Theatre and Photography - some philosophical questions

When I was a yearbook staff photographer at Ohio State, I did a lot of theatre and dance photography. I always shot dress rehersals, which of course were visually identical to the final show. Only once was I informed that I was a disturbance, to a very young actor in MacBeth. I used a 90mm Summicron and Tri-X on a Leicaflex, so the sound was minimal.

The photos above confirm that shooting theatre is usually a documentary experience rather than a creative experience. It doesn't always have to be that way - for example, in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=15235784">this photo</a>, the photographer has gone beyond the simple act of documenting to impart some of the feeling the play was expecte to create.<p>

 

When I have been asked to shoot theatre, I have taken the approach of shooting almost everything but the stage. An example can be seen in <a href="http://www.spirer.com/images/thewall/">this presentation.</a><p>

 

There are alternative approaches like these, but I think that they usually require the ability to work backstage or on stage during dress rehearsals. Many photographers have photographed "theatre people" as a way of showing something about theatre itself.

<i>The photos above confirm that shooting theatre is usually a documentary

experience rather than a creative experience. It doesn't always have to be that way

</i><p>

 

Just look at Josef Koudelka's excellent, expressionistic theatre work for that.

I'm a professional theatre photographer and find that

those involved with the production undervalue the contribution of

the photographer..When the production if finished and gone

how would you know it took place..the photographs have the

power to keep the images created by the cast and director in the

audience's head and if the photographer has not captured that

feeling

then they've failed and the piece is gone and lost..did anyone

see the wonderful Medea by Theatre Babel, can you convey the

power of it without images.I only hope that my images will

endure and keep it alive

 

Check out my web site www.douglasmcbride.com to see some

of the images that I've taken of theatre during the last few years

 

I like the story of General potemkin(a wee soviet

reference)..whoosh you blink and he's gone..so is theatre unless

you snap it well...

I second the recommendation for "Images of Beckett" - book is an exploration of the process of rehearsal and performance, Beckett's personal direction style, but also a true collaboration between photographer and theatre production's actors, director, lighting designer, etc.

Lighting is key, capturing the design at the right moment; production documentation is one mode of photography for theatre, press shots (more focused on actors than set, not taken from proscenium necessarily) are another. I've always loved Martha Swope's dance photos.

Brilliant work, Douglas McBride. You have captured definitive moments in those productions.

 

http://www.douglasmcbride.com

 

Most people, including many directors and actors, have no idea how challenging theatrical photography can be.

 

As well as overcoming the technical difficulties--slow shutter speeds and minimal DOF because of low light, garish colour casts from the gels, difficulty in moving to the best camera angles, even in rehearsals, etc.--a theatrical photographer had to sense when a scene is building and anticipate the moments of revealing emotion and significant action. You are meeting these challenges very well.

 

I agree with you, too, that well-shot theatrical images keep the performance alive long after the set is struck. IMO, still photogaphy does this much better than video, because stills capture the key moments, and can be viewed without finding the tape, firing up the VCR, and spending significant time waiting navigating to the scenes you want to see.

I've re read the original question and we are going away from it a

bit..the second bit is however about problems so..

 

There seems to be two camps, one for amatuer and one for

professional..from my point of view its a shame that not all good

productions are covered by folks with a better technical skill..then

the pictures do just become a record of events..it takes a

focused eye (sorry for the pun) to get good images..that is

usually a professional whose clear about his/her intent in taking

images that go beyond just a record

 

My main problem here in Scotland is there's no money in theatre

which means that I have to do other commercial work but would

love to just do theatre, I see some great theatre but rubbish at

front of house..Photographers cant always be of the same

standard but why is it that some body'd pal taking pictures is

acceptable to folks who should know better, being creative souls

 

Thats my favourite rant..My pal has a camera he can take the

pictures...Bah...

 

If your listening Brent thanks for your comment..shame your in

Canada..lovely place..<div></div>