Some examples of shooting close

bdcolen

Here are some photos from situations that were worked, and which were shot close














And by the way, if someone can help me figure out how to insert the images into the posts, please email me at bd@bdcolenphoto.com

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

And by the way, if someone can help me figure out how to insert the images into the posts, please email me at bd@bdcolenphoto.com

How to post photos on Dgrin

Make sure that you have external links enabled in the gallery hosting the pics.

Mod note: these examples were originally posted in the context of a critique BD made in another thread, started by torags. You might want to look at that thread as well to better understand the point.

whiterice

Still going through the galleries, but this one really stands out to me :

dustin32

whiterice wrote:

Still going through the galleries, but this one really stands out to me :

Love this shot as well. Interestingly, I'm not sure if it fits "close shots" bdcolen was describing.

RicherSea

Not close, but it does fit his "every part of the frame is precious" idea, which a wholeheartedly agree with. Nothing in frame that doesn’t add to the image.

rutt

I took B.D.'s Documentary Photography course at Harvard this last spring and it totally changed my approach to photography. The first class, B.D., showed us War Photographer, a movie about James Nachtwey, which you should absolutely see. That movie started with the Robert Capa's quotation, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough," and then proceeded to spend a couple of hours following Nachtwey into the most harrowing imaginable situations, showing him shooting very very close with very wide lenses. But it wasn't just physical closeness; I also saw emotional closeness and openness. The photographer was not afraid to be a part of the situations, to know and be known by the people, to feel the tragedy.

I took this as a challenge for my own photography. Could I get close to strangers? Could I show them as they were, not necessarily as they saw themselves. To be honest, this wasn't easy for me. I guess I'm kind of sketchy looking with a head of gray hair and a big noisy camera. People react to me when I shoot on the street. B.D. thinks they sense a certain discomfort in me.

At first I used a 24mm lens on a full frame camera and ended up inches from people's faces. I followed B.D.'s example and rode the T.



I went to the weekly protest at Planned Parenthood and shot the anti-abortion protestors.





I got shots which made me ask B.D. about the ethics of showing people in such unflattering situations.



(I'll let B.D. tell you what he thinks about this shot and showing it.)

I took my camera everywhere and often found stories to tell. (B.D. says that a picture has to tell a story to have real meaning. I hope he'll explain that as he did in class.)





I learned to plan my outings and go look for a particular story.



And I learned to work situations were I really didn't know what to expect.



So, pay attention to B.D. He knows a thing or two. His advice isn't always easy to follow, quite the contrary, but it's well worth letting him challenge you.

bdcolen

RicherSea wrote:

Not close, but it does fit his "every part of the frame is precious" idea, which a wholeheartedly agree with. Nothing in frame that doesn’t add to the image.

---
And that is precisely the point! Pull back all you need to get the image. But don't miss the image because you fear getting close. Push yourself out of your "comfort zone."

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

I took B.D.'s Documentary Photography course at Harvard this last spring and it totally changed my approach to photography. The first class, B.D., showed us War Photographer, a movie about James Nachtwey, which you should absolutely see. That movie started with the Robert Capa's quotation, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough," and then proceeded to spend a couple of hours following Nachtwey into the most harrowing imaginable situations, showing him shooting very very close with very wide lenses. But it wasn't just physical closeness; I also saw emotional closeness and openness. The photographer was not afraid to be a part of the situations, to know and be known by the people, to feel the tragedy.

I took this as a challenge for my own photography. Could I get close to strangers? Could I show them as they were, not necessarily as they saw themselves. To be honest, this wasn't easy for me. I guess I'm kind of sketchy looking with a head of gray hair and a big noisy camera. People react to me when I shoot on the street. B.D. thinks they sense a certain discomfort in me.

At first I used a 24mm lens on a full frame camera and ended up inches from people's faces. I followed B.D.'s example and rode the T.



I went to the weekly protest at Planned Parenthood and shot the anti-abortion protestors.





I got shots which made me ask B.D. about the ethics of showing people in such unflattering situations.



(I'll let B.D. tell you what he thinks about this shot and showing it.)

I took my camera everywhere and often found stories to tell. (B.D. says that a picture has to tell a story to have real meaning. I hope he'll explain that as he did in class.)





I learned to plan my outings and go look for a particular story.



And I learned to work situations were I really didn't know what to expect.



So, pay attention to B.D. He knows a thing or two. His advice isn't always easy to follow, quite the contrary, but it's well worth letting him challenge you.

Rutt is far too kind, but I'll take it where I can get it. And I should say here that I would not be here on SmugMug if he hadn't introduced me to this terrific community. So thank you, Rutt.

Now let me comment on two of his photos -

The first is the shot of the woman with the child in the shopping cart. I told him that I had problems with that one because of its ambiguity! "What?! You told us a street photo should be ambiguous!" I did that.
But the problem here is that the ambiguity raises serious questions about the relationship between the mother and child, and in effect casts aspersions on the mother. Is this a woman berating her child? Or is this a mother showing real concern for an upset child? I just don't know from the photo. And having had young children myself more years ago than I care to think about, I wouldn't show this photo.

The second photo is the really terrific image of the man with the megaphone. Looking at it again now, I'd really try to burn down the whatever-it-is over his head, which I find distracting in an otherwise almost perfect image.

B. D.

rutt

Interesting. That thing over his head is the actual megaphone and to me is an important part of the image. But a lot of people haven't figured out what it is, so I suppose it's photographer's special knowledge.

Let none of that distract from my point. I learned a lot from B.D. over the spring.

eL eSs Vee

rutt wrote:

I learned a lot from B.D. over the spring.

I'm learning a lot from both you and BD right now, Rutt. And this comes from a guy who has no interest in street photography or photojornalism.

Learn where you can. Thanks guys!!

LukeWoodford

I like these, you get a great intamacy with shooting close. Even though I do do it its the only time I feel I wish I had a Canon, my D700 is so blooming loud!

bdcolen

LukeWoodford wrote:

I like these, you get a great intamacy with shooting close. Even though I do do it its the only time I feel I wish I had a Canon, my D700 is so blooming loud!

----
Two quick comments - First, the camera sounds much louder to you than it does to anyone else because it's so close to your ears. And second, and even more important is the fact that cameras and all manner of gadgets have become so ubiquitous that I think photographers are much more conscious of the equipment than are subjects.

kdgrapes

bdcolen wrote:

----
Two quick comments - First, the camera sounds much louder to you than it does to anyone else because it's so close to your ears. And second, and even more important is the fact that cameras and all manner of gadgets have become so ubiquitous that I think photographers are much more conscious of the equipment than are subjects.

Maybe a dumb question but how do you approach or deal with people when shooting this close?

met

I have a similar question. Do you usually approach the subject first, speak with them and get their permission to photograph? Or do you usually try and capture the image before they even realize what is happening? It would seem that you could probably get more honest shots were the subject unaware you were shooting them, but then you may deal with suspicion and end up with only the one shot.

Just on a side note, I'm really enjoying the lessons and insights.

met

bdcolen wrote:

The first is the shot of the woman with the child in the shopping cart. I told him that I had problems with that one because of its ambiguity! "What?! You told us a street photo should be ambiguous!" I did that.
But the problem here is that the ambiguity raises serious questions about the relationship between the mother and child, and in effect casts aspersions on the mother. Is this a woman berating her child? Or is this a mother showing real concern for an upset child? I just don't know from the photo. And having had young children myself more years ago than I care to think about, I wouldn't show this photo.

I've been mulling this over in my mind. At what point is honesty compromised for a "flattering" shot? Should a photograph allow the viewer to judge the subject? In the example shot of the mother and child, if the mother's facial expression made it clear that she was berating the child - would you still have the same opinion about not showing the photograph? Isn't there honesty in showing people at their worst moments as well? I think of Eisenstaedt's iconic image of Joseph Goebbels. Clearly he was an evil person and his venom is evidenced by the sheer hatred in his expression. Is this photo ok because it shows what kind of person he was as a whole, versus just him at a bad moment? Would Eisenstaedt have published an unflattering picture of Marilyn Monroe if he captured her throwing a temper tantrum or something? Just some ponderings.

bdcolen

met wrote:

I've been mulling this over in my mind. At what point is honesty compromised for a "flattering" shot? Should a photograph allow the viewer to judge the subject? In the example shot of the mother and child, if the mother's facial expression made it clear that she was berating the child - would you still have the same opinion about not showing the photograph? Isn't there honesty in showing people at their worst moments as well? I think of Eisenstaedt's iconic image of Joseph Goebbels. Clearly he was an evil person and his venom is evidence by the sheer hatred in his expression. Is this photo ok because it shows what kind of person he was as a whole, versus just him at a bad moment? Would Eisenstaedt have published an unflattering picture of Marilyn Monroe if he captured her throwing a temper tantrum or something? Just some ponderings.

There have been a number of very good issues and questions raised here - let me start with the last one first:
I would have absolutely no problem with a photo of a woman berating/abusing a child - if that was what she was doing, and the photo was unambiguous. If we what we are discussing is documentary photography and 'street photography' - rather than photography for clients - our only obligation to our subjects is that we be honest. We should show them as we find them. We have no obligation to show them at their best, to try to make them look 'good.' But by the same token we should not try to make them look bad if that's not how they really look.

I believe that when I introduced myself I said I have three basic principles photographically, and one is a belief that there is no such thing as objectivity, but there is an obligation to be honest, or "fair" to put it more simply. When we approach a subject we approach 'carrying' every prejudice, every bias, every belief we have developed throughout life. We can't shed those biases and beliefs. But we can and must be aware of them, and make sure that they are not clouding our viewfinders.

---
Do I ask permission to photograph? Generally not. By approaching the subject and asking to take his or her picture you are altering the situation, you are no longer capturing reality - if that was what you wanted to capture in the first place. I simply see what I see and try to capture it. If someone asks what I'm doing, I'll tell them. If they tell me I can't take their photo the image is already ruined, so I generally avoid pushing the issue. When I was shooting my subway project, if someone turned away, or tried to avoid me, I didn't photograph them. In the first place I wasn't looking for fights or arguments, but even more important, I was trying to capture the reality of isolation in the midst of crowds, and if someone was aware of me and was trying not to be photographed, they were no longer a good subject.

Keep in mind as you wander about that you have a legal right to take any photography, of anybody, in public space. Not only that, you have a legal right to stand on public property and photograph people or things that are on private property. At the same time, you have to weigh the value of the photo against whatever risks you may be taking. If a cop says I can't shoot something, it's got to be a pretty damn important picture for me to argue - especially post-911. And, we all have to be aware that it is particularly iffy for the males among us to shoot children in public. A lot of parents really freak out if you start shooting their kids. Some don't, and that's great, but a lot do. It's good to carry post cards with an example of your work, your website, etc., and/or business cards, which will often convince a parent to drop his or her guard. But if it doesn't work, don't fight it. (By the way, check out modernpostcard.com where I believe you can get 500 postcards for about $100 and they do a great job.

B. D.

bdcolen

P. S. Forgive my chauvanism - I should note that everything I said about shooting in public applies to the situation here in the U.S. I am in no position to give advice on the situation in other countries.

B. D.

rutt

[imgr]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/567300417_BQieS-L.jpg[/imgr]
The picture of the woman and girl with the shopping cart was one of the first I took for B.D.'s class. I wondered about the ethics of showing it and asked B.D. He basically said what he just said about having the right to take and show pictures. After he actually saw it, he made the comment about it's ambiguity, but I didn't understand that to imply there was an issue with showing it. Personally, I don't think it's that ambiguous, but as a parent, I can easily imagine having gotten to this point with a child this age. Anyway, it's not one of the best I did for him in this class; I just knew it would provoke discussion.

Oh, and I love this quote from Weegee, the great midcentury NYC photojournalist:

On news stories, neither permissions nor releases are needed except when photographs are used to advertise commercial products. Pictures of houses or buildings can be published without consent of the owner, but if a man objects to your taking a picture of his property, he can order you and your camera off it -- that's trespassing -- but he cannot stop you from taking a picture providing you are standing on the street or sidewalk which is public property and belongs to everyone.

Weegee and B.D. say pretty much the same thing, so not much has changed in 50+ years.

met

Rutt, that shot is amazing. I think for me it's the eyebrows.

met

I just got my first DSLR only a few months ago, so I still have tons of stuff to learn - but I'm enjoying it. I'm currently experimenting through a trial version of Photoshop and really seeing what BD is talking about when he says to get up close.

I took this photo of my cousin dancing at a wedding last weekend. But I love the cropped up close version so much better.

rutt

Met, I think I like the uncropped version better. More context, and that thing above her head (a satellite uplink?) strangely adds to the composition, better than amputating the top of her head. You might crop a bit off the top, but I'd leave the bottom. I would have liked to see her right hand.

One of the really big things I learned from B.D. is that filling the frame with your subject by cropping or using a telephoto isn't at all the same thing as actually getting physically close. Here is a shot from before I learned this:



This was taken with my 70-200mm, probably pretty close to 200. Compare the immediacy of my more recent pictures with this.

met

rutt wrote:

Met, I think I like the uncropped version better. More context, and that thing above her head (a satellite uplink?) strangely adds to the composition, better than amputating the top of her head. You might crop a bit off the top, but I'd leave the bottom. I would have liked to see her right hand.

I think the thing above her head was the tent. I also thought it unexpectedly added a little something. I also liked this shot, so I decided to keep both. I too was disappointed that I didn't get her other hand in the original either - something to pay attention to the next time. The original was taken at 22mm. I think the reason I liked the cropped version better is that it seems to draw me into her face more. She loves to dance and I seem to get that a little more from the cropped. Thanks for the tips. I may go back in and do another cropped one without cutting off her head - perhaps I was trying to go too far with it.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

[imgr]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/567300417_BQieS-L.jpg[/imgr]
The picture of the woman and girl with the shopping cart was one of the first I took for B.D.'s class. I wondered about the ethics of showing it and asked B.D. He basically said what he just said about having the right to take and show pictures. After he actually saw it, he made the comment about it's ambiguity, but I didn't understand that to imply there was an issue with showing it. Personally, I don't think it's that ambiguous, but as a parent, I can easily imagine having gotten to this point with a child this age. Anyway, it's not one of the best I did for him in this class; I just knew it would provoke discussion.

Oh, and I love this quote from Weegee, the great midcentury NYC photojournalist:

On news stories, neither permissions nor releases are needed except when photographs are used to advertise commercial products. Pictures of houses or buildings can be published without consent of the owner, but if a man objects to your taking a picture of his property, he can order you and your camera off it -- that's trespassing -- but he cannot stop you from taking a picture providing you are standing on the street or sidewalk which is public property and belongs to everyone.

Weegee and B.D. say pretty much the same thing, so not much has changed in 50+ years.

This shot is a wonderful example of an environmental portrait, and tells us far more about the subject than we would ever know with a typical closeup.

B. D.