additions to this program.


147 Responses to “Sydney Photo Fest”

  • Last year investing in art beat stock investments. Seems that the special edition Rio is the way to go!,9171,2104838,00.html

  • 2011 finished with a bang, 2012 starts with a bang!! Can’t wait!

  • Its never too early to start researching for the Bondi workshop……

    Seems like a good place for a cold one !

  • Dave – fly in through Darwin and road trip down to Sydney…you know it makes sense!
    I’d love to see an essay on the rare and endangered fish, the Blind Mullett, which used to be everywhere off the east coast.

    Take it from our Prime Minister

  • Wish I could be in Sydney at that time. Looks great. Imantz student exhibit would be fun to see, too.

  • Building a extension to the Tassie pickers hut……. a view from the throne ……

  • Imants,

    That looks like Egg Island down the Huon…

  • Yea that it is a click or two south of Franklin

  • a civilian-mass audience

    I told you my AUSSIES…we are coming over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    dammnit..we are good:)!

  • Yay! So its official you are making it to this side of the world!

    I am having a show that opens at Index Gallery on May 5th… Buddha’s Birthday and I reckon an after party to the Head On Portrait Prize and your launch David…

    Would love you to come to the opening…

    I have told everyone in town that you are the Human Conga Line so for them to get prepared to par-tee!

    Glad you are coming to Bondi… the only place to be in Sydney… I will be loving to see the results of that workshop…

    And I am so happy that used this image for the poster. I loved it when I saw it on Facebook but now its bigger on my screen it looks even better.

    Big Excitement Sydney! Can’t wait!!!!


    actually yes…the inquiries i am getting on this will make it gone almost before it exists…each box/book will be different..i am really going for the hand crafted one of a kind look feel yet the subject is a dream not pretentious casual autobiographical yet about us all….


    oh you KNOW we are going to have a time!! congrats on your show…and of course i will be there for you…


    working out nicely for our reunion in Oz it seems…really looking forward…you have new work?? slasher is back!!


    send me soonest link to a 20-30 picture slide show w audio …you have such a thing?


    no worries…your kids #1 thing i would wish from you…yet i am trying to get everyone a spot…

  • ¡¡ǝʌoן oʇ ʇou ʇɐɥʍ

    ɹǝpunuʍop ɥɐp
    ɹǝpunuʍop uɹnq

  • Email sent.
    Reserving mine before it’s too late!

  • SAM!!! :)))))

    (I do remember I owe you an answer, just arrived back home, will write tomorrow, promise!)

  • And that’s just the beginning!!!No doubt it’ll be the best time: emotional, funny, Burnians. So many exciting things to come
    And Imants …we’ll all be looking forward for your students exhibition. Im sure ,based on their teacher, they’ll bring a great creative original show

  • hey everyone, i have a tech question…i just printed at home a 40×60 inch ink jet print of the picture on this post…from the GF1…..shot in super bright sunlight at iso 800…everybody knows that camera is no good past iso 400..i usually make that camera an iso 100 camera….most of my upcoming piece in NatGeo on OBX was shot on the GF1 at 100…so why was i shooting on the beach at 800? because it was the only way i could get this look…i tried every white balance w the Nikon and every iso number, but only the GF1 gave me this look..ok sure somebody could have made it look like whatever they want w Photoshop…but i do not know how to use photoshop, i am in in camera type…film shooter…anyway, my question is: why is this photo so so grainless?? it looks like i shot it at 100. is it just the bright sunlight aspect? anyway, nice 60×40 from a point and shoot camera set on the “wrong” iso…

  • David; probably because it was shot in bright light. My D300 seems to produce lower “noise” (at high iso’s) in brighter light than in the dark. I accidentally shot some images at 1000iso a little while ago on a bright sunny day; they were no where near as “noisy” as 1000 in the dark.

  • Noise is always much more prominent and obvious in shadows.

  • David, I suspect Ross is right. I would think you would still have a lot of noise in the shadows with that ISO, unless they just went to black in the bright sun and you shot it like a chrome.

    BTW, just submitted a link to an essay. Just so there is no confusion, I thought this might make a nice short intermission from more serious work. Not sure if there is any interest in that but I figured Burn can still have a little fun :))

  • David download the latest beta lightroom 4 (free for a little while) and use their grain filter, plus the new highlight/shadow sliders are a great addition as you can force a bit of noise with the highlights slider. Get someone to show you lightroom you will be an ace in less than 2 hours as long as you learn only what you need……

  • David

    I’ll second and third the view that the apparent lack of grain stems from shooting in
    bright and even light. If you’re original RAW was exposed towards the ‘over-exposed’ side of
    the scale then that would also benefit grain presence.
    Shooting in daylight vs. artificial light also could be a contributing factor. As I understand it,
    certain artificial light sources clip different parts of the spectrum effectively forcing the camera or software to ‘push’ the compromised portion increasing noise.

    That said, I bet this pic would look great with a fake border :)

  • You could send a image to someone via the wwwdot world and they can have a play, just send another with the desired result.

  • I think it’s also a function of shutter speed. The longer the pixels are waiting for photons to hit in the dark, the more they start screaming for their food. Was the image shot at a high speed?

  • i accidentally shot photos on ISO 2500 (at the beach, ) in an M8 (1/8000 sec)( anything over 640 a big no, no…)and everything came out pretty cool….i think i’ll repeat that “accidental settings” again soon though..loved it!

  • “why is this photo so so grainless?? it looks like i shot it at 100. is it just the bright sunlight aspect? anyway, nice 60×40 from a point and shoot camera set on the “wrong” iso…”

    I know it was not intended, but man that is one great advert for Panasonic! Ha-ha!

  • DAVID,

    there is no grain in electronic photography. It is called noise and comes from the signal gain in low signal environments. i.e. if there is low light, it has to be boosted and that creates the noise, because everything is put to a higher level, signal-wise. Noise in electronic photography is usually colored, which makes picture s look bad. Using high ISO in bright environments therefore brings you always to the safe side with a digital camera.

  • David,

    You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir!

    Thanks so much for saying you will be there for me…

    Thats like music to my ears, being having a rather rough trot lately (a couple of years in fact) and just when I thought it was never going to get better I saw your kind words…

    Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou and I will absolutely make sure the red carpet is rolled out for you on this one! (And if I can arrange it maybe we can get you the ‘Keys to the City’ as well…hehehehe…)

    Cheers and thankyou so much…

    The tech question? I would have no idea! I just love the shot and the colours…

  • thomas ….many thanks for the info …….

  • many thanks for the tech answers …i take heed…

    seems like a combo of stuff…fast shutter speed in very hot flat no shadow light and over exposure to begin with all helped to make this a no noise picture even with the small sensor and a very high iso for this particular camera…

    the other thing i just could not figure out was why i could not get this result with the D700…no matter what i did , the D700 would not give me this look…yes, yes i am sure Photoshop would change that in a nanosecond (yes?) but for right out of the camera zero manipulation , the GF1 gave me the look i wanted…NO I AM NOT SELLING PANASONIC….never met a single soul at that company….i bought my GF1 just like everyone else…and for the record the D700 is the most amazing workhorse camera i have had….

  • As far as exposure goes, forget photoshop, get it right in camera, just as you always have. Photoshop is like a darkroom. You can get creative there, but if you don’t have the info to work with, your options are limited. Fixing mistakes is very time consuming and often not entirely successful.

  • DAVID,

    I assume the D700 gave you more saturated colors and a more weighted exposure.
    Not sure, but my assumption is that it goes with the quality of the chip, where none of the chips are bad, however, the processors in the Nikon Chip work differently as the Panasonic, and we have to understand the signal processing in this very bright / high iso environment is at its limits. (as you can also see with the white spots), I could imagine, the Nikon has some power limiters built in to avoid “blinding” of the pixels by submitting too much light to them. (This is only half-knowledge, someone with a deeper knowledge of electronics certainly can explain this much better)

  • Numbers are everywhere these days, usually very large numbers meant to impress the heck out of us, and to tell the truth, a good many people do find big numbers impressive. I don’t think too many people would think much of McDonalds if their signs said hundred served or thousands served or a couple of guys from Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey showed up last Wednesday for a burger and some fries and argued about whether or not they wanted to get a vanilla or a chocolate shake with that. No, we want to see the billions and billions served sign outside under the golden arches, as if the late Carl Sagan was the founder and leading shill for the fast food giant and there was a Big Mac for every star in the cosmos.

    Once upon a time in America, McDonalds’ signs would actually tell you how many burgers they’d served. There’d be two billion one year and four billion the next year and so on and so forth, until the total number of served burgers exceeded the total population of the planet Earth by a factor of about a dozen or so. They stopped giving a specific number after that, because if it’s clear that everyone on Earth should have gotten at least one burger by now and they haven’t gotten it, then it’s equally clear, given the evidence available at my local Wal-Mart every Saturday afternoon, that a whole lot of people in this neck of the woods and maybe elsewhere as well have gone back for seconds and thirds and maybe a couple orders of super-sized French fries as well.

    Other numbers try to deceive us, while others do their level best to scare us silly. The Russian writer Vassily Aksyonov once wrote that Americans are in love with horrifying statistics, the scarier the better. There is a book, the Statistical Abstract of the United States, which is so full of horrifying statistics that I am surprised it is not permanently number one on the New York Times bestseller list. The book gives the number of annual homicides and the ten leading causes of death in the United States and the number of illegitimate births and just how many alcoholics and diabetics and broken homes and the numbers on so many varieties of social dysfunction that reading it is guaranteed to keep you up to all hours of the night wondering what’s going to come first, hell or the hand basket. In fact, with so much social dysfunction going on from one end of our great republic to the other, it is amazing that anyone can call the average American family average anymore, since the last twelve people this description applies to will, no doubt, shortly wind up on a television talk show trying to explain the odd behavior of average people to millions of uncomprehending viewers.

    Prices are another set of deceptive numbers, but we are usually all too willing to go along with them, although most people are loath to admit it. We want the deception; we know the seller is lying to us, he knows that we know he is lying, and we all pretend otherwise. The only reason that the whatever it is you want and shouldn’t buy with the kids’ lunch money is priced at $99.99 is that you want to tell yourself later that you got it for less than a hundred dollars, thereby negating the very loud and voluble complaints of whoever it is that’s going to hit the roof when you tell them that little Johnny is going to have to beat up some smaller kid for their money or do without lunch this week. The deception here suits the buyer just fine for the time being. Regrets will come later when the bill arrives and the warranty on the whatever it is he bought runs out, which usually occurs simultaneously, something that doesn’t happen in nature very often.

    Part of the problem with the barrage of numbers we face these days is that it takes a truly staggering number to get our attention anymore, and numbers that big have a problem of their own: people tend to tune them out after the first two or three times they hear them. That’s because all such numbers tend to be even numbers, and even numbers are inherently less believable than odd numbers. I’ve seen any number of hucksters claim that they’ve changed tens of thousands of lives with whatever it is they’re selling and that you too, for the paltry sum of $49.99 can join this happy horde of unspecified tens of thousands as well. These guys seldom do well and after a few years of beating their heads against the wall quit the racket entirely and go into another, better paying field of criminal endeavor like loansharking or politics. There is a simple explanation for their failure: even the most unintelligent of potential suckers sees in the invocation of the unspecified tens of thousands something of the slippery and therefore the phony. No one believes this con artist because no one believes his even numbers. But how much closer to getting your money would this guy be if instead of some incredibly vague even number he could look you straight in the eye and say that you too could have entire life changed, just as the 267,439 other people who’ve had their lives and their bank balances changed by him and the whatever flummery / pie in the sky / swampland in Florida / week old fish he is peddling this week.

    The odd / even number conundrum is known to science, who regrets ever meeting the conundrum or loaning him that money to get his car repaired. During the nineteenth century, members of a British surveying team calculated that Mount Everest stood exactly 29,000 feet high. Confronted with the unlikelihood that anyone would believe such a round and even number, the members of the surveying team added another couple of feet onto the mountain so no one would question their calculations. But this false standard could not stand forever, not in the face of modern science. The Himalayas are young pups by mountain standards, only a few million years old at most, a product of India’s having one too many on a Saturday night and colliding with Asia out in the parking lot. In 1999, the National Geographic Society and some organization from Boston that wasn’t the Red Sox recalculated Everest’s height as 29,035 feet, which only goes to show you the extrordinary effect good nutrition and clean living will have on a growing boy. The wise and numerate reader will no doubt have noticed by now that the new height is neither unbelievably round or suspiciously even, but is rather a completely odd number, and therefore worthy of our respect as the acme of geological and topographical truth.

  • “They stopped giving a specific number after that, because if it’s clear that everyone on Earth should have gotten at least one burger by now and IF they haven’t gotten it…”

    must learn to proofread, dammit…

  • AKAKY,

    Welcome back, my man!!!

  • Postcard From Texas: What Happens When One Photographer Goes Right, One Goes Left

  • Glenn Campbell

    I loved the video clip “Homelands”.

  • PANOS:

    Hopefully you have seen my email from yesterday. Please let me know what’s happening.


    Justin P

  • Akaky,, you should be syndicated. :)

  • a civilian-mass audience

    Hello BURNIANS…I am working hard…I wanna make it to Sydney!!!

    AUSSIES…what did I tell you ASSIES…we are coming over!

    AKAKIE…I broke my reading glasses…BUT when I say the lengthy post…I said to myself
    BOBBY or AKKAKYYY is back…oime

    SAMMY…What not to love ,amigi…WHAT NOT TO LOVE…

    break the rules…the answer to MR.HARVEY’S tech question= Break the rules!:))))))))

    be back…JOHNYG…You can sing now…or later or whenever…Viva!

  • a civilian-mass audience

    read proof…proof read…not my strong point:))))))))))))))))))

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.