"Best Friends" Revisited

I agree with Stephen that candid doesn't amount to passivity on the part of the photographer.

In terms of candid and reality, it always pays to be skeptical . . . not that a candid might be faked (that can happen but isn't much of a concern of mine) but that candid can sometimes show a skewed perspective even amounting to somewhat of an untruth, depending on how the viewer takes it.

Imagine capturing a sweet, candid moment of Richard Nixon with a child. I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice a day! The less than savvy viewer might assume that means Richard Nixon was a sweet guy, capturing candidly (which some equate wrongly to truthfully) his sweetness and love for mankind. Now there is some truth to the shot, but it's an incomplete truth or a limited truth.

Any one of us can be caught candidly NOT being ourselves (which I know seems like a paradox but I hope I'm understood here). If a viewer were to think candid has more truth than posed or is more real, they could easily be misguided by what they suppose the candid shot "really" shows. A candid shot might sometimes just be showing an anomaly.

Fred G. wrote: <<<The "posed to look natural" feel of it is how the photo looks>>>>

I find it interesting your use of the word "natural" here in this thread. On Dec. 8, 2011 you wrote:

I never ever thought of photos as natural and tend to avoid that kind of vocabulary in relating to the subjects of photos. Photos are artificial, they don't occur in nature. They are man made. Subjects of photos are seen and transmitted, unnaturally, mechanistically, plastically. So I've always thought of photographed subjects as telling a story, conveying a message, fulfilling a perspective, representing something, symbolizing something, showing something, reflecting something. I never confused the subjects of photos with the things themselves and always realized the fabricated quality about it all. Even the most heart-wrenching and moving photos of war are not wars. If they were, I'd run away from them just like I would a war. My fascination with or draw to a photo of a hurricane or tornado does not mean I'd want to be in the eye of one or actually experience one. A photo of a beautiful, sexy woman is not a beautiful sexy woman. Never has been. Filtered, gauzed, lit, frozen in time, captured in flattering or unflattering light. Remember the old saying, "the camera adds ten pounds." We knew long ago never to trust a photo.
Distance. Artificial. Not real. Photo.

For me, It doesn't matter about the posing or how natural it looks. The skill of the photographer and the message are present. They could indeed be best friends. I question the blur effect from a technical standpoint , but not from the photographer's vision, which I cannot know without more info. As others have stated, I prefer the sepia toned version. Thank you Durr, for a wonderful image.....

Charles, thanks for following my words so carefully. Wow.

Just keep in mind, context is everything. I assume I was responding to a different photo and what someone else had said and the context of my words here should be clear.

If you wanted a gotcha moment, hoping to catch me an inconsistency, you're welcome to feel as though you got it. :-)

I am glad Stephen and Fred have responded to the comment of Alex of spontaneous or candid photography being a "passive" action. This may be true in many cases but the great candid photography requires a very prepared mind (yes, chance successes can happen as well), one not only of experience in observing people, events or places, but one atuned to quick recognition of the various elements that make a great photo and working with those often rapidly changing elements to make the photo at the right moment.

This is about as passive as putting zero importance on 20 years of education followed by 20 more of high quality application of that education with real problems and then saying to that person who has just created some object or idea without needing much preparation that the idea or object is a passive accomplishment of one derived just by chance.

Well made set up photographs, and well perceived and created spontaneous photographs, are equally admirable, and hardly passive.

Stephen, Fred, and Arthur,

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my previous comment but I should have used double quotes for "passive observer". This makes all the difference between "passive" (as not active, lacking energy, lacking will) and the "passive observer".

Rather a scientific term, the "passive observer" is closely related to the "observer effect", that is the changes that the act of observation will make on the subject matter or the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of the instruments and of the methods used that modify the state of what is measured.

Applied to photography this is reflected in the changes of the subject due to the presence of the photographer and his photographic equipment, without the photographer's intent. I'm sure you all have plenty of examples in this sense.

So in retrospect, what I meant was that Durr was purposely acting as an "active observer" and by no means was my intention to diminish the tremendous effort and creativity that goes into a candid, when the photographer acts as a "passive observer".

Best regards, Alex

Alex, I know where you are coming from and like the distinction you draw between the passive observer and the active observer. Karsh grabbed the cigar from Churchill's mouth to get the expression he wished (active observer). I have never been photographed by him, but would likely be a bit anxious about his 8 x 10 behemoth, multiple lighting and those aspects of his passive observer effect. Happily, my photographic equipment is quite discreet, although its mechanism (manual focus, delayed shutter response) no doubt has a passive observer skew. On the scientific side, my experiments in mineral chemistry are undertaken often under such unideal conditions that any passive observer effect of the equipment is probably nil. Will have to reflect on my photography, though. Thanks for bringing up the observer paradigms. Could make a good Philosophy of Photography topic.

Well...I am flattered to have my image chosen for the POW. FYI, the girls "were" best friends. My daughter Sigrid (on the left) and her friend Maddie were inseperable for a few years until Maddie moved away. The image from a year earlier WAS a non-posed capture of the girls walking to the beach to take some vacation pics. This image "set up", a year or two later, was at the request of the two moms.
I took this series with an old Nikon and/or Contax SLR film camera. I was just getting back into photography and they are far from perfectly executed. On the other hand, the images bring back fond memories of the beach and a time spent with best friends.
I appreciated ALL of your comments. Good and Bad. This is how we learn...from each other. I preach this in all my workshops and it amazes me how much we can learn from each other, if we just take the time to listen.
Thanks again for making my shot the POW.

Durr

Durr, it would be interesting to hear what you think about Best Friends Revisited vs. Best Friends a Year Later. Do you have a preference for one over the other? Do you think that one is more successful than the other?

Well, that is a hard question for me to address. When I took the original "A Year Later", I knew absolutely nothing about scans/digital files/photoshop/etc. All I did was scan it on a flat bed scanner, add the tone in what ever I was using at the time, and post it. The "Revisited" shot was posted shortly after I got into Photoshop. Obviously, I did not know what I was doing and ended up with what you see. I thought it was cool at the time! Way over done, in my opinion.
I much prefer the "A year Later". Actually, I have improved the image a lot since then. Too much scanner noise, not exposed correctly, not enough detail, etc.
Like I said earlier, I was not trying to "pose" the girls, persay. The Moms wanted the shot to show how much they had grown in 2 years, so I told the girls to walk down toward the beach. The girls did the holding hands and hold the dress thing. BTW, the Moms loved it.
But, time rolls on and little girls grow up. I could never get those two to do that again in a million years.
Thanks again for all the comments.

Durr

The real value in this type of picture, to me, is that the memory of being there for that very instant is forever etched in the mind of the photographer especially when it's the father.

It's precious to the adults and treasured, but only much later appreciated by the kids to the same depth. It's what family pictures are all about and moments some of us live for.

@ Michael: So very true.

Thank you, Durr. It's interesting to find out how the two versions posted on Photo Net came to be (and to hear about the newer version too).

Best Friends ... in Heaven.

Creepy.