Arranged or Spontaneous

[dehk]

Spontaneously Arranged.

 

[hdeyong]

Whatever it takes. If something has to be moved or removed, so be it. I want a good picture, and I don't see an old tuna can in the scene as an added feature. Photography is a form of expression, and you should be able to express yourself any way you like.

 

[omaha]

I generally only take people shots, and generally like to arrange/plan/contrive every element.

If I had the patience to learn to paint, I'd do that. But in the alternative, photography works.

 

[Bill Burk]

Whenever I try to arrange something it looks contrived.

So more often I take the existing arrangement without alteration. I may pick up a beer can, but I'd do that anyway.

 

[bvy]

Whatever it takes. If something has to be moved or removed, so be it. I want a good picture, and I don't see an old tuna can in the scene as an added feature. Photography is a form of expression, and you should be able to express yourself any way you like.

For my own part, I want a true picture, not a good picture. The internet is overflowing with good pictures.

If the tuna can is there, it's there. It's part of the picture or there is no picture. Personally I get very excited when I see a tuna can.

 

[NB23]

Doisneau's images we're all arranged/staged to some extent. He still produced the best images, unrivalled today.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How about this guy? He leverages chaos with his own sense or order. To me contrived photographers and artist are self-concise. I like to be in the moment and not control everything. I try to let go and see what the moment and the Universe offers. But this takes practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s

I hate highly contrived photos from the 80's like these.http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Studio-Still-Life-Photography/dp/0817458980

 

[Heinz]

I narrow this down to still life like pictures of small objects - where a arrangement is not too diffcult (of course also for other subjects the framing is a form of arrangement and I also would think putting away some irritating trash is some but a mild arrangement).

Then I see three different cases in my images:

In some images I simply document found objects, with no special framing, e.g.:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In other images my framing is a major manipulation, e.g.:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And in a few cases (mostly if I try to illustrate some topic) I do arrange the objects, e.g.:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And if I now think about it, the images of the second category are often the strongest ones, while the ones in the first category (only documenting) and the ones in the third category (arranged setup) are often weaker - an inspiring question is discussed in this thread!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How do you feel about arranged images, as I always think they look contrived? Even when doing a still life shot, I like to throw the subject in front of the camera. Arrangement seems to destroy spontaneity and the moment.

A lot of my landscape photographs are very long exposures, from 2 seconds to 2 hours depending on what I'm doing. It's hard to be spontaneous with this type of subject matter.

Other times, when shooting hand held, I love those moments of fun spontaneity, though. It depends on the subject matter, and most of all what the purpose of the photograph is. If you're a portraitist providing commissioned portraits it's almost impossible to not set things up.

 

[cliveh]

My original question was aimed more at the arrangement of the subject, rather than the operation and framing of the camera. I would imagine that some of the best portraits are not arranged, but more a question of timing during the interaction between the photographer and the model. Also how do you arrange objects for a still life shot that don’t make it look contrived? I once attended a lecture where a landscape photographer described how he might photograph a desert, but put a skull in the foreground to enhance the image. It is this sort of contrivance I am questioning. Also I would add, not dismissing it, as I know practically all advertising photography is arranged. But is that getting the best out of the image?

 

[NB23]

... Also I would add, not dismissing it, as I know practically all advertising photography is arranged. But is that getting the best out of the image?

Well you don't really expect BMW or Rolex to sell their products with candid images of people walking down streets or driving cars and stoping at red lights? In marketing, obviously, the more arranged the better. But you already knew that so I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[cliveh]

Well you don't really expect BMW or Rolex to sell their products with candid images of people walking down streets or driving cars and stoping at red lights? In marketing, obviously, the more arranged the better. But you already knew that so I'm not sure I understand your question.

I am questioning if that is the best method. Why not employ candid pictures of BMW drivers enjoying their cars? Do you get my drift?

 

[omaha]

My original question was aimed more at the arrangement of the subject, rather than the operation and framing of the camera. I would imagine that some of the best portraits are not arranged, but more a question of timing during the interaction between the photographer and the model. Also how do you arrange objects for a still life shot that don’t make it look contrived? I once attended a lecture where a landscape photographer described how he might photograph a desert, but put a skull in the foreground to enhance the image. It is this sort of contrivance I am questioning. Also I would add, not dismissing it, as I know practically all advertising photography is arranged. But is that getting the best out of the image?

The skull in the desert thing turns me off too...unless the objective was to take a picture of the skull, and the desert was just the backdrop. Otherwise, dropping the skull onto the scene just to create "interest"...well, I can see how that evokes a negative response.

(As a total aside, that bring to mind one of my favorite peeves: The shot of the rusty old pickup truck out in the desert. I suppose it was cool the first few hundred thousand times it was done, but anymore? No thanks. Get a new idea.)

Regarding portraits (which is pretty much all I like to do), my take goes like this: I want every single detail to be carefully arranged. Background, props, lighting, posing, etc. But having "contrived" all that, the "magic", if you manage to hit it, is entirely about capturing the right expression. Expression is everything. No amount of contrivance can salvage a portrait with a bad expression.

Expression its self is a combination of further contrivance (ie, coaching the subject), posing, and interaction between the photographer and the subject. If there is spontaneity, it is found there.

One funny thing I'll observe, most people look, to other people, their absolute best when they are laughing. Its hard to look at a photo of someone laughing and not have an immediate attraction to them. But clients by and large HATE "laughing shots". I've always found that ironic. The photo of you that appeals most to other people often is the one you can't stand.

 

[Sirius Glass]

i couldn't agree more with you ...
i had this conversation with someone a few years ago
regarding manipulation as well because no matter what you do
as soon as you put the camera to the eye, "frame" / compose it in the viewfinder
or ground glass it is manipulated, and arranged, just as when you use fast or slow shutter speeds
or different depth of fields its all manipulated + constructed ...
basically people with cameras construct their own reality by choosing how it will be viewed.
some people do this masterfully and are paid handsomely as "stylists" others rely on
the natural disorder of things to arrange the scene for them ..

Are you sure that you are not a lawyer? You are really good at using English to twist words to reflect your mental image.

 

[Bill Burk]

My original question was aimed more at the arrangement of the subject, rather than the operation and framing of the camera. I would imagine that some of the best portraits are not arranged, but more a question of timing during the interaction between the photographer and the model. Also how do you arrange objects for a still life shot that don’t make it look contrived? I once attended a lecture where a landscape photographer described how he might photograph a desert, but put a skull in the foreground to enhance the image. It is this sort of contrivance I am questioning. Also I would add, not dismissing it, as I know practically all advertising photography is arranged. But is that getting the best out of the image?

That's what I was thinking. In my case, my talent "lies elsewhere" and that is why my arrangements feel contrived.

I think "Irving Penn" and I get. Well I get Bill Burk but it's just NOT at the level of beauty that I get when I take what I find beautiful in front of me.

I'll post a favorite "La Bufadora Still Life" when I get a chance. Shot in Mexico below Ensendada at the famous blow-hole with water shooting up...

I'm impressed that I caught the spray... as if it were an inverse shadow of the still-life I'd arranged.... But MY arrangement itself is stilted.

 

[yulia_s_rey]

Sort of like mise en scene. I think its rather subjective, because the placement (or the non-placement) of a certain item has meaning. In my approach I like not to mess with nature, hence when I do landscapes, natural subjects, etc.; I don't manipulate the environment but rather try use it. In short, I personally wouldn't agree with the chap who used the skull in the desert. On the other hand, in the studio or on a 'closed set,' I carefully arrange the subject(s) that are in the frame.