The egotistical photographer?

luis_g · January 5, 2012

When I am making portraits of artists, socialization happens, but it is almost a side effect of the interaction. Making a usable portrait is my first contingency, but often things go beyond that. I am not drawn towards any particular quality I consciously desire out of the portrait. There's the tensions between what the subject projects and where I think I want to go, and I either photograph my way through that, direct out of it, often in a manner involving subterfuge, and all the time I am in a heightened, wordless or aphasic awareness and looking for micro-expressions that are calling out to me. It could be likened to a kind of dance from certain French novels or a type of ghostly tectonics, and there are ways around them. It's not about me and what I want, though it has to go through me, my lens, etc. that much is unavoidable, though I will do anything I think will work, including putting the camera on the tripod, handing a cable release to the model and letting them take some self-portraits under my direction. There are almost undetectable energies involved in portraiture, expressed and exchanged in me, the subject(s), the background, maybe even the viewers, leaking in from the future, and they are all falling in and out of phase, and at every nexus in that continuum, from my POV, there's a very different photograph, but I don't want or need them all, just a handful.

tonmestrom · January 5, 2012

perhaps I'm a bit more prosaic than some of you but nevertheless I'm going to give you my 2 cents. Whether I'm shooting a portrait or something else I've a pretty good idea of how it is going to look like (intent/purpose if you like) so for me the final product is by far the most important. Since I'm a photographer I should understand process, I mean (even on the risk of sounding arrogant) I take that as a given (for any photographer worth his/her salt).

"I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."

</blockquote>

I've always seen this merely as a quote from a seasoned photographer who exactly knew what he was doing (although yes, he experimented a lot as well). A fun quote sure but something alike the lines of a photographer stating that technique isn't important at all which is easy to state when you are extremely good at what you so easily dismiss.

I think we learn from every photo we shoot and yet we shouldn't make it bigger than it is.

luis_g · January 5, 2012

Winogrand's quote was no quip or offhand remark. It was aimed squarely and deliberately against the idea of previsualization, specifically a la Adams, and Szarkowski was his partner in formulating it. Much like Sontag in an earlier essay against the criticism of her day, they were withdrawing from the convention of the day and towards the power of description.

tonmestrom · January 5, 2012

sure Luis but I've always sensed something flip about it as well.

Brad_ · January 5, 2012

>>> A fun quote sure but something alike the lines of a photographer stating that technique isn't

important at all which is easy to state when you are extremely good at what you so easily dismiss.

True... I rarely (ever?) post up single line photographer "zinger" quotes. Out of context (which is usually the

case) they're mostly used to support a strongly held position, attempting to bolster with a kind of ultimate

authority. Even when there may be little underlying alignment between the circumstances of the quote

and position. And, often, there are other quotes from the same photographer (when similarly taken out of

context) would be at odds with the position held. Also, while on the subject of being at odds, it's easy

finding previous single line or partial quotes from posters that are at odds of a currently held position! As you say,

they are fun though...

Brad_ · January 5, 2012

Same here, Ton. But they (in this case GW's quote) do make nice sound bites...

Norma Desmond · January 5, 2012

Arthur, I'd like to pick back up on your idea of "selfishness" which seems honest and provocative. There's often hell to pay when we use negative terms to describe what we do. I remember a thread about photographs as "lies" that got pretty heated. I, myself, wondered if using the term "egotistical" would be controversial in this thread. I, too, notice a selfish aspect to my own photographing. It even extends to practical matters, such as we read here on PN where people are spending money on equipment and spouses get annoyed or where people devote energy and time to photographing instead of to spouses or are behind the lens of their cameras instead of enjoying the sights when vacationing.

Luis, you say "it's not about me and what I want, though it has to go through me . . ." and that really struck me, partly because it's different from how I operate, and I appreciate that sort of difference. A lot of my photos are about what I want. I feel my own imposition when making them and when viewing them, and it can be a very active, even aggressive, kind of imposition. Yes, in some situations I let go more than in others and I can feel the difference between doing each, but there are definitely times when I want what I want and the rest be damned.

I have felt at times that I am "using" my subjects, human though they may be. When I've talked about this with the actors I've photographed, they seem to understand and they also seem to be empowered by submitting themselves to another's use, as they often do on stage. I suspect there's a little bit of them using me as well going on, and I'm fine with that kind of dynamic developing.

________________________

"I never said all actors are cattle. I said all actors should be treated like cattle." --Alfred Hitchcock

</blockquote>

luis_g · January 5, 2012

Fred - "Luis, you say "it's not about me and what I want, though it has to go through me . . ." and that really struck me, partly because it's different from how I operate, and I appreciate that sort of difference. A lot of my photos are about what I want."

I should add that I gladly accept the notion of a collaborative effort, specially when the subjects are arts educated, knowledgeable practitioners (particularly sculptors) and often have a good idea of what I'm up to. Most of them know who I am already. Sometimes the artists'/subject's suggestions are incorporated into what turns out to be a better result. I also meant transcending the initial idea I take into a session. I am not going in with an image in my head, and aiming just for that. I go in with what I hope will be a viable idea but it inevitably makes a better jumping-off point, but I can default to it in case nothing else develops. But yes, it's not about me, more about the photograph and the temporary relationship or boundary layer between me, the subject/context/viewers, portraiture & Photography.

AlanKlein · January 6, 2012

I sometimes hear photographers going on and on about the process, about what they felt when they were photographing, etc., as if that's going to help an otherwise bad photo. Photography is something a photographer does, a subject participates in (whether human or non-human), and a viewer looks at (which can be plenty active as well). The photograph provides the key link in that chain. I'm also a viewer, a very important participant. I want to see something when I look at the photo. I want to be moved. If I don't see it, no amount of hearing about your process is going to accomplish what a moving photo will. If your account moves me more than your photo, you might want to take up writing and give up making photos.

Now, of course, what the photographer felt is important in terms of the photographer's life and world experience. And it will hopefully go into the photo itself. If it doesn't get into the photo, if the photo doesn't convey what the photographer was feeling (if that's what he wants to convey, or at least part of it), then the process doesn't much matter in the scheme of things, photographically speaking.

</blockquote>

I agree with you Fred. The longer the caption, the worse the picture or at least the more insecure the photographer. It's like when you have to explain the punchline of a joke. It just isn't funny. A picture has to be compelling some what. It has to grab you. If it doesn't on its own, by itself, it's not "funny".

luis_g · January 6, 2012

I agree with Fred on the primacy of the photograph -- to a point.

Years ago, I was approached at a gallery party, early on, by an older blonde woman and three men friends/companions/bodyguards. She introduced herself only by her first name (H.) & told me she had heard locally of my involvement with photography and had a proposition for me. She had inherited a collection of hundreds of prints that she felt were rare and valuable. H. was very guarded about saying exactly what they were about, only that no, she was not interested in selling them, outright, but in book form. She needed an opinion and an editor for the books, which she wanted to web-publish. Being a total sucker for this kind of thing, I agreed to see them. She said they were nearby, that we could be back in an hour or two, but I would have to agree to being blindfolded since she thought they were so valuable that disclosing their location might jeopardize them. I agreed.

The silver 500-series Benz was parked backwards (we don't have front tags here). One of the men blindfolded me. It wasn't far, though they made a lot of turns to get there. I was a little scared. When I got out of the car, I could just smell the Gulf, meaning we were within 2-10 blocks away. Up a stairway with one of the guys on either side, and into a small apartment smelling of dead skin cells from an elderly person. I was sat at a kitchen table and several boxes were placed around me before the blindfold came off. The three guys stood guard and watched my every move.

I opened a box and pulled out prints. The light was minimal, I was facing a wall, but out of the corner of my eye I could see windows were curtained. The pictures were of single women in erotic poses, looking like they were made in the '40s. Extremely well done for that time, beautiful girls, well-lit, with an incredibly strong decadent look, toned. As my eyes adjusted, I sensed something odd. Foul flags erupted inside my head. Something was very wrong. My hair stood on end, but I did not know why. I asked her who the photographer was. Her uncle, who had passed away recently. How many boxes were there besides the four in front of me? More than twenty, "a closetful". Was her uncle a pro? No, he was an autodidact. What did he do? Engineer. I realized these were war time prints. She mentioned who he worked for, and instantly I knew what these photographs were of, and I was horrified. I tried to hide it, and began looking through the prints at increased speed. I choked on the smell of the room and what was before me. There were stacks of prints piling up on the table. I asked for, and was given a glass of water. The photographer had not signed his work. the boxes were unlabeled. My eyes teared up. I must have looked for nearly an hour, before she, out of sight behind me, asked:"Well, what do you think?"

My voice quavered as I mumbled something about commercial viability, provenance, testing the paper, and that they were good. "I see I've made a mistake", she said. "Somehow, you've guessed what they are". H. had given it away when she told me where her uncle worked. I knew it was an outfit that used Jewish slave labor, and the subjects, I realized to my horror, had probably posed for their lives. "Yes. I know what they are. What you have here is a truly unique and terrible thing, something much too important historically to be sold in web books. I know of several museums in the US and abroad who would be very interested in acquiring them and they would pay handsomely for the collection". H. mumbled angrily something about how quickly I had figured it out, and that others would, too, to the men, and said our meeting was over. Suddenly the blindfold slipped back over my face. The ride back was to Wagner. The door opened, and I was lifted out of the car, which burned rubber and vanished. I still have the blindfold.

Brad_ · January 6, 2012

>>> I sometimes hear photographers going on and on about the process, about what they felt when they

were photographing, etc., as if that's going to help an otherwise bad photo.

Since you brought up bad photos, I've seen enough here, standing on their own, that I often want to

understand the circumstances and am genuinely curious why the photographer thought they were

worthy of display.

I recently started a "words" (as opposed to a words/no words) thread encouraging photographers to talk

and comment about their posted photos, relating their experiences shooting on the street. Some were able

to, some were not, some don't even know what a street photo is...

aplumpton · January 6, 2012

Luis, a fascinating story and one wonders what ever happened to those who posed and the prints themselves. Not related, as a different company, but it is known that Ernst Leitz III (or II?) had a number of Jewish workers at his camera and optics plants in Wetzlar and that he sent many or most of them on long term training at the Leitz facility in the USA (NYC?) before the war in order to save them from persecution. As Luis suggests, not all in Germany at that time were so lucky.

Fred, I am having a little trouble thinking of the (most assuredly) egotistical aspects of my own photographic process, namely the problem of separating the personal impositions of approach from the borrowed. Much of the technical process I use in my photography, and which I enjoy, is borrowed, and is rooted in what I have learned along the way from the experience and knowledge of others. I guess some of that is also personal technical approach, like the desire to ignore some compositional rules, ignoring auto exposure or auto focus determinations, rejecting "sensible" or set down rules of lighting, and to impose my own technique (admittedly quite often with disastrous results, but occasionally not so bad and closer to what I wanted the result to be).

On the other hand, the personal mindset/approach, rather than the previously learned or borrowed technical approach, often is that which takes form in my own mind, selfishly, where I have to say the hell with what I should be doing in a particular situation and choose instead some more personally generated approach. I see too many of my preconceived images as gravitating to some precedent, however potentially successful that might be. I have to close out those prior urges and experiences, as they really aren't me at the moment, and try something else on that endless quest for personal and selfish creation.

I don't succeed very often. The existing paradigms hover over every shot. Yet I feel that the activity is necessarily a selfish one and if I were to be too altruistic, by yielding to known (true and tried?) approaches, I would not find my own path. I like the approach of that photographer (I think it was a Winogrand quote you made) who rejected the too evident, already visualized image in his head, for a new and different one yet to be found. That is not just egoism, I think, but in part it is surely a self-centered quest for something unachieved, an artist's holy grail, a new and yet to be found experience that will be determined in the mind through a new (sub-) process.

Norma Desmond · January 6, 2012

Luis, wow, what a story. When I talked about the primacy of the photo, I had no doubt there would be counterexamples. Hell, when I make any assertive claim, I have no doubt there will be counterexamples. But that won't often keep me from leaning one way or another. I cannot and will not reach a harmonic balance on every issue I face, even though I know there are tensions pulling in all directions. And I know you understand that.

__________________

Brad, I think it's very important to discuss process in a learning environment. I also think it's important for learners to learn that there's a difference between what they may have felt at the time and what has actually come through in their image. It's funny you mention what might and might not be a street photo. I tend to be loose when it comes to categorization. The very photo I posted in the thread you reference is a street photo, but I wasn't sure others would consider it so. It also had a story, which I chose not to tell because I thought it would detract from the photo. I also try to remember that it's the Street and Documentary forum and many photos that I might not consider "street" could very easily be part of a documentary, which covers a wide array of subjects, etc. I was thinking of starting a thread over there of documentary shots that needed some sort of accompanying photos or text to be understood in their documentary context. Regarding my photo, rather than explain the situation and why I though it should "count" as a street photo, I would have preferred to show it with other street work that would visually make it more obvious why it is, in fact, a street photo (if it wasn't already obvious), rather than to write something about it, where I might sound like I was justifying it.

__________________

Alan, the above about documentary would be important cases where I think accompanying text can very much help a photo or a project. Not all text is superfluous by any means.

__________________

Arthur, interesting. I think, even when borrowing (maybe especially when borrowing) others' techniques and/or styles, we can be very selfish. I'm glad you brought it up, because influence and imitation are very important parts of process. I have to think more about it, though, because I think there's a difference between selfishness and personal approach. Some very personal approaches are not at all selfish. As for influence, there was recently a No Words thread called <a href="../no-words-forum/00Znf8">Imitating The Masters.</a> I think only the OP and I used the word "imitation" in our captions. Other people seemed to go out of their way to say that what they were doing was a homage, a dialogue, or some other euphemism. I happen to think copying is one of the best ways to learn and something that is done with abandon throughout the history of art. I guess I understand why people want to walk away from it, but it struck me particularly strangely in that thread.

luis_g · January 6, 2012

Most of what we learn comes from someone else. If that is egotistical, then we're all in that boat, and even if it isn't, we've all been on it, and odds are still have one foot on it. I agree with Fred that personal does not equal selfish, and there are so many degrees of the latter, from the repulsively toxic egomaniacal jerks to Arthur's subtle tones. Drawing from others, learning from history, etc I would not label selfish. Borrowing more than stealing, but that's just me. We're social critters, this is how we learn. I think some of the people in that thread were being honest, and alluding to the near-futility of attempting to imitate the Master photographers.

richard_john_edwards · January 9, 2012

I wanted to coment on this thread because i consider all of the arts have an element of ego. The act of creating is the sefish act, we do it for various personal reasons. We sooth the soul, we close out the worries of the world, we blank out the self and focus on that which is external to us (the camera, the lense, the subject, the lighting etc). The act of then showing the creation brings in the ego, I think the mere fact that we want to show our creation ie "look what i did or made" is an egotistical act in itself. of course the degree varies.

I think that comments about mimiking, copying others are fairly spot on. Its part of the learning curb, but what we copy or impersonate as part of our own growth will allways gravitate to that wich we identify with the most, and what we identify with the most is usually due to ones life experience, sense of self and that which resonates within us. It is a bit like how we develope freindships, we seek out characteristics in others that we identify with, we seek out the characteristics in others that reinforce our own belief in ourselves and that which reinforces characteristics that we see as positive within ourselves, we ussualy dont like others who have character traits that we dipise in ourselves. I think we take that into our creativity as well. Sometimes we succeed in out performing those we choose to mimic (or to put it another way "those that have inspired us")

It is my belief that the human spirit is driven by ego and self satisfaction, even those who are charitable i think get more out of the giving than do the people often recieving (whether that be emotional, physical or spiritual). It is my view that the creative process of photography is no different.

We create to fulfil an inner need, we present to satisfy the ego and to have others reinforce our ego in a narcissistic way. If this was not the case we would not have web sites like this.

I could be wrong, but i think i have a point.

michaellinder · January 9, 2012

" . . . maybe we don't have to put it in terms of the importance of the photo compared to the importance of the process." Fred, this works for me - just look at the experiences that accompany making photographs. They encompass both the process and the goal.

AlanKlein · January 10, 2012

It is my belief that the human spirit is driven by ego and self satisfaction, even those who are charitable i think get more out of the giving than do the people often recieving (whether that be emotional, physical or spiritual). It is my view that the creative process of photography is no different.

</blockquote>

As long as we're in this world, we will have ego. Only stones and dead things have no ego. However, if in the process of giving your photography to others, either through delighting the wedding couple who you charged to take pictures, presenting framed pictures to your relatives and friends for free or just by posting photos here on PN to the delight of others who happen upon your portfolio, you have transcended the mundane and entered the realm of the spirit with love.

Wouter Willemse · January 13, 2012

I would not attribute that much to the ego, or self-satisfaction - there are enough people who can balance their ego with other goals. The go plays a role in what we're trying to express, in the "limitation" that each photo we take is influenced by our choices and point of view, it's about what we want to show others. But it's not the only thing, and certainly those working commercially or on documentaries should be able to transcend their ego and want for self-satisfaction.

________________

It's a fascinating read, this thread. It reveals much more about people's processes than many other discussions we have had. It also gives me the idea I actually have a different approach from most who posted so far.

The act of photography is for me, and always have been, nearly the most important part. And a very self-centered part. I simply like to be out, with a camera, scouting for images. I usually do not previsualise the photos before going to actually make photos - and even then, I'm usually only having a faint idea of the "kind of photos", and I'll just see what I run into. It's much "go with the flow", and it relies on my mood mostly. The mood somehow leads me to the kind of subjects that I feel attracted to, and also defines a lot how open I am to impulses. On some days, I'm simply not able to find a decent image if my life depended on it - I just won't see it.

I wouldn't call this driven by my ego, but it's certainly egotistical. It's me, doing it for me, the way I want and the way I feel like. Very me me me. But I am trying to express something, so it seems logical it's a lot about me. And yes, this is selfish, though I think in a completely harmless way. The usual negative connotation on selfishness seems out of place here.

The result - the photo - is something that develops in my head while I am actually doing it. It's seeing the image, seeing what I hope to tell with it, trying to get that done. There is no preconceived idea, beyond me being me (to continue the selfish tune).

______

There is a second aspect to it, and that's that a lot of photos actually are also just for me. Holiday pictures, sightseeing things, I may put some on my website, some here but most of those are just for own viewing pleasure (memory-enablers, so to speak). They're about as egoist as they get - I will show them when asked, but if nobody asks, that's OK too.

They have their own counter-species.. "party photos", which I do not look back myself much, but which are shared with the others there.

These are much more the 'snapshots', they may have another intent and process, but it's quite an amount too, and to me these photos are not better or worse - they count all the same.

Wouter Willemse · January 13, 2012

Or the short version:

Is the act of creation enough?

</blockquote>

Yes, sometimes it is for me.

Norma Desmond · January 13, 2012

Wouter, I've read through your post a couple of times and understand and empathize with much of what you say, though our processes may be very different. But, I would say what you are talking about is very much ego. It seems all about, as you say, me me me (not in a bad way). So I don't quite understand why you start out by saying it's not ego driven. The self-centeredness and self satisfaction seems at the core of your experience. I'm not sure what I'm missing?

Maybe you mean you don't act with much intention or foresight, and so in that sense you keep yourself out of it and, as you said, go with flow. But I was talking more about the purpose of your photograph, and when you answer that the act of creation is enough, that's very much what I had in mind. That you are photographing to photograph, not to accomplish some greater good in the world, not to get to know your surroundings, not to meet more interesting people, but because you want or need to photograph.

[i don't think wanting or needing to photograph and doing good in the world or having other motives are mutually exclusive. This is all a matter of how we each frame it for ourselves and what we emphasize . . . and when.]

Wouter Willemse · January 14, 2012

Fred, possibly I've interpreted "ego" a bit limited. With ego-driven, I meant really doing it for the appreciation or valuation by others, feeling "better" than others in a way, and less the inner satisfaction one has when doing something one likes to do. I'm not sure how to express the difference properly, but I explained ego as the play between valuation by others versus self-image. When I say I like creation enough for its activity, I'm only saying I like to do it. What others think about it, is not really a worry I have.

Part of the 'rant against ego' was the earlier statement made that is "the driving reason" for people - a generic statement. I used the line to try seperate the parts of my reply. Indeed my own process is self-centered, though I'd argue it's the only reason I do photography. Important, very sure, but not the only. But as a generic sweeping statement, it is really lacking too much nuance.

Indeed my answer got a bit self-contradicting there; unfortunate formatting.

_____

My last posts leave a bit an open gap anyway. If the act of creation is enough, then why strive to become better? Why share at all? First of all, it's of course not that black and white. I like it when people say they like my photos. I like thoughtful critiques who give me new or additional ideas on what I made. But the "need for this feedback" is not the primary thing that gets me out there to shoot.

It also might seem to deny the communication of a photo. If it's as self-centered as I may have made it seem, then to who would it be communicating? And why would I bother with that? This, though, to me is integral part of the 'creation process'. The resulting photo is the natural end-point, and it is something I do consciously. The act of photography and the photo are not two seperate entities: one comes naturally from the other, and is fully intertwined with it.

I'm probably very superfluous now, but just to be sure it's not misunderstood. In my view, it does not contradict what I've said in other threads on images, it's merely the process and how I arrive at creating a photo that hopefully transmits something I felt I wanted to say, or share. And for what it's worth, as i get better at it, I hope (and think) the sharing aspect will become more and more important when I start to be better at communicating through photography.

_____

That you are photographing to photograph, not to accomplish some greater good in the world, not to get to know your surroundings, not to meet more interesting people, but because you want or need to photograph.

</blockquote>

Sorry, there is a bit a nasty sound to this phrase, and it puts things against one another that in my view are not that contradictory.The addition in brackets deserves to be un-bracketed ;-) And for some points, I even doubt whether it's a matter of emphasis.

Getting to know my surroundings... I think I see and study them intently. While making photos. For me, this is actually a big part of the usual photos I do. It's why I emphasised the need of seeing it - it's a sort of reciprocal relation with that surrounding.

Indeed meeting people (be they interesting or not) is debatable. Looking at my portofolio: which role do people play there? It's a matter of subject choice. But through photography (and the act of photographing) I've met enough people, including interesting ones. They're just not the subject of my photos. But I am aware that the activity is worth discussing (here, and offline), and that yields interesting contacts.

Sure, this could be seen as side-effects of the actual act of photographing, a matter of emphasis, but nothing is ever that singular, I think. There is not a single objective here we adhere to.

What I mostly tried to underline is that the actual act of making photos to me is a critical part, and that it's also how I actually get to my images. The first step in the chain, so to speak. For sure we do have different processes there. But the actual implications of this different approaches aren't nearly as profound as they may seem in this last quote, in my view.

Norma Desmond · January 14, 2012

I meant really doing it for the appreciation or valuation by others, feeling "better" than others in a way, and less the inner satisfaction one has when doing something one likes to do.

</blockquote>

Thanks, Wouter, now I understand you and you raise an importance difference in the way to see egotism. I agree there are these two sides to it and, originally, I was probably thinking more of the inner satisfaction part, but as there is a communication aspect to photography, which does involve a sharing, I think the relationship to others does come into play. I'm not sure it has to be in terms of feeling better than others or even in terms of the valuation by others, but there can certainly be a strong, unfiltered, confident, and/or committed presentation of one's own view point of view, a giving voice to oneself (and the confidence and vulnerability that comes from doing it in the presence of or by eventually presenting it to others).

.

Why share at all? . . . But the "need for this feedback" is not the primary thing that gets me out there to shoot.

</blockquote>

I understand and can relate to this, too. I don't think the sharing is necessarily to get feedback. One can give, anonymously even, and not know who receives. You share your photos in a gallery or on the Internet and you may get relatively little feedback, but you have put it out there. I think that can have a confidence-oriented and even egotistical aspect without one's ever getting feedback.

.

If the act of creation is enough, then why strive to become better?

</blockquote>

Not necessarily, I think, so others will think of you as better. First of all, sometimes the striving might not be to get better, it might be just to keep exploring. The act of creation being enough, the way I meant it, means it didn't have to be connected to a practical aspect or a purpose outside of the need or desire to create. For me, the act of creation will usually show me an incompletion. That there is more to do, more to make. So I keep creating out of a need to create more, explore other territory. Getting better, to me, has a lot to do with authenticity, discovering more and discovering more deeply and honestly. I can do that by continuing to create.

chris_waller · January 15, 2012

Fred,

Your use of the analogy of a dance is absolutely spot on. This is exactly how I experience a good portrait session. Indeed, it involves body and head movements which, at their best, achieve a kind of unspoken synchrony. You raise the issue of ego and I think that in a good portrait, the photographer's ego manifests itself almost epiphenomenally. If the photographer approaches the subject without reining is his, or her, ego, then the subject is swamped - and I have sadly seen too much of this, with the subject as passive object.

If I could be permitted to take your analogy further, using the example of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, one can see Ginger Rogers learning with each film and with each dance sequence. Portrait photography is another such learning process: the subject must have confidence in the photographer and the photographer must respond to the subject to reinforce each 'approach' by the subject.

Norma Desmond · January 15, 2012

If the photographer approaches the subject without reining is his, or her, ego, then the subject is swamped

</blockquote>

Chris, thanks, your whole post is nicely put. I agree with you on the above point but with a caveat. I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. There are times when I am wanting to hear the subject speak, and I keep myself as photographer to a whisper. There are times when I am the one shouting and the subject feels merely like my raw materials, acts more like an actor in my play than a subject of a portrait. And there are many degrees between the two extremes. Subject and photographer may speak together with one voice, speak simultaneously with two voices, and one may speak louder than the other.

The key for me is being conscious of what I want . . . and of who my subject is and what they may want. The photographers you may often be disappointed in because they swamp the subject, for me, are ones who do it unconsciously. Then they may get in their own way.

I'm also thinking that a body of work may sometimes have a stronger voice or imposition of the photographer than a single photo. So you may look at individual portraits and get much more the picture of each subject and then look at the body of work as a whole and get a very strong sense of the voice of the photographer, even while still seeing all the individuals pictured for who they are.

Norma Desmond · January 15, 2012

[Addition] Sometimes a photographer's voice will slip in unconsciously, probably often, and that can have a great effect on the photo as well, while giving the viewer insights into the photographer. When it slips in like this it will have much less a tendency to dominate, or to swamp, as Chris so descriptively puts it.

Sign In

The egotistical photographer?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in