What difference does it make if you really know your subject?

[Norman 202]

i think another exercise is to google sally mann photos (ignoring the project and with no <i>a priori</i> knowledge) and see if you can spot those from <i>At Twelve</i> and those from <i>Immediate Family</i>.

[Julie H]

Good idea. I look forward to hearing what your results.

[Norma Desmond]

I think when looking at portraits one can keep in mind two distinct audiences, the audience that knows the person and the audience that doesn't. I'm not necessarily thinking about it in the moment of shooting, of course. Most of what we talk about here does not pertain to what we think about when shooting. It pertains to thoughts we have in general about photography. But I generally assume that people who know my subject will get more of the inside story of some of the photos I take. And most portraits I consider good by myself or others will seem to tell both a personal and a more universal story, so that viewers both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject will have some connection to the portrait and appreciation for it, but on different levels. That's why, as a photographer, I like shooting both familiar and unfamiliar people. And it's also why I'm aware that there is familiarity in the unfamiliar if I think of part of my shooting as shooting human expression and condition and not just what's personal.

<br><br>

So, for me, it's not a matter of preferring to shoot the familiar person or the unfamiliar person. The unfamiliar may sound like a challenge but it's one imposed situationally, if it is at all. With the familiar, I can impose my own challenge, which is to find the always lurking unknown in the the known, the new twist, the surprise. And in the unknown, I can challenge myself to bring it close or to keep my distance while making that distance matter.

<br><br>

I didn't and won't read all the quotes above, so I may repeat what either the photographer or some writer about photography said, but Sally Mann's familiarity with certain subjects will probably have a distinct effect on the part of the audience that knows those particular subjects. A lot of portraits are tailored to the voice of familiarity for the family and friends of the sitter and are also broadened beyond that for the wider audience, whether with thought and intention or just because the particular portrait photographer has that gift of being able to find interesting balances between the universal and the particular.

[Julie H]

<br><br>

"… Robert Frost once gave a negative definition of poetry: it is, he said, what gets lost in translation." — Howard Nemerov

[Allen Herbert]

"All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts"

 

 

" With the familiar, I can impose my own challenge, which is to find the always lurking unknown in the known, the new twist, the surprise" Fred.

 

 

When an actor is playing a part....you must ask yourself where is the surprise? The backstage often reveals the surprise. Candid.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

A stranger will often reveal truths about themselves to a stranger...a feeling of freedom without consequence.

 

 

A candid photo also shares those truths.

[Julie H]

A stranger will often reveal truths about themselves to a stranger ...

<br><br>

"… We need only, so that the miracle may be accomplished, apply our lips to the magic orifice and invoke …

<br><br>

… “Is that you, Granny?” " — Howard Nemerov

[Brad_]

>>> A stranger will often reveal truths about themselves to a stranger...a feeling of freedom without consequence.<BR><BR>

 

I've found that to be so true. People just want to talk and have somebody listen and engage. A kind of therapy, perhaps. That's what makes approaching strangers on the street for portraits so interesting.

[Julie H]

People just want to talk and have somebody listen and engage. A kind of therapy, perhaps. That's what makes approaching strangers on the street for portraits so interesting.

<br><br>

How do you compare that to Reynolds Price's description of the concealment of family photography (posted earlier):

<br><br>

"... at the first glimpse of any emotion but joy or a premature amusing dignity, my parents' camera would refuse to click. ... [L]ike the great majority of middle-class children, I accepted from the cradle onward a near-perfect complicity in the fiction of our endless contentment with one another and with the world beyond us."

<br><br>

Do you think that strangers don't edit their self-presentation in a similar way? No question they are giving you something, but what do you think it is?

[Supriyo]

I think the OP's question included both human (conscious) and non-human (non(less?)-conscious) entities, and we as photographers treat these two groups differently IMO. Please note, I don't want to categorize solely humans as conscious and everything else as non-conscious. (Artists can impose consciousness and attachment to inanimate objects, and treat human beings as dolls/ placeholders). The point I am trying to make is, whether or not we recognize our subject as being conscious (and therefore capable of empathic connection) makes a difference in the way we perceive them and photograph them. Knowing the subject beforehand has to affect our projection of consciousness on it, either such knowledge would rob away the imagination and intrigue involved, or reinforce attachment and tenderness. It would highly depend.

[Supriyo]

I would say, knowing someone, and having strong feelings associated with that knowledge would manifest differently during shooting. I know Genghiz Khan was a horrible person in many ways, but I don't passionately hate him as I do certain contemporary politicians (e.g). Knowing our subject and getting personal with him/her are two different things. I may photograph a bad person looking kind and tender, to depict an alternative view of him, or may be completely detach the real person from the portrait. However, when photographing someone I have strong personal feelings about, I suspect my framing of him would show off that feeling in some way (that some way could in extreme case end up in throwing the dSLR at his head and leaving the scene, just saying).

[Supriyo]

I've found that to be so true. People just want to talk and have somebody listen and engage. A kind of therapy, perhaps. That's what makes approaching strangers on the street for portraits so interesting.

 

I agree, a stranger may open up and divulge personal secrets (remember cab driver and pubs), and it may be easier to get them to pose for you. However getting them to talk to you, and getting them to talk to your camera are two different things IMO, and one doesn't always follows the other. A stranger may be free in front of you, but feel awkward in front of your camera.

<br><br>

This brings me to my second point, what about the subject knowing you, besides you knowing the subject. How does that change the subject's interaction with the camera?

[Brad_]

I agree, a stranger may open up and divulge personal secrets (remember cab driver and pubs), and it may be easier to get them to pose for you. However getting them to talk to you, and getting them to talk to your camera are two different things IMO, and one doesn't always follows the other. A stranger may be free in front of you, but feel awkward in front of your camera.

 

This brings me to my second point, what about the subject knowing you, besides you knowing the subject. How does that change the subject's interaction with the camera?

<BR>

 

I've found that when engaging people on the street for conversation a "sizing up" occurs rather quickly, by the person and myself, within a minute or so. If you offer genuine respect, listen well, show real concern and can relate to what's being said trying to put yourself in their shoes, then trust and respect will flow back and people will open up and go out of their way to help me in making a portrait. A few decline, most don't. Some people ask why, some people don't. Usually I feel good about the portraits I make.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Brad_

[Brad_]

<br><br>

How do you compare that to Reynolds Price's description of the concealment of family photography (posted earlier):

<br><br>

"... at the first glimpse of any emotion but joy or a premature amusing dignity, my parents' camera would refuse to click. ... [L]ike the great majority of middle-class children, I accepted from the cradle onward a near-perfect complicity in the fiction of our endless contentment with one another and with the world beyond us."

<br><br>

Do you think that strangers don't edit their self-presentation in a similar way? No question they are giving you something, but what do you think it is?

<br>

 

It's hard to say. At the minimum it's a bit of their time, some conversation and insight into their life and neighborhood, some trust, and a willingness to help me make a portrait.

[Supriyo]

<BR>

 

I've found that when engaging people on the street for conversation a "sizing up" occurs rather quickly, by the person and myself, within a minute or so. If you offer genuine respect, listen well, show real concern and can relate to what's being said trying to put yourself in their shoes, then trust and respect will flow back and people will open up and go out of their way to help me in making a portrait. A few decline, most don't. Some people ask why, some people don't. Usually I feel good about the portraits I make.

 

 

Its great the way you describe it. It also addresses my other point, about how the subject "sizes up" the photographer, besides the other way round. I still think, some people are just inherently awkward (or deliberately posy) in front of the camera and they can't let go off their reservation. Candid is probably the only way for them.

[Norma Desmond]

Supriyo, a couple of ways I think about this to add to what you're saying.

<br><br>

Candidness is no guarantee for a lack of awkwardness.

<br><br>

Some people are awkward even when not in front of a camera.

<br><br>

A subject's awkwardness doesn't necessarily make for an awkward or uninteresting picture. Awkwardness is real. It can be expressive.

<br><br>

While it's sometimes nice to have the subjects of my photos feeling comfortable, it's rare that that's complete comfort and more often there is some degree (varying widely from person to person) of discomfort to work with. That presents opportunities. With friends, I have on occasion purposely brought up some awkward or uncomfortable memory or situation in order to vary the dynamics of the moment.

<br><br>

I love me some deliberately posy people. They can make great photographic subjects. I may try to avoid posyness in some situations but actually emphasize it in others. A very obvious pose that's not trying to hide that it's an obvious pose can work wonders sometimes. On the other hand, trying too hard to avoid posyness, when it's coming natural to a subject, can be a disaster.

<br><br>

People often strike what I think of as poses even when they're being quite natural or think they're not being observed. Look at people smoking cigarettes, smooching in a park, notice how much the smokers can unconsciously be imitating Bogart and the smoochers can adopt the gestures of Scarlett and Rhett! I don't actually think there is anything unnatural or awkward about a lot of posing. A lot of it is culturally learned and ingrained and can actually read as symbolic, iconic, and very human in photos.

<br><br>

I'm not always looking for openness on the parts of my subjects and I'm not necessarily always into being open myself in a sort of transactional or dialoguing way. People hide a lot, and I think a camera can explore that side of life as well. People put up fronts. And sometimes those fronts can actually reveal quite a lot.

[Supriyo]

People hide a lot, and I think a camera can explore that side of life as well. People put up fronts. And sometimes those fronts can actually reveal quite a lot.

 

Fred, I quickly read your post and many things sound familiar from previous discussions and a lot of them I agree with. I am in the middle of something and will come back to address them again at a later time. However to quickly clarify, I don't mind people posing and displaying themselves in front of the camera in the way they seem fit. I am actually curious to see how different subjects portray themselves in different ways. But some people mimic a generic pose that they have probably picked up from social networking sites. One moment they look a certain way, but as soon as I point the camera at them, they completely transform themselves and just pose in a generic way. I don't know if you have faced this. I can't gather myself to tell them, you don't have to act in a certain way to look good in front of the camera. Even if I tell them, they cannot seem to let go off their adopted pose. The photos also come out to be generic looking. What to do in such a situation? May be playing with the angle, background, lighting, or actually making them feel awkward could make a difference.

[Gary Naka]

It depends.<br>

When shooting things in the abstract, it really does not matter. Because some/many times, you can't see what the item really is anyway. <br><br>

 

In my mind, what is more important is to "get out of the box," and don't shoot that subject the way 99.99% of the people shoot it.<br>

Walk around, get up higher, get down lower, get closer, use a different lens, use different lighting, etc, etc.

[Brad_]

Fred, I quickly read your post and many things sound familiar from previous discussions and a lot of them I agree with. I am in the middle of something and will come back to address them again at a later time. However to quickly clarify, I don't mind people posing and displaying themselves in front of the camera in the way they seem fit. I am actually curious to see how different subjects portray themselves in different ways. But some people mimic a generic pose that they have probably picked up from social networking sites. One moment they look a certain way, but as soon as I point the camera at them, they completely transform themselves and just pose in a generic way. I don't know if you have faced this. I can't gather myself to tell them, you don't have to act in a certain way to look good in front of the camera. Even if I tell them, they cannot seem to let go off their adopted pose. The photos also come out to be generic looking. What to do in such a situation? May be playing with the angle, background, lighting, or actually making them feel awkward could make a difference.

<BR>

 

After engaging a stranger on the street in conversation, I start thinking of context, available light/shadows, and how I'll eventually pose them. Environmental context is very important and I can usually find a spot within 20 feet that can work. It might not be perfect, but may be much better than where the person was first engaged. I've found most people in SF very cooperative, patient, and going out of their way to be helpful.

[Julie H]

In my mind, what is more important is to "get out of the box," and don't shoot that subject the way 99.99% of the people shoot it

<br><br>

Why?

<br><br>

Why do you take that picture? Why then? Why there?

<br><br>

If you answer because it's interesting or because it's beautiful, or simply because it's different, I am going to ask you why is it interesting and why is it beautiful and why is it different (from what?)? Can you drill down to what motivates you to make that picture if you don't really know anything about your subject?

[Supriyo]

I am going to ask you why is it interesting and why is it beautiful and why is it different (from what?)? Can you drill down to what motivates you to make that picture if you don't really know anything about your subject?

 

What fascinates me is the fact that I find a subject interesting but can't for the life figure out why.

[Supriyo]

I've found most people in SF very cooperative, patient, and going out of their way to be helpful.

 

I have to agree with that. SF has a great way with tourists too, and whenever I have been there, I liked the people's attitude.

[Julie H]

What fascinates me is the fact that I find a subject interesting but can't for the life figure out why.

<br><br>

YES!

<br><br>

(but I would say the subject makes me 'uncomfortable' ... which is a form of 'interesting.)

[Supriyo]

<br><br>

YES!

<br><br>

(but I would say the subject makes me 'uncomfortable' ... which is a form of 'interesting.)

 

I find a subject interesting but can't for the life figure out why.

 

Thats in itself uncomfortable to me, to certain degree.

[Norma Desmond]

One moment they look a certain way, but as soon as I point the camera at them, they completely transform themselves and just pose in a generic way. I don't know if you have faced this. I can't gather myself to tell them, you don't have to act in a certain way to look good in front of the camera. Even if I tell them, they cannot seem to let go off their adopted pose. The photos also come out to be generic looking. What to do in such a situation?

<br><br>

Supriyo, I've learned a lot and been very inspired by several different groups of artists and photographers that can help with these kinds of situations.

<br><br>

I'm thinking of pop artists such as Warhol, Jasper Johns, and Richard Hamilton. In consciously blurring lines between advertising/commercialism and art, they figured out ways to propose many accepted generic selling features as something worth being interested in for other reasons.

<br><br>

Then there are the great Hollywood portrait photographers like Milton Green, George Hurrell, and Don English who worked with people who adopted very well known types of personas and poses. The photographers, in many cases, respected and even showed a reverence for these trends. I'm sure there were other photographers who found such posing and drama revolting or at least uninteresting.

<br><br>

And the new topographics photographers like Robert Adams who took what many would have considered droll, generic landscapes and rural-scapes and photographed them with a certain kind of appreciation that resonates.

<br><br>

Those styles can actually be mimicked to great effect with more contemporary subjects, what might be a more or less neo-pop, neo-Hollywood, neo-topographic approach to sort of expected and ubiquitous cultural memes. If not that, they can be used as inspiration to help one figure out one's own way to photograph what might otherwise come across as stilted or too self conscious posing.

<br><br>

Then again, sometimes a photographer and a subject just don't work well together and there's no reason to fault either photographer or subject. It's just not happening.

<br><br>

I tend to photograph people older than the demographic who would have already been so influenced from an early age by social media. But, yes, I have run into it with all kinds of people. Depending on who and the situation, there are lots of little things to try to avoid some habitual in-front-of-the-camera behaviors or, as I said, figure out interesting ways to go with it and even visually comment on it. Sometimes it's as easy as getting a guy to do a couple of stretches or squats. I got Gerald to toss a beach ball in the air while reclining on his sofa. Andy, on our first shoot, was feeling and looking rather awkward in the quiet park we had decided on for that day. So I got her to get into the confined and awkward front seat of her car and got a shot I'm really happy with. I exaggerated the awkwardness and it wound up working.

<br><br>

As the photographer, I figure it's usually my place to come up with something that will work. I try not to have expectations of many of my subjects who are neither actual models nor photographers.

<br><br>

And sometimes, you get really lucky and find someone who the camera loves no matter whether they're doing a tango dressed in lavish red and blue or washing the dishes in their sweats. There aren't many bad pictures, even unposed ones, of Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn. That's not because every photographer who came across them was so great. It was because those two women had some sort of photogenic magic, IMO. Nothing wrong with going out and finding a couple of those!