Mike Johnston's recent column and HC-B

Mike Johnston's weekly column "The Sunday Morning Photographer" is

usually some inspiring reading. However, in this week's column (link

on the

front page of photo.net), he gave some "tips" on creative photography.

One of which suggests "Pay somebody to enliven a scene....".

 

I think that is a DANGEROUS advice to street photographers and would

be an insult to HC-B and other honest street shooters. There is enough

"reality TV" in our popular culture, why can't we leave photography alone?

 

I also double if he had Magnum's permission to use HC-B's famous

photo in that article (with or without HC-B's credit).

 

What is your stand?

"double" should be "doubt".

<p>

Here is the link:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column45/">http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column45/</a>

I'm not a street photographer, thus I don't need to adhere to any code of ethics. If a 'model' can improve a photo, I'm all for it. It's about telling a story with your photo after all...

 

Now, having said that, photo-journalists should not be allowed to alter reality in their photos...

Robert Doisneau certainly didnt have a problem with it. Those two kissers in front of the Hotel De Ville were actually models he paid for the "candid" pose.

 

Heck, why not just pay somebody to take the picture for you if the only thing you want is a good picture?

I don't have problem with models and paid assignment shots. For example, one of my favorite Elliot Erwitt photographs (a boy sitting at the back of the bicyle) was a staged shot and originally in color chrome. But that is an advertise for Frech Tourist board, not a documentary photo.

You can see it on Elliot Erwitt's Website under "Commissions"

<p>

<a href="http://www.elliotterwitt.com">http://www.elliotterwitt.com</a>

<p>

I don't understand how payment to a subject makes a photo any less valuable. And sometimes it saves the photographer the embarassment of a scolding and unwilling subject. I give this guy five bucks.<div></div>

Niced shot, Paul.

 

Obviously it is a posed shot. But it is not what I am talking about. I am talking about "staging" a shot that looks candid. It is not about the value of the photo but its integrity. Since Elliot Erwitt did that shot for a commerical, there is no "integrity" in it. It is beautiful (and my favorite) though.

 

What I am against is Mike's "tip" to "creative photography". Paying somebody to create a photography is a different creativity. Life is not Hollywood.<div></div>

There is a difference between street photograhy and journalism. Personally I can

accept staged street photography, voluntary or paid, but cannot accept the same for

journalism.

would be better if you had aproached some feet, although much better than having pay them to run closer, but is it a sin in paying models to do what we want or need, certanly not although legality is not morality, but let´s keep morality and legality on a side and foucus on our work as photographers. when out chassing pictures our minds blend with the surround atmospheres faces shadows and highligths and eventualy we start taking pictures, pictures of how we react to our environment or how it influence us and our pictures. if on the other side you hire someone or set some thing to get a picture after time of working this way things get repetitive for sure, an example are the pictures of Dosneau, there is not much diversity in the deepth of their content. On the other side there are good photographers that work fine hiring models and doing pictures designed by editors, but that´s another history, not journalistic not documentary, you name it.

>>>I'm not a street photographer, thus I don't need to adhere to

any code of ethics<<<

 

i completely disagree with this statement furthermore i think it is

just the opposite. street photography is probably the only genre

which rules/ethic (if there's any) is depended on each situation

imo. i don't believe the idea of the final image is everything. the

way inwhich the image was made/captured is rather important to

me. having said that, no one REALLY know (except the photog)

if a certain decisive moment was captured or **enliven** now do

we?

<i>would be better if you had aproached some feet, ...</i>

<p>

I didn't move closer or wait till they came closer because I WANT the space that they were running into. They had been running around many times, I thought about the composition everytime they passed the same spot but I didn't raise my camera. When the ferry was about to land and I knew it was my last chance, I raised the camera. It took me less then 5 seconds to frame, wait and nail down the shot. There is only one frame of this scene.

BTW, there is a very subtle difference between these two requests:

 

1. "You are an interesting person, can I take a candid picture of you? Do whatever you usually do. Here is 5 bucks for your time ;-)"

 

2. "I need a lady in red in this scene, would you mind running from here to there? Here is 5 bucks for your time ;-)"

Well, the scan looks like it's done from a halftone. And you can get halftone HCB pics in

any bookshop, whereas photographic prints are harder to come by. Which suggests he did

it without Magnum's consent. Actually, I could ring someone who works at the London

office (I was at college with them), find out what they consider infringement. But I can't be

bothered.

Why worry about "ethics"? How is "staging" a photo unethical, assuming you're not trying to pass it off as unstaged photo? If your street photo is just "art" what possible difference does make whether you set up the shot, or photoshopped it to death?

 

Don McCullin (British war photographer) set up a shot a dead American GI in Vietam, with a snap of the guy's girlfriend lying amid some rounds of ammunition in the foreground. It's one of his most famous shots. He told his editors he staged it but that it still told the right story. It was never dishonest and it ran, and continues to run, as a commentary on the war.

The image in question was used in an editorial context, to illustrate a point in the article. As such, I believe it constitutes fair use under the copyright statute.

<p>

<em>The fair use provision of the Copyright Act allows reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works under certain conditions for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research. Additional provisions of the law allow uses specifically permitted by Congress to further educational and library activities. The preservation and continuation of these balanced rights in an electronic environment as well as in traditional formats are essential to the free flow of information and to the development of an information infrastructure that serves the public interest.</em>

<p>

The above is quoted from http://arl.cni.org/scomm/copyright/uses.html

<p>

 

 

If anyone thinks differently and can say why, let me know. Photo.net has a policy of respecting all copyright laws. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I'm open to comments from those who are.

i for one know its a big no no in photojournalism. a ny times photog got fired for posing a kid after he suggested it was 'found'.

He should have used a staged photo as an example, unless he wanted to "imply" that HC-B's photo was staged.

I was slightly taken aback when I read that suggestion also. I don't know that I think it would be dangerous advice but any of us who have done street work know how hard it is to really capture one great moment let alone all the ones that HC-B managed to get. On the other hand, when I went to the Brassai show at the Hayward Gallery a few years ago, the curator of the show told me that Brassai also staged his shots. Others have told me he didn't. ahh, epistimology.

 

The other thing that I've been wrestling with is the implication that a shot isn't as good if it doesn't have people in it or that a shot is "just" a holiday snap without that classic decisive moment. In the history of art there is plenty of scope for landscape and still life work and street photography in its broadest sense has the same range of still life like shots of buildings, urban detritis, objects and architectural bits and bobs and there was something in the way I read Mike Johnston's article which seemed to dismiss that work because it didn't have people in it.

 

Last Thurs. evening I was in Soho doing some photography and in a seedy doorway at the end of Greek Street stood 3 chaps, one of whom was a heavy set man dressed in a sort of sloppy zoot-suit that you might have expected to find in a doorway of a 1920's speak easy or a cheap Havana hotel, the photo op was a perfect setup. But I couldn't get a good candid angle and I was bungling things up by staring at them through the throngs until these guys were eyeing me suspiciously like I might be "the enemy". Wanting the photo but not wanting to end up in concrete in the Thames, I just asked him if I could take his photo. He seemed perplexed, suspicous and one of the other chaps said... how much will you pay him? I pleaded poverty (well not hard work there) and said something like, "come on, I'm broke, its just for a photo, look it will look really cool". The guy said "for money", I said once more, "please?" but inside I just found it repulsive to start paying for the good shots that are out there. Just me and my 2p. YMMV

"... he wanted to "imply" that HC-B's photo was staged."

 

I can't see that from from his words nor the context. He's not implying, you're inferring.

 

In any event, unless we're talking journalistic mis-representation, I don't care if he paid or not. I don't see that technique being particularly useful in the street of LA tho', but since even the homeless have Zed cards to hand out here, it might be worth a try.

Regarding the HC-B copyright Bob, doesn't it depend on where the copyright is held? You may be ok in terms of USA IP law but what about EU IP law. Since photo.net is trans-national I would guess that the HC-B photo is protected here in the EU where IP law is sometimes different and that whole ugly swirl of cross border internet issues may come to the fore.

<p>I think M.Johnston used HC-B's photo to show an example of using a character in a street scene. He never implied that HC-B paid the little girl. What I read in this article is that paying/staging someone in a scene is a way one can use to create a similar photo. Nothing more.</p>

<p><i>an insult to HC-B and other honest street shooters</i></p>

<p>I don't understand your point. How do you define and "honest" shooter ? When you look at a photo, do you know the exact circumstances in which it was taken? There will always be some "story" behind a picture that you will never know about. So how can you determine the "honesty" of a photograph by looking at his picture ? </p><p>Thanks for the interesting discussion.<p>

he wanted to "imply" that HC-B's photo was staged."

 

And some of his work was. However, he still had a excellent eye...one of his mates was Picasso. That's where he was really at, Art with a brush.

 

He hated having his photo taken, unless it was staged. He used a cheap p/s in his latter years,because he likes the auto zoom stuff; it's the photo what matters. Don't get carried a way with icon worship, the real man is important...lot more see, and understand.

Sorry to burst anyones bubble but my understanding is that HC-B had

no such qualms about staging shots and often asked people to pose/redo

or continue to do something to get the shot he wanted.

 

I could be wrong but I have heard this from a few sources over the years.

 

To a certain extent who cares!

 

Does how a shot is achieved devalue the final image?

 

I don't think so, especially as often it would be impossible to tell if a

shot was directed or natural.

To a certain extent who cares!

 

No, as far as the final image matters. However, it's just nice to think someone has worked for the photo.

<i>Sorry to burst anyones bubble but my understanding is that HC-B had no such qualms about staging shots and often asked people to pose/redo or continue to do something to get the shot he wanted.

 

I could be wrong but I have heard this from a few sources over the years.

 

To a certain extent who cares! </i><p>

 

If it was just somebody named Hank taking some very interesting photos, I'd say you were right. But considering the iconic holy grail of "The Decisive Moment", I'd say it makes a huge difference. I suppose next you're going to tell me that there is no Easter Bunny! Geesh... ;-) I personally am starting to feel very disillusioned.