How does one capture an emotion?

<p>How does one capture that which is invisible but real?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2016/01/21/t-magazine/hsin-wangs-de-selfing-series/s/21tmag-viewfinder-slide-H3XH.html?action=click&contentCollection=T+Magazine&entrySlide=1&module=RestartSlideShow&pgtype=imageslideshow&region=Slideshow+Promo&slideshowTitle=Hsin+Wang%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CDe-Selfing%E2%80%9D+Series&version=EndSlate"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a><br /> <br /> It's all about evoking emotions in the viewer, of course. The problem is that it is neither simple nor easy.</p>

<p>I am not asking the philosophical question of whether one can photograph an emotion. I am asking about practical techniques for attempting to do so.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>"How does one capture an emotion?"</p>

<p>The photographer's emotion, or that of the subject(s) that are seen in the photo?</p>

 

<p>Sight + smell + touch + sound + taste + mood + weather + movement + ? = E(motion)</p>

<p>Sight = P(hotograph)</p>

<p>Clearly, E does not = P. Therefore, the Sight in P cannot be the Sight found in E if one wants P = E.</p>

<p>Obviously, the de-selfing slideshow, that you link to, does not answer the question. </p>

<p>Maybe you should just start with the photographer - if that is what you call practical techniques. At least it is practical and always at hand.</p>

<p>Anders wrote: "Maybe you should just start with the photographer ... "</p>

<p>He has to claim, '"This is what my emotion looks <em>like</em>." What <em>does</em> an emotion look <em>like</em>?</p>

<p>Suggestion: Since you want this to be practical as opposed to philosophical, which seems a laudable goal, pick a photo that you think captures or expresses or causes an emotion and let's talk about how it gets there. Link to the photo, name the emotion and talk about what it is in the photo that seems to capture, express, or cause that emotion. Otherwise, we're going to go back and forth to nowhere, which seems not to be what you want.</p>

<p>If we are speaking of a photograph, all we have are the cues provided in a two dimensional medium. These are a moment captured by the photographer -- subject, light, focus, composition. Without words, we use our individual empathic "programming" and cues in the image to read the "emotion". The subject's actual emotions can be quite irrelevant.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Does a state of dreaming or a childhood wonder qualify as an emotion?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18138895&size=lg</p>

<p>This is an unplanned shot (until the last moment). The little girl, daughter of a lady photographer friend was aware of the presence of photographers in the orchard, but had seemingly ignored our presence.</p>

<p> This is something that we as photographers have no control over. People will react to a photograph based on a variety of different factors. Remember, a photograph simply describes something so we can say this landscape looks dreary or that person looks happy/sad/sexy/bored etc but it's just a description and how we arrive at our interpretation has a lot to do with our background, our life experiences, our culture and so on. </p>

<p>Arthur wrote: "The little girl, daughter of a lady photographer friend was aware of the presence of photographers in the orchard, but had seemingly ignored our presence."</p>

<p>And ... ? Where is the emotion, and whose is it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sandy: Without words, we use our individual empathic "programming" and cues in the image to read the "emotion". The subject's actual emotions can be quite irrelevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wouldn't seem very empathetic to me to ignore the subject's actual emotions?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc: This is something that we as photographers have no control over.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This would be true mostly of poor photographers. Many good photographers make a lot of choices in order to express their own emotions and convey emotions of their subjects.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc: People will react to a photograph based on a variety of different factors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. That's why emotions may vary. One of the factors going into the reaction is what they see in the photo, what is there and how it is portrayed. Humans do have some shared sensibilities, including a shared visual language. This is where there may be a meeting of the photographer and viewer. There is some connection. You can tell someone your mother died and they will react by laughing, because of something in their background or a particular feeling they have toward you or your mother. That would be an unusual reaction, however. Same with pictures. Reactions can be selfish or empathetic, or some combination of the two. Empathetic reactions usually have some connection to the picture itself. Selfish reactions are more obstinately "subjective."</p>

<p>Lannie, maybe you could start with <a href="http://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjExMDIyNSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDUxMng1MTJcdTAwM0UiXV0.jpg?sha=1ee33678f5c27f76">THIS PHOTO</a>.</p>

<p>Some of the things that go into my emotional response to it and what emotions I read in it (which aren't that separable to me, to be honest):</p>

<p>The color palette. Think how differently it would feel if this leaned toward cooler colors such as blue instead of yellow/red/orange.</p>

<p>His being in the foreground, harshly lit, her in the background, the shadow on the wall dividing the frame. What is this adding up to, not in terms of specific storyline or meaning, but in terms of your emotional reaction and your reading of the emotions of the scene?</p>

<p>The gesture of the subjects. Think how differently it would feel if they were involved in an embrace.</p>

<p>His back and her eyes. Would it feel differently if they were catching each others eyes or both looking at us?</p>

<p>The gesture of his smoking? What does this add to the storytelling which makes me feel a certain way.</p>

<p>That there will be a range of emotions and some variety and ambiguity does not mean the photograph itself is not exerting some amount of control. </p>

<p>Fred -- the initial point -- "It's all about evoking emotions in the viewer, of course. The problem is that it is neither simple nor easy."<br>

What I may feel and see as a photographer is one thing, what I come away with from another photographer's image is quite a different thing.<br>

In a specific instant, a captured expression of grief and one of hilarity can be interchangeable to anyone only viewing a photo provided the context is neutral. Ask any actor.</p>

<p>Fred, I much like your example, with its positive attributes of pose, color and lighting. It succeeds well in providing a different view of a not unusual bedroom scene. Having felt that, I do not feel that emotion is being vehicled by it or its subjects.</p>

<p>Perhaps I am too blasé about such scenes? That may be very possible.</p>

<p>Julie, in my earlier example of the little girl among blossoms in the apple orchard I was alluding to the emotion of the child, although I was emotionally a bit affected by her innocent appearing attitude (the tip of the iceberg theory at play with the extra image thoughts of the photographer?).</p>

<p>Arthur, in the picture, I see a girl and an orchard. In the picture, where is the emotion, and what is the emotion? Please describe where it is <em>in the picture</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It succeeds well in providing a different view of a not unusual bedroom scene. Having felt that . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, what are some of the differences you are feeling?</p>

<p>>>> Having felt that, I do not feel that emotion is being vehicled by it or its subjects.</p>

<p>Agree. It feels very forced, in a heavy handed sort of way, belying its intent and thus easy to see through.</p>

<p>Arthur, your photograph reminds me of Wynn Bullock's Child on a Forest Road, 1958. In that photo, I imagine that the child has a sense of awe at the natural beauty surrounding the road. But, that may be just my adult mind interpreting what a young child might be thinking, or that I wish was thinking. In this link, Wynn's daughter, Sandra, explains how the photograph was made and the child's circumstances. http://www.wynnbullockphotography.com/featured/2012-03/featured-1203large.html Does this commentary help me understand the child's emotions at the time? I don't think so, although I now know that the child is a boy rather than a girl (despite the dress) and that he is looking to the left because of leaves rustling in the breeze. </p>

<p>Of course, scenography is a craft, that is taught and can be learned and the bedroom scene can be analysed and interpreted (and set-up) in terms of emotions. It seems banal to me and I'm not sure, that Lannie wanted to go in that direction.<br>

Arthur's little girl is a better example of emotion although it might especially be in terms of the viewers emotion more than the girl. <br>

In portraits, emotions are more straight forward : suspicion, happiness, attention, anger, fright, astonishment, sadness, as in the image collage below.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Better yet, see the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_de_Boulogne#The_Mechanism_of_Human_Facial_Expression">Duchenne</a>: [ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_de_Boulogne#/media/File:Guillaume_Duchenne_de_Boulogne_performing_facial_electrostimulus_experiments.jpg">LINK</a> ]</p>

<p>Better yet, see the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_de_Boulogne#The_Mechanism_of_Human_Facial_Expression" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Duchenne</a>: [ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_de_Boulogne#/media/File:Guillaume_Duchenne_de_Boulogne_performing_facial_electrostimulus_experiments.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">LINK</a> ]</p>

<p>Love your quirky nature, Julie.......one of my favorite folk on P/N. </p>

<p>Those links are very nice but what about us, the P/N photographers, are we not worthy of at least a passing mention?</p><div></div>

<p>I thought the linked photos were very false and lacked honesty..</p><div></div>

<p>Sometimes emotions are subtle. </p>