Shoot the ones you love - or love the ones you shoot

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got an interesting response on some photos that made me realize that photos often show what the photographer think of the people he shoots - or what he thinks of life in genereal.

 

Of course there is an interplay between phoptographer and subject. But then there is both the subject and the photogapher in it. And a photo is basically the photographers communication and not the subjects. Chances that a great photographer can make a dull actor look fantastic seems greater than a great actor can become looking fantastic and alive in a photo made by a lousy and dull photograper.

 

So look at celebrity photos and you can almost feel how the photographer is a gret admirer. Or that the chemistry between the photographer and subject is perfect. Or that the photographer does not give a s... but is counting the money he will get by selling the shot (lots of those red carpet shots look like that).

 

And of course "para-ratzi'es" (great expression I learned recently for paparazi photographers) often show their subjects in a really bad way. Funny, as they have chosen a profession where they covertly display their subjects in situations harming the subjecs esteem. A business where you are selling others rather than making photos.

 

Anyway, I think it's an intesting thought. Play with it and you will see more than the usual thousand words in photos in the coming days.

[Guest stnami]

"Chances that a great photographer can make a dull actor look fantastic seems greater than a great actor can become looking fantastic and alive in a photo made by a lousy and dull photograper"

But you can't beat photoshop in this game of pretend and.........

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[derek_stanton]

I half-remember a quote about Avedon...something to the effect that 'a photograph by Avedon is really a photograph OF Avedon.' I've always been conscious of this as i believe it applies to me, as well. I really do want to depict the world in a romanticized manner. I look for scenes that might be from other times - the 20s-60s, in particular. It's not that i want the world to look 'perfect and sanitized and clean.' My version of romance comes from both b+w films and from classic/vintage photography. For example - i'm hoping to visit Guatemala soon, because it still looks like 1940 there....

 

Perhaps this is a contradiction, but i really do not care for the work of David LaChappelle. All of his images really are about 'him,' as well, but i do not see ANY of the subject within. There's so much 'fantasy,' effects, makeup, staging, and set design involved, that i think the essence of the subject is almost invariably lost. But, he's among the most successful celebrity photographers of this era. Go figure.

 

I do believe it helps to have an admiration of the subject matter - still or living. But, it's not really necessary. Some of the best fashion photographers have no interest in fashion. They approach image-making on its own terms. All about composition, and nothing about clothes, per se. Which brings me back to my feelings about Cartier-Bresson. I never see any warmth or feeling toward his human subject matter. For him, it's all about geometry and compositional tools. The people in his pictures are there to serve another purpose. But, again, another successful photographer.

 

Which, brings me to my 'conclusion.' I really don't KNOW anything.

[mgcd]

This is an interesting topic. To some extent the image is as much about how the photographer sees the world as it can be about the subject. As such, we are mindful of this paradigm in photojournalism and, when discussing ethics with "J" school undergrad or grad students it always makes for a good discussion. In this case, the caveat is "we're not artists, we're visual journalists, it's not about you, it's about being the eyes and ears of our readership.". In this tradition, we strive to be as neutral as possible, although as human beings we still interpret what we see through our own filters, hence the constant challenge.

[firoze]

A very thought-provoking topic, Thorsten, I'm glad you brought it up.

 

To a great extent, a photograph is as much about the photographer him/her self as it is of the subject. Often one can tell a lot about the photographer by looking at his/her photos.

 

Very interesting to read the input from the other members above; I'm looking forward to reading what other members have to say too.

 

Regards.

[uulrich]

I do not know much about celebs and my would-be knowledge is fueled by coffee table magazines I can gather in a barber shop. I don't mind these magazines and what I have to say here does not refer to models to whom sometimes money is offered to get them photographed. But I think I got you right.

 

If you are able to communicate w/ the subjects and if you are able to channel your emotions into the situation and to the people you want to record, in whatever circumstances they are you are able to bring their obvious feelings to the wider audience. I believe that it is possible to do straight forward documentary, to show how it really is or was, and also present and preserve the situation in which these people are in. In an appropriate, respectful manner. You can give them a voice they otherwise wouldn't have actually. If you can interact w/them they are willing to get photographed for certain. They also understand that you do you best to get them onto silver halide or color.

 

Conrad quotes '... we're not artists, we're visual journalists, it's not about you, it's about being the eyes and ears of our readership.' I read about these ethics too but do not remember where it was and I have a copy of it here but surprisingly don't know the source actually.

 

Without very much effort I have been able to present you some examples, which you can find here:-

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/attachments/people/3391d1153852361-archives-mozambique0.jpg

http://www.100portfolios.com/conrad/News/9.jpg

 

I assume the pictures shown above could not hv. been made w/out the implicity of an agreement; an interaction between the photojournalist and the subject. The outcome is fortunately recorded and therefore a document.

[Micheal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thorston,

A very thought provoking thread. It has brought out a couple of interesting ideas. One is Minor White's idea that the photograph is a mirror in which the viewer sees the photographer. Whether dealing with formalism, expressionism, realism or a combination of these, the photographer should see him/herself in the mirror as well. The whole process is somewhat akin to your soul being on display and therein lies the risk.

 

The idea which tends to come from the photo journalism side is that the photographer is merely a communicator, an objective observer. In actuality, much of contemporary photo journalism is strongly influenced by the presence of the photographer in the midst of the moment and therefore, by definition, not objective. A strong photo journalist usually utilizes all of the above mentioned "isms". When the photographer works as a purely objective communicator, there is always the danger of purely pedestrian photographs.

 

Michael

[Overgaard]

It is in deed interesting and I've been thinking and discussing it since my first post.

 

Photojournalism I find no way objective. I find it often preconceived and aesthetically schooled (a certains style; digital wideangle shoots and darkened corners) - whch is why most of the news shots coming out of a say a warzone is often the same pictures.

 

I find it to be true for myself that a ceratin area of the world does nok look the way it does in newsshots. But on the other hand I find it true that thousands of newsshots does look alike. So much for personal communication.

 

For example I find the example above ( http://www.leica-camera-user.com/attachments/people/3391d1153852361-archives-mozambique0.jpg ) a preconception of the victimized poor. Where is the person (the being, the spirit, the self, the individual) in that shot?

Of curse they must have communiced when the photo was taken. And it's a traditional 'great' newsphoto to send home to a newspaper to go along with an article about all the poor people in some distant country. But no one will ever remember a person. One will remember a victim.

 

I'm not giving an answer here, I just trying to fuele the debate.

 

Another intersting example of actual news photo where the photographer did not speak with the subject and had no direct influence is this photo http://www.pix.org.uk/gallery/color_images/image_0003.htm by London-based photographer Edmond Terakopian who won a third place in World Press Photo for this. Look at it for a while and see all the emotions in that scene from the London bombings. There is several elements or viewpoints in this photo. It's remarkable and much deepter than the ordinary news shot.

My point is that even with 'objective' capturing one will ocassionally get great photography. But then again, the potographer was the one who selected this photo out of probably hundeds or thousands from that day and submitted that shot the paper. Therein of course lies his own viewpoint plus what he expected could be of use to the story the paper would run.

On top of that, does a photo like that reflect what the photographer would really like to capture to communicate something. A photographer could also go out and take a single frame of the chaos in London that day and thin 'well, there it is, I've captured it."

[Guest stnami]

"we're not artists, we're visual journalists, NO that's crap we can do as we please with photography .

"I believe that it is possible to do straight forward documentary, to show how it really is or was" Hey I would like to see that the truth and nothing but the truth without omitting anything or making a judgement. I don't see how it is remotely possible unless you accept everything the camera records and nothing that it fails to record. Doesn't a camera hide more than it shows?

There is nothing stopping me taking a photo of a child in Sydney and passing it off as a child staring at Israeli bombs in Lebanon. Photos are continually taken out of context and reek with vague judgement. As with all news shots it is the context and environment in which they are placed that dictates their interpretation

Forget ideas of truth and purity and remove those rose coloured glasses. But then you still have the choice........... even death and tax are interpreted and transformed into various guises at leisure

[derek_stanton]

"straight forward documentary"

 

I don't know what that means.

 

As a photographer, there's an inherent responsibility to make/create an 'interesting' or 'arresting' image. If you cannot accomplish this, you don't have a job, nor a venue for publishing images. So, as a journalist, anything you've published automatically is non-objective. You have to show a point of view, and therein lies some manner of agenda.

 

"Straight forward," to me, would have to mean that the photographer walks into a situation, and without composing or trying to tell a story, snaps a picture From His Own Natural Vantage-point. Without crouching for perspective or angle. Without walking around the subject to find geometries. Without consideration of rules of composition. Essentially, without making choices. But, even that is impossible, as the photographer has to choose a moment in time to capture. Any manner of editing is non-objective.

 

I think the closest thing to 'objective' photography is a surveillance camera (video).

[franklinh]

This is an extremely provocative thread. From the title, I initially thought it was about photographing families. However, it is also about what the photographer places in his photographs.

 

In taking some courses here at the UW on the History of Photography, I thought alot what was the Great Photographic Tradition. As a viewer, I think that might be where the photographer keeps his focus on the world, full of people and things, outside of himself or herself.

 

There's much to see close to each photographer that give opportunities to hint at hte mysterious in life, the life just beneath the visual world. I am looking alot at a collection of Sally Mann's photos in her collection, Immediate Family. She looks unflinchingly at her children, yet sees the mystery in their life. Later, she published a collection made on Wet Collodion Plates, "What Remains". In that collection, she looks pretty honestly at death through bodies decomposing in a coroner's forensic research facility.

 

Again she keep's the camera's focus on what is in front of the lens, and yet portrays the mystery of life and death.

 

Has anyone seen her photographs?

[Guest stnami]

Sally Mann's photos sure stirred up a hornets' nest in the bible belt but misconception is their motto, brilliant interplay in her work. Her strength is taking images of what should not be a controversy as it is a common daily event which our western societies and politicians are hell bent on sanitising and trying to convince others that it no longer exist and is some sort of evil. Dying in bed at home is a no go zone in our so called progressive societies,

'you wouldn't want the children to see that ohh no!! that is bad, that may be real"

 

 

A surveillance camera (video) is placed with intent to achieve a preconceived result and have been found wanting in court as misrepresenting events that took place. NO space to move their either

[mgcd]

"we're not artists, we're visual journalists, NO that's crap we can do as we please with photography .

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but is it informed? Yours obviously isn't. :D:D

[uulrich]

[...]

There is nothing stopping me taking a photo of a child in Sydney and passing it off as a child staring at Israeli bombs in Lebanon. Photos are continually taken out of context and reek with vague judgement.

[...]

In part one of your statement such a behavior should be forbidden by your moral judgments and your character. Additionally there is a journalist's code of conduct addressing this issue in order to avoid what you stated. Part two of the quoted statement is basically a responsibility of an editor and is usually not within responsibilities of photographers; certainly it is not during the time a photograph is taken.

[echogallery]

Debated whether or not to get involved in this discussion. I'm not sure I'm qualified. But here's my perspective.

 

The truth of the image and the motivation to shoot it rests solely with the photographer. And while the motivation may be influenced by your editor and the simple desire to put food on your table, the truth is still the photographer's sole responsibility. If we are honest with ourselves, then it should follow that our work is honest as well.

 

Arthur Fellig was quoted as saying, "When you find yourself beginning to feel a bond between yourself and the people you photograph, when you laugh and cry with their laughter and tears, you will know you are on the right track."

 

Gary

[Guest stnami]

As I stated the problem is not the photographers following a code of conduct, and most if not all do the problem is with the editors placing the image in the right context. Misrepresentation occures too often these days, if caught out a simple one line aplology in the classifieds is all that is required, unfortunatly it is a money game papers/ television must sell or they get shafted by the investors.

It does have two sides, this could be a extreme though others say fair enough outcome for the photographer, then there may be more to the story

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002914629

 

In the end a sincere attempt at being honesty is all that is required

[Guest stnami]

Everyone is entitled to follow. Yours obviously do

[mgcd]

Showing your ignorance is a fashion statement isn't it?

[Guest stnami]

not required you have fullfilled the role well, enjoy the line, bye

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pxlpal2]

I have to agree with Conrad on this one. I also believe that the personality of the photographer, if they have developed a style, will reveal itself, despite the content of the image. This would be an example of shooting what one loves to shoot and results in the ability of the viewer to pick out a Nachtwey (sp?) print or one from CB, or whoever.

 

Regards,

 

Frank M.