Impact by poising or impact by hap-chance

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lmans said:

Show me where I have been fixated that one photography type is hard / or easy....I am simply stating that there is a different set of sub skills for each one and that should be recognized. I saw a photo the other day (and it was a good photo) of a lady on a train. It was in BW and she was turning / twisting her neck to look back slyly at the photographer with an expression....and there was no one else on the train so excellent bokeh and a nice balance between nothing in the background to this expression in the foreground.  Nice looking photo and it was posed, for I asked the photographer.

As a layman looking at that photo and not knowing much about photography, a person might state that 'wow' ...I wish I could do that and then go out under the impression that this person just grabbed this photo as in a 'candid' photo. That photo most likely couldn't be had as a candid photograph, and it was posed / staged. But a layman looking on wouldn't grasp that. They would say....'fantastic photo' but I can never do that, thinking of 'candid' in mind.... as opposed to posed/staged. If the photograph would have been recognized as that of being 'posed', the layman photographer or appreciator of photography might then have a different understanding of the shot and how taken. 

But it wasn't a candid shot.....

The photography skills to take that photo were aimed at posed photography, ..... a person who was attempting to capture a shot like that might have to wait for hours until no one else was on the train, then they would have to sit in back of the person and hope that person turned around just enough to see a side of their face, and then didn't slap them for taking the shot, and also the right light would have to have been there. That, being a candid shot would encompass an entirely different set of photography sub skills. 

That is my point...that is what I am trying to show. I am not stating one is better....but just like in paintings, the painter will speak to the medium used...acrylics, oil...etc...  No different.... 

For most - this isn't even really a different set of skills. Even portraitists who make their living doing studio work know the value of being able to capture a serendipitous/spontaneous expression within the highly constructed they are set in - timing and reactivity are still an important skill. On the other hand, people who work on the street often see a candid moment and may massage the composition, the angle, or yes, even the subject to make things line up just right. You are arguing for rigid boundaries in what is generally a fluid way of working. As I and others have stated, the only place you will get this rigid distinction is not in any realm of art but in the parameters outlined by news agencies and outlets if you are to work for them - they have value here but they still fail to grant that a picture is any sort of authentic representation - it never can be and look at it in such a way is limiting. 

It's clear you care about whether a shot is candid or not, according your definitions of term - but the idea that someone wanting to recreate a nice photo they saw just inherently limiting themselves to the idea that they must find it just as is out in the real world is just an inability to think about valid photography outside of their own predetermined conventions. It's also clear you think that these different skills should be recognized but as already been addressed here - the recognizing goes towards the work, not really how a photographer makes it. Their working method may matter to some in contextualizing or theorizing about their work but in the end the idea of splitting the hairs where you want in order to indicate some other sort of value of one image just isn't really a discussion most people are interested in having - it's anachronistic at this point. 

[Ken Abrahams]

Interesting thread which I discovered last night. Coming from a Street Photographer perspective, I always thought that a posed photograph on the street is called a Street Portrait and all other candid images are deemed Street Photography. Both examples however could be called Photo documents/Photojournalism. There are several artistic projects I have seen where photographers use the same model in different street locations, effectively creating a theme by using Street Photography as a pivotal context. These projects are great and they are not really claiming to be Street Photography or documentary. There are so many image designs, paintings and photographic projects that utilise the concept that Photo Journalism and Street Photography initially defined.   

I must view a lot of street images over the different social media platforms and often come across images that appear to be staged to me. Whether its using a friend to walk through the image or paying a random person to stay still for the shot, I am not a big fan of such images. I can remember not enjoying arranging the newly married couple to repeat the signing of the church registration to record such a traditionally pivotal point for history sake. I was uneasy about it because it wasn't natural, it was staged.

The manipulation of images using composites is probably more of a questionable behaviour involved in modern Street Photography. Its a commonplace post processing additive to create the one in a million street shot. Photojournalism and Street Photography are becoming more artistic than ever before however the latter has more latitude for creativity.

I believe Street has always been artistic but largely dependent on getting the worthy shot (moment in time) with the use of lighting, and pushing camera settings to the very limit and beyond to achieve a certain uniqueness. Modern Street (as seen on Instagram) is more about altering colours for effect, removing objects to simplify, adding pivotal subjects or blending in reflections and adding overall impressions unique to the photographer. A lot of the image making seems to be done in photoshop. I quite like the modern, vibrant use of street photography where the photographer is even more of an artist. Perhaps staging, mise en scene directions and digitally manipulated Street could be called "-something- Street" but if the base image is authentic, candid and involves happenstance it is Street Photography. As long as the Photo Document image (staged or not) has not been manipulated beyond tonal and cropping adjustments etc its Photojournalism.    

               

[pgh]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:57 PM, Ken Abrahams said:

The manipulation of images using composites is probably more of a questionable behaviour involved in modern Street Photography

The only thing that would be questionable is if an artist has the outright intent to lie about what the image is - and that's really only questionable because lying is generally bad - not much to do with photography. 

Outside of that, we really need to get past these conventions. This is just using tools to image what is in one's head. When Dall-E and other AI image generating tech get better we're not even going to need a camera for such things. You can call it boring but the idea that it's any less "right" in terms of what a picture should be is really anachronistic. Think of pixels as paint - just a tool to make a picture. Is any sort of painting more or less correct or ethical? Outside of propaganda (which photography does more heavy lifting for, and is basically a cousin of lying), I don't see it. 

This idea that something is more pure because it was captured in camera fails to see its own hypocrisy - namely that is it is already, inherently manipulated by angle, photographer height, lens choice, aperture/shutter setting, timing, time of day, all sorts of factors. Yes, for some reason people see these conventional tools of photography acceptable forms of manipulation - arbitrarily drawing a line there. I see the value of the photo as a document, but it is a horribly subjective document and unless a photographer asserts the documented nature of the image, like unless the idea that it is inherently a document is the backbone of the art, this is really not that important. And if it is, then it should be a damn interesting image on its own, and not rely on the fact that its a document for initial impact. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, pgh said:

The only thing that would be questionable is if an artist has the outright intent to lie about what the image is - and that's really only questionable because lying is generally bad - not much to do with photography. 

It is not only a matter of intent or "purity" or other subjective or relative things. It is objectively questionable because it is contrary to the truth. Unacceptable and even condemnable in my job (lawyer). There are PJ's here i guess. What do they think of that?

[pgh]

1 hour ago, lct said:

It is not only a matter of intent or "purity" or other subjective or relative things. It is objectively questionable because it is contrary to the truth. Unacceptable and even condemnable in my job (lawyer). There are PJ's here i guess. What do they think of that?

I was a PJ, and still am on the odd day depending on who's hiring. You're right, it's more than questionable when you're under contract - it will get you fired. But in the creative realm of photography on the street - what this topic is about, anything goes - one is simply trying to make an image. Contrary to the truth though? Truth is a north star - photography never actually gets there, though. No picture (or video even) fully gets at that. Pictures can serve as concrete evidence, but truth is a wholly higher claim.

As I said earlier in the thread, the guardrails for photojournalists exist for a reason, and I agree with them - but they're simply the best poor solution available for an extremely subjective practice. And when you're not presenting work specifically in the context that requires these ways of practicing, the public isn't going to expect it. Most people don't believe pictures these days already, and this is with good reason - the manipulation of them, in the way they are most commonly used (think posting your cool life on instagram), is part of the process. Rarely does a picture make it to the world without a software filter - and a slider is another form of that, again, a sort of silly line to draw since a slider can literally obscure entire parts of a documentary picture. 

[Ken Abrahams]

9 hours ago, pgh said:

Most people don't believe pictures these days already, and this is with good reason - the manipulation of them, in the way they are most commonly used (think posting your cool life on instagram), is part of the process.

A fair comment about media and social media these days especially when a percentage of the population believe false (fake) news and certain commentators manipulate the trend for rating points. But is that a sound argument to submit to a false, surreal world where photo documents add to an increasingly opiated sense of reality? When does Photo Journalism become Art? It kind of already has from what I have seen from the pick of World Press photography exhibitions. There are many "conventions" as you say, which have been utilised as a basis for artistic comment. The foundation of something "graffitied by art" which then becomes art is intellectually stimulating. Art maybe the problem because there are less boundaries and limitless possibilities. I'm not against Photojournalistic Art if that's a name for it.      

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/10/2022 at 12:34 AM, Ken Abrahams said:

A fair comment about media and social media these days especially when a percentage of the population believe false (fake) news and certain commentators manipulate the trend for rating points. But is that a sound argument to submit to a false, surreal world where photo documents add to an increasingly opiated sense of reality? When does Photo Journalism become Art? It kind of already has from what I have seen from the pick of World Press photography exhibitions. There are many "conventions" as you say, which have been utilised as a basis for artistic comment. The foundation of something "graffitied by art" which then becomes art is intellectually stimulating. Art maybe the problem because there are less boundaries and limitless possibilities. I'm not against Photojournalistic Art if that's a name for it.      

I'm not making that argument.

I'm basically saying that without context that explicitly states that the picture is a document, unmanipulated from the point of capture, we should have no expectations that a picture is so reliable, or even was. World Press purports to operate within this realm - though again, we need to recognize that the arguments about aggressive toning are as old as photography, and World Press or whatever photojournalism competition you want to point to has courted controversy for years - W Eugene Smith would not have been eligible for such competitions (or wire/newspaper contracts) with the way he worked. 

Again, I am a supporter of the photojournalistic rules of operating as part of the industry. But I only think they help somewhat. The idea that pictures ever represented some sort of truth is a fallacy - and it's not to do with fake news - which is an entirely larger issue that photography only has a partial role in. It's more to do with society wanting too much from a photograph from the get-go, and failing to realize there are inherent shortcomings to photography as a method of objective record. We need to settle for the uncomfortable idea that there is not a concrete answer where we want one. 

The idea of trying to put a name to it "photojournalistic art" doesn't work - people have been trying to make these distinctions for years. Some photojournalism can be good art, but (and I say this as having been a photojournalist and now focusing on art) - if you're thinking about art making while doing photojournalistic work, you're likely not gonna do good reporting. Readers tend to be more alienated, confused, irritated when photojournalists try to push aesthetic boundaries too hard (and it usually shows) - and it's not because they don't like challenging art, it's because the point of photojournalism is to communicate an issue or a story - art operates in largely different ways much of, if not most of the time. Photojournalism is best when it deals in the concrete. Art is best when....well....just, there are no comparisons - good art is impossible to generalize in such a way. 

[lmans]

On 8/9/2022 at 7:08 AM, pgh said:

The only thing that would be questionable is if an artist has the outright intent to lie about what the image is - and that's really only questionable because lying is generally bad - not much to do with photography. 

 

If a photographer 'fails to outright lie' but manipulates a photograph without speaking to that manipulation (touched up, rehearsed imaged etc etc) and people believe that the end product/image is true, realistic....etc.... isn't the act of not stating anything, then become akin to that of telling a lie? Sure, they didn't actually tell a lie to mislead people about the photo but the act of 'not saying' what the truth is about a photo is actually in itself a lie as the photo is then presented as the truth.....  Does that make sense or did I get overly philosophical ? 

 

OR.....to expand upon this just a bit....

The famous photo "Migrant Mother" taken by Dorothy Lange in the 1930's shows a mother with her kids nestled around her, hiding from the camera. But admittedly photographer Lange and the model Thompson (although she was in poverty and those were her kids) posed and created a scene by her stance, her expression etc, ...all geared for the camera and the image. Sadly, the model Thompson didn't gain anything from the image but Lange did!  But the point was, it was a created shot..... It took off....no one might have lied about how it was created but their silence in itself created a false impression at the time of being true but reality. Now I know what people will say. That the image, posed and modeled for.....represented what might have been a reality for many at that time. So it was a 'resemblance' of what might be reality but in all actuality wasn't reality. That is fine line between lying, representing, or simply creating something that didn't exist.  That, is true......     jim

Edited August 12, 2022 by lmans

[pgh]

1 hour ago, lmans said:

If a photographer 'fails to outright lie' but manipulates a photograph without speaking to that manipulation (touched up, rehearsed imaged etc etc) and people believe that the end product/image is true, realistic....etc.... isn't the act of not stating anything, then become akin to that of telling a lie?

No - this is just bollocks. This is your standard, but this goes back to the idea that the idea that the photo has some sort of inherent truth to it. Outside of a presentation that is explicit in stating the sorts of pictures one is looking at, no one should ever assume otherwise. If they do, that's not the photographer's fault, and the photographer doesn't owe any explanation. In Lange's case, she took copious notes and considered her writing/captions to be an integral part of her documentation, so anyone who is serious about interpreting her work can look to this. She gave us plenty, if people want to believe something else and run with it, that's not her fault. You're taking some arbitrary standards you think are right/ethical and assuming everyone else should abide by that and many people just do not relate to photography this way. That can be hard to internalize and accept if you've always had a certain set of beliefs about the image - especially amongst photojournalists and street photographers I've met (the parallels with fundamentalists are too easy to draw), but the medium and its practitioners are as pluralistic as any other. 

The standard you're arguing for never existed, was never widely adopted, was never even widely respected or viewed as necessary except within the realm of photojournalism, and even that is a relatively recent development. As I said before, W Eugene Smith, or any famous names of the past, hell ... most national geographic photographers except from the most recent of decades, would have not been able to work on contract today because of his approach to manipulating pictures. The only difference now is that it's easier to manipulate photos in more ways - but they were manipulated in a myriad of ways from the start. Lange's photo is a created image, yes, as are all photographs. The idea that it misrepresents something is only possible if you project on to it this idea that it ever could accurately and fully represent something authentically and factually. It can't, and no photograph ever can. There is no photograph that is 100% purely taken, without any creating. Hell, the sort of very specific and niche street photography approach you are arguing for can't even catch a candid photo on a 4x5 like she was shooting. The image took off because it's a powerful image. If anyone is mislead by it, that is not Lange's fault. 

1 hour ago, lmans said:

So it was a 'resemblance' of what might be reality but in all actuality wasn't reality. That is fine line between lying, representing, or simply creating something that didn't exist.

Yea, I agree with this. But the issue is that you seem to think that some photographs get further than simply a resemblance of reality. They don't. Not even purely candid street photographs. Reality doesn't have blurred backgrounds. Reality doesn't have pincushion or barrel distortion. Reality doesn't have exaggerated facial features at the edge of a frame, reality doesn't have 100% black shadows, blown highlights, motion blur, noise/grain or filmic color palettes. Reality isn't black and white (literally). But if color, most old films don't even render the skin color correctly of anyone but white people and today, digital still sucks at reproducing red tones, so that's not real either. Hell, reality doesn't have 4 borders. The idea that none of these corrupt truth or authenticity but someone looking at a camera or posing does is totally arbitrary and makes little logical sense in this light. People often act differently when they see or even sense a camera. A street photographer simply being present is already impacting the behavior of people in the frame - even if its just because they have to walk around the photographer. You're making a slippery slope argument and it's best to just work the way you like and stop forcing an arbitrary line across a whole discipline. If you think a picture works better in some way, make it that way, but to claim that artists owe any sort of explanation to defend a deviation from what you consider the default way of working is just silly. I'm sorry, but it is. It's quite myopic. 

Anyways, I've tried to elaborate to some degree on why the sort of rules or parameters you want to say make a picture more valuable or better or more respectable or whatever are generally dismissed - you don't have to agree - but your assertions are not gonna be adopted by the artists, curators editors in the world any time soon, for whatever that's worth. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by pgh

[lmans]

Whoa Nelly.....you get plain worked up man...calm down, chill....take a breath...... Yikes.... scary.  I can't even read this as it will give me shivers and nightmares..... 

Sorry to touch the bear.... 

Edited August 13, 2022 by lmans

[PeterGA]

The only real 'decisive moment' is the reaction any photograph elicits from the viewer.

[lmans]

Impact...I do agree there...w/o impact...a photo might just as well be a postcard 🙂 jim

[Ken Abrahams]

Candid Human photographs are entirely possible. There is a stealth involved and a practiced system to focus and capture  sharp images sometimes with some nice ICM . 95% of subjects in my candid street images do not know I am taking shots. Although by way of familiarisation walking around  my small city, some are are showing signs of knowing or not  sure about knowing which does affect the candidness.

There are some images where subjects have a telling look of my presence but they did not see me, it’s a “look” which can be interpreted as knowing I’m there and therefore of no use to me. 

Capturing humans unaware, candid and exhibiting a natural aura as they “be and do things” has always been my goal. 

Post processing always plays a strong part for me. To emphasise or create drama add to the story or even insinuate one.

Best

Edited August 13, 2022 by Ken Abrahams

[Viv]

This is a very interesting discussion.

When I do street photography, I prefer that my subjects are unaware of what I am doing, at least until after I have made the shot.

Having said that, there is almost always some manipulation in post, even if it's just cropping. See example attached, which is a crop.

I do not have an adequate or definitive answer to the question posed by the OP.

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!

[Viv]

10 hours ago, lmans said:

Whoa Nelly.....you get plain worked up man...calm down, chill....take a breath...... Yikes.... scary.  I can't even read this as it will give me shivers and nightmares..... 

Sorry to touch the bear.... 

Such an evasive and low-quality response to a thoughtful and constructive post!

[lmans]

10 hours ago, Viv said:

This is a very interesting discussion.

When I do street photography, I prefer that my subjects are unaware of what I am doing, at least until after I have made the shot.

Having said that, there is almost always some manipulation in post, even if it's just cropping. See example attached, which is a crop.

I do not have an adequate or definitive answer to the question posed by the OP.

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!

Should post processing of any sort be different from that of the actual taking of the photograph? 

[pippy]

On 8/13/2022 at 5:57 PM, lmans said:

Should post processing of any sort be different from that of the actual taking of the photograph? 

Post-processing (Polaroid etc. instant films apart) is an integral - and fundamentally neccessary - part of the procedure to create a visible photographic image from a captured 'virtual negative' - whether the means of capture were filmic, digital or 'other' - and the creation of such a viewable image is a separate discipline from the initial image-capture stage.

Philip.

[lmans]

On 8/13/2022 at 1:53 AM, Ken Abrahams said:

 

Capturing humans unaware, candid and exhibiting a natural aura as they “be and do things” has always been my goal. 

Post processing always plays a strong part for me. To emphasise or create drama add to the story or even insinuate one.

Best

Totally agree....my goal as well.....   And yes, post processing is always in the mix and has been 'forever'....Ask Ansel Adams. But he did scenic and not Street so the goal of being natural, pure candid, unawareness etc was not in his 'need'.....  But well said, jim