Photography and charm / social skills?

vintagemxr · February 9, 2010

I confess to being shy in many ways and especially so around strangers if I have little or nothing in common with them. Photographing people is always a psychological challenge for me as much as a technical and artistic one, but I find that people are generally more interesting in the long term than mountains, cars, etc. Sometimes I get past my fears and get a pretty good shot:

When I was reading some of B.D. Colen's first posts here on Dgrin I saw that B.D. commented that he was a "shrinking violet" on the street. I found that a fascinating comment from one so experienced and accomplished in the communication arts.

Then over at the Fast Media Group website I read an interview article with Lewis Blackwell. Blackwell is the ex- Group creative director of Getty Images and ex editor/publisher of Creative Review. He's drawn on his experience and contacts with many, many great photographers to write a book entitled "Photowisdom." In the FMG interview Blackwell made a statement that caught my attention (emphasis mine):

"Photographers perhaps over-emphasize the value of the craft and technology - essential as it is - when it is clearly the personal charm and related social skills, along with innovative thinking, that is at the core of more successful photographers. The craft and technology is a 'hygiene factor', and one that is more accessible than ever and also less defensible than ever. Photography education needs to evolve hugely to better support the psychological and social factor in making images."

The need for "innovative thinking" is always going to be an important key to success in most any creative endeavor, no question there.

I'd be pleased to hear people's thoughts on the idea of "personal charm" and "social skills" (in a reasonable sense of the word) and how they help or limit your photography and how you overcome it if you're not a natural charmer (as few of us are).

Doug

bdcolen · February 10, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

I confess to being shy in many ways and especially so around strangers if I have little or nothing in common with them. Photographing people is always a psychological challenge for me as much as a technical and artistic one, but I find that people are generally more interesting in the long term than mountains, cars, etc. Sometimes I get past my fears and get a pretty good shot:

When I was reading some of B.D. Colen's first posts here on Dgrin I saw that B.D. commented that he was a "shrinking violet" on the street. I found that a fascinating comment from one so experienced and accomplished in the communication arts.

Then over at the Fast Media Group website I read an interview article with Lewis Blackwell. Blackwell is the ex- Group creative director of Getty Images and ex editor/publisher of Creative Review. He's drawn on his experience and contacts with many, many great photographers to write a book entitled "Photowisdom." In the FMG interview Blackwell made a statement that caught my attention (emphasis mine):

"Photographers perhaps over-emphasize the value of the craft and technology - essential as it is - when it is clearly the personal charm and related social skills, along with innovative thinking, that is at the core of more successful photographers. The craft and technology is a 'hygiene factor', and one that is more accessible than ever and also less defensible than ever. Photography education needs to evolve hugely to better support the psychological and social factor in making images."

The need for "innovative thinking" is always going to be an important key to success in most any creative endeavor, no question there.

I'd be pleased to hear people's thoughts on the idea of "personal charm" and "social skills" (in a reasonable sense of the word) and how they help or limit your photography and how you overcome it if you're not a natural charmer (as few of us are).

Doug

"Photographers perhaps over-emphasize the value of the craft and technology - essential as it is - when it is clearly the personal charm and related social skills, along with innovative thinking, that is at the core of more successful photographers. The craft and technology is a 'hygiene factor', and one that is more accessible than ever and also less defensible than ever. Photography education needs to evolve hugely to better support the psychological and social factor in making images."

That's a very interesting, somewhat accurate quote. I say somewhat accurate because the degree of social charm necessary is directly related to the kind of photography one is doing. A street photographer does not need social charm - in fact, some successful street photographers are anything but charming.

A good street photographer does, however, need to be unobtrusive. Unless he or she uses aggression as a tool - and there are some photographers who do just that.
There is no question, however, that being an sob is not going to get you very far if you're doing photography that requires you to relate with people in a close, empathetic way. And I would certainly agree that technical skills are, on balance, over rated. There is an awful lot of technically mindboggling photography that is, IMHO, absolute crap. And there are many great photographs that are technically deficient.

The single most important thing in a photographer's kit is his personal vision. Without that, you may as well stay home.

zoomer · February 10, 2010

I agree completely with the statement you quoted.

This may get me in hot water but, It is kind of like an attractive male or female. At first you look at them and only see how attractive they are then when you meet them and they are nice it reaffirms how attractive you initially thought they were.
Now that same person once you meet them if you find out he/she is a complete a$$ then their attractiveness quickly pales and you no longer have any interest.

It is kind of like that with photographers.

Really good photographers present work of essentially the same...ish quality. It boils down to would you rather work and refer others to someone you like and enjoy working with or someone who is an egotistical A$$.

bdcolen · February 10, 2010

zoomer wrote:

I agree completely with the statement you quoted.

This may get me in hot water but, It is kind of like an attractive male or female. At first you look at them and only see how attractive they are then when you meet them and they are nice it reaffirms how attractive you initially thought they were.
Now that same person once you meet them if you find out he/she is a complete a$$ then their attractiveness quickly pales and you no longer have any interest.

It is kind of like that with photographers.

Really good photographers present work of essentially the same...ish quality. It boils down to would you rather work and refer others to someone you like and enjoy working with or someone who is an egotistical A$$.

Precisely. Perhaps the best example of this in the 'pantheon of the greats,' was Alfred Eisenstadt, the legendary Life Magazine photographer. I would argue - and many would disagree with me - that while Eisenstadt certainly produced any number of iconic images over the course of an astoundingly long career, the most outstanding thing about him was his personality - Eisie, as he was universally known, was apparently a truly lovely little guy, and being both lovely and little allowed him access to people and places other photographers could never hope to see, much less photograph. Take a look at this tribute to him , in which the Digital Journalist named him "Photo journalist of the Century." I don't know that I'd accord him that honor, but I'd certainly go for "photo personality of any century." The bottom line is that anyone who knew him loved him - and that goes a long, long way - in photography, or any other field of human endeavor.

vintagemxr · February 11, 2010

Thanks B.D. and Zoomer for the comments and thoughts.

I read through the short homage to Alfred Eisenstadt and enjoyed it a great deal and especially the pictures of him. I've seen his photographs countless times just like everyone else but didn't know much...still don't...about the man behind them. If I'd read nothing about him at all and only looked at the pictures of him at his work I'd have guessed that he was an open, friendly man, easy to like. He seems to have been the antitheses of whats been said of W. Eugene Smith.

I'm wondering, B.D. about your statement "The single most important thing in a photographer's kit is his personal vision. Without that, you may as well stay home." Is it important for a photographer to actually think it through and come to a specific conclusion...a vision spelled out...of "This is who I am as a photographer and this style is how I want to present the world to other people"? [And then "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"]

I'm not trying to get all artsy and introspective here either. By training I am or was (retired now) a vehicle test engineer so I tend to want to see things in clearly defined terms and then get overly analytical. My former employer valued that, my wife doesn't.

I'm also not sure if that mindset makes my pictures better or worse.

Doug

Richard · February 11, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

Is it important for a photographer to actually think it through and come to a specific conclusion...a vision spelled out...of "This is who I am as a photographer and this style is how I want to present the world to other people"? [And then "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"]

I don't think it needs to be a deliberate act of analysis; you also don't need to spell it out--leave that to critics. You may become a professional photographer without a personal vision, but you will not become a successful artist without one. A vision may be expressed in all the unconscious decisions you make when shooting: your choice of subject, framing, timing. It also comes through in the conscious choices you make on exposure, DOF and processing, even if you aren't aware that these are being driven by a vision. So don't get too hung up on it.

Just my .02€

.

bdcolen · February 11, 2010

Richard wrote:

I don't think it needs to be a deliberate act of analysis; you also don't need to spell it out--leave that to critics. You may become a professional photographer without a personal vision, but you will not become a successful artist without one. A vision may be expressed in all the unconscious decisions you make when shooting: your choice of subject, framing, timing. It also comes through in the conscious choices you make on exposure, DOF and processing, even if you aren't aware that these are being driven by a vision. So don't get too hung up on it.

Just my .02€ .

All excellent points. You can think of the "vision thing" two ways:
First, think of it as what you see; you have to see it to shoot it. And second, think of it as how you see, and how you convey what you see. The later does include all the things you mentioned, but as Richard notes, it may be a subconscious process.

I'm not surprised to hear that you're trained as an engineer :-). And knowing that you are, allow me to suggest that you let go of the whole engineer thing and just let yourself go. I know that's easier said than done, and as someone who is ADD and more than a little scattered, I know how incredibly difficult it is for me to do things that require closely adhering to a predetermined process or series of steps.

So I know how difficult it would be for someone who is trained to be precise and methodical to just let go.

phillybikeboy · February 11, 2010

bdcolen wrote:

That's a very interesting, somewhat accurate quote. I say somewhat accurate because the degree of social charm necessary is directly related to the kind of photography one is doing. A street photographer does not need social charm - in fact, some successful street photographers are anything but charming.

I agree with everything you've said. To expand on it a bit, for an editorial shooter, as often as not the subject knows you're there and often you're dealing with people in less than ideal circumstances. The trick is to put the subject at ease with you and the camera, and avoid the natural tendency to play to the camera. If you can't do that, you're probably not going to get many decent shots.

They need to see you as a person, not a guy with a camera, and then they'll let you tell their story.

vintagemxr · February 11, 2010

bdcolen wrote:

All excellent points. You can think of the "vision thing" two ways:
First, think of it as what you see; you have to see it to shoot it. And second, think of it as how you see, and how you convey what you see. The later does include all the things you mentioned, but as Richard notes, it may be a subconscious process.

I'm not surprised to hear that you're trained as an engineer :-). And knowing that you are, allow me to suggest that you let go of the whole engineer thing and just let yourself go. I know that's easier said than done, and as someone who is ADD and more than a little scattered, I know how incredibly difficult it is for me to do things that require closely adhering to a predetermined process or series of steps. So I know how difficult it would be for someone who is trained to be precise and methodical to just let go.

Oh, it's much worse than just being an engineer, B.D., I was an test engineer for a GERMAN company. :help

As for you being ADD, that doesn't surprise me much either.

Most really creative people I've run across seem to be either slightly ADD or OCD about their art, craft, or whatever.

Anyway, your comments and Richard's have given me more to ponder as I wander about with my camera this weekend and I greatly appreciate the feedback thus far.

Phillybikeboy's comment brings me back to the whole concept of how one fits in when shooting out in public and photographing strangers. It gets back to that whole "social" thing that Lewis Blackwell talked about.

"They need to see you as a person, not a guy with a camera, and then they'll let you tell their story."

I think that's a really crucial comment there from phillybikeboy and I'm pretty sure I have to plead guilty to not doing that. Another thing to add to my itemized list for "how to shoot on the street."

Questions for anyone here: How often do you feel like you are out of your element and are nervous about taking a shot? [genuinely dangerous or inappropriate situations not withstanding]. Do you work the situation and risk losing that decisive moment or just operate on the hopes that your charm and good looks will see you through if someone gets upset?

Doug

pathfinder · February 12, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

Oh, it's much worse than just being an engineer, B.D., I was an test engineer for a GERMAN company. :help

As for you being ADD, that doesn't surprise me much either. Most really creative people I've run across seem to be either slightly ADD or OCD about their art, craft, or whatever. By the way, my wife of four years is a watercolorist and we're still trying to figure out how we managed to wind up married. I'm not sure it's possible for some people to really change their thinking or methods much after some point in life. She understands my penchant for structure about as well as I understand her penchant for keeping her studio looking like a hurricane went through it. Art provides a common ground for us...at least when I can clear all the junk out of the doorway and get in there to see what she's doing.

Anyway, your comments and Richard's have given me more to ponder as I wander about with my camera this weekend and I greatly appreciate the feedback thus far.

Phillybikeboy's comment brings me back to the whole concept of how one fits in when shooting out in public and photographing strangers. It gets back to that whole "social" thing that Lewis Blackwell talked about.

"They need to see you as a person, not a guy with a camera, and then they'll let you tell their story."

I think that's a really crucial comment there from phillybikeboy and I'm pretty sure I have to plead guilty to not doing that. Another thing to add to my itemized list for "how to shoot on the street."

Questions for anyone here: How often do you feel like you are out of your element and are nervous about taking a shot? [genuinely dangerous or inappropriate situations not withstanding]. Do you work the situation and risk losing that decisive moment or just operate on the hopes that your charm and good looks will see you through if someone gets upset?

Doug

Does this help explain why most street shooter use/used smaller, less conspicuous cameras?

When the Leica was introduced in the 30's, most press shooters still used Speed Graphic 4x5s, didn't they. The diminutive Leica looked like a toy, and did not need large blue flash bulbs like real pro shooters used. A Leica could even shoot in the "dark"

Ovation has a great series about photographers. One of them was a retired movie filmmaker, Albert Maysles, who was shooting folks on the street, by first talking to them, engaging them, and only then, shooting them with a Sony point and shoot. Albert looked like Einstein with white fly away hair, but there was nothing amateur about his images. He shot in manual mode with manual focus, he knew what light he wanted to use before he ever raised the camera to his eye. He would position the subject, raise the camera and fire three or four frames in rapid succession. He would print them large, 16 x20 or bigger. Good too!! But he was so charming, and genuinely interested in his subjects that they just warmed up to him. He shot little children, and all members and races of society. They all were charmed by him, and I think his small camera was not chosen for its price, but because it was small and non-threatening. I am certain he could afford much better, and was quite aware of DSLRs.

BD - you're using a GF-1 aren't you? Is one of the reasons, perhaps, that it is less intimidating to your subjects?

I like my GF-1, but it is not a replacement for a "real" DLSR for me - in terms of AF speed, image quality, high ISO grain, etc. But it is small, and vastly less intimidating than a big white lens on a Canon pro body. For candid or street shooting the GF-1 can be useful.

Lots of folks will pose for phone fotos or P&S fotos, but freeze up in front of a modern DSLR. At least that has been my experience. I am not engaging enough, apparently.

lizzard_nyc · February 12, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

Questions for anyone here: How often do you feel like you are out of your element and are nervous about taking a shot? [genuinely dangerous or inappropriate situations not withstanding]. Do you work the situation and risk losing that decisive moment or just operate on the hopes that your charm and good looks will see you through if someone gets upset?

Doug

Hi there--
Since you asked.
I always feel out of my element when I street shoot. I have missed many a great opportunity because I felt uncomfortable getting up close to shoot.
The two times I have felt comfortable and literally I can count them--is one the Hispanic Day parade in 2009, I scored a press pass and I swear I felt like that took such a load off--I had no problems getting up close to people in the pre parade hours. It was a tiny insignificant looking plastic press pass, but it's all I needed to get confident. The other time was at the Yankees victory parade, because no one minded having their photos taken since pretty much everyone had a camera.

Also I find that if I try to sneak a shot and be unobtrusive, it doesn't work for me. It makes me that much more self conscious as though what I'm doing is wrong and people pick up on that vibe--case in point, I was trying to shoot in a subway cart a couple of weeks ago with my pancake lens and my E620 hanging from my strap and looking through my tilted view finder--a couple sitting close to where I was standing were nudging each other and giving me the eye and talking about me taking the shots. Then I felt like everyone was looking at me. It's something I know I need to get over.

So, I guess what I'm saying is--does anybody have a press pass I can have that will never expire?:D

As for my staged shots--I don't really have a problem there as far as comfort level--it's the street shots I still struggle with. Took a tiny break from trying, was sucking all the fun out of it.

rutt · February 12, 2010

lizzard_nyc wrote:

So, I guess what I'm saying is--does anybody have a press pass I can have that will never expire?:D

This reminds me of The Wizard of Oz. What do you need, a diploma? A medal? A testimonial?

Google for "press pass"
Take your pick
Download into photoshop
Presto/chango

I'm sure Kinko's can do wonders with this.

lizzard_nyc · February 12, 2010

rutt wrote:

This reminds me of The Wizard of Oz. What do you need, a diploma? A medal? A testimonial?
Google for "press pass"

Take your pick

Download into photoshop

Presto/chango

I'm sure Kinko's can do wonders with this.

You think I won't print that?
It's more for me than anything else anyway--yes you nailed it on the head, the Wizard of Oz analogy.

Save your pennies for when I call you to bail me out of jail.

rutt · February 12, 2010

Just for fun I'm working on a better version. Don't go to Kinko's until you see it.

Richard · February 12, 2010

rutt wrote:

Just for fun I'm working on a better version. Don't go to Kinko's until you see it.

Hey Rutt, do you do drivers' licenses and passports too?

phillybikeboy · February 12, 2010

lizzard_nyc wrote:

I always feel out of my element when I street shoot. I have missed many a great opportunity because I felt uncomfortable getting up close to shoot.
The two times I have felt comfortable and literally I can count them--is one the Hispanic Day parade in 2009, I scored a press pass and I swear I felt like that took such a load off--I had no problems getting up close to people in the pre parade hours. It was a tiny insignificant looking plastic press pass, but it's all I needed to get confident. The other time was at the Yankees victory parade, because no one minded having their photos taken since pretty much everyone had a camera.

What the press pass does is, to some extent, answer the natural question of any stranger you level a camera at, "Why are you taking my picture?" Whether print or broadcast, they know what the media is, and what it does. While they might not get the specific context of why you're taking their picture, they understand the general context. They don't know you, but they probably know the organization you're working for, and that can make all the difference.

Street, on the other hand, is much more abstract. I suspect that most people shooting street don't have a ready answer for why they're taking someone's picture, or who they're taking it for. There are probably as many answers for those questions as there are people shooting street. In the face of what the subject might perceive as an invasion of privacy, because "you like it," or "it's interesting," probably aren't adequate.

In the case or your subjects on that subway car, if they were to ask you point blank, "Why are you taking our picture," what would your answer be? Do you really know why?

rutt · February 12, 2010

Richard wrote:

Hey Rutt, do you do drivers' licenses and passports too?

Check out this flickr press pass kit. I'm thinking, "What have they got that we don't got?"

Just a little graphic design horsepower, I'm thinking. Hmm, looking for co-conspirators...

lizzard_nyc · February 12, 2010

phillybikeboy wrote:

In the case or your subjects on that subway car, if they were to ask you point blank, "Why are you taking our picture," what would your answer be? Do you really know why?

Thing is I wasn't taking their shot--i had my camera pointed elsewhere,but they were "on to me", which made me uncomfortable. Had I had the camera pointed at them and they asked me that question, I wouldn't of had a proper answer, except maybe "B.D. made me do it".

What the press pass did for me is, it made me look like I knew what I was doing--at least that's how it felt which in turn relaxed me enough to go and try and get the shot I was after without qualms about dirty looks or worse.

It's funny but when I was not hiding my camera, but quickly taking my shots and moving on, I had no problems. It's when I try and be discreet that I run into problems.

lizzard_nyc · February 12, 2010

rutt wrote:

Check out this flickr press pass kit. I'm thinking, "What have they got that we don't got?"

Just a little graphic design horsepower, I'm thinking. Hmm, looking for co-conspirators...

I liked your original version better.

Time for the Tinman to get a heart.

Wil Davis · February 12, 2010

phillybikeboy wrote:

snip…
if they were to ask you point blank, "Why are you taking our picture," what would your answer be? Do you really know why?
…snip

What a great thread! Interesting subject, and some very thought-provoking answers!

- Wil

PS: In answer to phillybikeboy's question, I might say:

"…but surely, can't you see that this is such an important moment in both of our lives, that I simply have to record it for posterity…
…smile please!

…click! "

rutt · February 12, 2010

lizzard_nyc wrote:

I liked your original version better.

Time for the Tinman to get a heart.

Not original at all. I googled and stole an image and pasted your picture into it. That's what is nice about the flickr pass, it really is an official fickr press pass. Also it's really easy to personalize. But I thnk you are right about a less slickness. That won't be hard for me.

rutt · February 12, 2010

Not bad for an hour's screwing around, I think. Front and back:

Original sized versions: front / back

Inspired by the Flickr press pass kit, to be sure, but I don't think you could say I really took anything from it. They are, however the same size and format, so the same production techniques should work.

I'm sure we have someone with a better eye for this kind of thing than me and we could make it look slicker, but as Liz points out, maybe slick isn't really what we're after here.

I have put the templates under the GPL and have made them available here. Maybe someone else will improve them for us.

vintagemxr · February 13, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

>snip<

Ovation has a great series about photographers. One of them was a retired movie filmmaker, Albert Maysles, who was shooting folks on the street, by first talking to them, engaging them, and only then, shooting them with a Sony point and shoot. Albert looked like Einstein with white fly away hair, but there was nothing amateur about his images. He shot in manual mode with manual focus, he knew what light he wanted to use before he ever raised the camera to his eye. He would position the subject, raise the camera and fire three or four frames in rapid succession. He would print them large, 16 x20 or bigger. Good too!! But he was so charming, and genuinely interested in his subjects that they just warmed up to him. He shot little children, and all members and races of society. They all were charmed by him, and I think his small camera was not chosen for its price, but because it was small and non-threatening. I am certain he could afford much better, and was quite aware of DSLRs.
>snip<

I've watched that episode with Maysles about four times now. The last time with my wife a few weeks ago and we discussed how Maysles' natural charm and grandfatherly appearance worked for him. Too, he's clearly a man comfortable with himself and genuinely fond of and relates well to a range of people. His charm and openess to others opens the door for his talent to work.

That segment is probably the perfect illustration of phillybikeboy's comment a few posts back. I guess it comes down to engendering trust in other people. If we don't have implicit confidence in what we are doing and why we are doing it, that's picked up by others and they then have no reason to trust us.

Thanks for your candid comments, Liz. I'd venture to guess it's the rare photographer who is fully at ease in the huge range of situations that one can find one's self in with a camera. Even our mentor, B.D., admits to being a shrinking violet sometimes although you'd never know it from here on DGrin.

Whenever I've asked to take someones picture invariably they ask "Why?" but it seems to be from the perspective of "Why me? I'm no one special." I need to work up some honest answers to the "Why?" question. That photography is my hobby probably isn't good enough.

I have shot some stuff at the behest of groups or businesses in the past and when you can say "I'm doing it for ____" it does make a huge difference. I suppose along with the generic credentials one could buy a domain and set up a "news site" with some name like "Syndicated News Association" so that it's not a complete ruse. I'm a terrible liar though and would probably be immediately found out at some minor street fair and hauled before a judge who'd say "We don't usually prosecute for this but we need to make and example of someone so I pick YOU!" :cry

Doug

rutt · February 13, 2010

There is nothing at all false on the pass I made for Liz, at least I don't think so.

vintagemxr · February 13, 2010

rutt wrote:

There is nothing at all false on the pass I made for Liz, at least I don't think so.

I thought your intent was a bit of humor and took it as such.

The item you made is accurate to the extent that the names on it (person, dgrin) are real. I'm not sure it will work well as a real press pass, though, unless Liz is really on the dgrin.com staff (which would be really cool for her if she is!)

Doug

rutt · February 13, 2010

I guess it's true about the word "staff" and the phone number is bogus.

Depending, I'd delete the word "staff" and get B.D. to let me use his receptionist's #.

Come to think of it...

phillybikeboy · February 13, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

If we don't have implicit confidence in what we are doing and why we are doing it, that's picked up by others and they then have no reason to trust us.

Exactly.

I come from the opposite perspective. As a former member of the working press, I have no lack of confidence in either my technical or personal skills. Yet, when it comes to shooting street, I have trouble pulling the trigger. It all comes down to the why. As a photojournalist, the why was seldom in question. Now, when I'm shooting mostly for my own gratification, answering the why is a struggle. Is it to tell the story? To preserve the moment? I keep hearing Ricky Watters asking, "For who, for what?" When it's a moment I feel others might have a genuine interest in, I take the picture, but that's a very rare occasion these days.

pathfinder · February 13, 2010

vintagemxr wrote:

I've watched that episode with Maysles about four times now. The last time with my wife a few weeks ago and we discussed how Maysles' natural charm and grandfatherly appearance worked for him. Too, he's clearly a man comfortable with himself and genuinely fond of and relates well to a range of people. His charm and openess to others opens the door for his talent to work.

That segment is probably the perfect illustration of phillybikeboy's comment a few posts back. I guess it comes down to engendering trust in other people. If we don't have implicit confidence in what we are doing and why we are doing it, that's picked up by others and they then have no reason to trust us.

Thanks for your candid comments, Liz. I'd venture to guess it's the rare photographer who is fully at ease in the huge range of situations that one can find one's self in with a camera. Even our mentor, B.D., admits to being a shrinking violet sometimes although you'd never know it from here on DGrin.

Whenever I've asked to take someones picture invariably they ask "Why?" but it seems to be from the perspective of "Why me? I'm no one special." I need to work up some honest answers to the "Why?" question. That photography is my hobby probably isn't good enough.

I have shot some stuff at the behest of groups or businesses in the past and when you can say "I'm doing it for ____" it does make a huge difference. I suppose along with the generic credentials one could buy a domain and set up a "news site" with some name like "Syndicated News Association" so that it's not a complete ruse. I'm a terrible liar though and would probably be immediately found out at some minor street fair and hauled before a judge who'd say "We don't usually prosecute for this but we need to make and example of someone so I pick YOU!" :cry

Doug

Having a good answer to why is very important and necessary at times. Maybe the best answer is because the shooter genuinely finds the subject interesting, attractive in a human manner, their activity is engaging, the light it beautiful, etc. It all comes down to helping the subject relax in front of the camera because they trust the person behind the lens.

That was what was so amazing about Mr Maysles, he engendered such trust so easily and quickly with mothers with children on the streets of New York, with young street wise kids, and it seemed like everyone he approached. I am sure to the "victim," it seemed like the picture was an after thought, but the quality of his images quickly demonstrated the skill he had behind the camera and the use of light. Nothing accidental about that.

If you tell someone they look beautiful they may react warily, but if it is the light that is beautiful, maybe that they can understand?

michswiss · February 14, 2010

Let me start by saying I'm almost never "comfortable" when taking many of my shots. I know they can be, at some level, intrusive and personal. I don't know how I would react if I suddenly realised that I was the subject of a street photographer's interest in getting closer.

It probably helps that I'm not able to carry on a casual conversation with most of the people I shoot in China. But on the occasion it is possible, I tell the truth. That I want to preserve images of the way things are today before it's lost to tomorrow. Many of the neighbourhoods are under severe pressure. Most of the time this will lead to added conversation with me and very active discussion amongst themselves.

When I'm just doing "street" or in a country where I speak the language, it's a little more difficult. I can't tell you the number of times I've been asked if I was a reporter either before or after taking a shot. I'll either simply say I'm a photographer and/or I am trying to learn more about your community, including the people.

But, I'm probably starting to push too far out of the comfort zone. I almost got into serious trouble taking the recently posted image in the galley of a plane. I had taken many, many images while the crew were at work. Later on in the flight, I was approached by the cabin director and bluntly asked what I was doing. After telling him I do street and docu-style photography and showing him the images on my camera and phone, he gave me the standard "we live in dangerous times" speech and asked me to understand why they needed to take it seriously. Thankfully there were no security officers on the other end of the flight.

Having a sense of anxiousness when taking shots is important. Listening to what that anxiety is saying, more so.

bdcolen · February 14, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

Does this help explain why most street shooter use/used smaller, less conspicuous cameras?

When the Leica was introduced in the 30's, most press shooters still used Speed Graphic 4x5s, didn't they. The diminutive Leica looked like a toy, and did not need large blue flash bulbs like real pro shooters used. A Leica could even shoot in the "dark"

Ovation has a great series about photographers. One of them was a retired movie filmmaker, Albert Maysles, who was shooting folks on the street, by first talking to them, engaging them, and only then, shooting them with a Sony point and shoot. Albert looked like Einstein with white fly away hair, but there was nothing amateur about his images. He shot in manual mode with manual focus, he knew what light he wanted to use before he ever raised the camera to his eye. He would position the subject, raise the camera and fire three or four frames in rapid succession. He would print them large, 16 x20 or bigger. Good too!! But he was so charming, and genuinely interested in his subjects that they just warmed up to him. He shot little children, and all members and races of society. They all were charmed by him, and I think his small camera was not chosen for its price, but because it was small and non-threatening. I am certain he could afford much better, and was quite aware of DSLRs.

BD - you're using a GF-1 aren't you? Is one of the reasons, perhaps, that it is less intimidating to your subjects?

I like my GF-1, but it is not a replacement for a "real" DLSR for me - in terms of AF speed, image quality, high ISO grain, etc. But it is small, and vastly less intimidating than a big white lens on a Canon pro body. For candid or street shooting the GF-1 can be useful.

Lots of folks will pose for phone fotos or P&S fotos, but freeze up in front of a modern DSLR. At least that has been my experience. I am not engaging enough, apparently.

I am indeed using a GF1 at the moment, but I only just started using it - I shot my subway series almost entirely with DSLRs. I believe the whole camera size thing is vastly overrated. What is important is not the size of your camera, but how you use it.

(Gee, what does that sound like?

) In any case - if you behave in an unobtrusive manner, you will be less likely to be noticed. Behave obtrusively - intrusively - and you will be noticed. Period. Sure, a smaller camera may be less noticeable than a big camera, but cameras - period - are so ubiquitous today, that the cameras aren't the issue. As I've said before, move the camera as little as possible; move yourself as little as possible. Just make yourself part of the background. Albert Maysles is half of one of the great documentary film making teams - think "Gray Gardens." But what he's describing is not what I'd call traditional street photography - it's chatting up people and taking their portraits. The whole idea of street photography is to capture the reality that surrounds us - not go out doors looking for subjects. This is not to suggest there's anything wrong with the latter - it has produced many a lovely image. It's just that it's one thing, and what is traditionally referred to as street photography is another.

As to the question about whether we feel nervous, etc. - All the time! And I do NOT think my "charm" is going to do the trick.

bdcolen · February 14, 2010

rutt wrote:

Not bad for an hour's screwing around, I think. Front and back:

mod edit: pics removed

Inspired by the Flickr press pass kit, to be sure, but I don't think you could say I really took anything from it. They are, however the same size and format, so the same production techniques should work.

I'm sure we have someone with a better eye for this kind of thing than me and we could make it look slicker, but as Liz points out, maybe slick isn't really what we're after here.

I have put the templates under the GPL and have made them available here. Maybe someone else will improve them for us.

Nice piece of work, Rutt - Now PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE - DO NOT GO OUT ON THE STREET WITH THIS. PERIOD. IT WILL ONLY DO YOU HARM. POSING AS SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT - and that is what using this is - is NOT SAFE. If life flashed this at an NYPD cop she'd be lucky if the copy would laugh before hauling her off. If she tried to use it when stopped at a Madison Square Garden concert, she'd probably have her cameras confiscated.

THIS IS NOT A PRESS PASS. WE ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE PRESS - AND WE SHOULD NOT BE POSING AS MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. AND IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL.

Sorry to be yelling so loudly

, but as a former long-term member of the press, and as someone who knows something about these things - and does not want to see my fellow Dgriners hurt or arrested - I feel very strongly about this.

Just FYI - many years ago, when many cities were burning in the summer time, the Washington Post produced ID bright orange ID cards for its reporters, with a photo, a number, the word PRESS in bold black letters, and The Washington Post on the card. The card's were signed on the back by the ME, and we wore them on chains around our necks. AND THEY DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING FOR US UNLESS WE ALSO HAD A D.C. POLICE PRESS PASS HANGING WITH THEM.

Photography and charm / social skills?

Comments