Mike Johnston's recent column and HC-B

[steve_chan5]

<p>You may want to read up on this page on <a href=http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/mraz/mraz02.html>"Documentary" Photography</a>. As I understand it, many of the greatest photos were to some extent posed or involved conscious interaction with the photographer. Some people assert that Dorothea Lange actively arranged the elements of her famous "Migrant Mother" photo.

<p>It isn't clear to me that Johnston is advocating anything <b>DANGEROUS</b> - asking someone to run across a scene, or take pose doesn't seem like such a life threatening procedure to me and the dishonesty depends on the level of direction, how atypical it is for the environment and how you are representing the photo. If you look at Diane Arbus' photos, it is quite clear that the subject has often engaged with the photographer at some level (their attention is directly at the camera - so arguably there is a level of posing involved). So clearly you can be a legit street photographer without indulging in HCB "stealth" approaches.

[eric_perlberg]

Steve, your zonezero link is great in an "There is no Easter Bunny... grow up" kind of way. IMO the revelations in the article makes a mockery of the little tick box in photo.net galleries when you upload your photos where you have to say if the photo was manipulated in Photoshop.

[mlpowell]

What's the old quote about 'real-life' not being two-dimensional, monochrome

and 8x10? (I'd swear that was a Cartier-Bresson quote, actually. Or maybe

Capa?)

 

All photographs are representations of 'real-life' or reality as the photographer

experienced it. There's no 'honest' or 'dishonest' version, there's no objective

truth about it. The only time those come in, as others have noted, is if you're

claiming that the photograph is completely unaltered.

 

I don't care one way or the other about posing people for street photography,

but at least that requires the photographer to actively engage his or her

subject. I dislike most amateur street photography because it looks like the

maker was more concerned with concealment than making the photo.

[bobatkins]

<em>Regarding the HC-B copyright Bob, doesn't it depend on where the copyright is held?</em>

<p>

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give an informed legal opinion.

<p>

As far as I know most international copyright law is based on the Berne Convention and "Fair Use" is covered by article 10. Most countries are signatories of the Berne Convention and have "fair use" provisions in their own copyright regulations.

<p>

If you want to know more, you'll have to do a search or ask an IP lawyer.

[sliu]

I was not exaggerating when I used the word "dangerous". Of course it doesn't mean one's life but one's mind. Directed photography is harmful to the viewer's mind as well as to the photographer's mind.

 

Our tragedy is that directed photography becomes normal in photojournalism, or I shall say photo-propaganda. In my eyes, there is no difference between "The image of the flag raising over Iwo Jima", "The Kiss at l�Hotel de Ville", "Migrant Mother" and those propaganda photos by Nazi and Communist. The aforementioned three photos gave us manipulated impression of heroism, romantic and misery, although there were some degree of these in reality. If they keep doing this (because it sells), I simply won't believe what I see on the magazine any more.

Something is normal doesn't mean it is right.

 

Grew up in communist China, I had seen many many perfect photographs. And all photographs about kuomintang (Nationalist Party) are ugly and all photographs about Communist are glorious. Until a few months ago I saw a book by HC-B (from Brooklyn Public Library), "China in Transition" in which I had a chance to see real China in the year of 1949. Nothing was glorified or uglified, to many people who are used to directed photos, they are ugly because they are not directed; but to me, they are beautiful because they are real. Thanks HC-B for taking these honest pictures of this special period in Chinese history. Although it seems nobody cares about it now, whether in mainland China, Taiwan or other places in the world. I wish I could own that book someday.

 

It is not only the photographs matter, but also how they made them.

 

 

P.S.

Posed portraits are different issue, no matter what name you call them.

[sliu]

Honest is not about concealment. Subject's awareness of the photographer is one issue, photographer acting as a director is another issue.

 

Of course according to quantum mechanics, zero disturbance from the observer is impossible ;-)

[mlpowell]

One major difference - the propaganda of the Nazis was used to kill and

enslave millions. Doisneau's staged photo(s) were used to, uh, illustrate

magazines/tell a story/decorate modern dorm rooms.

 

To even equate the two is ridiculous.

 

How does Migrant Mother change if Lange had happened upon the scene

exactly as she photographed it, rather than altering portions? What's the

difference? Either way, she chose what to photograph and how to photograph

it. Your quest for purity, for an absolute recording of 'the truth' completely

removes the photographer. The images could be taken by machines for all it

matters.

 

You crop, right? You choose where to point the camera, you choose to dodge

and burn, you choose focal length, lighting, aperture and shutter speed (etc.).

Aren't all of those decisions distorting 'reality' to some extent?

[sliu]

It is not about manipulating the image, it is about manipulating the SUBJECT. No matter how justified the purpose is.

[mlpowell]

What's the difference? Why does "manipulating the subject" matter? What

makes it wrong?

 

If you just want to say "I don't like directed street photography" - fine. But

you're calling it dangerous and saying that no one should do it.

 

Why?

[mlpowell]

To go back again - how is it any different to manipulate "the image" and "the

subject"? In both cases, you're altering the presentation of "the truth" to the

viewer, right?

[sliu]

The more I think about it, the deeper it become. It is not so simple.

 

I have a copy of Bruce Davidson's "East 100 Street". Almost all the photos in the books were staged, there is no way to conceal a large format camera. What amazing is that it took Bruce Davidson two year (4000 negatives) to finish that project. When I look at these photos, I see more than the staged images, something deeper. They are different from the photos on the fashion or news magazines. I have to admit they are true documentary photographs, not directed photographs. It seems that he manipulated the subject but somehow Bruce Davidson managed to reveal something that could not be concealed by the formal and staged portraits. I believe it is much much harder than what HC-B did. And to be honest, Davidson's photos touch me deeper than the iconic "Migrant Mother".

 

I can't resolve this controversy myself. Perhaps someone can help me. Or I should ask Bruce Davidson himself.

[sliu]

I think Mike Johnston used the HC-B's picture in the article to grab the attention of the audience. It is like the beautiful posters I see in the hair salons in Chinatown: "Do you want to have the beautiful hair as Tom Cruise? Come to our salon!". Mike's message is: "Do you want to make a beautiful picture as HC-B's, read my article! ", which means, directed photography.

 

In Chinese, we call this "selling dog meat under lamb head".

[Spearhead]

<i>It is not about manipulating the image, it is about manipulating the SUBJECT. </i><p>

 

Manipulation of the subject is between the photographer and the subject. It has nothing to do with the viewer.<p>

 

Manipulation of the viewer is different, but that is different than manipulating the subject.<p>

 

I have set up street shots. What I find odd is that people don't see it in those, but sometimes accuse me of setting up the ones that were shot surreptitiously.<p>

 

In the shot of the running people, I think it would have been far better to set it up. It's mostly empty space (not negative space) as shown.

[._._z]

Good photos are good, whether or not they're staged.

 

Jeff Wall (whose early work was manufactured street photography) is interviewed in the

latest PDN and has some interesting things to say.

[._._z]

And here's another interview with him:

 

http://snipurl.com/4w89

[Allen Herbert]

Who can tell,manufactured, or not. Sometimes though, you have that feeling, when it's too good to be true. Does it matter? not really it's always going to be the final image that counts. But, the real life, worked for image...just a nicer thought.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

S. LIU, escuse I took your picture as a starting reference to my post, I can´t say your picture could be any other way by adding any thing, the running moment is perfect just framing is in my opinion a bit short, I just use it ot make an example of options, hope I got understood; by the way a great treat you posted, very interesting discovering what our morality is made of.

[sliu]

<i>Who can tell,manufactured, or not.</i>

<p>

That is what I call "dangerous". It is about the trust. At least I know which picture of mine is posed, which one is not. Unfortunately, most of the images we see in mass media are manipulated and most of us still believe they are telling the truth.

<p>

For artists like Jeff Wall and Loretta Lux, photography is not the same as most of us think. We have to believe they are not about reality but creation of the artists.

[mlpowell]

<i>We have to believe they are not about reality but creation of the artists.</i>

<p>

 

Which photographs aren't?

[Spearhead]

I never confuse "reality" with my photographs. I try not to confuse it with other people's photographs either. I don't think most of the people who like (and buy) my photographs care about that either.

[._._z]

<i> It is about the trust. </i><p>

 

Outside of photojourlalism trust might be implied, or it might be inferred, but it is not

necessary or necessarily expected. Yes, many people eish that photos reflect reality, but

that ignores the actual, long history of photography which negates that view.

[sliu]

Roberto,

 

Thank you for the comment on my photo. I understand what you mean. Any serious street photographer would remember Bob Capa's words. I just want to say that photographer does have an intention when he/she takes the photo. Had I had an advanced camera that could take 3 frames per second, I would have kept the third frame. But since I only have one shot, that is the best I got and it is about the reality. Reality is not perfect.

 

 

All photographs are subjective, the viewer look through "the mind's eye" of the photographer and reach their own interpretations. There are many differet types of photography but my understanding of photography is that real photography is always about reality, whether the reality depicted by HC-B's snapshots or the deeper reality in Bruce Davidson's large format projects. If it is not about reality, it is just art done with a camera (and photoshop).

 

P.S.

I like the atmosphere of this discussion. The more I read it, the deeper I think about it.

[mlpowell]

<i>There are many differet types of photography but my understanding of

photography is that real photography is always about reality, whether the

reality depicted by HC-B's snapshots or the deeper reality in Bruce

Davidson's large format projects. If it is not about reality, it is just art done with

a camera (and photoshop).</i><p><p>

 

How is 'art done with a camera' not 'photography?<br>

Why isn't "Migrant Mother" a 'real photograph'? It was taken with a light-tight

box and lens with the image formed on film and printed on paper. Those are

all the marks of a photograph.<p>

 

Furthermore, how is manipulating the subject not a representation of 'reality'?

It's a real woman in a place that existed - the photo as we've seen it is the

situation as it was it was photographed.

[._._z]

<i> photographer does have an intention when he/she takes the photo.... I only have one

shot, that is the best I got and it is about the reality. Reality is not perfect. </i><p>

 

The photographer makes the shot not takes it: he makes it in the camera, through choice

of lens, film, POV, etc -- as well as in the darkroom: through cropping, levels, dodging,

burning, paper choice, desaturation, montage, etc. <p>

 

Who said photography must reflect reality? Who said it ever did? <p>

 

<i> my understanding of photography is that real photography is always about reality

</i> <p>

 

Ay, there's the rub. The subject may or may not be 'about' reality, and photography does

not have to reflect reality anyway. This has been true from the very first photographs and

photograms.

[sliu]

I could argue against myself. Staged reality is also a reality. Most wedding photographs are staged but we can not say they are fake, because wedding photos are meant to be staged. Candid photos are not wedding photos, at least to Chinese people. (To some Chinese, the standard is even higher, they have to be soft focused and look like CD album covers of Madonna or Britney Spears ;-)

 

That IS reality, not art.