"Real" or "Unreal"

[Alan W]

I love WEEGEE.Even after I read the rumours of certain photos being staged,I still love his photos.One in particular is the photo of the 2 high society ladies attending the Opera with the sneering onlooker.It doesn't matter to me that this was probably all set up.I wonder how many out there would let the knowledge of a photo being staged get in the way of enjoying the photo?I'm not talking about fashion photos or architectural shots but supposed "real" street scenes.Does it really matter to you that the photo was "manipulated",by adding or taking something away from the original scene,as it stood?Is the message contained in the photo more important than the "real" photo?Just curious.

 

[removed account4]

hi alan

i don't think his street photos ( like the 2 ladies ) were staged,
but the post mortem / dead guy on the ground photos he
was famous for taking ... you know, the reason arthur fellig was called
weegee ( cause he'd arrive at the crime scene before the police -- he'd
"adjust" the body move it around so it "looked good" ) ...
joe pesci played a great weegee

regarding staged not staged .. manipulation &c ...
EVERY photograph is manipulated by someone with a camera ...
some may argue that i am FOS ( brian kosoff/early riser did ) ...
the human eye does not see the world other than moments flowing into one another like a film / moving pictures
as soon as you make a photograph in fractions of a second or long exposures or use shallow or deep DOF and present it as
a single image you are manipulating a scene ...
life is not a film color pallet, or in black and white ... it is all an abstraction, surrealism none of it is real ..
in other words, there really is no "real photo" because, well what you see in the viewfinder or ground glass or lcd screen
will never appear as it did in real life ...

nice thread !
john

 

[Lee Rust]

The camera is capable of recording the physical positions and appearance of objects, but human perception and cognition are interpretive and selective, so we generally prefer images that are manipulated to show us what we want to see.

 

[ic-racer]

All photographs are 'staged' so some extent. Even the placement of automated cameras 'stages' the photograph.

 

[blansky]

hi alan

i don't think his street photos ( like the 2 ladies ) were staged,
but the post mortem / dead guy on the ground photos he
was famous for taking ... you know, the reason arthur fellig was called
weegee ( cause he'd arrive at the crime scene before the police -- he'd
"adjust" the body move it around so it "looked good" ) ...
joe pesci played a great weegee

regarding staged not staged .. manipulation &c ...
EVERY photograph is manipulated by someone with a camera ...
some may argue that i am FOS ( brian kosoff/early riser did ) ...
the human eye does not see the world other than moments flowing into one another like a film / moving pictures
as soon as you make a photograph in fractions of a second or long exposures or use shallow or deep DOF and present it as
a single image you are manipulating a scene ...
life is not a film color pallet, or in black and white ... it is all an abstraction, surrealism none of it is real ..
in other words, there really is no "real photo" because, well what you see in the viewfinder or ground glass or lcd screen
will never appear as it did in real life ...

nice thread !
john

I agree with this although I have been "disappointed" in finding out some thing I thought were great shots, were in fact staged.

As photographers I think it does affect our admiration for someone if this bubble is burst. The public doesn't care I'm sure.

We do have to remember that some shots are done, not as "I came upon this and shot it" but instead as someone illustrating something. Their motives, in other words were to make a point, not to capture exactly what was there. Obviously in photojournalism, this is considered iffy.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The one with the rich ladies & the poor woman was staged. Weegee brought the poor woman to the show and waited for the correct moment. I am not sure of his staging of the crime scenes. He did use a scanner and was friends with the police. The brilliance of his images is the intimacy he captures at the crime scene and that on occasion he turned the camera around to the spectators. He pretty much lived in poverty while making these photos that he sold to the newspapers. Still one of the great street photographers.

 

[blansky]

The one with the rich ladies & the poor woman was staged. Weegee brought the poor woman to the show and waited for the correct moment. I am not sure of his staging of the crime scenes. He did use a scanner and was friends with the police. The brilliance of his images is the intimacy he captures at the crime scene and that on occasion he turned the camera around to the spectators. He pretty much lived in poverty while making these photos that he sold to the newspapers. Still one of the great street photographers.

He supposedly re-adjusted the crime scenes before the cops got there. He also always placed the guys hat near the body because it gave the corpse a more human interest quality.

Some info on his life: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/arts/design/20expl.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[cliveh]

The camera is capable of recording the physical positions and appearance of objects, but human perception and cognition are interpretive and selective, so we generally prefer images that are manipulated to show us what we want to see.

I do not agree, as I think many people appreciate images that are not manipulated.

 

[blansky]

I do not agree, as I think many people appreciate images that are not manipulated.

True. Ansel Adams has always been somewhat of a pariah in photography circles.

Actually most people appreciate images they like.

As for manipulation, most people don't know if they were manipulated or not.

 

[cliveh]

As for manipulation, most people don't know if they were manipulated or not.

True, but I think they may sometimes unwittingly appreciate that Zen moment of right here, right now view as seen.

 

[gone]

My friend, those are not women. Old Queens of the highest caliber (they even have the tiaras)! I didn't live in New Orleans and 'frisco for nuthin. This sort of product knowledge can save you on those nights when you stay in the bar a little too long, and fancy the fetching "babe" that's been making eyes at you all night :} Always ck out the hands, Adams apples, and shoulders, and their delightful names are the final tip off.... "Mrs. George Washington Kavenaugh and Lady Decies". Uh huh.

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/the-critic-the-fashionable-people/

Anyway, I agree, WEEGEE was the man. Or, the whatever. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[removed account4]

I agree with this although I have been "disappointed" in finding out some thing I thought were great shots, were in fact staged.

As photographers I think it does affect our admiration for someone if this bubble is burst. The public doesn't care I'm sure.

We do have to remember that some shots are done, not as "I came upon this and shot it" but instead as someone illustrating something. Their motives, in other words were to make a point, not to capture exactly what was there. Obviously in photojournalism, this is considered iffy.

yeah
me too,
but in the end it doesn't matter to me at all -
staged found and recorded reality, &c ..
i am still dumbfounded sometimes when i see photographs
they are somehow a reality that takes on a new life ..
and i am amazed at that. and what i am also amazed at
is that reality is different for a lot of people ...
a calm image of a wheat field might be serenity for someone,
but memories of something terrible for others ... and portraits too
so much memory tied up in a small image ... good times and bad, sadness and glee

The one with the rich ladies & the poor woman was staged. Weegee brought the poor woman to the show and waited for the correct moment. I am not sure of his staging of the crime scenes. He did use a scanner and was friends with the police. The brilliance of his images is the intimacy he captures at the crime scene and that on occasion he turned the camera around to the spectators. He pretty much lived in poverty while making these photos that he sold to the newspapers. Still one of the great street photographers.

thanks for correcting me steve !
i didn't realize he was such an instigator
i appreciate the back story,
for more info on the image
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection...-fellig-the-critic-american-november-22-1943/

 

[John Koehrer]

Other photo's claimed to have been "staged" Bresson's man jumping over puddle, Doisneau sailor & girl kissing at end of WWll, Capa's dying soldier,
Rosenthal's flag raising at Iwo Jima.

 

[Arklatexian]

The camera is capable of recording the physical positions and appearance of objects, but human perception and cognition are interpretive and selective, so we generally prefer images that are manipulated to show us what we want to see.

If Weegee moved a body before the police arrived, he may have gotten the idea from reading about some of the people working for Matthew Brady (even, perhaps, Matthew himself) moving dead soldiers, killed at the battle of Gettysburg, to make them "photograph" better for whatever reason. Probably sold better......Regards!

 

[blansky]

Generally the photography circles filled with the most bullshit, which is pretty much all that the arguments against Adams's type of manipulation amount to.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Obviously some people like reality and others like their vision to be more fantasy, surreal, "romantic" or enhanced.

As we discussed in another thread, almost all photographs are manipulated in some way. Even dodging and burning is manipulation.

Posing and staging is just another avenue to get the picture to look how you want it to.

 

[Steve Smith]

He did use a scanner

By which I assume you mean a radio capable of receiving police transmissions. He was quite a few years before technology allowed for scanning of the waveband.


Steve.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

My favorite article on staging a scene: the Crimean War cannonballs:

Dead Link Removed

Be sure to read the detailed analysis and debate mentioned in the article,

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Have no idea and lazy to search about OP's fav. But if something is staged with talent and effort, why not. Street or elsewhere.

 

[blansky]

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/[/url]

Interesting read.

But is the debate really important. And why wouldn't there be cannonballs on the road after a bombardment. And wouldn't they be moved by someone to make the road more passable.

The interesting quote is:

"That we’re always disappointed when we learn that a photograph has been posed. Then she goes on to talk about the difference between fake paintings and fake photographs. Namely, a fake painting is a painting with faulty provenance— say, a painting that is purportedly by Vermeer, but turns out to be painted by somebody else. But according to Sontag, a fake photograph is a photograph that’s been posed."

 

[benjiboy]

Photography is about illusion not reality.

 

[blansky]

It is interesting that we question motivations and renounce photographs as fake or manipulated and yet we flock to movies for entertainment and education yet find nothing strange in that dichotomy.

We want "purity" in photographs yet seek out an entire medium of motion pictures for truth or history, or sense of well being, when the entire medium is false. Excluding documentaries perhaps.

I think at one point we have to perhaps "grow up" and acknowledge that every communication has a point of view, a message or a motivation behind it.

Thinking that something is without that is denying reality.

But, but, but..........I know, now I'm a "sadder but wiser man".

 

[Steve Smith]

I only want reality in photographs used for reportage/journalism. The rest doesn't matter.


Steve.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I only want reality in photographs used for reportage/journalism. The rest doesn't matter.

Even in that case, the bias or viewpoint of the presenter can distort what "reality" is. For example, they can present atrocities committed by group A against B, but fail to show what B does to A. So, they control perception - and perception is reality.