"Shutter-Buds" Message Board › Street Photography Levels: How to Capture Evocative Images
Street Photography Levels: How to Capture Evocative Images
| Harry Lew | ||
|
Hi, all,
Just wanted to share an article that has really stimulated my thinking. It talks mainly about street photography -- i.e., documenting life in public settings. But actually, I think it applies to other forms of photography as well. The point of the article? That documenting what we see is just the starting point of photography. To really captivate viewers, you need to advance through four other levels, each eliciting progressively more complex emotions and triggering more "cognitive friction." Images at the highest level are something to aspire to, but are very difficult to create (think Robert Frank or Henri Cartier-Bresson here). This article really hit home because I've found that once you learn how to use your camera, the questions become, "What do you take a picture of" and "What are you trying to express vs. simply record?" I'm still thinking about this article and I read it several weeks ago. Hope you get something out of it ,too! http://juanjosereyes....  |
|
| Pat Cook | ||
|
I read this article with some interest, but all along I'm thinking how he can "systemize" a very subjective human response to photos. It's subjective because we cannot know the background, culture, beleifs, philosophies and environment which influences reaction to images. Then I arrive at the end of the article and he negates his entire premise with this statement. "I am aware that the whole thing is a subjective process and because it is based on emotions it will vary greatly from person to person. It is a starting point. I also realize that the images I used as examples can move from one level to the other very easily." This article confirms in my mind that the best way to do photography is to make photos that are meaningful to you, because you are the only human that you have a chance of understanding. As an aside, his software devlopment analogy is baseless because, being a software developer myself, software that poorly designed would be rejected by the market for reasons that have little to do with "complexity" - that woud be just plain stupid design and would prove to be a financial disaster long before being an emotional one.
|
|
| Sue | ||
|
That's a very interesting hierarchy for organizing photos. It makes sense to me. Photos that inform us, make us smile (like those of Doisneau whom I adore,) make us feel warm and cuddly, or appeal to our aesthetic instincts may produce an ephemeral reaction or make a lasting impression. They are not threatening and make us feel "safe." But the more uneasy a photo makes us feel, the more it engages us. Push that worry, mystery, or imminent danger button and the tension mounts and adrenaline flows. The photo refuses to be passed over lightly; it grabs you by the throat and won't let you go. It forces deeper analysis of a compelling story. Photojournalism often produces powerful cognitive friction, exposing realities like horrors of war, poverty, or man's inhumanity to man. Its photos evoke uncomfortable moral dilemmas, expose realities too painful to face, or trigger anger and even outrage. They are less likely to be put above the sofa, but rather on magazine covers. This hierarchy will make me more cognizant about "why" I am taking a photo; to practice my skills, to bring joy or smiles with humor or a clever juxtaposition, to inform, to lure people away from their comfort zones (mystery, dark side, etc.) or to expose a harsh reality. Ultimately, in taking candids I hope to always be candid with myself and be guided by my true emotions, instincts, and beliefs and without feeling pressured to follow convention. If I can do that, I will be a self-actualized photographer (per Maslow.) I envision a meetup shoot in a city where we don't come away with 400 photos, but maybe only 5 - 10 max; and they are all special photos that we felt compelled to take because we were totally moved.
What do others have to say about the article... Edited by Sue on Jan 30, 2013 10:03 AM |
|
| Pat Cook | ||
|
|
I suggest reading the book "Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing" by Phillipe L. Gross and S. I. Shapiro. Throughout this entire book the authors make a strong case that photography is a personal pursuit. If we can understand that we make photos according to our own emotional reaction to the scene, we'll be less interested in chasing the elusive "viewer response". How a photo is perceived by others is not in our control. How we perceive our own photos is. It is proven over and over and over that the photos we personally like may not be given a second look by others. Our photos that sadden us may get no such reaction in others. What one defines as happy is mundane to another. The only predicatble measure of emotional reaction of a photo comes from the photographer, not the viewer. The best we can hope for is that a few, but not all, viewers of our photos might have a similar emotional reaction as did the photographer. But don't bet this will happen all that often.
But then we have the problem of not being able to technically record the scene well with our camera. So we end up with out of focus shots, poor compositions, bad DOF, bad metering and so on. Technically bad shots ruin anyone's emotional reaction of the photo because the image is damaged. We must first be able to take technically good photos. The better we get technically, the more we can personally enjoy photography. Those who get past those first hurdles are the ones who are best able to make photos that consistently ping targeted emotions in viewers - they are usually referered to as "professional photographers". Until then, we'll have a lot more fun with photography making photos for ourselves, not others. |
|
| Harry Lew | ||
|
|
Thanks, Pat and Sue, for your responses. Your reactions to the article -- and mine-- surely dramatize how subjective this whole photography thing is. Pat found the article to essentially be nonsense. Sue and I found it meaningful and useful. Each of our responses takes nothing away from the others because we think differently and bring different strengths (and weaknesses) to photography. Having said that, I don't think seeking to understand and even play to the emotional responses of our audience is a specious activity. After all, this has been the basis of much photography throughout history. If photographers only captured or expressed what moved them emotionally, with no concern for the reactions of their audience, then not many photographers would have been able to make a living at journalism, commercial photography, or even fine-art photography. Perhaps the best approach is to be open to many different frameworks and integrate whatever seems sensible and motivating to you, without being overly rigid or dogmatic about your beliefs. Photography is a big tent and open to many different philosophies and practices. That's the wonder of it all, yes?
|
|
| Pat Cook | ||
|
|
Many good points Harry. While I never said the article was nonesense, I did find it self-contradictory and reaching to support the author's point. But it did lead to a discussion that allows people to consider what they want from their own photography. As for the commercial and fine art photogaphy you referred to, it's important to keep in mind that that is almost always commissioned photography, where the client has determined the use and purpose of the photos. In the case of commisioned potography, the objective is to deliver to client requirements, not the photographer's. In a commercial scenario, the article has no basis whatsoever because that is not how photos are selected for client submission. And, if anyone really wants some shocking news, look into the targeted emotional response big-game commercial photo buyers want. Even fine art is not immune from a manufactured emotional response. Even microstock is designed to appeal to the licensee, not the viewer. Anyway, us non-commercial photogs get to choose the meaning of our effort, which is not as scientific as some would like us to believe. Just shooting for ourselves is enough, and in many cases is a significant enough challenge to keep one busy for years.
|
|
| Harry Lew | ||
|
|
Thanks, Pat. Some interesting points there, and I agree that shooting for yourself is certainly enough. But I still do love the author's concept of cognitive friction, which helps us to strive for more complex, challenging, and ultimately more satisfying images. Whether that comes from trying to satisfy our selves or from challenging our viewers may be a moot point. The key is that the end product of your effort is "meaty" and hopefully rises to the level of art. As an example, one of my favorite photographers is Joel Meyerowitz. He started out as a street photographer and was one of the early proponents of color photographer in the U.S. He ultimately migrated to large format fine art work, but he's remained a supremely creative "Level 5" kind of photographer. . If you've got a few minutes, take a look at the video below. There are numerous images that in my opinion rise to that level: the girl crying in the street, the dead horse, the baby lying in a box next to a shooting stand. Meyerowitz isn't just describing these scenes. He's constructing images that make our brains hurt and then shiver in delight once we "get" what's going on. I would be happy to have just a handful of such images in my portfolio. This was the essence of my original point about moving beyond describing and toward expressing. Anyway, that's my story and I plan to stick to it! Thanks again, Pat.
Joel Meyerowtiz video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/... |
|
| Harry Lew | ||
|
|
I envision a meetup shoot in a city where we don't come away with 400 photos, but maybe only 5 - 10 max; and they are all special photos that we felt compelled to take because we were totally moved. Thanks for your reaction, Sue. I'm glad the article resonated with you. As for your idea of a "Level 5" type shoot, I really like it. I think it would be quite challenging and fun to really push ourselves to a attain a higher level of artistry. Not that we're slouches right now, but you know what I mean. Maybe we can discuss this further as a potential summertime shoot. Thanks again and see you soon, Sue. |
|
Powered by mvnForum
Membership dues
$10.00 Each Jan. or within 2 wks
This covers: Administrative costs. Gas for scouting. Props. Donation for hours of planning.
Payment is accepted using:
- Amazon Payments
- Cash or check - “Checks for dues may be mailed to: Sue Fenton, Madame Fifi Publications, P.O. Box 310194, Newington, CT 06131. Thank you.”
Your organizer will refund you if:
- Your organizer removes or bans you from their Meetup Group
People in this
Meetup are also in:
-
New England Social & Sports Adventurers (NESSA)
1,149 Social & Sport Enthusiasts
Next Meetup:
Friday, Jun 21 -
-
-
-
-
