The form of the "photo-essay"

I had some extra time today and leafed through various photographic journalism/ essay type books that were available in our library. One book that stood out was Sebastio Salgado's <i>Workers: An archaeology of the industrial age</i>. It seems from my limited exposure to Salgado's work that he likes to use strong graphical elements (often repeated shapes) to fully utilize the medium of B&W. Very <i>Grande</i> images is the only way I can describe them. Now fast forward to a simpler age... W. Eugene Smith's photo-essay <i>A Country Doctor</i>. The essay is not as <b>graphically sensational</b> as Salgado's but it has a poignant, honest, quality that is in itself very moving too. The intimacy that Smith establishes with the subjects is something to behold. So my question is:

 

<p>

 

What <i>morph</i> of the photo-essay appeals to you the most?

 

<p>

 

a) Images that have a immediate graphic appeal (floor you initially) with limited intimacy... or

 

<p>

 

b) Images with a great deal of human intimacy, not as overtly graphic (perhaps a quiet... as Sam Abel would classify his work), but very poignant and moving (from a universal humanity theme perspective)?

 

<p>

 

It would be interesting to hear about your tastes on the matter.

 

<p>

 

John.

John:

Neat thread! I'd vote for the human intimacy as my favourite. My

reasoning is, that as an introvert, I envy photographers that can

pull this off. It takes great skill to develop your subject AND

make a great image.

I'm also a big fan of Usher Felig (Weegee). Now there's some

human studies for ya! He had the unique ability to remain

neutral in many situations and got some great shots in the

process.

I'll give those books a look-see. Sound interesting.

i kinda prefer Salgado.Think Smith worked to "Life" magazine format.

Salgado prefers a book.a Big book.A really big and heavy book.i like

the graphics,my own preference.Also subject matter.Well Salgado is

like the whole world and ALL its people whereas Eugene Smith,the

village(Spain),your family Doctor(gone,mostly)midwife(outlawed!).He

did great things with small intimate subjects.I guess i see a flaw in

Salgado now...he's not on a relationship with the individual,but the

community or cause.Sam Abell,heard his interview,gotta see his new

book also more intimate.For photographers like myself,easier to

duplicate the ways of HCB,DAH,etc as they involved with people as

individuals.I was acquainted with a top photojournalist till he was

killed.He loved books on Landscape and nature.I guess maybe i like

what is so different for me,now darn it I'm not sure.....

I don't know if I'd classify Weegee's style under <b>intimacy</b>. A

lot of the Weegee shots that are memorable were the gang-land slayings

that he covered as a press photographer. Witty maybe... but intimate?

Hard to say you got intimate with a stiff! Some of his shots (during

a heat spell) where he climbed up a fire escape to photograph families

sleeping may be borderline intimate... or borderline voyeur depending

on who you talk to.

I think the king of intimate photo-essays was and is still W. Eugene

Smith. Of course... in real life ES was a very difficult man who quit

his job at <i>Life</i> twice because of artistic/moralist clashes with

the photo-editorial department... but I guess there's a price to be

paid for <b>greatness</b>.

 

<p>

 

In the movie <i>Fight Club</i> it almost cost Tyler Durden his balls.

 

<p>

 

;-)

John:

 

<p>

 

I'd agree with Ben that this is a neat thread, and that poignant

representations of humanity are the most pleasing.

 

<p>

 

...And here's the "BUT": <b>BUT</b> I do not agree with you that

Salgado's images are <i>only</i> graphical in nature with limited

intimacy. To the contrary, I think Salgado uses his strong graphic

style in <i>conjunction</i> with key elements of the human condition

that specifically makes the viewer <i>intimate</i> with the subject;

perhaps the very aspect you are implying he lacks. Which probably

explains why I was so absolutely floored by the images in his

exhibit!

 

<p>

 

I would agree the Smith's images are perhaps more personally intimate

than Salgado's, and certainly less graphical in nature, but I think

the varying quantities of these types of qualities are the basic

components that make up a personal "style" for any given artist. And

thus, portrayal of that style is incumbent with effectively and

regularly balancing and combining those elements in their resultant

body(s) of work.

 

<p>

 

:-),

I have a copy of Abbas' 'Allah o Akbah' and i like it a lot. It is not

the grande humanity of Salgado, yet not quite as intimate as Smith's

'Minamata' work, but it is at once panoramic and close. I also happen

to like Iturbide's (sorry if i got the speeling wrong) way of telling

the story of her people. Poignant? i suppose what style one subcribe to

has a lot to do with the personality. i cannot do what Smith did,

neither can i do what Salgado did. But that's why i like them.

Almost forgotten today, one of the greatest of all photo-essayists was

Leonard McCombe, who was probably even more the master of the intimate

essay than Smith. If you have access to the "Life Library of

Photography" you can find his essay "The Private Life of Gwyned

Filling" in the Photojournalism volume. (Smith's "Spanish Village"

essay is reproduced there also.)

 

<p>

 

Also in the same book is the essay I consider probably the greatest

ever -- Brian Brake's "Monsoon." Photographed with a Leica, and truly

unbelievable when you consider that everything was photographed in the

early '60s with Kodachrome no faster than ASA 25, and possibly even

ASA 10 -- I'm not exactly sure when Kodachrome II, with a speed of 25

replaced the older ASA 10 Kodachrome.

The difference between Salgado and other photogs like Smith or even

HCB seems to me to be the difference between the epic and the lyric.

 

<p>

 

Salgado is clearly an epic photographer, which is to say that he is

interested in presenting Big Subjects in Big Books. He doesn't

linger very long in one place, and he expects the whole to be vastly

stronger than the sum of its parts. His photos don't come from

having spent, say, a month in a refugee camp. He seems to have been

there only a few days, so he doesn't necessarily produce intimate

shots of intimate moments. He does, however, bring extraordinary

sensitivity to difficult situations and records Humanity Going About

Its (Often Difficult) Business In Our Time.

 

<p>

 

Smith and other folks tend more toward the lyric--each photograph is

intimate, the result of having spent considerable time with the

subject. That "poignant honest quality" you mention, John, is hard-

won. Salgado doesn't look for it; instead, he seeks (in James Agee's

phrase in "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men") the "cruel radiance of what

is." Smith's photos are more introspective, more emotional

individually.

 

<p>

 

Salgado is always accused of having too many agendas. His graphical

sensationalism is often the result, too, of his overtly Christian

perspective: Catholic iconography is part of his photographer's

brain. Many of his shots make allusions to the Bible: Pietas,

Annuciations, etc. It seems he can't resist locating his photos

within the grand sweep of human history. But for a believer, it

really isn't too much of a stretch to see in the modern-day plights

of refugees and slaves the very Gospel itself.

 

<p>

 

I applaud this (and not on religious grounds): his photographic

gestures elevate humanity and blur the distinction between the

secular and the spiritual. For many reasons, his photos

have "staying power" and, I think, he will go down as one of the all-

time greats.

 

<p>

 

I like the other, more intimate styles too and don't think the one

necessarily excludes the other. I do often wish for some greater

intimacy or humor (or something) in Salgado but not enough to be put

off by the lack of it.

 

<p>

 

So both of your categories appeal to me, for different reasons. Both

are difficult to achieve in photography; both are worthy.

My preference is to see a subject treated in a way that is consistent

with the <i>essence of the subject itself</i>. Usually, with people

subjects, that means more emphasis on intimacy. I want to learn about

the people - how they live, what they feel, what they think, and all

of the little things that contribute to the state of mind of those people.

 

<p>

 

While it is interesting to see the photographer's style shine through,

I believe the real question here is which is more important - the

subject matter, or the photographer's opinion of the subject matter?

That might be characterized as the contrast between a journalist

(neutral, but sensitive presentation of facts) and an essayist

(presentation of facts in such a way as to support a conclusion or

opinion). In many cases, the photographer has decided on the latter

for various reasons (book sales, career advancement, or whatever).

That approach may be a disservice to both the subjects and the

viewers. (The question of "Photo Journal" vs. "Photo Essay" is

probably better aimed at the philosophy of photography forum.)

 

<p>

 

So, for your project, John, my suggestion would be to do enough

research in advance of shooting to get a good idea of what that

"essence" is, and initially pick a style of presentation accordingly.

That style of presentation may evolve somewhat during the project, as

you become more familiar with the real essence, as opposed to the

initially perceived essence, and that's OK. Think in terms of taking

the viewer on the journey with you, allowing them to see and feel what

you did. Just be sure the style you choose does the subjects justice

and is truthful in its presentation of their lives.

I think the bottom line for my endeavor is INTEGRITY. I don't want

to contrive situations where individuals "pose" for the camera

because the integrity of such a composition is weak (from a humanist

standpoint). So I've tentatively committed to working with just a

few subjects at a time (over a period of several months) to document

their everyday meanderings. No more grabshots for Johnny over the

next year. I will try to make the essay a mirror for the viewer's

soul. Hard task... am I up to it? Well, we'll see in 1 calendar

year!

A great thread!

 

<p>

 

I like both Salgado and Smith and they way they approach

photojournalism. I agree with what was said above about Salgado -

there is intamacy, but because his pictures also have more of an

emphasis on composition it isn't as quicky noticed. Because of this

I like Like Salgado's stuff better. With his pictures you have to

look around them and explore them as opposed to Smith's, whose

pictures are direct and quick to read.

 

<p>

 

These two photographers are good examples of two differnt schools of

photography - the European and American. Smith is the classical

American style of photojournalism (he and other Life photographers

practcally defined it) - straightforeward and easy to read. You want

the reader to easily see what the picture is about. You can see this

in most newspapers in the U.S. as the style (though it is starting to

change). You don't want the reader to thave to think about what the

picture is about for very long.

 

<p>

 

Salgado is more from the European School. His pictures are not as

quick a read. They give more of an impression and they can raise

more questions in the reader's mind. You could also say they are not

as intimate because they don't concentrate on specific people like

Smith's.

 

<p>

 

John - you might be suprised to know that Smith set up many of his

pictures. In a book by Howard Chapman, who used to be the head of

the Black Star Photo Agency, there is a quote where Smith says that a

certin amount of arranging by the photographer must be done. (I

don't have the exact quote, but I could possibly dig it up)

 

<p>

 

cheers,

john

RE: Smith, in addition to setting up many of those shots, some of

them were outright manipulations, notably the shot of the women and

the corpse in the Spanish Village essay and the portrait of Albert

Schweitzer.

 

<p>

 

In the Spanish village, Smith used ferracyanide to re-draw the

woman's eyes (top of frame). In the original neg, she is looking at

the dead man's face. In Smith's famous published image, she is

looking down toward his feet.

 

<p>

 

The Schwietzer shot is a composite: one negative for the doctor

looking off to the left, another negative for the silhouetted hands

reaching up from the bottom of the frame.

 

<p>

 

Questions of integrity, certainly!

 

<p>

 

I have never heard of Salgado's doing anything strange, though I am

always amazed that the birds (seagulls, pigeons, etc.) always seem to

be descending like the heavenly spirit in precisely the right places

in the photo! ;-)

John, you might be thinking about the shot (Vietnam?) of the woman

bathing her invalid husband--they are both in a large tub, with

streams of prefect, heavenly light coming through the cracks in the

roof of the hut.

 

<p>

 

Of that shot Smith said somewhere that "available light" meant any

light that's available, including artifical light. He observed that

a photographer would be a fool not to take advantage of every

resource available to him. Like you, John, I wish I had the exact

quotation.

Preston,

 

<p>

 

I've also heard that the picture you are talking about was set up. I

think it was from his book on Minemata (spelling?) which was a town

in Japan that was being horribly polluted by industry there.

Apparently many of his other pictures were set up besides Spanish

Village - Country Doctor, etc.

I guess you have to look at the standards of his time, and at that

time setting up shots was pretty common. When I found out that his

stuff was set up, however, It did lose much of the power because

there were some photographers in his time doing great, spontaneous

stuff.

 

<p>

 

john

RE: Smith and manipulations. He did do some double-printing and

probably some staging (he 'lit' that Spanish Village picture of the

wake, already mentioned).

 

<p>

 

I don't think he set up "Tomoko's Bath" from scratch (but I could be

wrong), but he did light that as well with some bounce flash in

addition to the natural window light. And he may well have had the

mother 'hold' a pose while he got into position.

 

<p>

 

A slightly different 'take' on the two (or more) schools of

photojournalism/photo-essay. Someone somewhere, referring to HCB and

Gene Smith, once wrote/said that in HCB's essays, "You learn a lot

about Mankind, but not a great deal about the actual people in the

picture." Whereas in Smith's work you learn a lot more about the

individuals, at the expense of a more universal statement. There may be

an "American/European" philosophical divergence at work - respect for

the 'rugged individual' vs. an existentialist-based view of the

individual as an atom of society (I over-generalize).

 

<p>

 

Some of Smith's Pittsburgh pictures are relatively 'non-intimate' and

stand-offish, compared to, say, "Nurse-Midwife" (IMHO his best Life

story). Salgado and HCB also vary quite a bit on the 'intimacy' scale,

so I'm not sure they can be too easily categorized - there's some

overlap.

 

<p>

 

As to 'graphics' vs. 'intimacy' - I'm not sure they're mutually

exclusive. The best pictures will be a synthesis that grabs you with

the 'eye-candy' but ALSO holds you with the gesture/expression/

relationship/intimacy.

 

<p>

 

Maybe that's why I like "Nurse Midwife" so much - there are very few

images with the graphic power OR the intimacy of the picture of a young

mother-to-be asleep with Maude Callum working by lantern-light in the

background. This picture taught me everything there is to know about

USING a wide-angle for expressive purpose in the first 5 seconds I saw

it. IMHO one of the top 10 pictures ever taken - and with an f/5.6 lens

by the light of kerosene lanterns.

I read once that Gene Smith did some propaganda work for the US

Military in Sai-pan. I think it had something to do with the

treatment of Japanese POWs. I haven't actually seen it though... or

does it exist. There's a lot of talk that the Pentagon censored many

of Smith's images because they did not "support the message" that

Japanese POWs were being humanely treated.

Slightly OT: Mary Ellen Marke is another photographer who's work

stands out as "intimate exploration of the human microcosm". I really

enjoyed her work on the mentally retarded.

Life Magazine also censored it's own stuff. For a long time in World

War 2 they wouldn't print pictures of dead American Solders. I'm

sure there was some pressure put on them by the government to do this.

 

<p>

 

john

John. Hi.

 

Here is an example of the sort of essay I enjoy most. In this case a 28 pic essay in B&W about a 90 year old woman and her two farmer sons about to give up on rural life forever after 5 generations of hill farming in Devon UK..(click on pictures at bottom of page and get all 28 pics in the essay. The text is good too)..

 

http://www.chrischapmanphotography.com/last.htm

 

Its not about starvation or war or celebity or sex or lifestyle products or terorrism. Just a quiet look at ordinary people coping with change.

Great photographers such as Salgado and Bourke-White are often dissed for coming in to a place, photograpically raping it, and then immediately leaving for their next assignation. These unique people, however, are able to recognize the visual impact of a situation which may have become commonplace (if not trite) to another photographer who has worked there for long enough to have settled in. The innate humanity of Gene Smith and Dorothea Lange allowed them to immerse themselves in situations and still not becoming jaded. Both types of photographers serve their professions well.