Smile for the camera! :-D

[sarah_fox]

<p>I was taking some holiday pics of some young cousins yesterday, when I was struck by an interesting phenomenon. The boy was 2 years old and looked very sweet, sitting in a chair, watching the goings on. The table lamp produced very soft lighting on his face. It was scene that begged to be photographed. So I lifted my camera, and the child leaned forward, looked into the camera, and gave me a big smile. I snapped, and put my camera down. He sat back and resumed the pose I wanted to capture. I lifted my camera again, and he leaned forward with the same smile. We went back and forth on this, and I finally ended up photographing him his way, because it wasn't ever going to happen *my* way. Of course I don't attribute this to anything more than two years of heavy training. Everyone in the family has a camera, and the children get photographed more than any celebrity in Hollywood. ;-)</p>

<p>Today I was thinking about how decades in the future, all these people capturing smile-at-the-camera shots are going to end up with boxes of photos that look pretty much the same. They show us during festive times, feeling happy and good. They show us as prosperous (e.g. piles of Christmas presents, even during hard times), smart (e.g. graduation ceremonies), and beautiful (e.g. prom pictures). Missing in all of this is the other side of the coin. I'm left wondering whether this conspicuous omission will leave us represented without any depth.</p>

<p>Do we do this because we don't want to remember the less pleasant times in our lives? Or is it that we want to create an image that others will find more appealing? Perhaps both?</p>

<p>And when did all this start? There was a time when one had to hold still for maybe 30 sec while the photographer uncapped and recapped the lens. The easiest pose to hold was a "stiff," expressionless one, so that's why so many of the old photos look so grave and formal. However, as films improved, and exposures were more like 1/30s, rather than 30s, there were still a lot of stiff, no-smile photos, even during the happier times prior to the Great Depression. When I dig through family photos, I see what seem to be more documentary shots: We were here. This is what we were wearing. This is how we looked. (I envision something like having myself photocopied.)</p>

<p>Is smiling for the camera more of a post-WWII phenomenon? What are your thoughts?</p>

<p>I'm not getting at any point here, but rather just exploring what I think is a very curious phenomenon. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why we do this and what it all means.</p>

<p>Peace,<br>

Sarah</p>

[photobiscuits]

<p>Older people are self conscious in front of the camera, they try to put their best face forward. Even kids know that pictures are being recorded, maybe this one's been conditioned to smile for the camera. People do the same thing when they look at themselves in the mirror, or are aware that they are being watched. They smile, try to look pretty, or in the case of my kids start clowning around. I think that this is what makes real models great to work with, is that they have been taught to abandon the incorrect thinking that it's the subject that makes the picture. It should be the photographer that makes the picture, the subject is and should simply be the subject.<br /> I dislike the poses people make when they realize that a camera is pointed at them. I prefer the natural moments and try my best to make my shooting inconspicuous whenever possible.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>When I was shooting Leicas, I found that most people were smiling because I had left the lens cap on!</p>

[colin carron]

<p>My experience of photographing my own children is that seem to smile naturally for the camera from about 1 to about 10. After that you tend to get The Scowl.<br>

Your point about exposure times and stiff poses in old photos is true but perhaps even more is the way photographic portraits grew out of painted portraits where the proportion of smiling pictures is quite small. The 'Laughing cavalier' by Hals is so unusual he gets named after his facial expression.<br>

The turning point between formal and smiling does seem, as you suggest, to be around the 30's to 40's and after that the norm is for smiles all round and only formal or self-consciously artistic portraits are non-smiling. <br>

The change to natural smiles though has made the family photo album a bit misleading. I have lots of shots of the family holidays where everyone is smiling happily but I remember the holiday as being one of teenage tantrums, banged doors and sullen silences. The photos have erased the reality and left just the smiles. Yes, the smiles are probably selected with the scowls ending up in the bin. <br>

But then maybe family portraits before that time only showed the formal side of life and missed out the smiles instead.</p>

[bernie moore]

<p>Smile = handsome/pretty; frown = mean/ugly. I'm just the messenger.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Smiling for the camera is a ridiculous and unfortunate practice. Some of the smilers look like they are about to attack the photographer with their canines.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Ugh! I feel your pain. Trying to get unposed pictures is a tremendous chore especially because mothers everywhere since the advent of photography have beaten "smile!" into their chidlren's heads to the point where it is an unconscious reflex for most people.<br>

TLR's really are great for candids nowadays because many younger people have no idea what they are and don't realize the camera is pointed at them. They think I'm looking at the camera. (They probably think I'm looking at the instant playback, haha!)<br>

With my SLR I tend to compose the shot and then I hold the camera in that position while I look away. The kid thinks I'm not taking his picture anymore and goes back to doing what he was doing. Then I get the shot. Usually. It's not perfect, but it's all you've got sometimes.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Sarah.....you have said well what frustrates and intrigues many of us...<br>

At the simple level most photos were, and are, taken by a person who wants to see a smile so as to remember the subject in "happy" times, and being "happy".<br>

Certainly it all started back in the day of long exposures, but I think that the idea of seeing the subject as "happy" was a very strong part of the imaging.<br>

Then too, specially with children, if you did <strong>not</strong> have them smile then you were often presented with a horrific grimace which the child thought amusing, as well as it covered up his/her feelings of embarrassment.<br>

Connection with the grim days of war? Possibly....likely even.<br>

The approach today to get the studied look you speak of, is to shoot from a bit of distance....fast lens etc.....sometimes I use a studio light just parked in a corner.....no brolly, no s'box....just unotrusive with the modelling lamp off. It's aimed up into the corner and just sits there and left on. Radio trigger on the camera.....manual lens and shutter settings....and very often the results can look very spontaneous, and well lit too...Best wishes to all in this Chrismas time....Bob</p>

[j.w.]

<p>Although I tire of the same empty smiles of intimate snapshots, I also have noticed, especially with young adults who tend to be more self-conscious than at other ages, of this interesting reaction to a camera being pointed at them whereby they hurredly shield their face with their hand, assuming a pose resembling self-defense.</p>

<p>It's usually the same person(s), who also cannot be satisfied with a picture of themselves, no matter the photographic merit, because of some inner problems with their self-image and inner confidence.<br>

~Joe</p>

[jenniferadams]

<p>This is why I love to capture candids of my family. I take the most when people are actively engaged in something, that way they ignore the camera somewhat and I see all sorts of expressions. It helps that with digital I can take as many photos I want.</p>

[plasma181]

<p>If you're quick, you can catch people being themselves.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/4622680">http://www.photo.net/photo/4622680</a></p>

<p><a href="../photo/4814242">http://www.photo.net/photo/4814242</a></p>

<p>Also, there is nothing wrong with a smile, so long as it is a real smile. As most of you have noticed, very few people can fake a smile. So I try to do or say things to get them to produce a real smile.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2587195">http://www.photo.net/photo/2587195</a></p>

<p>And some people don't smile at all.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2590528">http://www.photo.net/photo/2590528</a></p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>And now they have digital P&S cameras with 'smile detection'. No thanks. I'll stick with my A470 and Rebel XT.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>"Smile detection"? </p>

<p>Someone once told me that when people smile genuinely, they smile up to their eyes. If they're eyes are not smiling, they're faking it. I know that must sound cheesy, but whenever I look at pictures of smiling faces, I look for this and sometimes see it. The people who are mugging a smile make me wonder about what they're really thinking or up to.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I know that must sound cheesy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm. I knew someone would say "cheese" in this topic.</p>

<p>We may have here an actual use for the various right angle lens attachments for "candid" work like the aptly named current "Opteka Voyeur Right Angle Spy Lens". I think that <em><strong>Voyeur</strong> </em> has to be one of the all time best lens names!</p>

[sprouty]

<p>http://www.ubugallery.com/phpwcms/image_zoom.php?show=MV8xMjQyXzJsY0ZtdWZnQXQuanBn</p>

<p>Weegee...</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>Someone once told me that when people smile genuinely, they smile up to their eyes. If they're eyes are not smiling, they're faking it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It has actually been proven that real smiles look different from forced smiles since some muscles in the face can only be used involuntarily. Now the interesting part is that not all people can discern the real smile from the posed smile. Food for thought.<br>

What comes to the original problem, people are sensitive about how they appear to others, so smiling is a form of armor that people put on for pictures. Before WW-II, there were a number of people who were not familiar with photography and for them smiling was not at all automatic when their picture was taken.<br>

Another thing is the "all teeth" smile. You have to look hard to find a classic painted portrait with a strong smile that actually shows teeth. Same goes for portrait photographs ca. 1900. I once remember seeing a campaign photo of Jimmy Carter, with the caption analyzing the situation along the lines of showing all teeth in smiles has become far more common in the public image towards the end of the century.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Just throwing another thought into the mix...</p>

<p>WWII was an interesting period with regard to teeth. The US military took great efforts to keep their soldiers healthy. I'm pretty certain the RDA guidelines came out of that war. Anyway, one of the healthcare items they enforced was regular teeth brushing. Prior to WWII, people didn't often brush their teeth, with predictable consequences. However, when the GIs returned home, they brought to their new families the practice of good dental hygiene. Of course with good hygiene, one might have teeth one would want to show off with a toothy smile. I've noticed many people with bad teeth will force an odd sort of smile with their lips closed -- or will not smile at all. Perhaps that is what underlies the change in paradigm circa WWII.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Sarah, I think that people living in a society where everyone has somewhat bad teeth are not in any way embarrassed to show their teeth. It's the comparison to shiny, straight teeth that makes one self-conscious. I've been to many places where dental care is poor and haven't really noticed that people would be afraid to show their teeth in real smiles. Incidentally, where I live many people think that American media personalities have too white teeth, which is also seen as somewhat negative (we do have very good dental care here these days, so it's not about that :-)</p>