Reluctant subjects

Sorry for the mutliple post, but it was suggested that I start a new

post.

 

Attend the rally today (surprise!) Hope to soup some of the shots

tomorrow and get some up in the next day or two.

 

Walking trough the crowds, ran into a guy that noticed my Leica

gear. He mentioned that he had gotten an M3 when he was stationed in

Germany after WWII. He had joked that he wish he had kept one of the

Luftwaffe Leicas from captured German pilots. He introduced me to

his son and grandson. He had served in WWII and Korea, his son in

Vietnam, and his grandson in Gulf War I. He and his son had over 40+

years between them in the military. They had brought with them the

medals they had earned through their years of service to our country

(this came about when I asked about why they were at the

demostration <duh>; given their long history in the military). I

asked them if I could take their portrait, holding their medals out

in their cases. They declined. I accepted them for their word, even

though I offered to send them prints.

 

 

My question, how do you deal with reluctant subjects? Maybe it was

that I didn't have a media badge. Maybe it was a private thing for

them to share thoughts but not images. I was struck by their openess

to talk with me, but yet not enough (despite the Leica connection!

<g>) to allow an image to be made. At least in my mind it would have

been a powerful image, 3 generations that dedicated a good portion

of their lives serving our nation, demanding peace as opposed to

war. Thoughts?

Chip,

 

Some people are camera shy. Respect that and move on. Although a photo

of them would be a nice complement to your story, the only thing you can do

is be polite and honest when explaining your intentions. It seems from your

story you did the right thing. Even PJs are denied good photo ops. Good luck.

 

-Rene

Yes they demanded peace. They also know it had to be claimed at the point of a gun.

What can you do? Me, I just respect their wishes and be on my way. That's the risk you take by requesting permission to shoot. I find that when I ask people only half (or maybe even fewer than that) agree to be photographed. It's just a hassle most of the time to have to ask - to me, and to them. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you can just shoot without asking (whether you make it known that you are shooting, by holding the camera to eyelevel, or you attempt to be surreptitious by hipshooting or using some other means) and get the picture every single time.

thanks guys... pretty much what I had been thinking. Though I look forward to other comments.

 

It's not that I was looking for a Pulitzer, just an image that that would have been a "winner" in my mind for my portfolio. I guess what is more important to me is the 1/2 hour or so that they spent talking with me. In some ways that was better than any photo-op.

"Even PJs are denied good photo ops." <p>

PJs don't ask permission! At least not the ones I know.

Hi, Chip,<P>

 

Who knows what goes on in the minds of prospective subjects - modesty? insecurity? shyness? fear of retribution? In my experience, you can never second guess these things - at least, not with any degree of accuracy - or utility: it really doesn't matter why they say no - not to you; it only matters that, once they have, you're pretty much screwed, as far as the shot goes.<P>

 

Sometimes I ask permission - usually I regret it. Even if they say yes, they still put on the mask. Sometimes "mask" shots are what you're looking for - most often, they're not - at least, not me.<P>

 

I suppose it depends on how . . . dedicated, impassioned, obsessed, tunnel-visioned, unscrupulous, what have you . . . you are; but I have the best results with shooting first and asking later. That often puts a knot in my stomach. But I'd rather have the knot and the image, than a mild digestion and an awkward pose - or, worse, a big fat no, and the memory of what I might have had. So I would say, in a case like this, find a way to shoot first, then talk. It's always easier to say you're sorry when you have the shot in the can. Granted, in this case you might have missed getting the medals . . . .<P>

 

An alternative might have been to invite yourself over for a drink - tell them their story is fascinating and that you'd like to talk to them further. If you can get at least a phone number, you might end up with a whole project - and who knows what else, or where it might lead? I'll be interested in hearing what others say.<P>

>At least in my mind it would have been a powerful image, 3 generations that dedicated a good portion of their lives serving our nation, demanding peace as opposed to war. Thoughts?

 

Chip, are you baiting another political response? I have this colleague from work who keeps making extreme statements about current event just so he can figure out my politics. No thanks.

 

I don't like to be photographed because the pics alway come out with my hair too grey and my gut too large.

" . . . dedicated, impassioned, obsessed, tunnel-visioned, unscrupulous, what have you . . . you are" <p>

"Tip: invading other people�s personal space is an important part of street photography" - <a href="http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/techniques/general.html" >Brownlow</a>

Ray, no I was not baiting here to start a new "political" thread. In fact I had posted it in a "political" therad to aviod comments like yours.

 

I was being serious with my question, contrite as it seems. I know I am always looking for that shot that will define me for teh ages (even when i am pushing up daisies). It was my hope that I would as the originator of the thread be able to remind peole to stay within topic on this question. For anyone that has an interst in documentry or street photography comes across thsi question from time to time. I only gave the specifics of the situation to better put into perspective the circumstances that I was working under.

No kidding, Andrew. But when you tell people that, often their response is that this is too aggressive; or unscrupulous. Even mad. Sometimes they ascribe to it a more benign motivation ("passion", "dedication", "courage", and so on). I was attempting to anticipate the various colorations that might be placed on my advice, so that it might better stick. Advice which boiled down to: Take the shot - Ask later.

Chip,

 

My guess is they didn't wish to have a photo of them used by someone in a way that may cast the light on them.

 

Once someone has a photo they can do with it or use it in any way they want. Go through the checkout line at the grocery store and see the tabloid garbage. Full of pictures of "stars" and "aliens" that sure as heck didn't wish to have their picture in the Globe/Star/Enquirer etc.

 

Maybe they didn't want to see their picture front page of their hometown paper under the banner "Decorated Vietnam Vet and family hate president."

 

Not that you would do such a thing. But to them, you are just a friendly stranger. Possible of anything.

 

I think they are just being wary. I'd probably be the same way.

Doug,

 

The question then becomes how should one approach events like this? I was an obesrver in my mind. That is how I set out. I guess (despite two Leica's hanging from my neck) looked like just someone out to enjoy the day. I didn't (and don't feel) comfortable is having a camera to my eye when they are talking with me as a friend or associate. Is that a style that obne has to develope to get successful "street" images?

 

I have to agree that your thought on getting them away from the event itself would be away to get an image. Not quite the same as seeing the anti-war signage and all, but effective non the less. Much like images of African natives that I saw set against a backdrop.

David,

 

You are right in that assumption I guess. They had no way of knowing that my motives were more long term than short term. Untill I develope my street or documnetary photography, I view my work as very long term. Also not for profesioanl gain (ie., selling to AP or UPI), but more for maybe future personal shows.

<I>The question then becomes how should one approach events like this? </I><P>

 

I think that's the question you have to ask yourself. Are you going as photographer? If so you are, in my view, somewhat mercenary to the image. Are you going as story-teller ("photojournalist")? Then you are still mercenary to the image - but the image is subservient to the <I>story</I> you're seeking. In the former case, that of the mercenary shooter, you're only raison d'etre is the single image. In the case of the styory-teller, you're looking to find shots, sure, but mainly you're seeking to make a connection that will lead to a story.<P>

 

<I>I was an obesrver in my mind. That is how I set out. I guess (despite two Leica's hanging from my neck) looked like just someone out to enjoy the day.</I><P>

 

But what were you, really? <P>

 

<I> I didn't (and don't feel) comfortable having a camera to my eye when they are talking with me as a friend or associate. </I><P>

 

Of course not. Because what you were doing, it seems to me, was getting their story - rather than their picture. I think that, when you're getting the story, you have to be prepared to make a commitment to it - to follow it, see where it takes you, establish trust, etc. Once you initiate the talking, you've initiated the story-getting. Myself, I'm usually there to get the picture. So i take the shot, nod acknowledgment, and move on. I often think that I should pursue <I>the story</I> - but that would mean living beyond the aesthetic.<P>

 

<I>Is that a style that obne has to develope to get successful "street" images?</I><P>

 

I wouldn't presume to tell you how to do that - beyond what I've already said. I suppose you could combine the picture taking and street shooting - by taking the picture, then striking up the conversation.<P>

Doug,

 

Many thnaks... your words have hit me in so many ways. Would love to see some iamges of yours.

 

For me it is hard to approach situations like this as a PJ, being that publsihing is not the final intent. I guess it is my nature to be honest both befoer and after the shot with my subjects. That is if they or I enage them in converstaion. You have given me some good ideas on how to approach subjects.

If it hadn't been for Bob Thompson's stupid comment (second-guessing people is not very

smart, nor is forcing a political issue into something that in no way intended to be political), this

would have been a nice thread. Thanks anyway, Chip. Some very interesting replies.

 

I shudder at the thought of all the political crap that the next few days will inevitably bring, with all

the pics from yesterday's protests being posted.

 

Oh, well...

Faces aren't always required to tell a story. It's been said that hands are the most telling body part when it comes to one's age. They might have allowed a tight shot of three pair of hands displaying their collection of medals, perhaps with part of the demonstration or signs in the background. Sometimes you have to get creative to get the photo. Father and grandson on the left out of camera view, son on the right. Medal filled hands extended into the photo. Vertical composition. All tack sharp against the slightly out of focus demonstration in the background. Any editor would have loved it simple because it would stand out from all the other coverage of the event.

Chip,

 

Sometimes you tell the story rather than photograph it. This is what happened here.

 

The problem with making contact with people is that you risk losing a photo opportunity. There has to be something impersonal about candid photography. Your subjects have to remain abstractions that visually tell a story. It is surreal in that sense, as HCB said. Human contact gives you a verbal story and sometimes that makes up for losing an image.

 

Let me get this story straight. Was this family with a long military history opposed to a war against Iraq? Did they give any reasons for opposition if they were opposed? I'm asking this not to start off political debates but out of human interest, which is of photographic interest even though you didn't get a photo.

 

In cases like this, I file away in my brain the photograph that I think I would have shot. This is to prepare myself for a similar opportunity in the future.

 

This story needs to be told. An essay with photos somewhere.

 

--Alex

A very good point and concept AL..;)

I asked them, they said NO. Then I asked again with a please. The old man on the top left then said "go on.." to the effect...;)<div></div>

Very good points Alex.

 

They were there to protest against the pending war. They felt that Saddam is someone that needs to be rid of, yet at the same time the way the US is currently going about it, they felt was wrong. They had three main issues. First being that the world community is not behind it as in Gulf War I, or in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and other spots around the globe. Second was that this would do more harm than good to a troubled region, and that it could lead to further strife here at home when the terroists strike back at what they view as the US agression in the region. And finally that it would be the first time that the military would be used as the agression force, against a foe that had not harmed American property. They did say that they would all have welcomed the chance to have fought in Afghanistan, but in the end the proof that Iraq poses the same threat has not been shown.

 

Maybe it was the Leica connection, or maybe my mentioning my Dad and his 22+ years in the Army and Navy that brought them closer to opening up to me. In thinking about it further I wonder why they had carried their medals with them that day? I can only guess. My Dad always brought his medals out on Memorial Day and Veterns Day, otherwise they remained in a drawer. In the end sometimes words are better than pictures. And memories too.

I think the most important thing is to find people who have done what you want to do and ask them. Where's Rob Appleby? Also, you would be amazed at how easy it is find photographers who do what you are asking about and ask them directly. Look for someone with a web portfolio that looks like they have done a lot of this and send them email.<p>

 

For me, it's a matter of persistence. Many people who declined at first, even before I asked, will let me photograph them after I've talked to them for a while. If you just ask, get declined, and don't havng around, you aren't going to get the picture. I've even had people get angry because I was photographing them, yet ten minutes later ask me to take their photo.<p>

 

I think the key is to get people talking aobut themselves. I never talk about myself or photography, I deflect any questions and keep turning it back to them. If you show a genuine interest, people will almost always let you photograph them. The exceptions have been people I assume were criminals or had legal problems of one sort or another.<p>

 

 

<i>There has to be something impersonal about candid photography. Your subjects have to remain abstractions that visually tell a story.</i><p>

 

Did someone get tablets with this written in stone? I often get candids after talking with people. Candid generally means that the subjects are unposed and behaving the way they would without the camera there. People often forget that you are there, or they behave in that natural way when talking to you. If you mess around with your camera, it won't be candid, but lots of photographers learn how to compose without the camera at the eye so that the shot happens in a fraction of a second. <p>

 

It's really about how the photographer behaves, as a normal person interested in their subjects. The photograph below was taken about five minutes after I started talking to the subject. He was at an ice cream stand. I asked if I could shoot him, and he said OK, but after he sat down. We chatted for a few more moments and he started to eat his ice cream. He completely forgot I was there.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/70.jpg"><br>

<i>70, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

Nice shot Travis!

<div></div>