human beings in photos

Hi all. First of all my apologies if this is not the right forum,

but it's the closest match I found. secondly, forgive my english.

 

Browsing through the photo critique categories, my attention was

on "portraits". Being focussed to be as honest as possible with

myself and with the photog, I found myself sort of off balance

coming across pics I would have categorised as "street" or "travel"

or even "children". It is not just a matter of categories. It is

that, for exemple, IMO it is easier to shoot an interesting face in

Bombay (I am italian) rather then in a dull, colorless european

town. It would take more skill or creativity to make

it "attractive". So, this is the question: is there a way

to "objectively" categorize a photo of a human being?

Marco,

 

Why do you want to do it !? and Tell me how is it going to improve your photography skill !?

 

Although unitentionally, I think you are embark on a dangerous course when you start to categorize human being based on gender, social status, age or race for that matter. What's next....!?

 

If you have not read them, I suggest you get hold of these books:

The family of man & The world's family by Edward J. Steichen & Ken Heyman. You will then see "how alike people were in all parts of the world " a quote from the book, you will see there is no need "to objectively categorize a photo of human being " as suggested.

 

If you are serious about photographing people and humanity, these books are a must read.

 

Robert.

Rob, for heaven's sake, I must have explained myself in a ill manner. I do not have any intention whatsoever to classify human beings! Who, or better what, am I to do so? No way.

I'm referring to circumstances of enviroments, situations, maybe social contests and other meaning by which I could contestualize a photo, so that my judgment be more accurate. Please, don't get me wrong!

Again, do you have any parameter by which to put a photo in "portraits", "children", "street" or "travel" categories?

I mean, when I see a pic whose author has put it into the "portraits" cat, sometimes I feel its right place would be elsewhere, so to "contestualize" its judgment in a more accurate way.

Why is it important to put a photograph into a category? Why is this important to the photograph or to you? Why not put them into two categories: interesting photograph; boring photograph.

 

You can then file the images in the second category and work with the images in the first.

 

The second part of the question comes from familiarity. You are familiar with, and used to, the faces and backgrounds where you live. When you go to a different country, the newness and unfamiliarity are interesting to you because you notice and are aware of the differences.

 

I live in New Mexico. I'm sure if I went to Italy, I'd find a lot of "interesting" faces in exotic locations, for the same reasons you seem to find it easier to shoot in Bombay. It's a matter of perception, not really locale.

It is that, for exemple, IMO it is easier to shoot an interesting face in Bombay (I am italian) rather then in a dull, colorless european town. It would take more skill or creativity to make it "attractive".

 

Please, don't get me wrong! Again, do you have any parameter by which to put a photo in "portraits", "children", "street" or "travel" categories?

 

---------------

 

In regard to your above, the answer is in your above comment. I found it ironically funny.

 

To me, an American, Italy is colorful and foreign. Any images I might gather on a trip to Italy would be considered by those around me to be "very" interesting, unique, travel oriented and or street in style, photographically speaking.

 

So I guess the answer to your question lies somewhere within the context in which the image was gathered; is it your home or someone else's home? :)

Hello there Marco,

 

Perhaps an objective approach is useful, in order to understand the subject. We can be objective in our efforts to categorize photos, just as a library or computer must classify or file it's contents.

Being subjective about that process we use may also help us to qualify in our own minds what we then see and interpret daily.

It is never a truely black and white process, but it can often seem so. Just a few thoughts from a beginner.

 

When browsing the categories I find myself drawn to people photos,

it seems that I subcategorize things objectively and end up with some kind of subjective result. I update this visual data daily, and actually photo.net has been a great learning tool for me. We need to keep our tools working and maintenance is part of the learning process for me, it allows me to live in a very isolated area and yet enjoy some photosurfing. I think there is an amazing world to see.

 

I like faces from far flung places, but sometimes we can also find hapiness close by. Your portrait of your daughter is.... wonderful.

 

Cheers.

Hi Marco,

 

I think that what we are talking about here is "style." There is a definite style for street

photography. It can be defined in a generalized way: street photography is almost always

35mm, more often black and white than not, almost always printed full frame, it is almost

always of people, and it has a candid feel. If a particular photograph, or a particularly body

of work, streches these defining qualities too much, we would say it is not street

photography.

 

There are various styles or genres of portraiture, too, that can be so defined. And of

landscape also.

 

We categorize photographs according to an objective criteria, and call the category a

style.

 

Further, I feel that understanding style, what makes it, what defines it, is very important

for photographers to know and understand.

 

Best

Tom

Hi Steve and Thomas.

You helped make my point: your deductions are exactly the reasons why I would put "those" pics under "travel" rather than other categories. when you travel (for pleasure) you usually don't go to "boring" places with "boring" people (pardon my quotas but for the sake of synthesis I am leaving out lots of implications)so it is easier and less "work" to shoot "attractive" portraits.

You know what is like to shoot an old peasant from... you name it, with lots of wrinkles on his face, forged by the sun with a thorn, once colorful hat. On the contrary, try to make attractive a middle aged, whealty and healty, businessman in his dark suite from the Big Apple going out for the lunch break. ;-)

 

Ben: Thanks again, it is this most valuable site that is stimulating my need to classify pics. To help understand what we are doing, mostly coming from sheer passion in a naive way.

 

Tom: That's what I meant, it is theese "style" parameters that I need to know about a picture in order to evaluate it.

You said:

 

"Further, I feel that understanding style, what makes it, what defines it, is very important for photographers to know and understand".

 

Now, I would suggest (don't know if it is feasible) that the people from photo.net help us to place the pic into the right category through a suggestion aside our own category indication. this way we would have the indication of the photog intention and the "objective" definition by the Pros. (it is just an humble suggestion). What do you people think?

Hi Marco, I think the 'pros' have enough to deal with already without categorizing photos, perhaps it would be too difficult.

Anyhow, I think there could certainly be many more specific categories, snow-boarding? The 'concerts' category is not my cup of tea, but pehaps another category such as classical music would be.

Objectively there could be categories for people to feel 'safe' in, for example those people who cannot bear to look at a 'nude' photo could frequent a forum called 'with clothes'. The list of variations is of course endless and will probably be determined by the people running the site. I enjoy the experience here anyhow, good or bad.

 

Anyhow, that is all very subjective since it is only my humble opinion!

 

Cheers.

Your question is anything else than creative.

To categorise is a matter of the human mind for the sake of organisation. If you want to make interesting and attractive pictures than simply follow your heart and forget such selfimposed, useless burdens of "objective" quality.

RE: it is easier to shoot an interesting face in Bombay..

 

Depends on how you look at it (the issue, not the face). If you look at it from a different perspective, perhaps, on the opposite, "it would take more skill or creativity" to make a truly interesting photograph of an exotic face. What I mean is that a photograph with an exotic face LOOKS more interesting, but is it REALLY more interesting? Just in a way of an example - in my city one can very rarely see black (meaning, African black) people. Well, I saw one today, or was it tomorrow, and I remember seeing this person - this is to show you that there are very few black people here. Well, each time I make a photograph with a black face (though in fact I have no such photographs) it's "more interesting" - but of course, it's not because it's only the foreigness of the face that draws attention. Or suppose I am photographing people coming from a subway, for instance, waiting for a lucky combination of faces, expressions, etc. And a black person appears - and wow he/she stands out so nicely. But really it's sort of cheap (not politically, but photographically). I guess the same applies when you bring photographs from a trip to an exotic country. I mean this exoticness is the front and one has to get through it - which may be difficult because it is so strong. In this sense one makes better pictures with familiar faces, because one understands them much better - it's not only about a colour or wrinkles , etc. Hope I made myself clear this time.

<b>Late response</b><p>I just stumbled on this thread and I

think you pose an important question which the answers so far

don't really address. <p>The categories of people-photos define

the reason for taking the photos - so it <u>is</u> a creative

issue. An "interesting face in Bombay" is not IMHO a portrait but

a snapshot unless the person is known to you or you feel some

particular insight into his/her situation. A portrait should say a lot

more than just what a person looks like - in fact a family "snap"

is more likely to be a portrait than the "interesting face" as you

will naturally choose a moment when the subject's personality is

revealed by expression or posture. The unknown "face" remains

a mask which you can not see through with the camera.

<p>

At best, street photographs tell us about personal situations or

the public <i>persona</i> of the subjects but not about the inner

reality of the characters. Ther same applies to travel photos of

people. The cute kid pics and glamour "portraits" tell us almost

nothing except about the photographer's taste in cute / glamour.

<p>So, if your aim is a portrait you have to be personally

interested in the subject and know or intuit something of the life

and personality behind the mask and so make it transparent. If

you just want an "attractive" or dramatic snapshot it is no different

from photographing a tree - you choose the photogenic subject

and photogenic surroundings and create the image as you like.

Agree 100%, Jonathan.. Actually, what you said is something I've been thinking (and even explaining to some people) recently..