Impact by poising or impact by hap-chance

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Just for a bit of hypothetical light-hearted fun, Paul, in light of the points you raise here I might ask;

1) Why should the method of capture be a problem if the final images look the same?

2) Should there be a way of differentiating such images?...and if so...

3) Why should there be a way of differentiating such images?

Philip.

Exactly!😀

[RexGig0]

If two revered holy men were having an informal, casual conversation, and they perceived a photographer, or the members of the press approaching, might they not decide to act more holy? (I seem to recall such an anecdote, with the two holy men being the Reverend Desmond Tutu, and the Dalai Lama.)

If a police offer were performing a routine task, that would be drudgery-level boring, and perceived a photographer to be approaching, might he/she not decide to act a bit more friendly, or adopt a more-heroic air? 😉 I might know something about this, as I wore a big-city police uniform, for one-third of a century.

On the matter of official evidentiary/forensic/crime photographs, that was one of my added duties, from 2010, until my retirement in 2018. I was expected to shoot properly-exposed best-quality JPEGs, and to upload every one of my OOC JPEGs, including the flubbed images, into a proprietary software loaded into some of the police computer terminals. No post-processing or other editing was allowed, though anything that the camera could do, such as in-camera distortion correction, was OK. Bracketing for exposure or focus was OK, though, as just indicated, every image had to be uploaded. If a corrupted file resulted in an image not being successfully uploaded, I had to document that, in detail, in my report. Evidence, once it has been created, cannot be legally destroyed, at least until all potential legal proceedings have been completed.

Any image that I shot was subject to being reinforced by my sworn testimony, and I could expect that an opposing attorney might challenge the image. My training included how to deal with these challenges, but, in actuality, opposing attorneys always seemed to like my images. I always tried to document the whole scene, thoroughly, which could include exculpatory evidence, so, as defense counsel might want to use my images as part of his defense plan, affirming the validity of my images seemed to be a normal event.

Sorry for the digression. 🙂

Trivia: I used Canon DSLRs for most of my official images, originally because my wife loaned a bag of pre-owned kit, for the task, and, subsequently, because Canon made the best macro equipment, for field/street use, at the time, so, that is what I bought. One reason I added the Leica M system, after I retired, was to act as a form of antidote

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

I photograph fish on a fairly regular basis (I'm writing a second ID guide at the moment). Stress them and some can shuft colour. So photographing them without stressing them is essential. That said, the presence of a large underwater camera, focus light and flash units, to say nothing of an air belching monster behind them can be intimdating and stressful to a small animal!

[Erato]

“We must neither try to manipulate reality while we are shooting, nor manipulate the results in a darkroom. These tricks are patently discernible to those who have eyes to see.” -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

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!

 

Contact Sheet -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Edited April 19, 2022 by Erato

[davidmknoble]

I think the issue here has to do with the terms being used.  There are different types of photography, and there are very few rules that must be followed, because there is no required jury to determine if a photograph fits a style or genre.  Documentary work is made up of the outside looking in, street photography seems to have a ‘no crop’ rule.  Yet, many photographers take uninhibited images of their surroundings and then take a portrait. - both with different end desires.  I took portraits of people in Bayonnais, Haiti where we were talking while I was taking images, and I would move around and sometimes ask them to turn their head to look at me, but I got the expression I wanted and the background I wanted. That isn’t a staged shot, it is simply a portrait.  If some children were playing soccer and decided to quit when I go there, I might ask if they wanted to play for a few more minutes while I took some photographs.  

A photograph does not lie.  It is exactly what was happening when the shutter was pushed.  It represents something.  It might represent what has been happening or it might be spontaneous, or represent something larger.  Think about the writing of history.  How many different viewpoints can be taken of the same event and a description of that event later different.

In my personal opinion, the difference between a photograph and art is the manipulation after taking the image.  If things are removed, added, significantly altered, then I call it art.  If it is simply contrast curves, colors, sharpness, luminosity, cropping, I would call it a photograph.  Under that definition, great photographs are great because of what we see in them, not because of how they were taken.  We don’t discount a Rembrandt painting because it may have a fuit bowl in it that was not really there.  We love the painting.  

IMHO, I would not discount a photograph because of how someone took it, especially if the photographer didn’t write a false story about the image.  Just because we find out how they took the image, doesn’t mean the photographer did something wrong, it just means we thought it might have been something different.  That is our interpretation, not the photographers.

[lmans]

David....you bring up some good points....but I am not sure I agree with you in your statement 'In my personal opinion, the difference between a photograph and art is the manipulation after taking the image.  If things are removed, added, significantly altered, then I call it art.  If it is simply contrast curves, colors, sharpness, luminosity, cropping, I would call it a photograph.  Under that definition, great photographs are great because of what we see in them, not because of how they were taken.  We don’t discount a Rembrandt painting because it may have a fuit bowl in it that was not really there."

Again, It all depends on your style, your thinking of what makes a good photo etc...  To me, a photo is good if the viewer comes away with a 'question'.... if the image has 'impact'....   I see many street photo's that are either street portrait or, the photographer has accomplished little beyond just snapping the photo as they walk, or think the object is to get as close to the person to see their nose hairs, or...snaps from the hip as they walk etc....    Those latter are just photos of sorts...they lack impact...most of the time lack a question to be begged from them.

But I guess my overall take is that while yes, there are no rules in photography... but to take photographs which are posed in any way, is different from capturing images that are not posed and are organic in nature. Simply put...... Posed or un-posed....      

If I have to remain at a particular scene for awhile to wait for the perfect shot (light, or person or whatever), ....I am not posing the shot; rather, I am waiting for the shot to develop organically. As a photographer, I am being passive and am not manipulating the natural flow of events and people. But If I bait the scene by adding in a person with a red umbrella (as one person stated in this thread as done by Nat Geo photographers as an example), well....that is posed. And yes, if I take a shot of a person and request of them to turn their head or stand 'here' or request of them to do anything, ....I regard that as posed.   

Posed or un-posed.....  

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@lmans, I was just distinguishing between post processing, which in my opinion, leaves the door open for much more manipulation than posing or not-posing in today’s technology. Metaphysically speaking, it is difficult if not impossible, not to have some impact on the scene.  By standing and waiting, you may impact the people that would have come from your direction and crossed into the scene.

Taking a photograph is recording something, however it got to that state.  There are philosophy and art books that discuss this subject, and I am far from an expert.  I just believe we look at a photograph and like it or we do not. It speaks to us or it does not.  Regardless of the circumstances, each photographer will record the image they want.  Most photographers, me included, do not classify each photograph into a type.  Yet, I am guilty of typing the photographs I see.

I think what I am saying is that in the end, all photographs are posed to some degree, even if only very slightly.  If posed is the wrong word, then I might say “a photographer has an effect to some degree in every photograph he/she takes, even if only very minutely.”

[LocalHero1953]

Even without processing, a photographer is not just recording the scene, but deciding what is to be recorded: by the direction they point the camera, where they stand, the lens focal length, the image aspect ratio, the angle of view, the focused and defocused areas, the moment the shutter is pressed. And that is before a decision is made about whether to record in colour or B&W, whether to use a camera that carries out in-camera processing (lens distortion/aberration correction), sharpening, noise removal. Post processing includes more aberration removal, tone curve adjustment, colour adjustment (or conversion to B&W, sepia etc), further cropping and aspect ratio adjustment (i.e. beyond the original lens/film/sensor selection), cloning objects out of the image (i.e. beyond choosing to wait to take the photo when they have moved out of the frame of their own accord).

Where do I draw the line between a photograph and art? Can a photograph be art as well or are they mutually exclusive? Are all photographs either bad art or good art?
These are rhetorical questions! I have no interest in the answers. But I am interested in why people wish to decide what is art and what is not.

Edited April 21, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

19 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

There are different types of photography, and there are very few rules that must be followed, because there is no required jury to determine if a photograph fits a style or genre. 

A photograph does not lie.  It is exactly what was happening when the shutter was pushed.  It represents something.  It might represent what has been happening or it might be spontaneous, or represent something larger.

It all depends .....

Firstly, there are many 'juries' but whether a photograph is judged by any depends on a vast number of factors. And

Secondly, whilst a photograph does not lie at the point at which it is taken, it is judgemental in that the photographer made decisions about its content and portrayal. As soon as it is utilised numerous other judgements and possibly manipulations, inherent in a deliberately modified image, and contextual, creep in.

The RPS Nature Group allow adjustents 'provided they do not alter the inherent honesty of the image' which is probably as reasonable a definition of a 'truthful' image as can be made.

[davidmknoble]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

These are rhetorical questions! I have no interest in the answers. But I am interested in why people wish to decide what is art and what is not.

Well said.  That is the point I think, it is all subjective and each person has their own opinions and the only one that really matters is the photographer’s opinion because they created it.

[Al Brown]

On 4/12/2022 at 5:29 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

Does anyone know if it is possible to 'fake' a raw file?

Yes with 100% certainty.

[davidmknoble]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Firstly, there are many 'juries' but whether a photograph is judged by any depends on a vast number of factors. And

Secondly, whilst a photograph does not lie at the point at which it is taken, it is judgemental in that the photographer made decisions about its content and portrayal. As soon as it is utilised numerous other judgements and possibly manipulations, inherent in a deliberately modified image, and contextual, creep in.

The RPS Nature Group allow adjustents 'provided they do not alter the inherent honesty of the image' which is probably as reasonable a definition of a 'truthful' image as can be made.

Those are good examples, but note my point is there is not one set of rules or requirements to make a photograph, so it is not our place to pick a set of rules and apply it to someone else’s photograph.  I was also not suggesting the content of a photograph could not lie, I was merely saying if a photograph is taken and zero alteration is made, it is exactly what was in front of the lens, it will not lie - regardless of the story it portrays.

[pgk]

55 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

..... it will not lie - regardless of the story it portrays.

Indeed, photographs cannot lie but we most certainly can use them to modify viewer's response to their content.

[LocalHero1953]

35 minutes ago, pgk said:

Indeed, photographs cannot lie but we most certainly can use them to modify viewer's response to their content.

I gave this book to my son-in-law for Christmas; my brother gave it to me for my birthday and I finished it recently: 'We are Bellingcat' by Eliot Higgins (founder of Bellingcat). Well worth reading to see how unmodified, 'truthful' photos, and videos, are being used to modify viewers' responses.

[LocalHero1953]

Every time this thread pops up in my list of notifications I hope think it is about lap dancing.

[Stuart Richardson]

Jim, this question has a very long history in photography, basically stretching back to the very earliest days. Almost immediately photography was used to embellish or distort the truth. The first photography of war was way back in the Crimean War (not our current Crimean war...) and even then it was used politically and was staged. I think the main misconception is that the photographic image itself is "truthful". In the very act of choosing a frame and choosing a moment, you are creating an abstraction which has perhaps a relation to truth, but itself is not truthful. It is very easy to frame someone and stop the action in a way that makes their face look angry when they were in fact happy or to make someone look like they were hitting someone when in fact they were trying to defend themselves. These require no manipulation at all, only framing and timing. This is of course not including times when information is "left out". For example, photographing a beautiful landscape that is completely empty, when right next to you are hundreds of people. Or even a cityscape where there is an urban street full of people who disappear when photographed for a long exposure. All of these are completely "true" photos, which are inherently untruthful. A staged photo or posed photo has the potential to be even more "true" than a snapped one. Just look at the case of Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother, lauded as one of the most important photos of all time, one which helped alert the American public to the plight of the less fortunate in the 1930s.

It is difficult to find a way forward, but places like the World Press Association and major outlets like the NYT, BBC, WSJ and so on all have their own particular policies over what they require for journalistic standards. As a genre as a whole, street photography is like any other where everyone has their own moral compass. At the bottom of the heap you have people like Bruce Gilden who seem mostly interested in humiliating and debasing people they see, and at the top you have photographers who seem to elevate all whom they photograph. Mark Steinmetz would be a favorite of mine in that genre. Which is more true? You will have to decide yourself.

[lmans]

Agreed with what you say..... Photography has since the early beginnings been a tool to distort the truth or to show the truth I suppose. Lets take today for example with Ukraine..as we most likely will find photographs seemingly depicting one thing or implying it, while it is totally different in reality. I haven't done any research into what images might be doing this, but I am just guessing here that the same holds true today as it has for years in the past.

That 'past' is that  'Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother".... and it has intrigued me equally.... At first...like many of us....I thought of it to be real until I learned how it was done and why etc... But that is only because I took the time and had an interest to follow up on it. For many, they are moved by the image w/o further knowledge. So perhaps a created impact' to put forth a political agenda ? ...I think so. It was posed...

But now let's take the little girl running down the dirt road in Vietnam shot by Nick Ut. That was un-posed....authentic. It happened.

Should we differentiate the two? jim 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think you are not getting my point Jim. Both of those photos are equally real. Both happened. Being posed does not make a photo inauthentic, nor does a photo being unposed make it authentic. In this case I would say both were authentically displaying the horrors of the situation they were photographed in. It is a very philosophical issue, not one that boils down to a simple binary of "true" vs "not true".

[adan]

32 minutes ago, lmans said:

Should we differentiate the two? jim 

The only differentiation that ultimately matters is - photographs that enter the permanent human archive of photography because they are iconic or innovative, or photographs that vanish from the world because, regardless of whether they are candid or posed, they are insignificant.

.................

It does seem to me that this discussion is a bit shallow, and lacking in historical perspective/knowledge.

Were pictures made of the Crimean War (and the US Civil War a few years later) stagey (and with live subjects, posed)?

You bet they were, because they were made with wet-plate collodion large-format cameras requiring 1) exposure times of several seconds, and 2) hauling around a complete light-proof wagon- or tent-darkroom - the process required sensitizing the plate, exposing it, and developing it within a matter of minutes while it stayed "wet." When one showed up with transport the size of today's delivery vans, and had to ask subjects to "hold that pose" for several minutes (including focusing under a dark-cloth as well as exposing) to avoid subject blur, an awareness of the photographer, and posing for them, was inherent in the technology then available.

"Candid photographs" were not possible, but great and memorable and historically-significant photographs were still made.

By the 1920-30s, faster materials and smaller equipment began to allow for more candid, "moment" photography. Not just the Leica, but also the the Ermanox (645-format plates, f/1.8 lens when Leica was still using f/3.5). And of course the Kodaks and similar.

However they were mostly "toys for hobbyists or tourists" or the rare artist - professional work was done with large negatives. Even in 1960 it was still a firing offence, at some newspapers, to use a "miniature" or "spy" camera - i.e. a 35mm, or even in some cases a Rollei 6x6. They were considered too grainy and too "sneaky." News magazines (LIFE, LOOK, TIME) were a little more liberal, especially for war photography, where all one really possessed was what one could carry in one's hands at a dead run ).

4x5 Graflexes with flash-guns ruled the roost. It took the pro-grade Nikon F (1959), with built-in long-lens capability for sports and news, to permanently change that.

Walker Evans owned a Leica when he also worked for the FSA; he famously loaned it to painter Ben Shahn (also hired by the FSA*) with the instructional advice "F/16 on the sunny side of the street, f/4 on the shady side, 1/125th of a second - and don't forget to focus!" But what Evans used for his own FSA pictures was an 8x10 (or a "small" 4x5) on a tripod - with the inherent restrictions on technique.

Dorothea Lange was a studio portrait photographer before she joined the FSA. She, like most studio-pros of that era, was most familiar with 4x5 or 5x7 cameras, so that is what she chose to work with. And that imposed certain limits on her operating technique.

https://www.kennedy-center.org/education/resources-for-educators/classroom-resources/media-and-interactives/media/media-arts/dorothea-lange-white-angel-breadline/

https://petapixel.com/2019/01/31/how-the-iconic-photo-migrant-mother-came-to-be/

https://www.lightstalking.com/cameras-used-for-famous-photographs/

I avoid posing my pictures most of the time, because the technology permits it. But it is a mistake to apply that standard to eras when the "best" technology was not so flexible.

________________
*another historical point - the FSA documentary arm was a "jobs creation" effort for unemployed writers and visual artists during the Great Depression, as well as a project to document and promote the FSA's relief activities. Along with the WPA Federal Writer's Project - https://www.britannica.com/topic/WPA-Federal-Writers-Project

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stuart Richardson]

For the record Andy, I didn’t mean “stagey”, I meant staged. Roger Fenton moved around cannonballs in his photos in Crimea for dramatic effect and Timothy O’Sullivan and Gardner rearranged bodies at Gettysburg. The contemporary concern with “truth” was not taken for granted. After all, many of these photographers were more informed by lithographs and painting then they were by photography (just look at the pictorialists). The photographer as “witness” and photography as truth is more of a modernist phenomenon if anything.