Heaven’s to Betsy, why does Bob have to use so many words? I guess it’s the essay accompnaying the exhibition because if its just for Burn, its just too much for me and I almost missed the most important fact that I needed to make this essay work for me. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

When i’ve recovered, I can go and have another go at a comment. Later. Later.

Thanks for your response David (and others who welcome my questions). Sorry to have missed out on all your doings over recent years. Beg pardon.

Where have I been? I turned my back on photography for more than 13 years. And on the web, finding the good stuff or what you are actually searching for, is often a matter of luck. I think i found your site from the Magnum site. It caught my attention because of the emerging photographers thingy but I wasn’t ready to submit anything in the end as I had only just bought my first version of photoshop and hadn’t even got my first DSLR then. I am now kicking myself for not even bothering to learn how to use my digital compact completely. Kicking myself for lots of things but anyway, what’s done is done.

I will get around to ask my questions more openly now, as and when they come up. They are usually prompted by something I see in the photo essays and the ensuing discussion. Rather than go back and try to recapture my thoughts, I will wait until they come up again. Although I will reassure whoever it was mentioned it, my questions are not of a technical nature unless composition is considered a technical matter.

David, I am glad you mentioned you changed your post otherwise I would have missed the rest of what you wrote. I did understand that you were joking but anyway I chose to answer it straight. Probably because a humorous reply did not come to mind more quickly.

Well I have a lovely 40D canon now and nice 17-55mm 2.8 lens to go with it. A great buy off ebay, so I am still spinning with joy over it. My compact was a canon and I loved it too, just never spent enough time with the manual so I never used all the technique I did know (dof etc) so most of my shots look like snapshots, even though I like them a lot – if I say so myself. They are probably only good anyway because Indians are such beautiful looking people and their culture is so visual and they are so interesting. I am so excited about going back soon with a more serious approach to photography in mind. I personally have no prejudice against cheap or crummy cameras. I have seen wonderful pictures taken with all sorts of things so I know what you are saying but even so I hadn’t expected it in this environment. I am not doing this merely for fun. I want to make my living from photography if I can.

About comments. I hear you. But I am who I am I am afraid and I always stand out in a crowd because I am so opinionated. I can’t help it. I could not be a lurker if i tried. But i wish others would be louder too, so I can hear more of what they’ve got to say as well.

I have not got any pictures I want to send through yet although I could send some portraits from my last trip to India if you were that keen to see something. Otherwise hopefully after India but I wonder where everyone puts theirs. I have some in various parts of the web. I don’t like flicker and pbase very much. Photoshelter looks good though but its not for me just yet. Maybe lightstalker will serve in the medium term. I did end up putting some links there under my name (thanks to Imants challenging me to do so) but I haven’t fixed the images with photoshop so they could be improved.

Imants, bossy? D’ya think so? I hope your aunty was a nice woman also. Like me. I am direct and don’t pull my punches as much as I should I guess. I will probably do it more and more. But i like my criticism straight and not veiled in too much flattery. I think its more useful to have the truth of what people think than only praise or silence. Then you at least have the option to reject it if you think you know better.

Oh here’s a question – for anyone. When I take pictures of strangers, I am more comfortable when it shows that they are engaged with me. I do not feel so comfortable about pointing a camera at someone who is busy doing something else, so many of my people shots end up as portraits or portraits in context. And I do not like to steal pictures, though I do that too occasionally. I guess for me its a challenge to get people to carry on doing what they were doing before I turn up and ask if its ok to photograph them. Sometimes it happens naturally. I am sure with photographers who are on a project where they know the subjects well and their presence is agreed and accepted, it’s much easier to get people to ignore you, to treat you like a fly on the wall. It’s especially hard to avoid representing this engagement when we don’t share a common language. You don’t want to start bossing your subject around when you’ve only just met them. But i get the impression that in photojournalism, it’s frowned on to have this engagement with the photographer visible in the shot, especially through the expression of the subject. As if there is something wrong with it. As if it made for a lesser shot. I personally do not think there is anything wrong with it or that its a lesser shot. But you do get a different picture of course.

Now, I can almost hear you starting to object that you believe there is nothing with wrong with that and … but i think there would be qualifiers ie how such pictures are suitable for certain uses etc but are not really good photojournalism practice, so I might stop you there and just ask that you address only or mainly the point that my perception is that there is something not so accepted by the majority (rather than your own opinion) – if you were to agree with me -, about this awareness of the presence of the photographer in a photograph. I hope that’s not too hard to understand. I think i have not been very clear though. Unless of course you think i have got it all wrong but I don’t think so.

I think i am getting at the question of objectivity and the perception of objectivity. Why do PJs try to avoid this engagement with the photographer so assiduously – as if to do so were a bad approach. What’s so wrong about being part of the picture if you are going to admit and accept that subjectivity can’t be helped anyway. I think consensus these days is that we can’t help but bring out subjectivity, our biases, our prejudices, our points of view and opinions, and our personality to making a picture, so I’m saying why is it less ok not to make it plain.

You know I love those shots that show the background paraphernalia like lights and the edges of the screen in fashion shoots, or pictures of the crowds of other photographers in photojournalism. Pictures that address photography (in an overt way) and not just the subject at hand. Not saying it should be obvious all the time but i like it when it shows up. So for me being part of the picture insofar as the subject acknowledges your presence by gazing into the lens of the camera is to not to deny the presence of the camera and photographer and the point of view of the photographer. I am not against the fly on the wall approach but I think i also like photographs particularly when they are about photography and acknowledge or engage with that subject too. But in most photojournalism i’ve seen lately there lingers this traditional approach of denying the presence of the camera and I picked up somewhere that it is still considered…. struggling to find the right word… the most professional approach. (That’s not the word I wanted). Ok I think by now you must get what I am on about.

Patricia
I’ve just exhausted myself on the above. I was going to address your points but I think i’ve already taken up enough space so I will do it in more depth later. But thanks for your words.

I forgot to say to Civilian Mass, Greece, now I would definitely drop in on you if i find myself in that part of the world again. I hope it will happen. I have strong memories of Greece. Thank you for the invitation. I wonder what keeps a non-photographer hanging around here? But I suppose that’s been discussed to death already.

Gordon, And he didn’t make many typos either! (David of course)

JKaranka. I often think about what people would find in my gear if i were to make a sudden departure. I am not bothered by any of it so this does not trouble me. Is that what you mean? I don’t think too much about Marc’s grief. I haven’t had a major similar loss so I’ve no experience of my own like it and his essay did not draw much attention to himself but kept it on the father so I do not identify with him. Although I did think that letter from one of the kids utterly gorgeous and it’s charming that Daddy kept it for so many years; which makes me question what i said about not learning much about the inner world of the father. I guess its the same with the book. What sort of man would read a book like that daily. Certainly not someone like my father. So definitely I am thinking about the father, not the son.

PatricioM

G’day. I just posted while you were posting so I missed yours. (Gosh I hope no one feels I am taking over this place. I feel like I am. Sorry. I will shut up soon. But I have no other forum to wax lyrical about these things and well I guess what’s been bottled up has been unleashed. Somewhat.)

Thanks. Photographing in India has other purposes to me. Not just photography. But I won’t say more about that for the moment. But next year I hope I can do something here too. It’s not that I can’t think of projects close to home, it’s just that I am not deeply moved to go after them. (I am not even sure if i am a project photographer type of person. I might only be a superficial travel photographer type. I expect this will resolve itself in the coming years. Not having gone to photojournalism school and not having pursued this type of photography at artschool means I have no skills in this area and have to start from scratch. I would be well out of my comfort zone to start doing that but I guess I will get around to it. Maybe I am just a flaneur.) That’s probably why I’d like to go back to the outback. It’s not like home but it’s closer to home than India, that’s for sure. I like things that are different from what I am used to. I love adventure and unfamiliar things. I do love the exotic I have to admit and I like being on the road. I just hate chilli. But I am photographing close to home, just in a non-project and somewhat random way. More as daily exercise. I am an Aussie. Australian.

Sure Ramon, most of that I agree with anyhow. I just prefer the version I gave of making and taking pictures. I think it’s a meaningful distinction.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=703249&l=c6b111af83&id=1053963778

The one above was the wrong link. This one should be better.

Kathleen,

I strongly insist that you have misunderstood me. I really am not saying that to take an image without permission is a bad thing, but it can be. I am not making a judgement by using the word stealing. I use it because its the best one I know to describe it. I for one feel better when I can get agreement, tacit or overt. I want to point out that I also admitted earlier to stealing pictures – when I first used the term back a few pages in my question. I certainly don’t think its illegal and I guess my usage is wrong there but I wanted to distinguish between taking-a-picture insofar as its what we say we do when we press the shutter ie the most general term, (as we native english speakers use it, I guess spanish and french would say “make”-a-picture). and distinguish this from taking-a-picture-without-asking. Certainly, not everyone likes their pictures to be taken by passing strangers, for whatever reason. In Australia, and I suppose its the same in most western countries, there is a lot of suspicion about passing strangers taking pictures. And it’s getting worse and worse. Its so bad that its almost stupid and soon I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of picture taking becomes prohibited, although I hope the lawmakers can keep their heads and not let things descend to that level.

But in other cultures we know their suspicions can be, albeit wrongly, to do with fears of having their soul stolen or some such gibberish and then it seems culturally insensitive to take a picture without permission. (Or another example is of foreign men in a place like rajasthan taking pictures of women because its such a segregated society (but of course I know many foreign photographers have taken many pictures of the women there.) At least that’s what you hear. I am not sure so many really heed that but you do hear of it. There is definitely a bit of “something” not so positive about taking pictures without permission. OR is that only the case when tourists do it,or do you think I am the only person who thinks this way. Is it always totally ok and justifiable when professional photographers do it? I don’t know. I’d be interested to know. Because I really don’t think that professional photographers should have any more right to snap away at anything that takes their fancy than anyone else. Not really. I know that the law says we can take pictures of people and places and things and so on in public. But i guess even so I feel one needs to be discrete and sensitive, not just in order to get the picture we want but to not offend and upset people. Otherwise its merely justification for the methods of the paparazzi if you want to take it to its extreme.

I get the impression from the vehemence of your objection, Kathleen, that you feel entirely justified and without the slightest discomfort that its ok to snap a picture of whatever you want. Is that so? Maybe its just that I have no professional experience. Perhaps that’s why I feel the way I do. Perhaps my guilt about it, is misguided.

Maybe someone can give me a link to a discussion of this matter in the ethics of photography. I am sure it has been discussed and debated seriously somewhere. When I can read a persuasive discussion of such things that I am not clear on. It helps me sort out my mind.

Of course there are situations like in a busy street where of course you are not really going to ask anyone’s permission to take a street scape type of picture. I want to make sure its clear that I don’t mean that sort of picture. I mean more like if on that busy street you see a guy doing something interesting. He’s standing not far away from you. He’s going about his private business. And you want to take a picture of him where he is going to be the focus of attention of your photograph. Where you are taking the picture because of him, not whoever else happens to fall within the frame. I know it would affect the scene to catch his eye and ask his attention. Its so annoying to have to do it. I mean if he hasn’t seen you, i’d probably do it and feel only slightly bad about. But i can’t point my camera at someone who knows I am there, who is likely to see me raise my camera and aim straight at them and not ask for permission. To me that seems disrespectful. Except when I am at a place like my local market where after a bit i realise that the stallholders are quite used to and accepting of strangers taking their picture.

Oh #$@#! the typo at the 6th word.

Bob to be up to speed on Chinese and Japanese photography and history of same, is a bit out of the mainstream or have things changed that much that students and practising pros are introduced to all that as routine these days. It certainly was not something I was made aware of when I was studying. I am aware of an interest in a the work of everyone else. Why else would I be here trying to catch up with things. And you might notice that I liked that picture of the hallway. But do i need to be aware of the reference to the past in order to like it? No I don’t think so. Does a reference to the art of the past make a picture a good one? No i think perhaps not. I didn’t even discern a particular vernacular or style except bad technique. If its all utterly deliberate, then I stand corrected but I still think i am not keen on it.

My saying that I don’t know what you were talking about was not meant to sound quite as dismissive as it did but I am saying, i can only take the pictures on face value because I know nothing about all that – what you were saying in your comment – and in doing so, they don’t speak to me. All I see is bad technique. I don’t even find the essay holds together to say much of anything. The pictures don’t seem to be related to each other in any way. If it’s because of a poor knowledge of photography history, then perhaps i’ve missed something important but i don’t know. I can only say how they reach me. The photographer can easily decide whether my opinion is to be brushed off because its clearly ignorant or taken seriously.

Perhaps the work would benefit from an expose of the sort that identifies all the allusions, nudges and winks to past masters. Work – photography and all art – often becomes much more meaningful to me after I have read about it. We don’t all see all the things that there are that are worth seeing that’s why there are critics and academics. Unless, once again, I am the only one who thinks this way, in which case, I stand corrected.

David, that is how I like to work too.

Imants I think you maybe right in the short term, but I think it helps to do this (absorb and toss around) and then let it digest for a while. Then I don’t think it should necessarily leads to piss-poor work. I think its important to understand the ideas that are around and that have been around before. Most artists who ignore ideas and history of art end up doing piss-poor work too. They merely end up doing what people were doing a century ago. And they don’t understand the significance of what they are doing either.

David, the Nat Geo issue that i referred to was more about anthropology. There was a lot of talk about the Other and our western tendency to treat people like objects. I never read this guy but I suspect a lot of the concern came from the ideas of Edward Said. At the time there was a lot of emphasis on becoming aware of where you put your focus – over there or on yourself (or your own backyard). Not in a navel gazing way but to stop treating people as exotic specimens. You see I think that whatever connection a photographer may make with the exotic locals, it seems hard to avoid showing them as curiosities. btw I love your work, Nat Geo and HCB but I never actually read anything about HCB and his way of working. Perhaps now is a good time for me to go back there.

On the Decisive moment. I think lots of people have done it. But i appreciate that it is pretty hard to do it really well. Was it your pic where the kid emerged under the elbow of the boy who was looking out of the picture in the foreground. I think it was. That sort of moment would be either totally lucky or hard to catch I suspect. But then there are lesser decisive moments. Think of sports photography. Or don’t you consider that a decisive moment approach. I do.

Kathleeen, on the in-between moments. I think its about paying attention to things that have been routinely and traditionally overlooked for being not significant. Recognising that there is meaning in those moments and in those small things. There are also serious things that get ignored and the idea of gaps and in-between expresses and needs to get those things out in the open. Anyway its all pretty philosophical but with an important point. And its part of that trend to write history about things like Zippers. It’s in talking about these little insignificant overlooked things that one can find other important stories that are also very big and important. For example the way women were left out of art history for such a long time. Anyway i am sure you are probably familiar with all that already too.

But yes, David when you go back and see those pictures that have the DM that traditional way of taking pictures they really are powerful attractive pictures. Its not hard to see why people are attracted to working that way. And as you say its not hard to appreciate that banality will lose its appeal, except you know when the image is so well exposed and printed, its just simply beautiful, regardless of how dull the composition (but not bad) and subject matter. Perhaps it looks easier to do than it is. Maybe like all things there is good banality type pictures and bad. The good will hold your attention. The flip side is a fairly technically bad picture that shows something important. Ultimately its all about meaning. Aint it?