RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Aaron’

The $20 film camera challenge part 2: Saved by the Minolta Maxxum 5 – Aaron Gold

19 Sep
Aaron ended up picking up a Minolta Maxxum 5 and 28-80mm kit lens for under $ 20.

Read: The $ 20 film camera challenge part 1: the hunt

A quick recap: In part one (see link above), I proposed a $ 20 film camera challenge, the goal being to find a working film camera for less than twenty bucks, shipping included. The search was fascinating: I found lots of point-and-shoot compacts, several intriguing vintage cameras and a surprising number of autofocus SLRs. I had been trolling the waters of low-end Minoltas and was just about to make an offer on a Maxxum 3xi and a zoom lens, when I saw… the camera.

Too good to be true?

It was a Minolta Maxxum 5, a camera that, quite frankly, I had never heard of. It came with what I assume was its kit lens, a Minolta AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 painted in matching silver. The lens hood was present but the lens cap was missing. The seller was here in the Los Angeles area, so shipping was only six dollars.

Asking price: $ 12 or best offer.

The description didn’t indicate if it was working, just the standard Ebay ‘Used’ boilerplate, which does include the phrase ‘…is fully operational and functions as intended.’ I figured that was my out if the camera turned out to be broken.

The asking and shipping price were already within my $ 20 budget, but I am the son of a used car salesman, so I had to try to do a little better. I sent the seller a $ 10 offer, and it was accepted!

A high-feature camera for a super low price

While waiting for my new cheap camera to arrive, I fired up Google to figure out exactly what I’d just bought. I learned that the Minolta Maxxum 5 came out in late 2001 (well after I’d tuned out the 35mm SLR market, which explains why I’d never heard of it). The Maxxum 5 was part of that market’s last gasp. It sat in the middle of Minolta’s lineup, but the features sure made it look like a high-end camera to me. It was as if Minolta was shoveling every feature they could into their 35mm SLRs as film was on its way out the door. Retail price for the body was $ 403, which is $ 587 in today’s dollars. I wasn’t able to find any contemporary ads, but I imagine at the time, you could get it with the 28-80mm for just a bit more dough.

The Maxxum 5 was part of the 35mm SLR market’s last gasp. It sat in the middle of Minolta’s lineup, but the features sure made it look like high-end

I’ll spare you a laundry list of the Maxxum 5’s features, because it’ll waste too many words and no one will care, but the highlights include 14-segment exposure metering, off-the-film flash metering, 7-point switchable autofocus, and a shutter speed range of 30 sec to 1/4000 sec. It has a depth-of-field preview (yay!), 3-exposure auto-bracketing, and – especially important to me – automatic and manual ISO settings. (I bulk-roll my film, so if the camera has no DX override, I’m stuck.) And the film advances at the lighting-fast rate of three frames per second.

I stopped paying attention to the 35mm SLR market in the late 90s (after all, how could I need anything better than my Canon EOS Rebel 2000?), and frankly I was amazed at the Maxxum 5’s features and configuration options. Cripes, I thought to myself as I skimmed the 127-page manual, who needs a Nikon F100 when you can get one of these?

A sample from the Maxxum 5, shot on Ilford HP5+.

The realities of my sub-$ 20 camera

Two days later, my camera showed up, and it looked brand new. The lens cap was missing, but there was a UV filter installed, and the glass underneath was spotless. It still had batteries and they had just enough juice to turn on the camera on and fire the shutter. Everything seemed to work – but would it take decent pictures?

I loaded up a new pair of CR2 batteries and some film. I started with a roll of deep-discount Ultrafine Xtreme 100, then splurged on a roll of Kodak Ektar, and followed up with my old favorite, Ilford HP5+. It’s worth noting that these three rolls of film together cost more than I paid for the camera.

It’s worth noting that three rolls of film together cost more than I paid for the camera

Shooting with the Maxxum 5 is good fun. The body and lens barrel are made of plastic, as were many SLRs of the era, and the upside is a light weight. With a strap, cap, and no film, it weighs 612g (21.6 oz), a little heavier than my Sony a6000 and quite a bit lighter than my Pentax ME Super. The autofocus is quick and accurate and there’s minimal shutter lag. Aside from the clicks and whirrs of the autofocus and winding motors, the experience wasn’t entirely unlike shooting with my a6000 – no surprise, I suppose, since the Minolta is, technically, the Sony’s not-too-distant ancestor.

But were the photos any good?

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_9270722206″,”galleryId”:”9270722206″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

When I developed my B&W and picked up the color film from the lab, I was rather pleased with the results. I shot primarily in aperture-priority or program mode, and the Minolta’s built-in meter nailed the exposure on pretty much every shot. As for image quality, well, it’s what you would expect from a kit lens: reasonably sharp, but I’ve seen better. Actually, I’ve seen better from other Minolta AF lenses, which are ridiculously cheap – you can get some damn fine Minolta lenses in the $ 10 to $ 40 price range. (I was tempted to fit them to my new Maxxum 5, but that would go against the spirit of the challenge.)

The more I shot with the Maxxum 5, and the deeper I delved into its features, the more I realized that it is, by far, the most comprehensive, feature-rich film camera I own

The more I shot with the Maxxum 5, and the deeper I delved into its features, the more I realized that it is, by far, the most comprehensive, feature-rich film camera I own. Not bad for something that cost me sixteen bucks!

Yes, you can get a great camera for $ 20 – or less

I set out on this little experiment to see if it was possible to find a decent camera for less than $ 20. I was pretty sure the answer would be yes, but I never expected to find such an advanced camera in such good shape. Did I just get lucky? At $ 16, maybe a little. But it only took me a few days of shopping to unearth this gem, and as I speak there are a bunch more Maxxum 5s on eBayfor $ 30 or less. And I have no doubt there are even better bargains to be found.

Who’s going to take the $ 20 Film Camera Challenge next?

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The $20 film camera challenge part 2: Saved by the Minolta Maxxum 5 – Aaron Gold

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The $20 film camera challenge part 1: the hunt – Aaron Gold

21 Aug

Lead image: Dan Bracaglia. All other images: courtesy of Ebay and used with permission.

Not long ago, I was poking through a film camera forum where someone mentioned they were looking to ‘dabble’ in film – and they were about to spend $ 700 on a Leica. I choked on my Mountain Dew, mercifully missing the laptop screen.

$ 700 might be reasonable by digital standards (or perhaps even by Leica standards), but for a 35mm camera it’s a king’s ransom. I’ve been railing against the (mis)conception that film is prohibitively expensive, and one of the pillars of that argument is the low cost of equipment. In today’s film world, you can buy some shockingly good cameras for ridiculously low prices.

I’ve been railing against the (mis)conception that film is prohibitively expensive, and one of the pillars of that argument is the low cost of equipment

Maybe it was time to put my money where my mouth was.

I emailed Dan Bracaglia, my editor at DPReview. ‘Let’s do a $ 20 Film Camera Challenge. We’ll get some DPR staffers and maybe a few prominent film bloggers. Everyone gets a $ 20 budget, including shipping, to buy a working film rig and see what kind of pictures it makes. Whaddaya think?’

‘Great idea,’ Dan wrote back. ‘You go first.’

I know marching orders when I see them, so it was time to fire up eBay and see what I could find.

Option 1: Point and Shoot

I figured my best budget option was a compact point-and-shoot camera, even though I’m not the biggest fan. Not that there’s anything wrong with them – in fact, for those new to film, they highlight a strange tenet: When it comes to film, the quality of the camera has little impact on the quality of the images. It’s the lens, not the guts of the camera, that determines how sharp the image is. That’s why 35mm point-and-shoot cameras were so popular: Even the most inept photographer could get decent results.

If a compact is what you want, the $ 20 camera hunt is both a gold mine and a mine field. There are a trillion of these cameras out there, and aside from a few really advanced models that sell for crazy money (Nikon Ti, Olympus XA, anything from Contax or Leica, and don’t even get me started on the Olympus mju II), you’ll find a lot of them under $ 10 before shipping. Not all are great, but a lot are good.

The Perils of P+S

The problem is that the good point-and-shoot cameras are in the same price range as the really crappy ones. These include “focus free” or “fixed focus” cameras from Argus, Vivitar, LeClic, and even Kodak, Olympus and Minolta. They don’t have a moving lens element, but instead rely on a small aperture to get everything more-or-less in focus. And then there are the plastic-fantastic toy cameras of the sort given away free with magazine subscriptions. They’re the ones that are styled to look like 35mm SLRs but obviously aren’t. They’re good for Lomographers, but not for those who want sharp photos.

I thought seriously about a compact; a cool power-wind P&S might be a nice addition to my collection. But then I realized that I already have one, a weatherproof Pentax Zoom 90WR, that I still haven’t gotten around to trying.

Also, I was starting to realize that $ 20 could buy something even niftier.

Option 2: Let’s go retro!

One of the things I’m eager to add to my collection is an antique 35mm camera, and I was surprised at how many I found in my price range. As a former resident of Rochester, New York, I’ve been keeping half an eye out for an old Kodak, and I found lots that were in or near my price range: Ponys, Signets, Automatics, even a couple of Retinas (though I didn’t expect those to stay under my budget once bidding began). There was a Canon Canonet, advertised as working, though I understand the selenium meter cells go bad and can’t be replaced. I also saw an East German camera called a Beriette for $ 19.99 with free shipping. Several of these classics made my short list.

I couldn’t believe how many beautiful old cameras were available for such cheap prices

Buying a vintage camera takes a bit of legwork, most importantly including research to figure out if there’s an instruction manual available online or on eBay. With shipping taken into account, a lot of the cameras went above my budget – but only by a few bucks. I couldn’t believe how many beautiful old cameras were available for such cheap prices.

Option 3: Go with what I know: the SLR

As my sorted-by-price listings hit the $ 10 range, I started seeing interchangeable-lens single-lens reflex cameras, the kind I know best. I knew I (probably) wasn’t going to score a Nikon FM for twenty bucks, but I saw plenty of lesser-known and less-loved cameras, mostly newer and more automatic, well within my budget. I saw some lovely old Sears cameras, which are really rebadged Ricohs. I also found some real horror shows, like a Pentax MG (above) in ‘like-new’ condition that looked like someone had hacked away at the lens mount with a Dremel tool.

The challenge with cheap SLRs on eBay is that a lot of sellers have separated the camera body from its lens. If I was looking for a body that was compatible with lenses I already owned, hitting my budget would have been ridiculously easy – but the rules Dan and I had established dictated that I must purchase a complete working rig. An SLR isn’t much good without a lens, and matched sets were proving tough to come by.

And then it occurred to me: If the sellers were splitting up cameras and lenses, why couldn’t I do the same thing? By shopping for my camera and lens separately, I might be able to hit my budget.

Minolta to the rescue

I needed a brand with good lenses that sold cheap, and one name kept coming up: Minolta. Back in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, Minolta produced a line of consumer-level plastic-bodied SLRs that they advertised the daylights out of on television. They also had a partnership with Ritz Camera stores, one of which seemed to be installed in every US shopping mall. I already owned a couple of Maxxum cameras, including a 400si I bought for $ 12 as a parts camera that turned out to work perfectly. Minolta’s older AF zooms were great lenses that sold cheap. Could this be my answer?

My prospects for Minolta’s entry-level SLRs looked good. I saw plenty in the $ 10 to $ 15 range, shipping included

My prospects for Minolta’s entry-level SLRs looked good. I was looking at the 300si and QTsi (“Cutsie”), auto-only cameras that are effectively point-and-shoots with detachable lenses, as well as the 3xi which has manual and Av/Tv modes as well. I saw plenty in the $ 10 to $ 15 range, shipping included. Matching lenses, primarily 28-80 and 35-70 zooms, were around the same price. I found a seller – a camera store, as it happened – that had a 3xi for $ 10 and a lens for $ 12, both with free shipping. I was all set to email and ask if they would sell me the two for $ 20, all-in.

But just before I did, I scrolled a little bit farther down, and I found… IT.

The $ 20 camera of my dreams!

It was an SLR with lens, a model I hadn’t heard of, and it wasn’t just a glorified point-and-shoot – in fact, from what I could tell, it had a feature set to rival my Nikon N8008. And it was within in my $ 20 price range. Like, way within in my price range.

I made an offer. That offer was accepted, and my less-than-$ 20 film camera was on its way.

Would it work? Would it be any good? How much did it cost me? And what the hell kind of camera did I buy, anyway? I’ll answer all those questions in part two. Stay tuned!

All Aaron’s $ 20 film camera finds

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_3200359335″,”galleryId”:”3200359335″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The $20 film camera challenge part 1: the hunt – Aaron Gold

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Interview: Aaron DuRall’s surreal self-isolation photos

04 May

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_6761134399″,”galleryId”:”6761134399″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

In an alternate timeline New York-based photographer Aaron DuRall and his partner Whitney DuRall would have been gearing up for their busiest season of the year – wedding season. The couple have been photographing weddings together for eight years and typically make the bulk of their yearly income during Spring and early Summer. Of course, these are not the times we’re living in. Like many independent photographers, as COVID-19 began sweeping through the states, DuRall saw his work drop off quickly.

“We lost about about a third of the year, it’s pretty staggering,” he says.

DuRall, who also specializes in portraiture and documentary work, saw those gigs dry up quickly as well. For the last month DuRall has been isolating at home in his apartment in Ridgewood, Queens, churning out daily photos that are worlds away from the natural documentary style work that he typically creates. We caught up with DuRall over the phone to learn more about the inspiration for the brightly-colored, surreal frames that make up his COVID-19 Self Isolation series.

Tell me how you started your isolation photo project.

We began isolating on Sunday, March 15 and have been at home since. I knew I was going to be cooped up and I needed something to keep me occupied and stretching my brain – keep me busy and creating. I decided I was going to make photos every day, but it’s gone through an evolution.

Initially I thought I would photograph the neighbors when they were outside in their backyard from our back windows, or that I’d photograph from our front windows and capture people on the sidewalks and hanging out on their stoops. I thought I’d use an observational, bird’s eye view and a long lens, then I realized how limiting that would be. I have a view of one backyard and a view of four stoops. How can you photograph the exact same people every single day? Then I decided I’m just going to get weird using the objects that we have at home, and experiment with light, form and the human body.

Aaron DuRall

What is the planning process like for the daily shoots?

I start thinking about what I’m going to do tomorrow as soon as I stop shooting for today. It’s the mindset of ‘I got that idea out there, so what is the next one?’ I’ve been keeping notes in my phone so if an idea comes to me in the middle of the night or while I’m walking around the apartment I put it in my phone. Then I sketch them out in a notepad and figure out how I might enhance the idea through different objects and colors that I have access to in the apartment.

I start thinking about what I’m going to do tomorrow as soon as I stop shooting for today

I’m not going to lie, we lost the bulk of our livelihood for this year with the pandemic—April, May, June and July wiped clean—so I do spend extra time in bed every day. I get out of bed around 11:30, make a coffee and a blueberry waffle with peanut butter, and then come into the space, turn on my music and stare at my backdrop to try and figure out what the idea is going to be and how I’m going to facilitate it.

What’s in your home-studio setup?

Behind the scenes: Aaron’s home studio.

I’ve got a handful of seamless paper, some poster boards, a variety of gels and then just a bunch of silly props. For lights I’ve got two Alienbees B800s and a Canon 430EX speedlight. My camera is a Canon 5D Mark III.

During weddings you and your partner Whit are typically shooting alongside each other, what has her role been in these shoots while the two of you are quarantined at home?

Some days I make a photo 100 percent by myself and I won’t need help, but there are other concepts where I need to have her involved. I would say 70 percent of the time she is involved, sometimes that means being the subject of the picture, other times it’s having her flag lights, or even press the shutter for me. Whit’s usually sitting in the living room reading a book or working on emails while I’m in the office tinkering. The process has typically been when I’m at a point where I need her help with something she will pop in. I try to make it a quick process and not hold her hostage with this stuff.

Early on, day four or five of isolation I decided to light my hand on fire

A big part of what she is doing is sitting in as my subject. She’s very comfortable in front of the camera, awesome at taking direction and is great at helping me give these images that final pop. I’m lucky that Whit is super patient, and will generally participate in any of the ideas I have – there have been some moments that she hasn’t been too thrilled.

I’ve cut it from the series at this point, but early on, day four or five of isolation I decided to light my hand on fire – she wasn’t stoked on that for obvious reasons. You take the best precautions that you can, and there is a process to doing it as safely as possible, but she obviously wasn’t too thrilled about setting me ablaze inside of our apartment – which is very reasonable. She’s been really supportive, whether she is involved in the shoot or not.

Aaron DuRall

What is the post-processing process like for you?

It’s gotten more involved as the project has gone on. I was never big on post-cleanup and retouching, but I’m actually starting to enjoy it. These were skills that I didn’t have the best grip on going into isolation, and when I come out of this situation I feel like I’m going to have a lot more skills that are applicable to my freelance career.

Some of it is simple: removing artifacts from the backdrop and making sure that it has a consistent smooth look. The Invisible Man photo required a lot of compositing. I had to mask myself out of that and then I had to take additional photos of the inside of the collar of my shirt, the inside of my sleeves, the insides of my shoes and my beanie so that when I inevitably erased myself from this photo those things would be filled in and it would look authentic.

It’s been more post-processing than I’m used to, but I’m not mad about it. These projects are taking up a good amount of my day. I wake up, I spend a couple of hours tinkering, I spend about an hour shooting it and then I’ll spend about two hours retouching and editing.

I’ve felt like I’ve broken out of a shell and have started creating work that is so far from the body of work that I generally live within

What have some of your favorites from the series been so far?

I feel like each new day provides a new favorite, honestly. The ones that appeal to me the most are the ones that have some kind of erotic or sexual connotation to them. I’m primarily a portrait and documentary photographer, and so this has been really exciting, creatively speaking. I’ve felt like I’ve broken out of a shell and have started creating work that is so far from the body of work that I generally live within. Lots of color, lots of punch, lots of heavy shadows. These are things that I never really did before. I love them all, but I’m drawn most to the ones that have a subversive and sexual feel to them.

Why was it important for you to take such a different approach with this project?

I could have gone into this and taken a documentary approach, I did at first, but I think everyone is acutely aware of how scary this situation is – at least in New York. I would rather create an escape and give people a distraction from this, as opposed to creating something somber that is predicated on the weight of this moment.

I think it’s been great for my mental well-being, has kept me focused and kept me optimistic. Based on the feedback I’ve been getting online, it appears that this work is something that other people enjoy as well, and that’s the cherry on top for me. I make this work to make myself feel better, and if it’s somehow making someone else feel better that’s cool and I am lucky for that.

Aaron DuRall

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Interview: Aaron DuRall’s surreal self-isolation photos

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Blair Bunting on photographing Aaron Hernandez on the same day he shot someone

26 Jan
A behind-the-scenes photograph of Blair Bunting capturing a shot of the late New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez.

Editor’s note: Blair Bunting is an award-winning advertising photographer who’s no stranger to being in front of high-profile cars, characters and celebrities. From eight-figure cars to professional athletes at the top of their game, Blair has done it all, but one shoot, in particular, stands out for all the wrong reasons. In the following post, Blair details his experience photographing the late New England Patriots football star, Aaron Hernandez, fewer than 24 hours after the former New England tight end committed murder on February 13th, 2013.

I am writing this after getting a torrent of texts from friends and family who have been watching the documentary Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez on Netflix. It turns out I’m in it… an image of me on set with Aaron appears in the second episode.

My first reaction was a bit of anger as I never licensed any images from that shoot (hey Netflix, call me maybe), but as that passed it eventually got me thinking about the day I spent on set with Aaron… the same day he shot someone.

Diving into the mind of another man is enough to make one lose his own. My photoshoot with Aaron Hernandez left me questioning what lies behind the eyes of the subjects who stand before my camera.

My many years of photographing celebrities have led to great experiences and friendships, but this one photoshoot made me question my own mental depth and acuity when it came to the very people that I work so hard to learn about, only to exist until the last shutter closes.

The photoshoot with Aaron took place on the final day of a week-long campaign that I was shooting for a sports client. We had professional athletes from the NBA, MLB and NFL in the studio all day. For me I wanted nothing more than to keep up the quality of the lighting on set through the final athlete, wrap, and then take my wife to Hawaii—the next day was Valentine’s Day.

It had been a long production: through pre-pro meetings, lighting days, scouting and client dinners, mentally I was exhausted and internally I was begging for relief from the pressure that I enjoy so much.

When Aaron Hernandez first entered the studio, I was wearing the jersey and shoulder pads of Clay Matthews (the athlete that preceded Aaron), a Chicago Cubs batting helmet, and drinking a Stella Artois. Perhaps understanding the light-heartedness that I carry on set, he immediately smiled and started laughing. I introduced myself, shook his hand and we started talking pleasantries: how’s the weather, what’s your new house like, how has your day been?

The final question and answer haunt me to this day….

“How has your day been?” I asked.

“Good,” he replied, along with a calm, childlike smile.

Hours earlier, he had shot a man in the head.

Having gone through mental health struggles in the past, the idea of not knowing the mind behind one’s eyes is familiar to me, but the level to which Aaron was able to keep it hidden still frightens me to this day.

As I sit here typing this years later, I still have to pause for a moment in order to digest the gravity of the situation. Having gone through mental health struggles in the past, the idea of not knowing the mind behind one’s eyes is familiar to me, but the level to which Aaron was able to keep it hidden still frightens me to this day.

Upon hearing the news, the people on my crew that day were in shock and disbelief that such a sweet kid could have done such a horrible thing, but as time went on and the details became clearer, we accepted it despite the confusion.

In an odd way, it left me with a dilemma: how do I describe Aaron Hernandez?

I can only describe him with lights and a camera—the truth that existed within him will never play out on set.

As portrait photographers, we are challenged to expose the true nature of the person that stands in front of our camera: be it angry, shy, calm, or intense. However, photographing Aaron Hernandez has taught me a lot about my approach, what I thought existed within the frame lines, and what a camera can never truly capture.

Often times photographers are celebrated for a reaction or expression they’re able to draw out of their subjects (think of Karsh’s iconic image of Winston Churchill). It’s a romantic notion that the photographer is a sort of snake charmer, the subject a willingly controlled entity—together, they make up an act that ends in a great image.

I feel this approach sells the celebrity or model short; a successful photo shoot is the result of the collaborative effort of everyone on set, subject (obviously) included.

What Aaron Hernandez taught me is that all the lights in the world could not illuminate the darkness that lived within his mind.

While he and I worked together very well to get the images that the client wanted, we were merely playing the roles that were asked of us, in a dance that benefits the choreographer more than the dancer. It’s a part of this career where form and light matter more than discovery and truth, where we are not trying to learn anything about the athlete, but rather speak through them for the client’s cause.

On set, if I feel like the shoot has gone well and the images are in the bag, I will sometimes offer my subjects the option to shoot a few frames for fun. Aaron was game, he had seen an image in my portfolio of a football player holing a ball in a profile stance and wanted to have one like it for himself.

We drew the lights and smoke machine and created this image of him in a calm, subtle, almost stoic stance. He was excited about how the pose showed off his tattoos, which seemed to mean a lot to him.

I knew that turning an action light set into an impromptu portrait session wouldn’t be as dynamic a shot as I wanted, but when I got home and looked through the files, it wasn’t the lighting that disturbed me, it was his eyes.

The images we created on set that day were packed with intense expression and focus… the portrait that he asked for was absent of this. It was absent of emotion, of life, almost as if the personality of the young kid with the smiles and laughs had left and what remained was cold and unfeeling.

The images we created on set that day were packed with intense expression and focus… the portrait that he asked for was absent of this. It was absent of emotion, of life, almost as if the personality of the young kid with the smiles and laughs had left and what remained was cold and unfeeling. Maybe this was a result of him being tired, or the difference of direction. But part of me wonders what he was thinking about as the huge light source in front of him popped at full power, probably blinding him, as I could barely see after setting up the softboxes.

We will never know.

Before breaking down set, Aaron asked me about one more shot. I pitched him a few crazy action scenarios (after all, it was the style of set we had that day), but what he wanted was a straight to camera portrait… without his helmet on.

This was the last frame I shot that day, and the last shot of him before the world learned of his dark secret.

I have never shown this image to anybody. Until today, I had chosen not to talk about the situation for many years. But with the recent release of the Netflix documentary about Aaron, and my unsolicited cameo, I found myself watching and wondering what could have been. Hoping, more than anything, that his tragic fall from grace could save someone in his shoes.

This post was written by Blair Bunting and was originally shared on PetaPixel. It was republished here with permission from both parties. Blair is based in Phoenix, Arizona and his work can be found on his website, blog, Instagram and Twitter.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Blair Bunting on photographing Aaron Hernandez on the same day he shot someone

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Out of the shadows: Aaron Draper discusses ‘Underexposed’

23 Jan

We introduced Aaron Draper’s project ‘Underexposed’ a little while back. In case you missed it, Draper has made a project of taking stylized portraits of individuals experiencing homelessness, aiming to help others literally see them in a new light. Filmmaker Eric Becker sat down with him at PIX 2015 to talk in depth about the project – how it came about, what the critical reaction has been to it and how Draper earns the trust of his subjects. Find out how the project came together.

See more videos from PIX 2105

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Out of the shadows: Aaron Draper discusses ‘Underexposed’

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Countdown to PIX 2015: Aaron Draper and Underexposed

28 Sep

With just over a week until PIX 2015, we’re taking the opportunity to introduce you to some of our talented re:FRAME speakers. A former features editor at a daily newspaper, Aaron Draper’s passion for lighting is evident from his ‘Underexposed’ photo series. Read more

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Countdown to PIX 2015: Aaron Draper and Underexposed

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Countdown to PIX 2015: Aaron Huey and his son Hawkeye

25 Sep

With PIX 2015 right around the corner, we’re taking the opportunity to introduce you to some of our inspiring re:FRAME speakers. Aaron Huey is a National Geographic photographer whose favorite gig is playing photo assistant to his talented 5-year-old son, Hawkeye Huey. Read more

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Countdown to PIX 2015: Aaron Huey and his son Hawkeye

Posted in Uncategorized