Impact by poising or impact by hap-chance

[lmans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the things that is always in the back of my mind is ....wow....I love the way that photographer captured that image and the impact it has. How come I couldn't have done so? Well, obviously I am in a different location etc, so logistics alone comes to mind. But my overall question is how many great photographs that we recognize as having impact and meaning were posed or created by the photographer.

Case in point....I was watching a documentary about a photographer in South America, Brazil.....documenting the plight of the people who work in the garbage dumps. Great documentary, but....although the people were real and their lives were lived the way depicted, the photograph of these people that represents their lives was 'made up', created, they posed, multiple shots with some studio etc.  Or another case in point, during WW11 the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima by the Marines was posed 'after the real thing happened' and by entirely different people.   Or as another example Henri Cartier Bresson whose "Decisive Moment' is legendary but, how many times did he take a picture and retake it and retake and retake it...having the kids doing the same things etc before he captured that elusive decisive moment?

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the image of the naked girl (Napalm Girl); Phan Thi Kim Phuc who was photographed running down a dirt road and captured live, no posed, no studio etc...Just taken live with one shot. 

The latter is the complete opposite of the former examples. Where does everyone stand on this? Should photography documentary or street work be split into categories where you have posed subjects etc and that of one time shots/examples. Thoughts? 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

25 minutes ago, lmans said:

Or as another example Henri Cartier Bresson whose "Decisive Moment' is legendary but, how many times did he take a picture and retake it and retake and retake it...having the kids doing the same things etc before he captured that elusive decisive moment?

It would have been cheating in his philosophy. I don't know his works by heart but i can't seem to recall having ever heard of evidences to prove that. Just an excerpt of the decisive moment below.

« We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished, there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory. The writer has time to reflect. He can accept and reject, accept again; and before committing his thoughts to paper he is able to tie the several relevant elements together. There is also a period when his brain "forgets", and his subconscious works on classifying his thoughts. But for photographers, what has gone, has gone forever (...). Our task is to perceive reality, almost simultaneously recording it in the sketchbook which is our camera. We must neither try to manipulate reality while we are shooting, nor must we manipulate the results in a darkroom. These tricks are patently discernible to those who have eyes to see. »
Henri Cartier-Bresson
The Decisive Moment
Foreword, page 5
July 22, 1952

[lmans]

You might be correct in that example, but the point is that thru photographic history, there have been many images taken that appear to be one thing and end up being another all told in truth, in how it was taken, etc.... jim

[LocalHero1953]

In my case, I would not pose people so it looks like they are doing something I have spontaneously captured - if I did, I would make it clear it was posed.

If I can't get the right shot by luck or waiting for the decisive moment, then I may ask people to pose formally (i.e. it would be obvious to the viewer) or somehow acknowledge the camera (e.g. by eye contact).

If I can't get the Iwo Jima shot by being in the right place at the right time, then........I don't get the Iwo Jima shot.

[charlesphoto99]

The Iwo Jima shot was not posed - the commander wanted a larger flag raised than what had initially been put up, so he rushed a flag up the mountain, and the Marines that were there (the previous company had moved on) raised it of their own cognition and will. Joe Rosenthal got one shot, and one shot only, on 4X5 at that. It just didn't happen to be the initial flag. But he didn't direct the men at all or their orientation, and almost missed the shot altogether. 

Look over Cartier Bresson's proof sheets, and one sees he may have 'worked' a particular situation, as any good photographer should do, but never posed his subjects. 

Yes, there is some 'luck' involved in capturing iconic moments, but that is offset by constantly looking and shooting and being aware of the moments happening around you. 

[Ornello]

On 4/9/2022 at 9:08 PM, lct said:

It would have been cheating in his philosophy. I don't know his works by heart but i can't seem to recall having ever heard of evidences to prove that. Just an excerpt of the decisive moment below.

« We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished, there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory. The writer has time to reflect. He can accept and reject, accept again; and before committing his thoughts to paper he is able to tie the several relevant elements together. There is also a period when his brain "forgets", and his subconscious works on classifying his thoughts. But for photographers, what has gone, has gone forever (...). Our task is to perceive reality, almost simultaneously recording it in the sketchbook which is our camera. We must neither try to manipulate reality while we are shooting, nor must we manipulate the results in a darkroom. These tricks are patently discernible to those who have eyes to see. »
Henri Cartier-Bresson
The Decisive Moment
Foreword, page 5
July 22, 1952

He took several shots of the man jumping a puddle.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Ornello said:

He took several shots of the man jumping a puddle.

Not what he explained. See video below at 16:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYwqo8HKbw

[Ornello]

45 minutes ago, lct said:

Not what he explained. See video below at 16:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYwqo8HKbw

I have seen them, somewhere. It was 'staged'.

[lct]

29 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I have seen them, somewhere. It was 'staged'.

Them? Staged? Do you have any evidence of that? 

[Ornello]

37 minutes ago, lct said:

Them? Staged? Do you have any evidence of that? 

Yes, I saw a proof sheet or something, but I was unable to locate it tonight. There's nothing wrong with staging such a shot, and picking the best one.

[lct]

36 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Yes, I saw a proof sheet or something, but I was unable to locate it tonight. There's nothing wrong with staging such a shot, and picking the best one.

Not sure what you are referring to. Just listen to what HCB said in the video above, or call him a liar.  

[stray cat]

6 hours ago, Ornello said:

He took several shots of the man jumping a puddle.

Not sure what you're referring to here. I've always understood it to have been a single frame, as indicated in the John Loengard picture of the actual negative.

If there is proof to the contrary I'd be fascinated to see it but "I saw a proof sheet or something" doesn't quite cut it for me.

[adan]

6 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Yes, there is some 'luck' involved in capturing iconic moments, but that is offset by constantly looking and shooting and being aware of the moments happening around you. 

"It's a funny thing. The harder I practice, the luckier I get." - attributed to various golfers over the decades: Player, Barber, Trevino, Palmer.

When I was growing up in photography, I was naïve and thought all great "moment" pictures were unposed. So I made that my operating goal - "If Gene Smith/HC-B/Elliott Erwitt can do it,  so can I!" And started to practice - practice - practice.

Later I was disabused of that fantasy, but by that time I had already developed some ability to usually get the telling moment without posing or directing. Or perhaps more accurately, get a telling moment, by, as Charles says, "working the situation."

Something that came up repeatly at newspapers was that the editor or writer would call up the subject, and ask them when they would have free time for a photographer - thereby guaranteeing the subject was doing nothing interesting at all when I got there. Just standing around waiting for the photographer.

I'd make some dumb snaps until the subject forgot I was there, or had to get back to work. Or maybe I'd suggest going down to the shop floor or some such, where eventually (s)he would end up interacting with someone candidly, without coaching. Then I would get the unposed, undirected picture.

Didn't always work, in which case I'd fall back on the LocalHero1953 approach - make a posed picture that did not pretend to be candid. Some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you.

 

[pippy]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:32 AM, lmans said:

...Should photography documentary or street work be split into categories where you have posed subjects etc and that of one time shots/examples?...

No.

Philip.

[pgk]

For a start you need to define 'posing'. The very presence of a camera can alter behaviour. Are images where the subject is unaware of the camera unposed or are images where the camera is evident to subjects who are in the middle of carrying on with what they are doing 'posed'. I would suggest that there isa whole rrange of scenarios from the caught unaware to the suject who shws off and everything in between. People have recreated many photographs (kiss in Times Square) and how do we feel about them - a tribute, valid image, rip-off, etc.. Trying to put photographs in genre and sub-genre boxes is IMO, an exercise in futility because there will always be exceptions.

[pippy]

I agree with everything Paul said above.

My own viewpoint is that I really don't care about how the shot was captured with the only exception being images purporting to show "The Truth"; but even then the lines are distinctly blurred because everything photographed has been 'cropped / edited / selected' in some way simply by means of having been captured by the photographer in one particular way and at one particular moment in the first place.

Cartier-Bresson's "Behind the Gare St-Lazare" - alluded to above - wasn't staged. Before he took the photograph he had seen someone else jumping over the puddle and waited for the next person to come along and do much the same thing*. Whether or not he took more than one frame recording several passers-by repeating the action is - for me - completely unimportant. HCB saw the potential of capturing a photograph in that situation and, ultimately, was successful. End of Story.

What does it matter that Capa's "Loyalist Militiaman..." might have been staged and might actually have been pictured in a field 50km from the front line? Sure; if it was staged then Capa, himself, lied about its genesis but its raison d'etre was to be a propaganda tool and, in that context, it was successful.

The Flag at Iwo Jima? Same thing. Photography during periods of conflict has ALWAYS been open to 'stage-management' since the very earliest times when Matthew Brady 'recorded scenes' during the American Civil War. The Argentine / United Kingdom 'Falklands Conflict' of 1982 was, perhaps, the acme of subsequent interference of visual reporting by The State. I quote;

"...the Falklands war would turn out to be the worst-reported war since the Crimean......In the age of image, the Falklands war remained image-free for much of its length - no British pictures for 54 of the 74 days the conflict lasted - and image-weak thereafter. Don McCullin, our greatest living war photographer, was refused accreditation..."

The government of the UK at the time had obviously learned a lesson from precedent. The power of many of the photographs taken during the Vietnam conflict can be attributed to the fact that, up to a point, photojournalists had free reign to go where they wanted and snap as they pleased - not all of which, of course, suited those in the White House. How does modern-day America remember the work of Philip Jones Griffiths?......

1 hour ago, pgk said:

...Trying to put photographs in genre and sub-genre boxes is IMO, an exercise in futility because there will always be exceptions...

Absolutely.

Philip.

* As related by HCB during an interview in the mid-1970's with Art Historian Ted Gage who, in turn, used his interview as a basis for a lecture to us, his class, on this very subject back around '84/'85.

Edited April 12, 2022 by pippy

[pippy]

Just going back to something Paul Ashley(*) raised in post #4;

On 4/10/2022 at 7:55 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

...If I can't get the right shot by luck or waiting for the decisive moment...

OK; in the spirit of breaking the 'Never Show the Art Director your Contact Sheet' rule...

This was also discussed as 'working' the situation by both Charles and Andy in subsequent posts so I thought I might as well post an example of my own by way of illustrating, specifically, this point. One of these four frames has been posted in the Forum previously (in, AFAICR, one of Farnz' "Theme for This Month..." threads). Granted that my photograph from Croydon is not quite as celebrated as anything by HCB from his 'Saint Lazare' shoot - or anything else he ever snapped! - but, from those facts which are known about his own image, it was captured using pretty much the same methodology.

As I was descending a staircase I saw, across the way from me, a figure passing across a beam of sunlight; itself passing through an opening which, as it hit the ground, created a very bright ribbon of light in an otherwise generally dark scene. Thinking there might be something worthwhile capturing I waited a few seconds until someone else passed through the same space and, when they did, I tripped the shutter. I then repeated the exercise over the next few frames as others followed in due course. I see now (I had forgotten!) that I took one frame of the scene when it was 'uninhabited' as my usual preference - at least back then (Feb. 2019) - was to have no human presence in the majority of my images.

Here are the (unedited & SOOC) images presented as a group in the order they came. The time-frame gap between first and last frames totals 75 seconds - it was a quiet street that day!...;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Incidentally my focus-point was actually the spiked bannister of the staircase in the foreground; not the background which was deliberately kept soft. Camera was an M9-P and the lens was a 7Artisan 50mm f1.1.

Philip.

* When I wrote that I agreed "with everything Paul said" in post #19 I intended to write 'both Pauls'; i.e. LocalHero1953 and pgk. Apologies for any confusion!

Edited April 12, 2022 by pippy

[lct]

11 minutes ago, pippy said:

Just going back to something Paul Ashley(*) raised in post #4;

OK; in the spirit of breaking the 'Never Show the Art Director your Contact Sheet' rule...

This was also discussed as 'working' the situation by both Charles and Andy in subsequent posts so I thought I might as well post an example of my own by way of illustrating, specifically, this point. One of these four frames has been posted in the Forum previously (in, AFAICR, one of Farnz' "Theme for This Month..." threads). Granted that my photograph from Croydon is not quite as celebrated as anything by HCB from his 'Saint Lazare' shoot - or anything else he ever snapped! - but, from those fact which are known about his own image, it was captured using pretty much the same methodology.

As I was descending a staircase I saw, across the way from me, a figure passing across a beam of sunlight; itself passing through an opening which, as it hit the ground, created a very bright ribbon of light in an otherwise generally dark scene. Thinking there might be something worthwhile capturing I waited a few seconds until someone else passed through the same space and, when they did, I tripped the shutter. I then repeated the exercise over the next few frames as others followed in due course. I see now (I had forgotten!) that I also took one frame of the scene when it was 'uninhabited' as my usual preference - at least back then (Feb. 2019) - was to have no human presence in the majority of my images.

Here are the (unedited & SOOC) images presented as a group. The time-frame gap between first and last frames totals 75 seconds - it was a quiet street that day!...;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Incidentally my focus-point was actually the spiked bannister of the staircase in the foreground; not the background which was deliberately kept soft. Camera was an M9-P and the lens was my 7Artisan 50mm f1.1.

Philip.

* When I wrote that I agreed "with everything Paul said" in post #19 I intended to write 'both Pauls'; i.e. LocalHero1953 and pgk. Apologies for any confusion!

Sure but you were not staging there were you. You shot different moments in the same or different ways and you chose your favorite image. Little to do with photogs staging a shot and picking the best under the pretext that "only the result counts". Good for studio or photo forums i guess, banned for legal photos and a shame for PJ's if they don't protest against that IMHO. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

Posing photographs and creating fakes is a sensitive issue in my family. My great grandfather was Edward Gardner who publicised the Cottingley Fairies photos and brought them to the attention of Arthur Conan Doyle. I have clear memories of him in the 60s. His son, my grandfather, was semi-convinced by them, but my grandmother, a down-to-earth forthright woman, thought them utter nonsense. I'm surprised she didn't destroy some of the original prints when my g/f died, but passed them to me.

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Posing photographs and creating fakes is a sensitive issue.....

And, along with other 'dubious' sides of photograph, started as soon as it was technically feasible. There is nothing new as regards the ways images are created, posed or otherwise. What surprises me is that we are still less aware of the nuances of photograhic image creation, especially today with software manipulation becoming ever more sophisticated