What is it about Magnum photos?

<p>Hey guys,<br>

Now I know this discussion is probably more suitable for the practice and technique forums, but i find them a little too technicle and would really like to bring this up in a more casual manner.<br>

So I've been really reluctant to bring this up til' now as i really, really don't want to come across as just another look and follow "copycat", but I really have to get it off my chest.<br>

I'm just really curious as to what it is about good documentary photos, apart from subject and lighting, that make them what they are and give them the feel they have, particularly with regards to processing. A fine example(s) are the works of Magnum photographers. When you look at their portfolios on their site, there's just something about them that makes them seem so vivid and surreal at the same time, not what you'd expect to see straight out of the camera. Being documentary photographers, I would believe that they would only make 'basic' adjustments to their photos; contrasts, etc. Yet i still find myself wondering what it is exactly about them. Oddly enough, the only way I can really think of describing how they appear is it's like seeing them in print, straight out of a book; you see the moment as if you were there, but it looks NOT like it would if you were actually there.<br>

What do you all think?</p>

<p>Well, the real secret was that it was formed in 1947 by people who were widely recognized as among the very best documentary photographers in the world at that time. Subsequently, no one has been a Magnum photographer who is not pretty darn close to that level.</p>

<p>The answer is <em><strong>talent</strong> </em> is what makes the pictures so vivid and real. I don't think there is so much a common style, except in so far as the "current style" would be shared by most photographers of an era. It's just that these people do so much better at it. It's not some technological secret that can be written down so any Tom, Dick, or Mary can do it.</p>

<p>Talent is useless without the 101 % of dedication attached to it, which is what all Magnum photographers share, being Magnum photographers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Talent is useless without the 101 % of dedication attached to it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh really?</p>

<p>Yes, <em>really</em>, amazing isn't it ?</p>

<p>When we view the works of all "great" artists, does the term <em>self</em>-<em>fulfilling prophecy </em>ring a bell?</p>

<p>Maybe its because they are Photographers.</p>

<p>i think talent can often overcome issues of procrastination!</p>

<p>"When you look at their portfolios on their site, there's just something about them that makes them seem so vivid and surreal at the same time"</p>

<p>This has far more to do with the quality of the photogrpahers and the quality of the people editing their film alongside the photographer than any piece of gear, or darkroom technique.</p>

<p>Don't be ashamed. It is far easier to focus on the technical aspects of photography than t o work on on the real photographic aspect: of seeing with something to say. Magnum photographers tend to be highly intelligent, literate folk with a distinct tendency towards curiosity.</p>

<p>I guess I made a mistake of not clarifying in my original message that I'm sure most of us know of the talent and dedication these photographers have, and undoubtedly we understand how these qualities play a part in creating such vivid and surreal images, in a certain sense, more in terms of content.<br>

Now, I really appreciate the responses so far, but i really should be more specific to say that i said those things in a sense which was really quite literal, speaking more of the how the photos generally; visually or "physically"; look, if you get what I mean. Don't get me wrong, I do believe mainly in the dedication us photographers should have and what it will bring you, but all the dedication in the world is not going to enable you to literally do something if you don't literally know how to do it, if you get my drift.<br>

So i guess having said that, and despite mentioning that I wanted to bring this up in a more casual manner, this is nonetheless still a more technical based question.</p>

 

<p>I forgot my smilie.. =)</p>

<p>Uncompromising exclusivity, determined by an elite membership, helps. That tends to be diluted whenever any group decides to pursue goals such as popularity or profitability.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"...101 % of dedication..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no such thing as giving more than 100%, but it's one of the more popular lies of the past couple of decades. As soon as someone - an athlete, coach or anyone - claims to be giving "a hunnert and tin percent", they're admitting that when they claimed to be giving 100%, they were just coasting.</p>

<p>Lex, were it not for steroids, I would agree with you completely. A good shot of bull testosterone has to worth at least tin percent.<br>

With regard to the original question, I think a lot of it also has to do not only with the photographers understanding absolutely how to get their images to do what they want, but also that the Magnum photographers etc. are able to work with exceptionally good printers and people who do all the after-camera stuff.</p>

<p>Although I can't recall names or provide URLs, I've seen some crap as well by Magnum photogs. The M-word certainly helps get exposure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> i guess having said that, and despite mentioning that I wanted to bring this up in a more casual manner, this is nonetheless still a more technical based question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Technique ( outside of the "basics" of course ) isn't ecaxtly the primary thing that strikes me to be the most significant about the photographs when I look through Magnum portfolios, sure there are some great photographers working distinctively in color for example at Magnum, but what makes the pictures vivid and surreal to me is more about their personal vision and the way they look at the world through their camera and composition then the use of an advanced applied photographic technique. I see it more as the use of an advanced vision, and <em>style</em>. I think there are more inspiring/talented examples of the use of photographic technique outside of Magnum, in advertisement and fashion and fine-art photography. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.carldekeyzer.com/">Carl De Keyzer</a> came for a talk many years ago at the school I studied then. Showed all of his work in slides from the very beginning that he was a photography student himself. Those early photographs very much popped out for the applied photographic technique, a particular use of flash and infra-red film I remember in those early surrealistic black and white works of him, but the more the talk and slides progressed, to the photographs that made him to become a Magnummember and onwards, the more the emphasis was put on the motivation and dedication required behind the particular works instead of the chosen technique, besides maybe the mentioning of him needing an assistent with him constantly for the way he worked with flash at one point, making things slighty more difficult. But while the two need to be presented as one, it became more about the content and less about the form as a technique. I think this can be evenly applied to all Magnum photographers and it's what truly makes the photographs. </p>

<p>"I'm just really curious as to what it is about good documentary photos, apart from subject and lighting, that make them what they are and give them the feel they have, particularly with regards to processing." Take out the subject and lighting and you don't have a photograph. The Magnum photographers understand subject and light better than we do, that's why they were invited to join and we were not. </p>

<p>I think Trefor means to ask about the actual finished product of the image and the printed picture as it appears on the paper (or screen) rather than any question about the technical skills and abilities of the Magnum photographers to see and make an image<br>

To my mind Trefor is asking how do they finalise the image to make it look so good on paper and what manipulations or techniques do they apply to the finished article to make it stand out from the crowd? <br>

Their ability to see and capture stunning images, that your average Joe would simply walk passed, is a given and that is why they are Magnum photographers, but how do they get the image from film or sensor onto paper, in such a way that makes it so much more than what was probably apparent through the view finder at the time the shutter release was pressed?<br>

The answer to that (I believe) is that as with all things professional, they have the time, dedication, equipment and skill to do it. They are able to wait for what they see as the "decisive moment" and then spend the time in the darkroom (digital or otherwise) to perfect the image. They have and use what they judge to be the best of everything they can get hold of, and they understand it and use it to the full. <br>

The answer then isn't simply just Photoshop, or PS plug-ins, or the lens, or the camera or the settings used, or the film, or the lighting, or the printer, or computer, or even the photographer themselves - it is <em><strong>all</strong></em> of the above, lined up and working in harmony.<br>

But if this is all a bit too much for you to digest at the moment, then why not try bumping up the contrast, it worked for Bill Brandt.....<br>

Dave</p>

<p>I watched an interview with Henri Cartier-Bresson, when he was in his eighties. I found his comments about how he worked interesting. He learned how to use the camera, then he just pointed, focused and shot. He never learn to print or work in the darkroom. There was always someone else to take care of that end. In his later years he worked with one or two master printers. He trusted them to product a print that reflected his style. He never once mentioned Magnum.</p>

<p>He and Bob Capa started Magnum in '47 to make a living and to be able to cover the world. Their success with Magnum was hiring photographers that could be counted on to produce under any circumstances.</p>

<p>Henri's real talent was pressing the shutter button. Don't give your photographic gods more credit then they deserve because all you will ever see is the best of your work. All the crap is hidden away.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If 1000 of "us" were dropped into the NW region of Pakistan with reliable equipment of any type (and basic ability to operate it), and if a few managed to photograph much of what they saw, survive for a year, and return to civilization... they might become worthy of Magnum.<br />Magnum's images have to do with extraordinary situations...they're not just the products of stellar photographers....there are stellar photographers who spend their lives photographing teen brides in Columbus, Ohio :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If 1000 of "us" were dropped into the NW region of Pakistan with reliable equipment of any type (and basic ability to operate it), and if a few managed to photograph much of what they saw, survive for a year, and return to civilization... they might become worthy of Magnum.<strong>Magnum's images have to do with extraordinary situations..</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but to become worthy of Magnum they don't have to be in places like the NW region of Pakistan doing things more worthy of James Bond. Could be just as well at your local <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOM7K9304&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&IID=2S5RYD1BDNC5&PN=1&CT=Search">Walmart</a>. No need to <em>over</em>romanticize.</p>

<p>Well, i appreciate all the responses thus far, but i think the only person to really grasp the point that I'm trying to raise is Dave. I probably would have to take a degree of responsibility for this, after all, I'm the one who has to make you all understand what I'm saying. It's all well that we speak of dedication and focusing on the content of the photos, but I must say that I assume that we are all past understanding these concepts. So looking past all these things, I am simply asking about the overall appearances of the photos, much like was explained by Dave.<br>

I was wondering if I'd have to start a new thread over again on this, though perhaps not so soon, as I actually already have my own ideas on what it is, though i really wanted to know what all of you thought. I'm inclined to believe, much like Dave, that it's really a combination of a few basic things put together and maybe even a slight dose of unfamiliarity with the contents of the photo. If only I could get a more definitive description.</p>

 

<p>"...The answer then isn't simply just Photoshop, or PS plug-ins, or the lens, or the camera or the settings used, or the film, or the lighting, or the printer, or computer, or even the photographer themselves - it is <em><strong>all</strong></em> of the above, lined up and working in harmony..."</p>

<p>well put.....for those that know me here, I've always said that the process of creating an image starts just before the shutterbutton is depressed and doesn't end until the final print (or even monitor/web display, these days). Magnum Photo Agency, VII Photo Agency, etc photographers probably all adhere to this regime.</p>

<p>This photo site (photo net) constantly has arguements Nikon vs Canon, digital vs film, uncropped vs cropped, photoshopped vs in-camera, etc......there is no VS.....it's all needed, every step, every control, every decision, should be made based on what the photographer wants the final image to look like. And when they see all those images they took, to weed out the crap ruthlessly (ie editting.....the truely HARD part of photography) and use only the ones that say what they want the pic to say. And when I use the word "say"....that can be verbally, visually, or whatever else the photographer wants.</p>

<p>a more definitive dexcription?........hmmm......VISION. and I don't mean the type of vision like your eyes see. I mean all encompassing, passionate, fanatical, dedicated VISION! The type where you forget about eating, drinking.....the type where the voices of people talking to you becomes mere clutter in the background. The type where you ignore harm to your own life. Where 40 hours in the darkroom or in front of a computer screen leaves you completely and utterly refreshed! Where you forget how many rolls of film, or how many memory cards, you've used already. Where 10 hours of pounding the trail, or street, or battlefield only wants you doing more the next day.........</p>

<p>Trefor and Dave, <br>

I think you guys are missing the point. The Magnum photographers don't have to do much post processing because they get it mostly right in the camera in the first place. They take a lot of shots and they do a lot of editing, which anyone can do. They know what to look for and they get it. Good photographers can get a few good shots once in awhile, Magnum photographers have to get good shots all the time. Most Magnum photos you see in books or magazines have very little post-processing because they are documentary in nature. The way they are presented in books and magazines are no different than any other non-Magnum photographer is presented. I am having difficulty understanding why you can't accept the fact that most Magnum photographers are better most other photographers and that they don't have to rely on PS to get great images. John K., that was pretty funny, I hope you were joking anyway.</p>

<p><em>"Yes, but to become worthy of Magnum they don't have to be in places like the NW region of Pakistan doing things more worthy of James Bond. Could be just as well at your local </em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOM7K9304&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&IID=2S5RYD1BDNC5&PN=1&CT=Search" target="_blank"><em>Walmart</em></a><em>. No need to overromanticize." - Phylo D</em></p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, I shouldn't have led the idea astray with "worthy of Magnum"...one is either a Magnum member or not. One is invited by Magnum members to join, depending upon one's photojournalism. One doesn't just get "worthy," one is selected.</p>

<p>MOST members are people who have faced genuine danger in exotic situations (more like Capa in Indochina than like HCB in Paris). To confirm, just visit the Magnum website. </p>

<p> Magnum is a <em>marketing</em> organization..there's more of a<em> market</em> for "James Bond" adventure than for Walmart images. </p>

<p>I doubt Capa or HCB were ever fully competent in darkrooms :-) ... some of Capa's work involves dramatic or evocative light, but most is simply "properly lit" for publication...his subjects, however, were mostly people in distress, dramatic moments, exotic situations, death, even some celebrities (Picasso)... news...</p>

<p>HCB's fame came from moments, not print quality, and his best prints have been made recently...the stuff that accounted for his fame didn't come close.</p>

<p><em>"But if this is all a bit too much for you to digest at the moment, then why not try bumping up the contrast, it worked for Bill Brandt....." - Dave H</em><br>

<strong>Dave</strong>, I doubt you meant to sell Brandt short (I'm a Brandt fanboy). His photojournalism, photo essays, psychological adventures (eg hotel nudes :-), sometimes very strange portraits, and beach nudes (some of which are just ears or toes) are far beyond mere bumped-up contrast.<br>

<strong>Tim</strong>...I wasn't joking: <br>

Columbus, Ohio's teen bride wedding photographers are probably the closest that city has ever come to stellar :-)</p>

<p>Hmm.. i think my question has been largely misunderstood.. Maybe I'll ask again some other time with a much better explanation if i can...<br>

Now i just feel the need to clear my name of any misperceptions of me asking such 'silly' or 'inappropriate' questions.. ha</p>