Talking About Subjects & Objects in Street Photography

Run Don't Walk (Melbourne Australia June 2014)

I read yet another definition of Street Photography yesterday. And boy oh boy aren't there a lot of them around these days? But never mind that. What I want to talk about here is just a few words that really stood out for me. The writer was giving his definition and said something about "objects" in the street. At first I read on, then, suddenly, I realised he wasn't talking about the buildings, cars, buses or other inanimate things one sees on the street; he was actually referring to the people in the street as objects—as things.

People as things? I don't think so. But, as I read on, there it was again, and then again. This so-called "expert" on street photography was describing people as objects. Sorry, I know I'm repeating myself here, but I was and I still am just so flabbergasted at such an idea. And, just think how many people are going to read that article. Makes me shudder.

Anyway, it put me in mind of something a fellow Twitterer said to me a while ago. I forget what we were talking about, but I had used the word subject in a post, referring to the people I photograph in the street. Here's his reply:

I wouldn't even call them subjects. Sounds too clinical. I'd opt for collaborators. It's a partnership.

And he was right. Is right I should say.  Regular readers will know that I have been trying for a while now to start a conversation that will lead to a less aggressive, less acquisitive and gentler way of speaking about street photography (here's my blog post about language in street photography).

I have for some time talked about "people I photograph" rather than using the word subject. A change that has to do with my desire to change the language, but in truth prompted by my fellow Twitterer's comment quoted above.

As a street photographer, calling a person I photograph a subject really implies that that person is subject to, or in some way not on the same level, or holding the same power as me, simply because I am the one with the camera making a photograph of them. If anything I feel that the person being photographed is the one directing the process. By this I mean that they are the ones who invite or do not invite the photographer (that's me) to photograph them.

Of course for many this is all very esoteric and perhaps is even seen as complicating what some would argue is a very simple process. And of course, street photography when practised well is a very simple process.

How is it simple? Well, I don't mean simple as in easy: it's not always easy. No, I mean simple as in straightforward. We talk about being "in the zone" when on the street photographing. And when we are in the zone we are in touch with the feeling—the vibe if you like—on the street and in a deep way we are connected with the other people around us. In this way we just know if we are given "permission" to photograph them or not. Of course it's not at all spoken, this permission; it's more about the intuition of the photographer connecting with the flow of energies and feelings of others around her or him.

So, it is about language. But it is about more than the words we use to describe our activities as street photographers. It is about an attitude toward other people and the environment we are working in. It is about a willingness to be open to the sub-conscious wishes of others and just knowing at a deep intuitive level what is and what is not okay.

I talk a lot about sharing moments with the people I photograph. By this I mean a two-way sharing that takes place as I feel the rightness of making a photograph of a person or group of people. In this respect those other people are very much my partners (as in having an equal participation and 'investment'), collaborators with me in the process of creating a photograph that is then a true representation of that moment.

Street Photography really is a team effort isn't it?

Stealth Has No Place in Street Photography

"Have you got the latest stealth camera from.....? It's great for street photography."
How often have I read this or something similar  How often have I read the need for stealth when doing street photography. How often have there been arguments about the pros and cons of big cameras versus little (usually expensive and "trendy") ones. On and on it goes with the great hunters who think that shooting people and doing it in a clandestine manner like some spy with the latest "stealth camera" is what street photography is about. Why, did you know one of the most expensive camera names in the world (no names are here mentioned, and it would be a mistake by legal eagles to think they know what I'm talking about) is touted by some as being an ideal stealth camera for street photography? 

Before I really get started, why don't we look up a definition of stealth? Hang on, I'll be right back. Okay, a quick search and here is the first definition that came up (I've cut and pasted it directly):

stealth  

/stelTH/

Noun Cautious and surreptitious action or movement: "the silence and stealth of a hungry cat".

Adjective (chiefly of aircraft) Designed to make detection by radar or sonar difficult: "a stealth bomber".

Synonyms noun.   secrecy adjective.   secret - recondite - insidious - clandestine Blimey, it's heavier than I thought. You see, I had the idea to do a post on stealth because I dislike the word when it's used in the context of street photography. I knew it was the name of a bomber, but "surreptitious"? I can kind of live with "cautious" but, "insidious"? Wow. Actually, now I think about it, this all fits nicely with my thoughts on the subject of stealth. You see, one of the big argument for stealth in street photography is that "street photographers"  don't want to appear creepy or sneaky or in some other way disreputable. For me, street photography is about documenting real life as it occurs. As you've read and heard me say before,  I think there are no ordinary moments, all moments have the potential to be decisive. Anyway,today is not the day to  go over all that again. Cutting to the chase, I will just say stealth goes totally against all I stand for as a street photographer and as an artist. I believe in honesty in all things, and photographing people on the street is no exception. Now, while I don't often ask for permission from subjects, I never try to hide either myself, my camera or my intentions from the people I hope to be fortunate enough to photograph. But, I hear some of you say, if you're seen that makes it no longer a "true" street photograph. It changes the scene, it influences the subjects. On and on it goes. But, really, is this all actually true? Well, obviously sometimes a subject will see the camera and change their expression or do something to "pose" or whatever. What's wrong with that I would ask. It's not as if it happens very often. Well, not to me anyway. I haven't actually looked at the percentages, but I think the number of people who actually see me or my camera is pretty low. And what happens when they do see me and it somehow changes their manner or pose or whatever? Well very often it is just that change that makes the image what it is. A genuine human interaction takes place; a moment is shared and experienced together. And, in my not ever so humble opinion, that is a great thing indeed. And the times when it doesn't "make" the image? Well there's been no harm  done and it's still pretty much a positive experience all round. Oh, one more thing. Not only do I use a DSLR (with a battery grip for easier vertical work), but I also use either of two zoom lenses ranging from medium wide to telephoto. It can be a heavy beast and a pretty plain to see one as well. But I don't care! I love using it; the quality of the images it produces is amazing; and if I am going to record other human beings then I have a deep responsibility to record them in the best possible way I can. That's what I try to do. Everything I do as a photographer in the streets is done in plain sight. Note, I do not say that I "hide in plain sight"; I never hide. There is no reason to. I do not claim to be a great photographer; no, not at all. But, I have to say that what I do and at least some of the results I achieve seem to fly in the face of the conventional  or received wisdom or lore surrounding street photography: I do not hide, yet I am able to go unnoticed most of the time; I use a "big" camera, yet still go unnoticed much of the time; my camera is heavy, yet I am able to record moments quickly, even movements as they happen; I do not "zone focus", yet my AF lens seems to record all kinds of little nuances; I use a long lens, yet I am still (according to many viewers of my work) able to achieve a sense of intimacy with my subjects that street photography lore says can only be achieved with a short lens and by being very close to the subject. Need I go on?  Well, there is one more thing I want to say. I've seen and heard so-called street photographers and "teachers" of street photography say that it is a dangerous thing to be doing. By this I mean to say there is a fear that is promoted (and I mean promoted) that a street photographer runs the risk of being attacked physically by irate people not wanting to be photographed. I even heard one of these "teachers" ask one of his "students' on a video: "Have you been punched yet". This might be a slight misquote, but you get the point I think. Is this why so many people are "doing" street photography now? To prove bravery and/or bravado in the face of a perceived physical threat? If it is, then it's a very sad and scary development in the history of photography. In my entire life as a photographer (it's a lot of years!), and more to the point, in my four or five years of "serious" street photography work, I have never been punched. The nearest I have ever come to being even verbally attacked is a guy in a car yelling at me as he sped past using some colourful language about my camera which was at that point hung innocently over my shoulder. Even when people have objected to being photographed (another myth: "most people don't want to be photographed. Total and absolute rubbish. I accept that it is true in some cultures of course, but the exact opposite has been my experience) they have simply said no. Sometimes more strongly than other times, but never in a way that could be seen as "violent" or attacking. Look, in truth there is nothing special about me. There really isn't. I am not on a hunt; I don't shoot people; I don't steal souls; I don't capture subjects. I do not sneak around looking to catch people doing silly or quirky or "interesting" things.  I simply practise my art, my street work, with compassion, love, respect and in a thoughtful, calm and, I could say, prayerful  manner. I have no need to hide, as I have already said. I have no need of stealth. I do not do anything that could be construed as insidious. Perhaps there are a few questions those who wish to work as street photographers need to ask of themselves. Why is it that I need to hide? Do I need a "stealth" camera or mode of operating? If I do, why do I? And the big one: Do I really want to peruse an activity that could be seen as insidious? I for one do not want myself or my work to be seen in a negative light, when what I do is so enriching, so important (in my opinion) and seeks to present an honest view of people going about their normal lives in the world we all share together Peace to you all

A Rose by Any Other Name is Still a Rose, But Would it Smell as Sweet? Photography & Language

Recently I've read a couple of posts on various blogs about the language of photography. I don't mean here the ability of a photograph to communicate an idea or story or whatever. No, I'm referring to the language we use when talking about things photographic. There is a school of thought that asserts that the language we use is aggressive and violent. I would add one more word to these two: acquisitive. Obviously by the adding of this third word, you, dear reader, are safe in assuming I agree with the first two. Let me try to explain.

What do we say to describe what we have done when we press the shutter of a camera? We will say something like, "I've taken a photo", or if you are a little more posh you might say, "I've captured a lovely scene". And, let's say  you've been out with your camera for the day and you come home and your partner or whoever asks about your day. You might answer, "Great, I got some terrific shots." And, my favourite: you post a photo in an online gallery or group and one or more of your fellow onliners will say something like, "Wow. What a shot. You really nailed him/her/it didn't you?"

I hope by now you are beginning to get where I'm going with this. taken, shot, captured, nailed. All rather harsh words aren't they? And really, are they truly accurate or appropriate for what we do as photographers? Look at the image above for example. It is, in my opinion, a fairly good photograph of a father and his  young daughter. Looks like they are waiting for someone, or perhaps the father is watching something not in the frame. The child has seen the photographer (me by the way) adding a nice layer to the photograph's story. So, what do I say about this? I could say something like, "I took this shot on the weekend, and I think i've really captured the souls of these people, and I've really nailed the dad's hair, don't you think? I reckon this shot justifies the effort I made on that day to go shooting'. Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention that on that day I was really hunting good street shots.

This all sounds rather unpleasant,don't you think? Of course, don't get me wrong: I'm as guilty as the next 'shooter' of using this kind of language. In reality it is the language of photographers that has been used, I imagine, from the very beginning of the medium. However, it is possible, I think, that the time has come for a thoughtful conversation on whether we should continue using this language or whether we should begin to look at the true nature of our craft or art, and adopt more appropriate words to describe what it is we do and how we do what we do.

To shoot someone or something is quite a violent act; it's a term which is also associated with the use of a gun. A most violent instrument and certainly nothing like a camera surely? De we really 'shoot' with a camera? I think that on the whole there would be few photographers who would seek to harm their subjects with their cameras, so maybe shoot is not the right word for us to be using. At its very mildest a word like 'shoot'  just speaks of aggression.

I added acquisitive as a third way to describe the language we use in the photographic world. Words like take and capture (whether used as verbs or nouns) speak of acquiring or stealing or even kidnapping! And we are doing none of those things with our cameras. There is even a group on a popular online photo sharing site called Soul Snatchers (for readers eager to explore said site, a disclaimer: Before I saw the error of my linguistic ways I was a member of that group, but once my eyes were opened I deleted myself and my photos from the group). We are photographers, are we not? Surely we are not thieves?

This language speaks of what we can either do to our subjects, or of what we can obtain from them. I am beginning to think it might be time for the thoughtful amongst us to start to explore new ways of talking about our art (or craft. More linguistically loaded words) that speak more to what our subjects give to us, and what we can offer to them. I think there is a lot for us to think about here.

Many of us seek to find that decisive moment (thank you Mr Cartier-Bresson), that fleeting gesture, glance, smile. Whatever it is that has inspired us to point (not aim) our camera towards a potential subject. But whose moment is it? Whose gesture do we watch for? Whose smile? The answer is obvious: all these things do not belong to us, they belong to our subjects.

We are allowed into the lives of others, through their spoken or unspoken permission. We are granted access to their moments, their smile, their gestures. We are granted the privilege of being able to photograph people in all their humanity. I don't really want to sound grandiose or pretentious here, but we as photographers (and it doesn't really matter whether we are working at a wedding, a children's party, or as in my case, on the street) are entrusted with a sacred duty. We do seek to reach the essence of a person or other subject, to bring out the 'real' person or thing or whatever. We do seek to produce a true document to show the world (or our friends and so on). I will be the first to admit that there have been times when I may have betrayed that sacred trust. And, if I am to be totally frank here, I see images online every day that very clearly show a breach of trust sometimes amounting to gross exploitation.

I will also be the first to admit that the changing of a language, which really is a part of the culture of image making with a camera (AKA photography!) will be no easy task. I do not judge others for using those bolded and italicised words; I use them myself. After all, we all have to use a common language if we are going to understand or be understood. But I am trying to come up with new words. Like, 'I've been making photos today', rather than taking them; or 'I really think I've reached the soul of that subject' rather than capturing him or her; or 'I would love to photograph wildlife', rather than wanting to shoot animals.

And that word nailed is for me truly problematic. I don't have to learn a new word to use in its stead: I've never used it to refer to photography or anything else apart from carpentry or woodwork. It has other connotations which I have also never liked. Just goes to highlight even more clearly the importance of language and how we use it.

I don't have any answers really. I only bring this issue up because it seems that it is time for a new way of speaking about what to me is a true art form that has the power to change lives, end wars, enhance our environment, showcase the beauty in our world as well as to bring our attention to the ugliness that exists but shouldn't. In other words we are the practitioners of an honourable art or craft, and we really need to be speaking about what we do in language that does honour to, and speaks accurately about this art of photography.

But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good

Oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood

Thank you to Mr Burdon & The Animals for the snippet of lyrics from one of your great tunes.

Also a big thank you to Mr Shakespeare for the quote from Romeo and Juliet which I have taken great liberties with and paraphrased for my title. I am sure he wouldn't mind really.