[Leica] When in doubt ask photographer

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

Tina:  First of all, you are *not* too old.  If you were, you wouldn't know 
as much about color management as you do!   :-)

I agree that the "fly on the wall" approach is best in many cases.  It 
lends a sense of objectivity to the proceedings. And today, with 
photography's veracity so suspect due to Photoshop abuse, it may be a 
comfortable defense of one's work.

BUT. . . was Gene Smith an objective recorder of events?  How about HCB, 
who was, it seems, more interested in composition than in capturing human 
emotions? How about Peter Turnley?  I heard him speak here in Seattle a few 
years back, and he said point blank that his personal mission was to 
capture images that would affect positive social change.  Now, the real 
question:  Are their photographs any less true because they photographed 
with a point of view?  I don't think so.

And Tina, despite your ability to blend in with your subjects, your photos 
of beautiful, wonderfully human Central Americans still reflect a point of 
view. Another photojournalist might see only poverty and squalor, and his 
(or her) photos would reflect that. So would another who sees only the 
fruits of oppression.  Each would take very different pictures. I'm sure 
that a few minutes with Google could net examples of each.  The Truth, like 
the Grand Canyon, is impossible to capture in a single frame.  It's more 
likely each of us captures a small angle on the truth.  If we're honest, we 
do better.

I think that the honest photographer is going to do fine regardless of 
their approach.  The trick is that you don't take, or don't use photos 
where your presence has caused something that the subjects wouldn't do 
ordinarily. If they are behaving as they normally would, but relating to 
you in the process, I think that's OK.  There is a difference between being 
unnoticed and being accepted.  Either one can produce truthful photographs. 
It's the difference between the point of view of the omnicient observer and 
the person who has earned trust.  I'm OK with either.

Me?  If the people I'm photographing don't notice me, fine. If they do, I 
chat with them, and hope they decide I'm OK and go on with what they're 
doing. At 6 foot 3 inches (190.5 cm) tall, I have a hard time not being 
noticed.

And Mark Rabiner, I do *not* have peanuts on my breath!!!   :-)

--Peter


Tina wrote:
>When I photograph families in developing countries, I stay with
>them (I mean sleeping in the same bed usually!) and do my best to be
>unobtrusive.  After days of sitting quietly in a corner, I am truly
>forgotten by most of the families I photograph.  I really am a quiet
>person who blends into the background - an advantage to being a
>wallflower!!

Ted wrote:
>I believe the influence created by the photographer depends on the ability
>to move about without being felt or seen. As well as the action of the
>subjects.