Do you hate being photographed yourself?

atenlaugh · Apr 18, 2005

I don't particularly enjoy having my picture taken, although I often find myself in some reflected surface within my own photographs.

gareth harper · Apr 18, 2005

Yes I hate it. That's why I'm behind the camera.
A lot of my photography is issue related. I like the camera, it allows me to contribute in a way I largely enjoy. It also keeps me out of pictures, most of the time, and again, most of the time gives me an excuse for not making speaches or do other stuff that I feel uncomfortable with.

One thing I have noticed though is that film crews love to use a photographer as a lead in or bridge shot. They seem fond of me, and I don't like that either.

But at the end of the day I've learned to accept being filmed and photographed, though I still don't like it, as a people photographer I feel I have to be obliging when asked.

As for Cartier, on a number of occasions he went absolutely nuts when photographed candidly, even to the extent of trying to stop the pictures from being used. Not very clever.

TPPhotog · Apr 18, 2005

HCB was full of contradictions but I have to love his work.

As you say Gareth, he photographed people but detested being photographed. He also stated that "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" and said that negs should be printed full frame. But there again he open admitted that some prints are crops to remove out of focus parts but printed to the ratio of 35mm to give the impression of being full frame.

gareth harper · Apr 18, 2005

Yup, brilliant photographer, but always spouting bull.
On the other hand maybe he just did a good job of kidding us all on.

TPPhotog · Apr 18, 2005

He had a great sense of dry humour. One of the things I really liked about him was that when art critics told him how good his work was ... his stock answer was ... BS!! What a guy

There again his real passion was painting and claimed he wasn't interested in the technical side of photography, just capturing the moment.

gareth harper · Apr 18, 2005

Good point Tony, he may well have been cranky at times, but at the same time could be quite practicable and straight forward.
I've also read that some other photographers who worked with him, on the odd occasion, were shocked at his often limited technical skills.
That gives me much hope. And in any case I do believe that many of the great photographers were chancers and opportunists.

Meanwhile the biggest ever Cartier Bresson exhibition should be coming to Scotland this year. I'll will make a point of popping along with my camera and lurking. I suspect, and not for the first time, I will be thrown out of an art exhibition. I'll be doing it in the spirit of Cartier. It's what he would do!

TPPhotog · Apr 18, 2005

Gareth, from what I've read and common sense (sometimes my brain works) I think many of the iconic photographers probably had very little technical knowledge other than the practical knowledge of using the the camera to get them the pictures.

Just think how many went out to cover a story, shot the pictures and then sent them back to their agency who would process the negs and print them. For many of the photographers seeing the pictures months later in print was the first contact they had with their work after sending off the rolls of negatives.

I can think of worse places to be thrown out of that an art exhibition so good luck. Hopefully it will come to the West Country at some time as well.

gareth harper · Apr 19, 2005

Too true Tony.
I often think when people look at a brilliant B&W prints and comment on what a photographer etc etc, that printers get a bit of a raw deal.
I bet some of those printers had a hard time printing stuff for the 'star' photographers.
I know that some of the traditional printers left today, keep notes on film dev times etc for each client. I guess they just learn to work to the way the client shoots good or bad. It's their job at the end of the day to make em look good!

gareth harper · Apr 19, 2005

Now I wonder how printers feel about being photographed.

Flotsam · Apr 19, 2005

When I was a B&W printer in a large custom lab, I was constantly amazed at the poor quality of the negs that "Professionals" would produce. It was a constant frustration because making a good print from a sh**ty neg takes 4X as long as one from a neg that is at least properly exposed. It was like rewarding these guys for their incompetence. And apparently they had no incentive to worry about making decent negatives because making a good print from them was the responsibility of some overworked, underpaid Lab Rat.

If there is any justice, these guys will spend eternity printing their own cr**py negatives.

Sorry, that rant has been simmering for couple of decades waiting for a sympathetic ear. My bartender doesn't know anything about photography

gareth harper · Apr 19, 2005

I take it some of em were so bad that even keeping a set of film dev times for the snapper was no use.
And, as a printer, do you mind being snapped Flotsam?

Also I remember one Glasgow photographer telling me about one of his projects. He'd shot it through the winter. Showed some work prints to a gallery who were interested in the project. They said yeah, lets do it. By this time it was coming into the summer. Scotland unusually that year had a long heat wave.
He remembers the opening night, all these beautiful tanned healthy looking people. And our man, who as he printed the whole lot himself for this large exhibiton, had just the best part of 2 months, 12 hrs a day in the dark. White, bleary eyed and later very drunk he felt somewhat out of place on his opening night.

Now Flotsam, if you miss those crappy negs, I've got a few dodgy ones, you know badly exposed, slightly damaged etc etc, but there are some stonking snaps just waiting to jump out of em. I'm just an amatuer printer but you Sir........................

titrisol · Apr 19, 2005

For me the problem is that nobody else takes pics of me....
there's tons of pics of all my family and friends, and only a few of those have me.

Flotsam · Apr 19, 2005

All I know is that printing your own negatives is a big incentive to be carefull when you hit the shutter.

gareth harper said:
And, as a printer, do you mind being snapped Flotsam?

Yes! When the flash goes off, it exposes all my paper .
I prefer staying behind the camera and I certainly have no yen to stare at my mug enlarged on an easle in the dark.

Also I remember one Glasgow photographer...

That's a funny story. I have an exhibit this July and I'll take that as a cautionary tale.

Now Flotsam, if you miss those crappy negs, I've got a few dodgy ones,

I've printed enough of them (many of them my own) to last a lifetime, thanks.

gareth harper · Apr 20, 2005

"I've printed enough of them (many of them my own) to last a lifetime, thanks."

Ach well one can only try. And like you say doing your own dev and printing is a darn good incentive to take care. The quality of my negs is generally getting better as time goes on, but there's always the odd mistake or darkroom slip, oops!

Mmmm that flash could also hurt a printers eyes I guess.

TPPhotog · Apr 20, 2005

Flotsam said:
Sorry, that rant has been simmering for couple of decades waiting for a sympathetic ear. My bartender doesn't know anything about photography

Neal,

Fear not your not ranting and I hear where your coming from.

Although I enjoy printing, if I had the free money and an expert sympathetic printer I'd let him / her do all my printing and spend more time taking the shots which I much prefer.

MurrayMinchin · Jun 4, 2005

The tally is, 17 don't mind/like it, 33 hate/loathe it...pretty much a 50/50 split which surprises me as I thought the hate/loathers would win big time. I don't mind. In fact I ham it up quite a bit, which is probably a defensive move on my part.

Whenever I'm in a big city or at some popular tourist attraction and notice that a group photo is about to be taken, I'll casually saunter behind the group and just as the photograph is taken I'll jump up and give a big wave and a cheesy smile - the "photographers" never notice!

Murray

MattKing · Jun 4, 2005

I once covered a presentation and discussion featuring Karsh for the student newspaper at the University of British Columbia. I was up front and quite close. When I tried to get a close cropped head shot of Karsh, he winked! I think he enjoyed the experience.

Gay Larson · Jun 4, 2005

I don't mind having the photo taken, it's looking at it that I mind! I always have hope it will be a stunning photograph and that I'll look my very best but noooo doesn't happen.

kjsphoto · Jun 4, 2005

hate it.

benjiboy · Jul 7, 2005

Being Shot.

FrankB said:
In looks, I'm not much of a star
There are others more handsome by far
But my face, I don't mind it
Because I'm behind it
It's the ones out in front that I jar!

I dislike having my picture taken, and so would you if when you were born the midwife slapped you in the mouth !.

mono · Jul 7, 2005

YES!
I hate it!!

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Aug 19, 2005

I just discovered today that I was the subject of a candid shot, alongside with my girlfriend. (yes, the white sneakers!)

A friend of mine who lives out of town watches some photo blog noticed it. I find the experience amusing, but for a moment I did wonder if the shot was embarrassing. Had a quick thought about ownership &c, and then thought: whatever it's just an ordinary picture, and I'm better letting the guy use it the way he wants because that's what I would like too.

I sent him a note to tell him I saw his picture, though, just to acknowledge the fact. I don't find it really threatening, and I'm also fairly used to have my picture taken but that's the first time I had a stranger snatching a candid of me.

B-3 · Aug 19, 2005

mhv said:
I just discovered today that I was the subject of a candid shot, alongside with my girlfriend. (yes, the white sneakers!)

...

Yikes! The jackets, the coats! Long sleeves! Isn't it summer in Montreal too?

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Aug 19, 2005

Bruce said:
Yikes! The jackets, the coats! Long sleeves! Isn't it summer in Montreal too?

Sure is; the picture was taken during Easter holiday (March, I think).

Montreal has some of the biggest temperature variations for a large city, so you need polar wool during winter and personal coolant during summer. We had the worst heat wave in years this summer. Temperatures like 40C with the humidity! For TWO MONTHS.

B-3 · Aug 19, 2005

mhv said:
Sure is; the picture was taken during Easter holiday (March, I think).

That would explain it then - you had me worried for a second there!

mhv said:
Montreal has some of the biggest temperature variations for a large city, so you need polar wool during winter and personal coolant during summer. We had the worst heat wave in years this summer. Temperatures like 40C with the humidity! For TWO MONTHS.

Sounds like you're having the same sort of summer as we are (60 miles NE of NYC). Ugh. After that second of worrying , I then thought that a trip to Montreal might be a relief. But we are bound by a common bond of summer suffering. "Stay cool..." How many times have you heard that one?

Do you hate being photographed yourself?

atenlaugh

gareth harper

TPPhotog

gareth harper

TPPhotog

gareth harper

TPPhotog

gareth harper

gareth harper

Flotsam

gareth harper

titrisol

Flotsam

gareth harper

TPPhotog

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

MattKing

Moderator

Gay Larson

kjsphoto

benjiboy

mono

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Attachments

B-3

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

B-3

Do you hate being photographed yourself?

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency