One feature of my street and documentary work is that I
don't go along with a lot of the current "wisdom" about how it's
done, how to behave on the street and the rest. Of course, we are all unique
beings and each need to learn our own way, all need to find our own way of
living and our own vision.
Take this photo for an example. Made on my first outing into the CBD of
Melbourne this week. I saw this couple who, when I looked, were in their own
little world. I made one image. And, rather than walk quickly away (as
per received wisdom) I walked just a couple of steps
and I waited with the camera to my eye. Then they both
turned and looked at me with these "poses"
(sorry another bad word in some circles), and I just instinctively
pressed the shutter. And, here you see the result: a lovely portrait of
a couple happy with themselves and each other. And, importantly, with
being photographed (oops, another myth: people hate being photographed).
The first image I made works too, I think. An unguarded moment that just asked to be preserved. Here it is:
Now, these photos are very different: in the second one, the
couple is completely unaware (at least on a conscious level) of my presence; in
the first they have actually seen me. And, yes, it is true to say that my
presence and my camera has caused a changed in their behavior. They are in a
sense posing for the camera.
So, they are different photos. But, is one better than the other? I don't mean
in technical terms; that's an area for someone else to debate. You see, I
don't believe for a minute that the first image here is more or less
of a valuable human moment than the second, despite the second
being the more "candid" one in the accepted sense.
I think candid is a misunderstood, or rather an incompletely understood,
concept in today's world of street photography. The common perception is that
it means that the subjects of a photograph are completely unaware of the
camera's presence. Of course that definition is valid in itself, but, to look
at the dictionary definitions of the word, then the meaning is not so black and
white (no pun intended. But it is funny though LOL).
The
Free
Dictionary (which I like to use for obvious reasons) includes this:
Candid as an adjective means:
1. frank; outspoken; open and sincere
2. free from reservation, disguise, or subterfuge;
straightforward
The definition also includes the idea of a candid photo being
"unposed". And, it is true that these two struck a kind of pose when they
saw me and my camera. So, for many the second image is a candid, while the
first is not. Okay, they are posing. But, really, don't you think it's a frank
and open one? Do they seem sincere to you? Do they look to you to be acting in
an unreserved manner and do they appear to be free of disguise? Have they
taken what you wold think of as a straightforward pose?
The answer to all these questions for me is a big yes.
Also, and as importantly, my
approach to this scene (as it usually
is) was a candid one. It is I think a matter of one's
intention. I mean by
this that I don't intend to have people see me or pose or change
their behavior. My attitude and approach is frank and open; I do not
hide; I do not engage in "stealthy" behavior or
"subterfuge" of any kind. I always try to be straightforward in
both my way of being in the street and in my dealings with the people
who
do see me, and most of the time they are the same with me! The
bottom line is that I always endeavor to be frank, outspoken (as
in honest and speaking my truth), open and sincere in the way I approach
my work and the people I am fortunate enough to photograph.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. But, it is my way of working and it
does, well, work pretty much all the time. I think today's two photographs both
have something to offer. Yes, they are different, but they are both
candid in their own way. Anyway, isn't it our role as street and social
documentary photographers to record the so-called ordinary people going about
their so-called ordinary lives?
Well, I think it is.
Peace
