On reflection. The photograph as document.

Having completed part one ‘The photograph as document’ I now have a better understanding of photography & the photograph itself and their standing within a diverse range of situations.

Initially I struggled to understand even the title ‘…. as document’. This is a concept which only sunk in as I worked my way this part of the module. To understand, what the photograph is ‘as a document’, you have to realise just how wide and diverse its use is and the context in which it is being used and read. The photograph is a means of presenting information, but the way it is presented & more importantly, interpreted, varies widely. Just like a written document, it is subject to interpretation not only by the reader, but also by the presenter. This naturally leads to the question; How do we know that this is the truth? By asking this obvious first question we open a huge can of worms and a plethora of further searching questions. Ultimately, many of these questions can be, if not answered, then made easier to understand and images interpreted by accepting that a particular image is ‘a truth’. It is one persons version of a certain situation or circumstance. Of one given situation there may be hundreds of ways of reading and subsequently presenting or recounting what has taken place. It is vitally important that we accept that all images without exception are fundamentally subjective and therefore flawed as a document. The photograph, almost without exception can never be wholly objective. It may be said that random photographs taken by a roving robot on Mars are objective, which also has room for argument, but the moment there is human intervention then the presentation of the images becomes subjective.

The manipulated image: Digital technology & the truth.

Liz Wells’ Photography: A Critical Introduction (4th Edition). Abingdon: Routledge. Section entitled ‘The Real and the Digital’, provokes much thought and asks questions of the status and trustworthiness of photographs as evidence or providers of fact within the world of media.

Does digital technology change how we see photography as a truth? I have said in a previous entry that a photograph has to been seen as a truth. It is one persons perception or interpretation of an event or circumstance. I think it can be extrapolated further. It is a truth,untruth or non truth. This statement now incorporates images which have been altered to deceive & images that have been altered or composed for any reason but are clear in their intention, which is not to deceive but may portray a non truth; that is, something which has never happened or which it is made clear, either in text or photographic composition, that it is a non truth, an artistic composition/alteration. This is a statement which allows us to accept or reminds us of what we are being presented with in the media.

As to whether digital photography specifically has changed how we see the medium as a truth; In short, it shouldn’t. We know that the Victorians were manipulating images freely. We know that technology has allowed us to manipulate images to a point where most of us would be unable to spot a vagary. Sadly, photography almost from its inception has been an untrustworthy medium which is all to ready to prey upon the gullible & those that have not got their wits about them. One hundred and fifty years of slow development should really have prepared us for the onslaught of digital media and all it has to offer.

It is maybe due to its slow metamorphosis, but I think that we should have long since accepted that photography is a multi-facetted beast, and as such, not merely created genres & subgenres, but should have instead created labels that separate pure or real photography from artistic photography. To clarify; Images that are made up of a selection of other images should be labelled ‘A composite’ and not called ‘A photograph’. Similarly, images that have been ‘manipulated’ should be called specifically ‘Photomutations’. Within these labels, it is then safe to have genre & subgenre. Unfortunately, as pace has been slow, we have not, at the time, seen the changes taking place and neither have we had the foresight to be able to see the necessity to specifically and clearly delineate the differences between pure photographs and images that have been created or manipulated.

The question ‘Does digital technology change how we see photography as a truth?’ is more pertinent when directed at the layman, because, in truth the seasoned professionals & everybody who’s life is immersed in photography will be well aware of the complexities and vagaries of photography both digital and pre digital. I think that with the advent of digital photography it became publically evident very quickly that there was so much manipulation that could be done very quickly that all and sundry were soon viewing media  produced photographs with suspicion. I also think that one publication in particular was leading the way in ‘educating’ the public in this field, and that was ‘The Sunday Sport’.

    

The manipulated image: A composite image.

Runaway truck horror!

This incredible photograph was taken by passer by Miles Butteriss just moments before one ‘lucky’ rambler, having been hit by a runaway juggernaut  dropped eighty feet into the sea AND SURVIVED!

Mr Butteriss explains; I’d gone out for a walk on the headland with my camera looking to get some photographs of the tide coming in. Suddenly, I heard the sound of people shouting, then somebody screaming. The wind was blowing into my face & must have carried the sounds across the bay. I looked up in time to see this huge articulated lorry rolling slowly at first but rapidly gathering pace towards the cliffs. To my horror I saw that there was a man standing directly in its path. It all seemed to happen in slow motion, but it was probably all over in a matter of seconds. I instinctively put the camera to my eye and fired off as many shots as I could. The man turned around raising his arms instinctively just as the truck hit him. I thought he was dead for sure. Anyway, the truck continued on and started to go over the cliff, then there was this incredible grinding noise and miraculously the truck ground to a halt leaving the guy hanging in mid air. He hung in the air for what seemed like an eternity, before dropping into the sea below.

The man was dragged to safety by the lifeguard on duty that day. He was taken to hospital, but released the same day, incredibly sustaining only minor cuts and bruises.

                                                                                                                       

The photograph above is a composite image I have made using four of my own images shown below.

I used the image above as my background, and although the horizon  is not horizontal, I did not correct it as the final image was able to disguise it.

    

I used the rock face from the photograph above left, & the climber from the photograph above right. These are from a series of twenty photographs, and I felt that the body position from the image on the right would be perfect once I had rotated it a little. There was a bit of work to be done on the figure, which included erasing the climbing hardware & removing the background between his arms and legs. I also had to clone a lot of the rock face to hide the ropes which ran from top to bottom.

With the truck, it was a simple case of cutting around it, reversing it (which if you look closely at the finished image you will see that the signwriting is back to front!). Once I had placed the truck in position i then created a little bit of artificial shadow on the side of the trailer to add a bit of cohesion to the image. Just by adding this I was surprised at what a difference it made.

When I had finished the composition, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to add some words to it and turn it into a newspaper story. At that point I decided to turn it into a black & white image to enhance the feeling of a piece of news, so I opened it in Silver Effects Pro II and tried out a number of style followed by a little bit of tweaking to get what I thought was the right feel.

Contemporary street photography.

what difference does colour make to a genre that traditionally was predominantly black & white?

The medium of photography is a work in progress. It is a creature that is constantly mutating & evolving. It spent the first sixty or so years (almost half its life) in a (loosely) black & white format. It wasn’t until after the second world war, having come out of those austere times that cameras became more affordable & available to the masses. Colour has now had its exploratory phase, & i think that things have settled down & each knows its place, or strengths & weaknesses. New areas & boundaries will still be explored, re explored & pushed. As the drivers of this medium this is only to be expected. With that in mind, I think it is safe to say as a generalisation,  that all genres that existed pre 1950 will have had their roots in black & white imagery.

My point is, that street photography was born out of reportage, which has its beginnings & soul in the newspaper industry. This, by and large is a black & white format. I think that the broadsheets saw/see the reporting of news as something which has to be honest but not necessarily impartial (there are very few newspapers who’s editor has an impartial view on anything worth putting on the pages of their paper). I believe that ‘serious’ papers of old would view the addition of colour as perhaps glorifying a subject, and as a result, detracting in some way from its integrity.

I think this may still hold with the broadsheets, but for the tabloids, their angle & take on ‘news’ is completely different. There is a culture within the tabloid press to sensationalise things, and this is where the colour image comes into its own. ‘The Sun’ is a very good example of the use of colour. At the risk of appearing to be sexist (and I’m not, I’ve never bought the paper), the ‘Page 3’ format is very well suited to colour photography. Although the likes of Edward Weston proved that the female form, or for that matter the male form, can be exquisitely portrayed in black & white, the demo graph at which ‘Page 3’ is aimed, is better presented in colour. Although this is neither reportage or street photography, it is a very good example of how colour has found its place in the photographic world. Some may say that this pornography, or at least one step away from pornography. Whatever your view, pornography is a genre in itself, both photographic & moving image, both of which, in the mainstream you will be hard pushed to find in black & white.

So within the newspaper industry we can see that colour photography has found its place. In short, what colour brings to the photographic world is certainly more versatility, but also it has a stronger power to grab attention, more so from afar. For instance, if you were to see a single colour image in an exhibition full of black & white images, you would be drawn to it, if only out of curiosity. The same cannot be said if it were a black & white image in an exhibition full of colour images.

Apply this to street photography & you very quickly realise that the two make very good bed fellows. Often, ‘street scenes’ are carnival like. Also the high street is a place where shops are vying for your attention, trying to get you to come inside & spend your money. What better way than with the use of bright eye catching colours. Probably Britain’s best known street photographer who is synonymous with colour is Martin Parr.

MP’s work is very well documented, so I won’t go into too much detail. Only to say that from his early black & white work it was clear that he had an eye for a picture & that he has a great sense of humour which he is able to pass on through his work.

Mankinholes Methodist Chapel, Todmorden, 1975. Photograph: Martin Parr/Magnum

When you look at his colour work, it is clear that he hasn’t lost his eye for a photo, but he has gone further. He is not just entertaining us, he is also asking questions of us & challenging us to think about what is and isn’t acceptable about what we see & do.

The Last Resort-1985- Photograph: Martin Parr/Magnum

He is also better equipped to pock fun at our Britishness!

MARTIN PARR G.B. England. Eastbourne, 1995-1999. Colour photography. © Copyright Martin Parr/Magnum Photos

Can you spot the shift away from the influence of surrealism?

It is unfair on many other photographers of the time to say that Henry Cartier Bresson invented street photography, but it is fair to say that he was a leading exponent of his time and indeed one of the first to have developed it as a style/genre. HCB was quite high profile and active within the surrealist movement which was developing at the same time that he was making a name for himself. he embraced the movement & developed it with his thoughts & images. Below are three good examples of his surrealist work. Despite him being famous for ‘The decisive moment’, a lot of his work was indeed believed to have been staged. He used reflections a lot to create quirkiness, also he liked to play with perspective or sometimes plain size imbalance, to create his surrealism and also the outright unusual.

         

I think it is fair to say that to ‘cut it’ as a photographer and rise above the hoi polloi you have to have vision & see the less ordinary which is often described as surreal. So with that in mind I don’t think it is possible to say surrealism has ever stopped influencing what is fed to us through mainly advertising, whether it be through static adverts or through the television. Advertising is all about getting a specific product to stick in the mind long enough for us to remember it the next time we go shopping. Therefore an advert that is beyond the ordinary is much more memorable, and the use of surrealism is always going to be that. It gives the advertiser so much scope for originality, and that is the holy grail in the world of selling. The use of perspective is always an easy tool to employ. Below is a typical approach by Martin Parr. In this image, he is observing others making use of the technique to create their own surreal image.

Although it is said that surrealism (in photography) was in its heyday between the two world wars, it never wholly went away. Since the late seventies in USA and early 2000’s in GB, I think that surrealism is much more ‘on show’ given that in these two respective times, photography has finally been accepted as an art form. Really, there is no place for surrealism in true journalism, but it is a major part of all forms of art, and now that we are seeing more galleries exhibiting ‘photographic art’ it is fair to say that the profile of photographic surrealism is being broadcast to a much wider audience (dare I say, the general public?).

How is irony used to comment on British-ness or American values?

It is often said that irony is wasted on the Americans. I think that this is an inescapable generalisation, but cannot be used carte blanche. Not having visited or understood in any depth other European countries, I cannot say for certain but it does feel as though irony is a very British thing. Irony goes hand in glove with (British) humour, and is often augmented with eccentricity which again is a very English trait. So to convey irony through the medium of photography is, I feel a lot easier to do in Great Britain. It is best shown using juxtaposition within an image. A good example of this would be the image below.

(This is one of a selection of images taken from the exhibition; Only in England: Photographs by Tony Ray-Jones and Martin Parr)

The irony is that this quintessentially English couple are completely oblivious to their absurd surroundings. Actually the surroundings themselves aren’t absurd, neither is the subject matter, but the two together are completely incongruous.

Before I comment on them, I need to be sure on what my ideas are of American values are.

I see American values as stereotypically being that of patriotism, razzamatazz,  a ‘Money can buy anything’ culture, as a ‘somebody has to pay’ culture, as a ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ (throw away) culture. I must at this point reiterate that this is my ‘stereotypical’ view, in the same context as the photograph above. When I look at U.S. street photography, I start to realise that in essence there is little difference in subject material. The difference is that the absurd is so commonplace in the States that it has become the norm, whereas the British ‘Stiff upper lip’ will always keep the absurd in it’s place. 

Somebody well trained in showing this representation U.S. values would be the likes of Joel Meyerowitz or Bruce Gilden.

This Joel Meyerowitz image shows a well heeled elderly lady (I assume to be relatively wealthy) juxtaposed with the gentleman on the right of the image who (rightly or wrongly) I assume to be considerably less wealthy yet has clearly eaten to excess for some time. This, in plain speak shows irony in the USA. This image of course could have been shot on the streets of London, Paris or any other city in Western Europe, but it is unmistakably American.

Bruce Gilden’s work covers so many topics & genre that it is difficult to see his idea of American values in just one image or body of work. However it does become a little clearer if you look at a large random cross-section of his work. What becomes clear to me is that many of his images juxtapose wealth against poverty, the offensive & the inoffensive, humour & sadness and everything in between. In summary, America is a wide & diverse country & has a wide and diverse understanding of value. It’s strength is that everybody is able to co-exist within this loose & liberal framework.

    

    

The above images are all taken by Bruce Gilden, and show good examples of the diversity of life in the U.S.A. within single shots depicting irony through juxtaposition.

Photojournalism; Abigail Solomon-Godeau

Having read Susan Sontag on Photography & Martha Rosler’s In, around, and afterthoughts (on documentary photography), I feel that, word for word, there is so much more mileage in ASG’s short but provocative ‘Inside/out’ essay. Unfortunately I have only been able to read the summary of it in ‘Basic critical theory for photographers’ (Ashley la Grange 2005, Focal Press, Elsevier), but where I feel it differs from Sontag & Rosler is in its approach. Rather than pointing out the negatives of Sontag & Rosler I would like to concentrate on the positives of ASG. She has her own views (of course), however, the whole essay is laid out more as a series of questions for the reader to digest and make up they’re own mind about.

The premise of ‘Inside/out’ is exemplified by the works of Diane Arbus (Outside) & Larry Clark (Inside) amongst others.

Diane Arbus

    

    

Above are four of her better known photographs. Arbus is counted as the archetypal ‘Outsider’. I say archetypal because, although there were many ‘hard hitting’ images of human pain and suffering before Arbus, non were taken in the same way or with the same detached view that Arbus’ images carry.Although some of her images are clearly posed, she doesn’t, and doesn’t want to, know them or even want to get to know them beyond the making of an image. Sontag, in her book ‘Susan Sontag on photography’ quotes Arbus as saying that ‘The camera is a kind of passport that annihilates moral boundaries and social inhibitions, freeing the photographer from any responsibility toward the people photographed’. It is again Sontag who says of Arbus that her detached approach objectifies people, and in doing so prevents us from having any empathy with the subject. Having read some of Sontag’s work, I feel that she all too often throws the baby out with the bathwater. Upon viewing Arbus’ work for the first time, this may be so. There is a complexity or depth to her work which is often overlooked & absent in the work of other ‘outsiders’. Looking at the images above, the empathy is clouded by visual and mental distractions. The strength of these images are such that returning to them some time later, you don’t forego the distractions, you start the viewing process again. Each image is a visual feast of fascination, followed by a churning of mental cogs. not until these two thirst are slaked, can you start to empathise with the subjects.

The argument, headed by Sontag and Rosler, is that Outside photography can never capture ‘the real person’. Sontag also says that the ‘Inside’ position (not photographer) is the ‘good’ one and the ‘outside’, the bad one. They go further with a more aggressive, physical statement; ‘….. the documentary photographer, tourist etc. commits an act of violence against , and takes something from the subject, while only seeing a partial and probably distorted view of the subject.’ Sontag & Rosler both come to the same conclusion, but from different angles, Sontag’s is as a humanist and Rosler’s from a political stance.

Abigail Solomon-Godeau simplifies this complex  issue with the statement ‘We see truth as being on the inside, yet define objectivity as being on the outside’.

Larry Clark

    

Nan Goldin

    

Larry Clark’s approach, along with the likes of Nan Goldin, is the polar opposite of Diane Arbus. It could best be described as ‘Total immersion’. Clark became a integral member of this group of adolescents growing up in ‘the Tulsa drug scene’, and Goldin part of a ‘family’ heavily into the New York Transvestite & transsexual scene. In her book ‘Ballad of sexual dependency’ Goldin augments & cements the ‘Insider’ role by stating that ‘….. the people in her photographs regard her camera as part of her………. the camera does not distance her from her subjects but creates clarity and ‘emotional connection’’.

I don’t think it can be denied that there is more of a ‘feel’ of connection/interaction with the later images, with this in mind, it is a widely held view that ‘photography is unable to do anything but show superficial appearances.’ (Ashley la Grange, Basic critical theory for photographers, page 126). I think this can be seen to level the playing field with the thought that, the ‘Insider’ isn’t actually getting ‘real life, real people’, what they are getting is the persona that is being acted out or projected, the person that the individual is fantasising about being or wants the ‘outside world’ to believe them to be. This is reinforced by the whole subject of transvestism.

So with Arbus asking for less, is she getting more (of the ‘real’ subject matter)? The more candid or detached the photographer is from the subject, the less chance there is of getting a quasi subject, albeit only getting the shell of a person. To get something deeper, you need to have an inside approach, but once gained, is subject to performances alter egos.

I think that if we are looking for the truth in a photograph then it is a long and futile search. The answer is to look and see a truth!

I also think that the subject ‘Inside or Outside is over simplified. There is a middle ground, and this middle ground may be where there is either another truth or a truer truth even!

Public Order. By Sarah Pickering.

http://www.sarahpickering.co.uk/Works/Pulic-Order

    

Farrance Street, 2004                                                          Denton Underground Station, 2003

    

High Street (Barricade), 2002                                           River Way (Roadblock), 2004

Her ‘Bio’ starts “Sarah Pickering researches truth versus verisimilitude through the medium of photography”. I don’t get it! What is there to research? Creating a body of work based on replicas or simulations (for whatever purpose) is one thing, but calling it research confuses me. A cursory glance through ‘Public Order’ shows me straight away that this is a study of a selection of mock ups (usually for training purposes of the emergency services). Of course there is nothing wrong with this in itself, but I fail to see where the research comes into it.

How do these images make me feel?

Having gone through the images a number of times, I found that they reminded me of the troubles in Northern Ireland in the 70’s. It was a place of conflict that lacked warmth, love & care, it was a place of anger, hatred & violence. I think that because these pictures lack any human presence or any form of movement, any impression they are going to have is going to be subtle or surreptitious. I don’t get a feeling from them, but they do trigger memories, of places, tastes, smells and people. I don’t think that this was probably the aim of these images, but this is my experience of them.

From a technical point of view, it is always nice to see ‘Town shots’ as there are lots of vertical & horizontal lines, not to mention vanishing points. These things are particularly prominent in Sarah’s work and very pleasing given that they are not obscured by people or clutter.

Is Public Order an effective use of documentary or is it misleading?

I believe that Sarah Pickering has compiled an a volume of work which works very well documenting these mock towns which are training grounds for the various different emergency services. In one way she is using the same technique as Paul Seawright in so far as on the face of it, each individual image is quite mundane, which starts you on a journey to look for why the pictures were taken at all. The ‘secret’ is given up quite quickly though, and I think that this is because these images are much more clearly categorised as documentary in there style & use. When I had worked out what exactly was being photographed, it felt as though there was a lack of permanence about the buildings & so it was important that their existence be recorded.

Sectarian Murders. By Paul Seawright

Paul Seawright lives in Belfast. He grew up & has lived through the violence of the 70’s & 80’s in his home city. In 1988 he produced a body of work entitled ‘Sectarian Murder’. It consists of twelve images (in square format), underneath which is printed the day & date, including the year. Below the date there is a short excerpt from a newspaper reporting on the murder of an innocent victim of sectarianism. Where necessary, Mr Seawright has removed any details pertaining to the victims religious persuasion. Each of the pictures is the site at which each respective victim was murdered.

Is this body of work documentary or art? Can it be regarded as having a foot in each camp? We have to be aware of the fact that, in Great Britain, we have only come to accept that the photograph can exist as an art form in the last 10-15 years. Prior to that, all photography was viewed as a form of documentation. ‘The camera never lies’ was the shackle that photography could not, for so long, escape. Now free, the leading question addressing many bodies of work is, ‘Is it document or art’?  This series of images challenges the viewer more than most to think about that question. I think that the reason that it is so difficult to answer is because they are not stand alone images, they have factual text supporting each one.

I have adopted a premise which helps to make it clearer in my head which category a photograph falls into; And that is, to try to imagine or understand what the photographer was thinking of when he took the photograph in question.

With this in mind, i believe that this body of work should be viewed as artistic photography. The location of each image has been pre determined by history, and as such the photographer is limited to some degree by how much artistic input there can be. He therefore has to work to ‘create’ the feel or ambience that he wants to convey. There is however a strong artistic element that existed before the image was created, in the initial concept of the project. This for me is key to deciding that this is an artistic body of work. In presenting these images the way he has, Mr Seawright has provided the key which allows us to free our imagination, albeit in a rather unpleasant way. Presented with the written fact, the image itself becomes the background, the canvas on which our imagination paints the gruesome scene. We cannot help but hear the pleas for clemency , the gun going off, the slump of the lifeless body, the feeling of terror is palpable.

In excess of eighty percent of the people killed in this way were innocent people caught up in a ‘tit for tat’ cycle of violence. They were killed because of their religious background, not necessarily even their belief. Through this body of work we are provoked into remembering  these people and the cost of peace.

Documentary is about presenting facts which i believe this does primarily, but of this work, Paul Seawright says; “If it is too explicit it becomes too journalistic……. to ambiguous and it becomes meaningless”. This shows clearly that he is not just presenting facts, but is laying out a measured presentation, which requires an artistic process, deciding what to reveal & what to leave to the viewers imagination. By adopting this ethos, Paul Seawright is giving us, the viewer, much more than just a photograph. Each photo gives us a plethora of stimuli. I liken Paul’s technique to that of teaching a child; It is so much more rewarding to encourage and steer the child to the right answers than it is to just tell them what they need to know or write. There is a balance that has to be struck though, and that can be likened to young (or not so young) love. If there is no ‘Thrill of the chase’, no ‘Hard to get’, then there is no challenge & the reward is diminished. If the chase goes on too long, the thrill begins to wane and ‘The reward’ doesn’t seem to be worth the energy expended. His multimedia approach works like fitting parts of a jigsaw together, allowing us, in conjunction with our imagination to slowly build up a picture.

Paul tells us that he is a ‘Photographic artist’, and this is fair to say, but the style of this body of work has its roots in documentary journalism and I believe he has taken his photography right to the very point at which documentary and art merge.

If we define a piece of documentary photography as art, does this change its meaning?

Primarily we have to accept that this is first and foremost a documentary image. It is not the same as taking a photograph with a DSLR and thinking ‘I’m not sure whether this will work better in black & white or colour, I’ll check it out in Photoshop later. When the image was taken, it was taken as a visual component for a documentary piece of work.

If we focus on images of war, there are few, if any, that are taken with a view to them being mounted & hung in a gallery. The reason any photographer is in a war zone is to record, or document, what is happening. Some images have, over time, become iconic and synonymous with the photographer e.g. Robert Capa’s Falling Soldier (Though now thought to have been staged) and Don McCullin’s Shell shocked US marine or Albino Biafran boy. These images, though taken as document have over the years appeared time and again in galleries & newspapers the world over. Can we say that they have transcended document and are now art? Does where an image is shown or marketed dictate it’s genre? For me, a photo is what it is at its conception. A war photograph will always be a document, whether it appears in a newspaper or in a gallery. Don McCullin is a photographer, putting him in combat fatigues does not make him a soldier. Nor does giving a man a camera make him a photographer!

The meaning is not changed, it is however enhanced.

Glenn Ruga, as curator of The New York Photo Festival NYPH’12 had this to say about the relationship between fine art and documentary; “There has always been an uncomfortable relationship between documentary photography and fine art photography. Even “fine art” photographers who work primarily in the documentary genre often will not admit to the term. The elephant in the room in the fine art world is that tendentious work—work that has a motive beyond pure “artistic” pleasure —is tainted and beneath work that is purely fine art.”

The Curator’s statement The Razor’s Edge: Between Documentary and Fine Art Photography is well worth reading in its entirety.

Reportage. Colour & the street.

This exercise requires you to pick a street that is of interest to you & take thirty images in colour & thirty in black & white in the style of Street Photography. After which, the images should be viewed & an assessment made as to what, if any, difference there is in style, technique or subject matter.

Apart from the street itself, I found that the project raised a number of questions before I had even started.

I found myself struggling to carry out this exercise in the way it is meant to have been. Having chosen the street that I wanted to photograph, I found that just shooting in colour or black & white was extremely difficult because if I was for instance trying to shoot in b&w I would then see a shot which cried out to be taken in colour. This also worked in reverse too, shooting in colour & seeing a shot that needed to be shot in b&w. So, rather than miss some good opportunities I felt it was OK to be flexible so long as a conscious decision was made before each shot was taken as to whether the shot was going to be colour or b&w.

The street that I chose was a ‘bit of an easy option’ because it runs along the sea front & then into a more conventional shopping type street. This allowed  me access to two very different situations. The main restriction that I imposed on myself was that I would not incorporate any beach shots as I felt that would be making things a little too broad spectrum.

The preconceptions I had of the subject matters I would encounter & shoot were challenged straight away. Whilst making the  forty minute journey to Minehead I was thinking about the sort of images that the likes of Martin Parr takes. I was thinking of the absurdity, the vulgarity and & vanity that humankind has to offer. Being preoccupied by the drive, I thought no deeper than this. Once I was on the street & looking for subject matter (of which there was no shortage), I very quickly started to think a lot more deeply about what it was that I was going to shoot, and why!

I still find it very difficult to photograph people in public places going about their business. To try to combat this I spent about thirty minutes just walking up & down getting a feel for the place but with the camera in my hand. It was whilst doing this, that I was looking at potential shots. This got me thinking & filtering what I thought was acceptable & what was not . For me the physically & mentally disabled are off-limits, but I needed to understand why this is so. The answer is simple & doesn’t take long to explain. Look at somebody who falls into either of these categories, if the disability were removed, would you still take a photograph of that person? In these circumstances, no,of course not. Which leads me to conclude that you would only be taking the photograph of the disability itself. This led me to think that obesity should be viewed in the same light, if I were to take a photograph of somebody for no other reason than their obesity, this, to me, is wrong. The same could be said for the homeless or in fact anybody that appeared to be physically different. I was slowly formulating a loose code of conduct. It was something that I had given little or no thought to prior to this morning.

This ‘code’ was challenged when I came across a homeless person in an open shelter, sat smoking a cigarette with his guitar next to him. After a short while I struck up a conversation with him which lasted for some time. For the first ten minutes or so I could not help but think about asking him if I could take some photo’s of him. However, as the conversation moved on I wanted less & less to take a picture of him (even if he had consented) as all I would be doing was taking advantage of his personal circumstances. By the end of our conversation (which was very interesting) I asked if I could take some pictures of his guitar, which he was more than happy for me to do. I feel sure that his reaction would have been the same if I had asked to take pictures of him too, but I left feeling happy with what I had got & not in the least bit disappointed that I hadn’t got a ‘gritty life shot’. (See last photograph).

Once I finally got shooting, I then encountered a series of interesting questions & realisations. Street photography requires that you look high & low. Also that you have to be on the ball and concentrating all of the time. I lost count of the amount of shots I could  have had, if only I had been 100% switched on. You also have to do a lot of preempting. Looking ahead to see who is coming your way. Then thinking about where to position yourself to get the shot you want. Streets are often lined with buildings (more specifically shops) which have windows. Reflection shots often offer a good juxtaposition or kaleidoscopic effect. Something else I realised was that it isn’t just about people or the street, but often the best shots consist of people & their interaction with the street environment. Another great trick is that of the old master, Henry Cartier Bresson. Find a location that is interesting and has an interesting background, set yourself up, and wait…………. and wait! I still have two locations which I have not as yet utilised, and not through a lack of trying.

When I got back home I went onto the internet to look at Martin Parr’s work. Yes, there were the vulgar, vain & absurd, but nowhere near the amount that I was expecting. What I found in MP’s work was a lot more humour (more to do with the composition than the subject) & also it was very clear that he has a great eye for the minutiae and ‘The moment’.

So, having done the leg work, it was time to look at the results of four visits. The first thing that I can say, having looked at my images is, that it is much easier to get ‘street’ photo’s if you shoot in colour. That said, my location was a seaside town. Seaside towns are traditionally colourful places as you will see illustrated in some of my shots.

After I had selected thirty black & white and thirty colour images, I then had to decide how to present them. I think my approach is slightly unconventional, but having printed them all out I set about organising them in what I thought was a logical way on the floor. It was interesting to see what was revealed. I was able to make up nineteen pairs (one B&W, one colour) that had a logical comparative link between them. I thought this was quite a high percentage, given that I wasn’t trying to shoot in pairs. The rest of the images were grouped into a further three categories. These I have called Humour, Together and  About town. My final sixty shots were not my strongest sixty, but I had a shortfall of what I would consider the correct use of black & white images. So I have kept some of the weaker ones in. When I say weaker, I mean that I don’t think that they were suited to a particular format. However, I made the call at the time to shot in a certain format, so it is good for me to look at the results and assess where I have made a wrong call. I will point these out as I go along.

Pairs 

Below are nineteen pairs. The first twelve pairs contain a human presence, whereas the remaining seven pairs rely on something else to pair them off.

    

1

I saw this old motorbike parked up, and envisaged a nice picture. I liked the fact that most of the image was going to look like black and white with the exception of the tank (almost like a Photoshop job). This chap was sitting close by in his old biking clothes and helmet close by. I got talking to him & after a short time asked if he would mind me taking a photo of him. Needless to say he was most obliging. I had envisaged this as a black & white image solely because of his ‘weathered’ face (I have a photo just of his face in b&w and it is wonderful). The rider and bike suggest a bygone age, which made me decide on b&w for the rider, but the bike was just too nice to remove the colour from.

    

2

I hadn’t really expected the black & white image to make the cut, but had shot it in b&w because I had seen the lady coming towards me at the last-minute & had noticed how her dress was moving. I knew that there was very little in the way of colour (neither in the subject or background) so b&w was really my only logical option. I am very pleased with the end result, the subtle flow of her dress & right hand give this image a really nice sense of rhythm which may have been lost if it were shot in colour.

Not much I can say about the colour shot, a street photographers dream! Obviously this was ‘from the hip’, I had no time to think about the format. No contest, it had to be in colour.

    

3

Again, the b&w shot lacked any real colour to start with, so it seemed like a no brainer to shot in b&w. In doing so, I feel that it has included the viewer in this personal exchange. The lack of colour has stripped away the distractions & focused on the human interaction. The second image I chose to shoot in colour, but to be honest I don’t think that there was much to be gained either way.

    

4

The colour image lacks any striking colour, but what is there is sufficient enough to give the image depth, which I feel it would lose in B&W. It is another one of those images that I all honesty I shot in colour but without a sure idea of how it would look, the only thing that I knew for sure at the time was that it would make a good shot. Ultimately, I think it is the strength of composition which carries this shot. As for the girl with the pushchair, I only had a fraction of a second to think about it, but what struck me was the look on her face. She looked as though she had had enough of a long weary day. It was for that reason alone that I shot it in b&w. I felt at the time that it would convey the mood better.

    

5

Two shots of private intimate moments, both taken from behind. The left hand image benefits from the b&w treatment because the strength of the image comes from the two hands clasped together with the arms forming a ‘V’ by two diagonal lines. Any colour in the photograph would distract the eye & detract from the strength of the symbolism. I don’t understand why, but the fact that I cropped half a person to get closer doesn’t ruin the image (in my mind). Perhaps it helps to focus on the point of contact as opposed to the fact that there are two people in the image. The right hand image shows a young couple sitting on cold concrete leaning against each other for comfort. I think the flat drab colours in this image augment that feeling very well. I was quite sure of this when I took the photo, but not completely certain. I think the image has borne out my thoughts.

    

6

It is interesting to compare these two shots. The colour image definitely works, but does a similar image work in b&w? I think I may have made the wrong call here. I think the subject is strong, but colour would give it cohesion & focus.

    

7

This pair of photo’s are very interesting. Both come under the banner of street photography, but as a pair they highlight how subjective photography is. At first glance you see a ‘gritty’ b&w image of somebody who is possibly homeless, strengthened by the strong iconography of two birds waiting to finish (her) off. The colour image shows a much different setting. Yet on closer inspection, it is the same lady, sharing a fish & chip supper with her son, possibly before getting back on the coach to go home. On this occasion, the colour helps to paint a less bleak picture.

    

8

I saw this as a b&w shot straight away. For me there was no questioning whether it was right or wrong. The ladies dress was the first thing that caught my eye, very 30’s/40’s style. This was complimented by the artist style of clothing. I shot it in b&w & made some adjustments in Photoshop to give it an austere but ‘post war’ feel. I didn’t have a strong feeling one way or another about the colour photo. In the end I shot it in colour because of the predominant blue in the subject matter with a large area of red in the background. As it worked out, the background colour barely features. I am particularly fond of this image as I felt that there may be something in it, I just had to wait (like Cartier Bresson) for the decisive moment.

    

9

The lack of colour in the left hand image helped me to spot this shot easily & subsequently make it easy to push the contrast in Photoshop. In the colour shot the sign alone made this an easy decisions to make. The composition in both shots is very similar, yet there are very small components within each image which, to me, dictate how best to take the shot.

    

10

In the b&w shot my decision was much easier to come to. The man in the shot looked lonely or alone & so it cried out to be shot in b&w, to accentuate the mood that I felt was coming from him. With the colour shot, I remember it being much more colourful than it actually was. I was surprised when I got home to see that she was dressed in black & white. I haven’t tried this shot in b&w, but I think that this is still the best format for it even with a lack of striking colour in the image.

    

11

Both of these shots were taken with consent after I had struck up conversations with them both. Again, two good images to compare, as the circumstances were very similar. The gentleman in the b&w shot is the artist from a couple of shots ago. We were talking for a long time before I took this shot. He is an artist who came to England from Egypt thirty years ago. We spent a long time talking about photography & in particular the difficulties in capturing a street portrait when the person looks relaxed. He looked away reminiscing for a brief moment, and just as he turned back my camera was raised & I think I got the split second where his smile was natural. Sure enough though, a fraction of a second later his expression was a much more fixed or posed smile, the one that we all pull out of the bag to face a camera. We started to joke about it even before I had lowered the camera. At the time, I chose b&w because I thought I would bring out the grey stubble & crows feet nicely. As it turns out, neither of those are the star quality in this image. What I did get though was the kindness in his eyes, despite the fact that you can see very little of them. Would this shot have worked in colour? Yes, I think so. He had beautiful, rich skin tones, white teeth & those eyes! To say that he was very conscious of his expression, he was very easy to photograph.

The chap in the colour image was a jolly character. Far from being down & morose about his position in life, he was very upbeat & more than happy for me to photograph him. I have a few shots of him posing for me, but this, more candid shot, was the best. It would have been criminal not to have shot this in colour, the yellow of The Big Issue and the red of his tabbard jockeying for attention make it a great street shot.

    

12

The b&w shot focuses on the incongruity of the trainers & walking stick, and as such, for me , shooting in colour would detract from that. Whereas the colour shot is very much like a photograph that Martin Parr would take. The sole reason for the picture is the  bright green half mast socks. It is the colour of the socks that makes them incongruous.

    

13

A pair of reflections! Why does one work in b&w & the other in colour? For me, the b&w one accentuates the composition (or at least does not detract from or confuse the composition). The use of colour in the second image helps the viewer to see the humour is the picture, as both the pigs and the people stand out in an otherwise bland & lifeless shot. I have to confess that I had tried both colour and b&w for this shot to see which worked best.

    

14

The b&w shot was something that I took without really thinking too much about. When I looked at it at home, it reminded me so much of (for instance) the Falklands war, with a jet coming in to land on an aircraft carrier, with other aircraft flying around in the distance. So for that reason I chose it as a b&w photo (cheating?). The colour photo really is typical of the seaside, which goes hand in glove with colour. I think that if I converted it to b&w it would still work, but not in the way that I had envisaged. It is interesting that this shows that a single shot can work in both colour and b&w, yet the message it gives off is very different.

    

15

Two bits of street litter!

    

16

I think I made a mistake with the poster. I think it should have been a colour image. I have shot poster boards before with some success, but always in colour. Shot in b&w, it has no impact, and looking at this image, impact is what it needs. The colour image is self-explanatory…… Colour!

    

17

The first shot works well because of the contrast in the image & the clean lines (these ingredients are always a recipe for a good b&w image). The colour shot was another one of those that needed no thought. Blue seats & broken blue glass, this could only be shot in colour.

    

18

Both of these images have a wonderful pattern & flow about them. The tables and chairs are actually black, and so I thought that shooting them in colour could potentially muddy the waters so I kept it b&w. With the colour image, even though it is much more a two-dimensional shot, the colour of the bicycle frames is necessary to avoid it all becoming very confusing.

    

19

For my last pair, I have two more reflections. I’m not totally convinced that the b&w image works at all. Neither am I convinced that it would work in colour! Of the two formats though, I think I have chosen correctly. It’s just a weak image. I like the colour shot and think it was right to shot in colour as it shows in one shot the hustle and bustle of the street in the top half of the shot & the peace and tranquility of the quiet restaurant. The colour somehow adds to the noise of the street. However the restaurant is full of subdued colours.

Humour

           

     

     

     

All bar two of the ten images in this section are in colour. I think that seven out of the eight could have been shot in b&w  and the ‘joke’ would not have been lost, but the addition of colour augments what is already there with no compromise. Of the two b&w images, the ‘Adventure Play Area’ skip was my biggest mistake. This should, quite clearly, have been shot in colour. The yellow and brown colouring on the sign were identical to the colour of the skip and the rust marks on it.

Together

    

I really like these three images, non of which were taken with forethought. Each was judged on its own merit, and shot in colour. The colour somehow depicts the life & noise that goes on around us whilst we are somehow oblivious to it all, absorbed in our own little world.

About town

    

    

    

Interesting that these eight images are all b&w. Looking around, it is often clear that we have little regard for the ‘functional’ things in our towns and cities. Most of these images give off a certain feeling of sadness or abandonment about them. Again, this was not done as a ‘mini’ project within a project, but i think it shows how I see these things without actually sitting down and rationalising it. The table is an exception to that though. This was taken for the patterns that the rain water made on the table. By shooting it in b&w i was able to create a solarised effect which is very nice.

Objectivity

In a very short period of time my views on photo journalism have swung from the belief that all such images are objective, through a transition period whereby i thought that they could be either subjective or objective, to my current stance which is, that they can only possibly be subjective. At this moment in time i feel with total conviction that all images are taken with a degree of forethought & as such must therefore be considered to be subjective.

The moment a camera is lifted to the eye, a human being has made a conscious, or at best subconscious, decision to take a photograph for a particular reason. If reason exists, then so too does bias & prejudice, leading to amongst other questions; Why? Why did you take a picture of that? Why not this, or the other? All images, without exception have a thought process behind them, they are therefore subjective.

Eyewitnesses?

I would like to continue with the events discussed previously in ‘The photograph as document’. The event in question is the Vietnam war between the period of 1965-1968. The images in question are a series of twenty six which appear in a book celebrating the achievements of the photographer Don McCullin, the book is called ‘Don McCullin’ (published by Jonathan Cape). All images shown are taken by Don McCullin.

A brief overview of the twenty six images.

The first image is possibly McCullin’s most famous from Vietnam, and is that of a shell-shocked marine staring into the distance. This is then followed by five images from the Mekong Delta in the south and then twenty from a battle that was raging in the citadel of Hue.

Can any pictures taken of an event by a human being ever be classed as wholly objective? This question is the cornerstone & foundation on which the validity of documentary based photography must be based. To be able to give an informed answer to this question you must consider both sides of the argument first.

Are these images objective?

I believe these images can be considered objective for the following reasons;

     The thing that is very striking about a lot of these images is the terror that is etched on the faces of some of these people, in particular the children. Terror is not an emotion or face that can genuinely be produced for a camera. This alone pretty much substantiates the question of whether or not a lot (if not all) of the images are ‘actual time’ as opposed to staged. This said, there are some posed ‘Trophy photo’s’ too. The images from the Mekong Delta are very much ‘on the move’ images & so best represent ‘actual time’. The images, where he, along with the American troops are pinned down by snipers allow no time or room for the setting up of good shots. These are ‘the real thing’. Looking through the images as a complete works, a lot of them have technical faults that, under circumstances where there is time, you would automatically set the correct aperture or shutter speed. In these very much real life situations settings are often a luxury that cannot be afforded as is evident here. Something else that comes through in all of the ‘Citadel’ photo’s is that each soldier depends on his fellow soldiers, they are just to busy to be dealing with the vanities of posed shots. They are, as is the photographer, too consumed with surviving enemy sniper fire. There is another photograph of a father holding his daughter (possibly three years old) after a grenade attack on a bunker they were in. Both are covered in blood, he is unaware of the camera & she is looking at it. Yes, it is emotive (small child, lots of blood) but a knowledge of the photographer is sufficient to see why this photo was taken. So you are able to see that the ‘raison d’etre’ or ethics of the man behind the camera will come through if it is strong enough.

Another reason to believe in the objectivity of these images is the fact that McCullin is neither Vietnamese or American, and therefore has nothing to gain from putting either side in a better light. This is augmented by the fact that the photographer is who he is. I wasn’t aware of Don McCullin when these images were being taken, so I have the benefit of time. It is clear from history & to date that he is a very compassionate man & has a love for all life & sees the equal value of all life.

If a machine, totally free of human interference, persuasion or guidance were able to photograph an event or series of events from all angles unopposed, then we would be able to say that this event has been neutrally photographed and as such objectively recorded. It would then be subject to human interpretation, which, witnessed or not would then revert to subjective discourse and manipulation. This of course can and would never happen, which leads me to conclude that human nature will always play its part and, as we are all individuals we will all interpret a single image in many different ways. Each of us being convinced that the very same image that we are all looking at tells a different truth to us all. A photograph is no more than a truth of the instant in time that the image was captured. We cannot, by looking at a single image know what took place before or after it was taken, and therefore can only build beyond that image with supposition. 

I believe these images are subjective for the following reasons;

Before discussing any of the individual images it is worth pointing out that Mr McCullin was in these positions as a paid photographer, he will have had a brief. That said, his feel and style/technique for situations of conflict will by this time be an overriding factor, dictating to some extent what he will have recorded & at what point precisely he will have pressed the shutter and, to a greater or lesser degree, subject to circumstances, what angle he will have taken them from. All of these points contribute to the subjectivity of any image.

What are obviously present and makes each of the first three photo’s emotive are the expressions on the some of the subjects faces. The human face can convey thousands of subtle (and not so subtle) feelings, thoughts & emotions. If you are able to capture one on a photo, particularly a powerful one then you increase  the chances of getting a good & emotive image. If you are a ‘war’ photographer then I would imagine this would be a key thought always uppermost in your mind. This would however produce a very subjective image. The first of these images is used on the dustcover of the book, which in itself suggests a strongly emotive image, after all you want the book to sell and to provoke a reaction. The jacket focuses in on the face & lower part of the helmet of a shell shocked US soldier. The soldiers state of mind is such that few of us have ever been in this position so we are fascinated, we want to know what is going on in this mans head, and the eyes are the window to the soul. This soldier has a hunted look about him. This one image forces us to ask so many questions. The second picture is that of a mother & two children. If they were just sat on the ground watching the world go by there would be no reason at all to take the picture. What I think has caught Mr McCullin’s eye is the look of exhaustion & defeat on the mothers face whilst she seeks to comfort her distressed child. In the third picture we see a number of armed militia moving through the photograph, and a figure (not in combat fatigues) emerging from a hole. This image does not tell us whether this individual is friend or foe but he looks scared & apprehensive.

    

I have no doubt that it was in instinctive shot, but  it was taken because it was an unusual event & may lead to further, more dramatic images depending on who the individual is. Two images later & there is a shot of the figure being dragged from the bunker. All of the images shot on the Mekong Delta all refer to ‘suspects’. So when we see a two page spread of two men with a rifle standing, in an aggressive pose over a bound captive, there are a lot of signs to suggest that something ‘interesting’ is about to happen. The framing of this image is perfect, as is the timing of the position of the three subjects. It is only a possibility, but what is to suggest that this is not just one frame from a series of ten, twenty or or more images that were taken just to get the best one? The rest of the images are all shot at The Citadel at Hue where the photographer along with battalions of Southern Vietnamese troops, two battalions of US troops & three under strength battalions of US Marines fought toe to toe with the Northern Vietnamese army & Viet Cong for almost a month. It was the longest battle of the Vietnam war, with heavy casualties on both sides (not to mention the huge loss of civilian life). It was very much an urban battle, one in which the photographer will have been living alongside his protectors. Given that the Southern forces eventually ‘won’, it is clear from the pictures that they only represent one side of what took place. Due to circumstances this cannot have been avoided, but has to be borne in mind when viewing the images. As an over all ensemble you cannot help but feel that these troops are the saviours or ‘good guys’. Interestingly though, Mr McCullin has shown his neutrality by including images of wounded North Vietnamese people that have been tended by opposing troops. This goes to show that many of these images in isolation give a wrong impression to the viewer.  For instance, there is an image showing a family  having just survived a grenade attack on their bunker. Does this as a stand alone image suggest that the photographer sympathised with the Viet Cong? No, as we well know Mr McCullin is/was more interested in trying to convey the human suffering that is a product of war. His images ask us to think about the price we have to pay when we enter into wars. For this reason alone, we cannot say that any of the images in his book are Objective.

All photographs require human participation, even at the most basic level. When a camera is ‘set up’, somebody will have looked at the screen or through the lens to see what will fill the frame when the shutter is pressed. Straight away this will make the result subjective. This is a fact which is beyond argument. Even before anybody looks at what will fill the frame, the camera will have been set up in an approximate direction. This means that somebody has thought ‘this will make a good shot, or a better shot. This will record more of what we are looking for than over there’. This automatically makes it subjective, the moment we pick up a camera, we have a choice. Even if you were walking down a street and you saw something happen, you would make a conscious decision, ‘this is/isn’t sufficiently interesting to record. The angle may not be the best, but for now i will record what is happening then look for a better angle’!

Even Mr McCullin, who’s pictures i have used to discuss, has said that in his early days as a professional photographer, he was looking to replicate Hollywood images. These will have existed as preconceived images formulated from a feel that he had for a place or situation based on what his physical & emotional receptors were feeding him. All coming together and culminating in a subjective image of a situation he was being paid to record.

It is also important to remember that it is down to the individual to interpret what they see in an image. This being fact, a hundred people could view the same image, & all interpret it slightly differently. Would this be because of the vagueness of the image or because of human nature being the way it is.An image cannot be vague, it is there, before you. Perhaps ambiguous is a better word, and this can be applied to all photographs because as i have mentioned before; a photograph is only a snapshot of an instant in time. If we were not present at the time of the photograph being taken then we cannot possibly, just by looking at the photograph, say what has happened before or after it was shot.

As you can see from both sides of the argument the same image can agued equally that it is objective & subjective. If this were not the case then there would be no reason for discourse on the matter, and subsequently the field of photography would be a lot less interesting.

As a generalisation, I think it is fair to say that the vast majority will say that there is no such thing as purely objective photography, certainly not with in photojournalism anyway.