Motivation? For those who photograph people

[Ghostman]

This will sound morbid, but I think everybody should have a portrait showing them at their lifetime best to put in front of the coffin at the end.

When I visited Japan I stayed with a Japanese family near Kyoto. I took family portraits for them and later sent them prints. They asked me by way of a friend if they could use them as their funeral portraits. I was quite touched by this. I don't think this is at all morbid, on the contrary.

 

[blockend]

Garry Winogrand had the most concise answer - he said he took pictures to see what things looked liked photographed. It may sound gnomic but I think that's what most of us do. If we were only interested in the reality, there's be no need to confine it within a frame. Pictures of people are no different in that respect.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Interesting answers, and as varied as I expected.

I think I fall more along the lines of what Ken described. I find people fascinating, particularly those who can go overlooked. I love stories, and using the camera to make people feel valued. And I am just plain curious about others. There's always a story.

I do find that when I have done my part well, both with relating to the person I'm connecting with and photographing them, that the portrait absolutely can stand on its own, to reveal character and make the viewer empathize and ask questions. That said, often some background information adds to the understanding and the experience of viewing the image.

I posted an image on Facebook awhile back explaining how, to me, a great portrait is a side effect of a strong human connection. And I had a comment (a rather snide one delivered second-hand by a photographer who doesn't particularly like me!) declaring that that's all well and good, but you can't get that connection in five minutes, so it's not really relevant most of the time.

I begged to differ. Five minutes, if that's what I'm allowed, is more than enough time to make a connection, form a bond, and document it. And so I teach that skill now.

This is Bill, a tavern regular who triggered that comment. He was very pleased to be photographed (while sitting on his bar stool.) This was the only frame I shot. I discovered a very intelligent but damaged person under there, who used to be the local heartthrob.

 

[Black Dog]

Thanks so much for posting that Cheryl!

 

[Ghostman]

I don't differentiate between people, trees or objects. All things choose to reveal themselves to those who are open. Just because you're photographing a tree or a building doesn't make it any easier because it's seemingly 'static' - everything is subject to our temporal construct, whether it happens at the pace of evolution or break-neck speed. I believe in the sentience of all things, I believe that the universe emulates itself on all levels and that consciousness is present in a silver atom or a conglomeration of biological cells and bacteria that make up a 'human' type animal.

Some might say that the only thing worth recording is the human condition. It remains and will always be elusive, mystical, seductive and driven by our desire to understand our basic selves. Doing this though, as far as I am concerned, has one requirement; to have empathy for the subject. If we are not able to make an empathetic connection with the subject then it's just game reserving; then we are nothing more than tourists in the human game reserve snapping away at nothing really. Empathy is directly tied to intent. What is the intent? Where is the love? A photographer, just like any other creator or magician must hold an honest, earnest and often solemn intent if they are going to merge the meeting of souls onto a strip of film.

Cheryl, I disagree very much with whoever said that a connection cannot be made in 5 minutes. I can walk down a street and live a life with a random stranger in a second. I can fall in and out of love in a split second or in the timeless blink of an eye (or shutter). I have had to sit and talk to people for an hour in order to get the picture or I have been able to do it in seconds. I have spend days with people and got nothing from them. Our intentions were misguided, my empathy for the subject out of kilter and we therefore did not materialize in the magic of silver and light.

We don't capture moments we birth them, we are open and charged, susceptible to what lurks beneath the thin veneer of presentation or perceived reality. Seek and thou shalt find someone once said. We are seekers and that is not bound by time as a construct. When we find these moments and make them, they continue to cascade through all time, always, everywhere.

I love finding interesting souls and photographing them. I love photographing the context and very often use the human presence as an element in the story. It can be one person, a collection of them or just the presence of someone in the context of the habitat and maelstrom in which we exist.

 

[frank]

I don't differentiate between people, trees or objects. All things choose to reveal themselves to those who are open. Just because you're photographing a tree or a building doesn't make it any easier because it's seemingly 'static' - everything is subject to our temporal construct, whether it happens at the pace of evolution or break-neck speed. I believe in the sentience of all things, I believe that the universe emulates itself on all levels and that consciousness is present in a silver atom or a conglomeration of biological cells and bacteria that make up a 'human' type animal.

Some might say that the only thing worth recording is the human condition. It remains and will always be elusive, mystical, seductive and driven by our desire to understand our basic selves. Doing this though, as far as I am concerned, has one requirement; to have empathy for the subject. If we are not able to make an empathetic connection with the subject then it's just game reserving; then we are nothing more than tourists in the human game reserve snapping away at nothing really. Empathy is directly tied to intent. What is the intent? Where is the love? A photographer, just like any other creator or magician must hold an honest, earnest and often solemn intent if they are going to merge the meeting of souls onto a strip of film.

Cheryl, I disagree very much with whoever said that a connection cannot be made in 5 minutes. I can walk down a street and live a life with a random stranger in a second. I can fall in and out of love in a split second or in the timeless blink of an eye (or shutter). I have had to sit and talk to people for an hour in order to get the picture or I have been able to do it in seconds. I have spend days with people and got nothing from them. Our intentions were misguided, my empathy for the subject out of kilter and we therefore did not materialize in the magic of silver and light.

We don't capture moments we birth them, we are open and charged, susceptible to what lurks beneath the thin veneer of presentation or perceived reality. Seek and thou shalt find someone once said. We are seekers and that is not bound by time as a construct. When we find these moments and make them, they continue to cascade through all time, always, everywhere.

I love finding interesting souls and photographing them. I love photographing the context and very often use the human presence as an element in the story. It can be one person, a collection of them or just the presence of someone in the context of the habitat and maelstrom in which we exist.

Waiter! Ill have what he's having.

 

[Loulou]

I respectfully disagree with you on this. To shoot flowers, trees or any kind of still life and give the photo depth & personality without the benefit of a face giving expression & emotion is just as, if not far more, challenging than shooting people. To shoot a sunflower and show it's true beauty you have to really see the sunflower, composition must be thought about and the movement of a living being has to be taken into account to create an image that makes the viewer feel for the subject.

When you take a shot with a person in it, it takes on a whole new meaning. People move and have personality. Most of the shots by HCB contain people. It’s easy to photograph static subjects, but a shot containing a person or people is a million times more difficult to get right in terms of composition and moment.

 

[cliveh]

I respectfully disagree with you on this. To shoot flowers, trees or any kind of still life and give the photo depth & personality without the benefit of a face giving expression & emotion is just as, if not far more, challenging than shooting people. To shoot a sunflower and show it's true beauty you have to really see the sunflower, composition must be thought about and the movement of a living being has to be taken into account to create an image that makes the viewer feel for the subject.

I'm not dissing shots without people and would agree with what you say. Perhaps I should have worded my statement differently by saying the inclusion of person/people can sometimes add to the final effect, but not always.

 

[Ghostman]

Waiter! Ill have what he's having.

It's dirty with a twist, not shaken or stirred but walzed.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Many great thoughts here. Ghostman, I absolutely agree with what you posted, almost every bit of it, and the other part are either nitpicky or unimportant.

We can all debate what is more difficult to shoot -- whether it's people, or things, or place or what-have-you -- but that really depends on your personality and background, and what you hold dear. I have a very easy time making a memorable, impactful, soulful portrait. But I find it nearly impossible to shoot a landscape that has the same impact on me. However, there are those who shoot landscapes that make my eyes well up. Nobody can say what is difficult or easy or rewarding, except what is true for himself/herself.