posing or direction subjects in street or documentary

[mark_gatehouse]

posing or direction subjects in street or It seems that almost

everyone of the "greats" has done his and there seems to be no quams

about it - Evans, Lang, Gene Smith, Kertesz, Brassai, Winogrand,

Bruce Davidson - pick your favourite photogorpaher. (Most are happy

to admit to it a few are rather more coy).

 

So what's the feeling on here - any problem with doing a bit of

directing or getting the kids to fill in if things aren't coming

together?

 

 

After all, none of these street or documentary are real are they? All

are constructs.

 

 

But there seems to be a feeling (perhaps only a recent feeling) that

we need to catch the "pure" moment?

[john_sidlo]

Eugene Smith's photos are great, and staged. Others didn't do that so much, like Winogrand for example. Or Levitt, I'm pretty sure. Or many by HCB. Evan's subway photos were completely surreptitions. I don't stage mine. And I usually don't ask permission, and I often shoot surreptitiously. Others do. The photos you get are different, not worse or better, just different. Very different, in some cases. You have to use the style(s) you are comfortable with, and if you get a great photo, good on you.

[andrew_somerset1]

Consider to what end and to what degree you're staging the photo, really. Smith didn't concoct the country doctor story from scratch. He didn't fabricate incidents to create drama. And he didn't pose the doctor doing things he might not ordinarily have done.

 

Also consider that the "rules" have changed with time. It's really about time people stopped bringing up what Smith did, or Dorothea Lange, or whoever. Standards and expectations have shifted away from staging photos.

[leslie_cheung]

There are different degrees of posing and directioning though I prefer no pose

at all. If I want to direct, pose and control then it would Godard, Renoir,

Tarkovsky as oppose to say Henri-Latrigue, Frank, Winogrand;O)

[boris_chan1]

"Consider to what end and to what degree you're staging the

photo"

 

I don't think this is about the degree of staging. You either stage

or you don't.

 

"Smith.......didn't fabricate incidents to create drama"

 

This isn't correct, he certainly fabricated to create drama - even

going to the extent of staging explosions.

 

"And he didn't pose the doctor doing things he might not

ordinarily have done."

 

This is a defense I've heard a lot from photographers to justify

their set-ups, but it doesn't wash. Smith was an enormously

talented and interesting individual, but a grotesque role model

when it comes to ethics.

[andrew_somerset1]

What, Smith invented sick people for the doctor to work on, just to get photos? A cold wasn't dramatic enough, so he went out and broke somebody's leg?

 

I don't actually condone Smith's approach, and if he did it these days he'd be fired. We forget that it was accepted then, but is no longer accepted now -- ethics change. But still, there *is* a question of degree and intent.

 

The problem with Smith in terms of ethics is that his pix are deceptive, not that they are staged. It's possible, and entirely acceptable, to pose or stage a shot in a way that is not deceptive, and that's ethically acceptable.

[boris_chan1]

"What, Smith invented sick people for the doctor to work on........A

cold wasn't dramatic enough, so he went out and broke

somebody's leg?"

 

This is a fairly crass and utterly irrelevant riposte, but I guess it's

in tune with Smith's own sense of the theatrical, so let's move

on.

 

"I don't actually actually condone Smith's approach, and if he did

it these days he'd be fired. We forget that it was acceptable then,

but it is no longer accepted now -- ethics change."

 

There have always been ethical photographers and unethical

photographers, nothing has changed. The kind of stunts and

fabrications that Smith was so fond of are still being practised

today. Every now and again somebody, like Walski, pushes it to

an extreme and is hung out to dry, but it doesn't stop it

happening. In the world of newspapers and the wires it's

routine, but the majority of editors turn a blind eye to it so long as

it's not too clumsy.

 

"But still there *is* a question of degree and intent."

 

The degree is irrelevant - you either fake or you don't.

 

"The problem........is that his pix are deceptive, not that they are

staged."

 

You can't seperate the two, the mere act of staging in reportage

work can never be anything other than deceptive. If you fake it

then it simply isn't reportage, documentary, journalism, or

whatever you want to term it.

 

"It's possible, and entirely acceptable, to pose or stage a shot in

a way that is not deceptive, and that's ethically acceptable."

 

You're going to have to elaborate on this. Unless you specifically

bill something as being a fabrication or reconstruction then it

isn't ethical - but then if you do bill it that way then it ceases to be

reportage/documentary/journalism............

[john_sidlo]

In my opinion, ethics against posing only apply strictly in news photos. A reporters facts must be accurate and true. Photos must be unretouched. But even within those frameworks, who can deny that words surrounding the facts, or in a photo cropping or perspective or lighting, etc. do not allow point of view to creep into "news". (Cloning strictly forbidden - and extreme prudence should be exercised with other "edits")

 

Street photography makes no particular reportorial claim, and falls more into "fine art" photography. Striking, dramatic images, such as Smith's "Wake" of 1950, or "Devil Goggles" of 1955, both posed, nevertheless will remain as memorable fine art images on into the future. That they were posed makes no difference to me and my appreciation of these examples. Smith also captured some brilliant street images, clearly not posed. But some of his documentary techniques often made other photographers squirm, or howl.

 

I'm not knowledgeable enough about documentary work to know, or have thought through, the ethics very well. It purports to "document". One would hope that it is not directly misrepresentational. But in my mind, I personally expect point of view to be more likely a stronger element in "documentaries".

[lex_jenkins]

No posing. Period.

 

I'm coming from a journalistic background, so that biases my opinion.

 

I have nothing against creative photography of any genre. But don't misrepresent the street/documentary/candid genre through posing or manipulation.

 

Either you're quick enough on the shutter release or you're not. Either you can establish a rapport with your subjects that fosters good photographs *naturally* or you can't.

 

As the cliched statement from the physics discipline asserts, our mere presence and act of observation tends too much to alter the scenes and subjects we're trying to capture.

[Spearhead]

<i>our mere presence and act of observation tends too much to alter the scenes and subjects we're trying to capture.</i><p>

 

This implies that photographers aren't people. <p>

 

I find my street photos work because <i>I</i> am part of the street, not some removed and distant entity. This is why so many great street photographs are taken up close - the photographer is as much a part of the scene as any of the participants.

[mfeetham]

Leaving Lex's dead/live cat aside, I can't see how anyone would think that posing in journalism is unacceptable. Although the statement seems to make sense at first, that is only because the thought of photojournalism conjures up images of a photographer ducking between buildings during a firefight in the Middle East.

 

But in day to day journalism we see it all the time, and the fact that the picture is posed is never pointed out. Just a few days ago, I read a story about a student in a wheelchair who couldn't get to the second floor of her school due to lack of an elevator. The accompanying picture was the girl in her wheelchair, parked in front of the staircase.

 

Obviously, there are many areas where posing, directing, or editing should not be used for ethical reasons, and it's the journalists job to know when it's ok and when it's not.

 

Now as to street photography, I guess the question is: If it's posed or directed, is it still street photography, or is it fine art that LOOKS like street photography?

[lex_jenkins]

If the photographer starts posing or directing the subject it's no longer "street" photography. It's modeling photography using the street as the studio.

 

Documentary photography is another matter. Assuming a coherent theme to the project it may be necessary to arrange the subjects for a particular reason.

 

As for the observation theory, Jeff, *you* may be part of the street but your camera is not. Once it comes into play the cat is afoot and anything is possible, if not probable.

[Spearhead]

The camera is something I'm holding, and it becomes part of what's going on, as much as a balloon held by a child or a knife carried by someone on the street. There is <i>no</i> way to remove it from the scene. I'm on the street, I'm photographing, and people, consciously or not, react to me. <p>

 

Some of my best street photos include reactions to me as photographer, the action is just as real as the action without the camera. It just has a different element. It's worth noting that William Klein, a favorite of mine, had street photographers that succeeded most when his subjects interacted with the camera. His most famous print, a child thrusting a gun (toy? don't know) into the camera with a fierce expression. It's as natural as a street photo taken with a long telephoto from across the boulevard, but has far more emotional impact because of the connection between the image and the subject.

[mark_gatehouse]

"If the photographer starts posing or directing the subject it's no longer "street" photography. It's modeling photography using the street as the studio.

 

Documentary photography is another matter. Assuming a coherent theme to the project it may be necessary to arrange the subjects for a particular reason."

 

So Kertesz's lovers kissing isn't street photography? Winogrands zoo pictures aren't street photography? Brassai's figure in the night streets isn't street photography? Davidson's subway pictures aren't street photography? Surely they are. Street photographers have almost all always done this - why suddenly now is it not allowed?

 

I think it is more a misunderstanding of the history and practices of street photography (and documentary to some extent).

 

There seems to be an belief that a photograph somehow has a direct correlation to reality, when it doesn't - every photograph is a construct, a fiction.

[thomas_sullivan]

Well, first of all, in my opinion there should not even be any categories of photography, except two.........color and Black & White. The rest are subjects.....but that's not your question anyhow, but I wanted it clear what my basic thinking is.<br><br>

 

Posed street? Sure, why not? I dont ever remember reading anywhere in Bystander, considered the definitive source on street, that it HAD to be unposed. It just had to reflect how the street activity was in that area. If the photographer and subject are skilled enough to act it out........all the better. I personally cant initiate it. Although, on occasion I have met a very capable subject on the steet who actually wanted their pic taken, and they did the job for me.

<br><br>

If anybody went to the ICP exhibition last fall called "Strangers......", a very similar issue was presented. They put forth that since 9-11-2001 a lot of renewed interest in street photography has been seen by some previously "studio" type photogs. This has, as put forth by them, started to alter the before held general belief that street should be unposed.

<br><br>"Simply put, we realized that artists and photographers were increasingly leaving the studio and going out in public, engaging people who were unknown to them as part of their art-making activity. We discovered that artists were consciously considering what it means to confront a �stranger�--from negotiating to take a picture to engaging a range of ideas having to do with aggression, anonymity, social class, city life, and the cultural and social dislocations of globalization."<br><br>from

<a href="http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/triennial/">ICP Strangers Introduction</a><br><br>

[andrew_somerset1]

Boris, your notion that nothing has changed and there have always been ethical and unethical photographers is simply wrong. Standards have changed over the years; what was once considered commonplace is now considered unethical.

 

Prior to the arrival of 35 mm cameras, documentary photos were almost all staged because of limitations of the equipment. Riis, in particular, staged many photos, and many FSA photos shot with large format cameras were also staged. Documentary photographers in Europe before the war, using 35 mm, routinely staged images. Similarly, in the early days of Life magazine, photo stories were entirely staged -- Smith, ironically, is one of the people who changed all that. Even relatively recently, feature photos for newspapers were often staged -- since they were simply cute features, the attitude was that there was no harm in it.

 

Post-1930ish came the rise of 35 mm candid photography, essentially aligning practice with what audiences naively assumed -- that photos were "real." The movement took some time to wash through, so through the post-war era we see some photographers (Smith, Eisenstadt) who routinely staged pictures, and some (HCB) who did not. It is now considered unethical to stage newspaper features or photo stories.

 

The evidence of changing standards is quite plain. If you believe that ethical standards haven't changed, Boris, then I suggest you need to provide some actual evidence, such as cases of photographers fired for faking pictures in 1935, 1945 or 1955.

 

Your suggestion that degree and intent are irrelevant, and that pix must be clearly labeled as staged, reveals a narrow view of the field. Documentary photography and photojournalism are broad fields and include things other than candid and action photography. Lex's response shows the problem here -- the assumption that "documentary" is synonymous with "candid."

 

For example, environmental portraiture is a legitimate form of documentary, but is staged -- we have to suggest that the subject does whatever so that we can take the picture, unless we just happen to wait around for them to go to work. Yet we can argue that this is not deceptive because (a) this is within ethical norms for the genre, and (b) this is what the subject does anyway. Alternatively, a subject may be posed and photographed facing the camera, next to his whatever-fits-the-documentary, and this is similarly acceptable because the frank gaze at the camera denotes that the picture is posed, so it is not deceptive. Finally, photos may show people reacting to the photographer's presence, which is clearly not unethical -- the photographer can't make himself invisible, and reactions to his presence may be a legitimate subject in themselves. What I'm doing, in case you are still missing the point, is drawing the line between posed "candids" and legitimate ways in which documentary work may include posed photos.

 

The question of degree is covered, by the way, in Kobré's introductory photojournalism textbook. Kobré refers to a "continuum of control," along which a photographer may exert increasing control over a situation without crossing ethical boundaries. You should be able to borrow a copy from any first-year photojournalism student.

 

Unfortunately, nowadays many photographers seem incapable of actually thinking about ethics. Knocking out a background using curves is acceptable because it is "the same as burning or dodging," but doing the same with the paint bucket is unacceptable because it is "digital manipulation." It isn't what is done that matters, but a useless guideline based on which tool you used. Similarly, too many photographers now adhere to absolute notions of ethical conduct that can be shown to have no real-world application -- such as insisting on never influencing any photo in any way.

 

Well, that's entirely too many words spent on a point that others have already answered more simply. Suffice to say that ethics requires more than the application of bogus rules -- it requires some actual thought.

[crispin_agnew]

"The movement took some time to wash through, so through the post-war era we see some photographers (Smith, Eisenstadt) who routinely staged pictures, and some (HCB) who did not. It is now considered unethical to stage newspaper features or photo stories."

 

I'm pretty sure once he goes to the great photo agnecy in the sky that we'll find that HCB did too.

 

He has never really said he didn't he just won't talk about it and anything but the most vague terms (or he just talks around it).

 

As Josef Koudelka said on this topic, when HCB was busy going on and on one day about always and never, back and forth and around and around - "Henri, you are so full of shit"

[andrew_somerset1]

Actually, he did say quite clearly that he didn't ... I forget where the quote is. Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

[boris_chan1]

"Documentary photographers in Europe before the war, using

35mm, routinely staged images.........similarly Life

magazine.......Even relatively recently, feature photos were often

staged.......It is now considered unethical to stage......"

 

What makes you think this ended in Europe after the war, Picture

Post carried on doing this in the post-war period. To this day the

tradition of staging is alive and well within the British newspaper

industry. The attitude to faking/staging varies around the world

but it happens everywhere. In northern Europe (UK, Germany,

Scandinavia) it's an open secret within the media industry that

photographers routinely pose and stage, whereas in North

America the myth is fiercely preserved that it's an occasional

aberration. For what it's worth I actually feel a certain amount of

sympathy for Brian Walski, his actions seem bizarre to those

outside the industry but in fact were totally within the traditions of

his trade - he was simply unlucky that a combination of tiredness

and clumsiness led to him being rumbled.

 

"Your suggestion that degree and intent are irrelevant and that

pix must be clearly labeled as staged, reveals a narrow point of

view........For example, environmental portraiture is a legitimate

form of documentary......"

 

I'm sorry that I'm not revealing a pleasingly vague position for

you, but my narrow viewpoint at least has the virtue of clarity. I'm

not sure why you're bringing portraiture in to this, I think you know

that wasn't what we were discussing.

 

"........in case you are still missing the point........The question of

degree is covered........in Kobre's introductory photojournalism

textbook.........You should be able to borrow a copy from any

first-year photojournalism student."

 

I'm always reassured when someone trys to patronise me, it

generally suggests that their argument is a touch on the spotty

side. Anyway, next time I'm in the Bay area I'll be sure to let Ken

know that he has at least one loyal disciple.

[andrew_somerset1]

Nice straw men, Boris. Try again when you've learned to construct an argument.

[lex_jenkins]

"Lex's response shows the problem here -- the assumption that "documentary" is synonymous with "candid." "

 

===========================

 

Andrew, you've misstated my position. To qualify as "street" photography, it must be unposed, undirected... candid, if you prefer.

 

Documentary photography is entirely different. It generally has a coherent theme or, at least, tone and subjects may be arranged, posed, directed, whatever, as the photographers wishes to reflect this theme or tone. It's up to the photographer to retain integrity in this pursuit.

 

"Candid?" Well... I've come to associate that term with staged situations, where some hapless person is duped into some sort of clownish exercise that is photographed for our entertainment. If there was ever an alternative definition it was overwhelmed years ago.

 

BTW, I don't really care how many authorities can be cited who disagree or can "prove" another definition for street or documentary photography. These definitions and principles are mine.

 

That was, as I recall, what Mark sought in initiating this thread: not unanimity of opinion but, possibly, a re-examination of old definitions and opinions.

[boris_chan1]

Andrew, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, at every stage

you've squirmed and obfuscated, repeatedly responding to

things I never actually said. I've given you the courtesy of

resonding to your actual comments

 

With reference to your citation of Kobre, one of the primary

reasons for the crisis (supine in the face of White House

intimidation, tieing itself in knots over issues of photo

manipulation) in North American journalism today is that the

practioners are the products of "journalism school" where they're

fed a rigid and simplistic methodology which leaves them utterly

unprepared to deal with the complexities of the world. Kobre is

part of the problem not part of the solution.

[jbs]

Having just read this thread I feel the need to make at least one observation and that being; staging goes on continually, and has for as long as I have studied it. Aside from this general comment, I would like to express my admiration for any shot (staged or not) that can be truly expressive and interesting to view in this era of digital proliferation. I personally engage in both and have been the subject of both.

 

"After all, none of these street or documentary are real are they? All are constructs."

 

No, not at all Mark. But a lot are. Even though I was aware of how many photjournalists (& videojournalists) set up a shot it really struck home with me when I was the target of photojournalist. I passed the man with the camera first wondering what kind of equipment he was using (canon 1d) then, meeting his eyes, realized he was there to shoot me. I spoke and asked if I was the subject of his shoot that day and he confirmed my name. So I asked where he would like to take his shot. The journalist was pleased and immediately started to direct me in front of a window. He took several shots of me (showing something) that he would not have seen otherwise. In documenting what I was doing that day in the form of a photo, this particular instance was served by the set up. It helped tell the story more effectively than a bad shot of me opening a big door, It was a decent shot of me & it made the photographer feel good about the shot.

 

I don't have a problem with the set-ups per se. Pictures tell stories. My problem comes from a set up that has nefarious intent. I.E. making a shoot that looks unstaged to convince the viewer of something false or subjective.

 

Catching the pure moment is fantastic. I practice it whenever possible.

 

....;)...J<div></div>

[thomas_sullivan]

Jay Steven..........."...and he confirmed my name..."....I take it that you are a public figure from that statement? Just, as always, curious who frequents this site.

[andrew_somerset1]

Lex, I may have misread what you meant, but there's clearly a problem with definitions. Some people define the genre more narrowly than others and this leads to confusion when they try to discuss boundaries.