This revelation of the soul is perhaps what we might call our style, to some degree.
One benefit of the lens with which I’ve primarily been shooting recently is that it is medium format and I can’t zoom in on people. I’m rarely an in-yer-face shooter so naturally I’ll capture either consensual portraits or more tableau scenes. That suits me because I can’t bring myself to do the other way around.
It would be an interesting challenge to force someone to use a lens or camera that they weren’t familiar with (or didn’t want) and see how they adapt. Like putting a plant in a small pot or far from the sun.
That was me when I switched to prime. Hated it. But my photography is better, I must confess.
Did you see that photography reality show a few years’ ago with Rankin on it? Part of the concept was making contestants use, say, camera phones for particular tasks.
Well said Neil. This has been an operating principle for the way I practice photography for a while. It's not always an immediate correlation, but the benefit of an image is you can revisit it a year or a decade in the future and still glean something meaningful.
Isn't the ability to capture people unawares, going about their lives, one of the unique powers of photography? Isn't the mystery of the unknown and unknowable subject a feature of many great photographs?
It is, it is! But I think it is more interesting if it can come from a position of trust rather than being purely voyeuristic. I was recently reading looking at the work of Larry Clark, like Tulsa, astonishingly raw photos but coming from a place where they forget he was there. Similarly, the assignments of W Eugene Smith.
This is a good piece for street photographers. Unfortunately, I was in the group of soul stealers for many years. I do believe that for some people, it's fear-based (coming from a sense of lack). Over time, more seasoned photographers learn to explore the culture differently in ways that connect. Thank you!
I'm not sure I would say "character flaws." Not that you're not flawed, :), but your point, I think/agree, is to come to a deeper understanding, more rounded, and surely you have virtues too? Many aspects that we need not judge good or bad, more simply you. If we observe, perhaps photograph, a horse, the fact of the horses color is part of what makes that horse, that horse. And by the same token, if we are learning about the photographer, we might learn what makes that eye, that eye.
I almost changed flaws to traits at the very last moment but that felt even more wrong! You’re right that virtues exist as well. That was my understanding of Doisneau ( https://neilscott.substack.com/p/robert-doisneau ).
Interesting that you highlight your flaws, but not your strengths...they must be there!
Ha, I will keep looking!
This revelation of the soul is perhaps what we might call our style, to some degree.
One benefit of the lens with which I’ve primarily been shooting recently is that it is medium format and I can’t zoom in on people. I’m rarely an in-yer-face shooter so naturally I’ll capture either consensual portraits or more tableau scenes. That suits me because I can’t bring myself to do the other way around.
It would be an interesting challenge to force someone to use a lens or camera that they weren’t familiar with (or didn’t want) and see how they adapt. Like putting a plant in a small pot or far from the sun.
That was me when I switched to prime. Hated it. But my photography is better, I must confess.
Did you see that photography reality show a few years’ ago with Rankin on it? Part of the concept was making contestants use, say, camera phones for particular tasks.
I did! I wish they had done another series. Shame also that it had to be done during covid.
Yeah. And Georgie should have won too
Yeah! It was bizarre how they didn’t even pick one winner. C’mon guys, take a chance! Too chummy by the end.
Well said Neil. This has been an operating principle for the way I practice photography for a while. It's not always an immediate correlation, but the benefit of an image is you can revisit it a year or a decade in the future and still glean something meaningful.
Isn't the ability to capture people unawares, going about their lives, one of the unique powers of photography? Isn't the mystery of the unknown and unknowable subject a feature of many great photographs?
It is, it is! But I think it is more interesting if it can come from a position of trust rather than being purely voyeuristic. I was recently reading looking at the work of Larry Clark, like Tulsa, astonishingly raw photos but coming from a place where they forget he was there. Similarly, the assignments of W Eugene Smith.
This is a good piece for street photographers. Unfortunately, I was in the group of soul stealers for many years. I do believe that for some people, it's fear-based (coming from a sense of lack). Over time, more seasoned photographers learn to explore the culture differently in ways that connect. Thank you!
Thanks Juliette. Totally agree about the fear!
I'm not sure I would say "character flaws." Not that you're not flawed, :), but your point, I think/agree, is to come to a deeper understanding, more rounded, and surely you have virtues too? Many aspects that we need not judge good or bad, more simply you. If we observe, perhaps photograph, a horse, the fact of the horses color is part of what makes that horse, that horse. And by the same token, if we are learning about the photographer, we might learn what makes that eye, that eye.
I almost changed flaws to traits at the very last moment but that felt even more wrong! You’re right that virtues exist as well. That was my understanding of Doisneau ( https://neilscott.substack.com/p/robert-doisneau ).
Love the bus photo 👍
But be careful not to get a smack in the face in some locations 😩🥹
Excellent piece!