On portraiture
Five days left in December, and Portrait Month is drawing to a close. Initially, the challenge was simply to ask people if I could take their picture, but that was only a challenge for the first few days. Since then, the test has been to make a good portrait, and if I had to grade myself so far, I’d say a C would be fair. I’ve made some photographs that I’m really proud of (here, here, and here), but the majority are boring.
I see a few reasons for this: Most days, I’ve felt the pressure of the clock and settled for whomever I found. If you believe Alec Soth’s explanation of how he chooses his subjects (likening it to the way you’re attracted to certain people across a crowded bar), just settling for whoever’s around is pretty much a recipe for disaster (or at least a rough night). One solution would be to wait for the right person—and that’s probably the ideal approach. But it isn’t lost on me that editorial photographers rarely choose their subjects, and they have to make it work under time constraints and less-than-ideal circumstances. So no excuses here: Even if I couldn’t find the ideal subject or the ideal situation, I could’ve—and should’ve—made more of an effort to get a better image.
Another issue is that, on more days than I care to admit, as soon as I found my person and made the photograph, I called it a day. It would’ve been one thing to do that when I knew I had the shot I wanted (like the three I mention above), but that’s only happened a few times. Some days, I truly didn’t have any more time—but that was rare. Most days, I could’ve spent more time driving around looking for people. And if I had, I might’ve eventually found the right person.
Finally, so often I felt the pressure to not keep the person too long. Rarely were my subjects just hanging out; they were usually on the move somewhere, and I was aware of the fact that I was keeping them from getting where they were going. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all three of my favorite photographs from the month were of people who were just hanging out. In each of those cases, I felt free to take more time to get the shot, and it paid off.
I still don’t really know what makes a good portrait. I know what I like when I see it, but I don’t know that I can articulate it. And I don’t think that my favorites from this month even come close to registering on the Rachael Dunville yardstick. I like the process, though—that moment when the person is waiting for me to make the exposure, that intense feeling that the person is giving me something in that moment and that I might be able to give him something in return. I can see this experience continuing on past the end of the year, even affecting my choice of projects going forward.
I see a few reasons for this: Most days, I’ve felt the pressure of the clock and settled for whomever I found. If you believe Alec Soth’s explanation of how he chooses his subjects (likening it to the way you’re attracted to certain people across a crowded bar), just settling for whoever’s around is pretty much a recipe for disaster (or at least a rough night). One solution would be to wait for the right person—and that’s probably the ideal approach. But it isn’t lost on me that editorial photographers rarely choose their subjects, and they have to make it work under time constraints and less-than-ideal circumstances. So no excuses here: Even if I couldn’t find the ideal subject or the ideal situation, I could’ve—and should’ve—made more of an effort to get a better image.
Another issue is that, on more days than I care to admit, as soon as I found my person and made the photograph, I called it a day. It would’ve been one thing to do that when I knew I had the shot I wanted (like the three I mention above), but that’s only happened a few times. Some days, I truly didn’t have any more time—but that was rare. Most days, I could’ve spent more time driving around looking for people. And if I had, I might’ve eventually found the right person.
Finally, so often I felt the pressure to not keep the person too long. Rarely were my subjects just hanging out; they were usually on the move somewhere, and I was aware of the fact that I was keeping them from getting where they were going. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all three of my favorite photographs from the month were of people who were just hanging out. In each of those cases, I felt free to take more time to get the shot, and it paid off.
I still don’t really know what makes a good portrait. I know what I like when I see it, but I don’t know that I can articulate it. And I don’t think that my favorites from this month even come close to registering on the Rachael Dunville yardstick. I like the process, though—that moment when the person is waiting for me to make the exposure, that intense feeling that the person is giving me something in that moment and that I might be able to give him something in return. I can see this experience continuing on past the end of the year, even affecting my choice of projects going forward.
Labels: Alec Soth, editorial, photographers, portraits, Rachael Dunville
posted by Liz at 5:08 PM
4 Comments:
Don't be too hard on yourself vs. editorial photographers, while they don't "choose" their subjects they also don't encounter them happenstance on the street. "Street Portraiture" is a genre in and of itself, look at Robert Bergman, "A kind of Rapture" for some idea of how it can go-however, he chooses people more like how Soth chooses them, there is not a face in the bunch that is not intensely interesting, arresting, etc.
As a "task" goes, it seems the portrait month was a success in that you got over the approaching people thing. Now that you are over it you see from the other side that many people are just not that interesting...:)...which is not to say anything "bad" about ordinary people, it is just that you found nothing to hook your interest and that is normal. You can't be "interested" in everyone, it just does not work that way. So the exercise was limited from the get-go, one by the fact that finding people that you are drawn to is difficult, so substituting anyone is not going to cut it mostly, and two, you had the limits of the street itself as backdrop. In the three pics you liked notice that the street is handled differently, you have the car a la Robert Bechtle, the beautiful tree background and sunlight and the chairs.
Editorial photographers do have to shoot people that they don't find interesting, and what often happens is they resort to some sort of game to make the picture revealing or interesting. It is not any easier, and you end up with a lot of formula as well. I think the challenge of portraiture is in selection mostly, the picture itself happens once you are activated and interested. this is why all those random craigslist projects look so bad, the selection methodology is less than intuitive. You really have to select carefully, look at Avedon, for example, he never photographed a face he was not intensely interested in for one reason or another. And he did that across all social types as well. The gift was he knew what he was trying to find out about people, so the selection process was self-generating. Once you can generate an inquiry about what it is you are searching for in a portrait of a person, the rest will be easier.
It is also about control, as in control of the subject choice, control over location and control over light. The more you do all of these things the more you will answer your own questions. You also won't worry as much about keeping people too long, being flattering, not being ready etc.
happy new year!
Robert, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. You've given me a lot to think about. . . . And your points about choice of subject are right on. Thanks again. Very much appreciated.
In light of your post on "mythology" I think you owe it to yourself to go home to St. Jo for a week or so and do this same thing there. Having actually been to your hometown as you know I have a feeling something like a connection between your formal landscape work and this portrait work will occur...
another mistake you might be making in "looking" at this work, a mistake I made in my own work, was not seeing how the final print looks at a realistic scale, I have a feeling from the way these images are presented you are not getting the whole effect, I think they probably need to be large since you have left so much "air" around the subject, a large print would let the subject stand large enough for you to see what you saw when you shot it. I'm thinking at least 20x24. You need presence. The pictures are quiet and subtle, too subtle for a smaller print I think.
Finally you saw how the tripod slowed you down which is good, it slows them down too as you notice. It is kind of like a magic trick, the more you can distract them from what is really going on (their picture) the more they will just start to stare at you and the closer you will get I think. this is why the 8x10 or 4x5 works so well, the subject gets lost in your process and gets fascinated or bored, and the time goes away. Plus it makes you direct more since you can't move the camera quickly, so once you get your "frame" it is about watching them watching you and timing.
You could try putting the dslr on manual focus, so once you set it you forget about it and it does not move, use the depth of field and then not look through the camera any more unless you want to move the frame. then it becomes an encounter between you and them which is fun to play with. Use a cable release.
anyway too much from me, but I hope you continue because you really have only scratched the surface, what if you did this for a year? there is so much you can't tell what is going to come of it that just allowing the current process to continue might be good.
I say that bc I was in a cafe today and saw some work from someone else who had been photographing in my neighbourhood, and I could see that it was all the pictures I made in the first couple of months, same places, same ideas. More or less. But lately my own work on the same subject has changed and I am seeing things I did not see before, this is after almost two years of photographing basically the same few square blocks. It surprised me. So there is value in just humping it out for a long time with no intention of anything, just to do it. All of a sudden you get "it", or why you are doing it.
I am going to try to write something about this on my blog, about project methods, I will link to this if you don't mind.
Yeah, totally. Link away.
Everything you're saying is so true. I've been using the tripod and a cable release. I tend to use autofocus because, for some reason, I trust it more than I trust my own eyes. (I don't think that's good, but I haven't really done anything about it.) I'm definitely going to continue with it.
Thanks again for your comments! I really appreciate them, Robert.
Post a Comment
<< Home