Photographers’ self-importance

- How difficult it must be to photograph if you are more important than the subject!

By: Thorsten Overgaard 

[Inspired by this article about Afghanistan war photographers and a question from a student on this subject]

Sometimes the photographers right to freedom of speech can ruin the story. It’s written in laws and laid down in concrete that the photographer must and shall – and has all rights in the world – to photograph, document and even expose with his camera

I think it’s a fact that cameras are always – and has always been – alarming to some people. There might be a reason why some once thought a camera would catch your soul. It could look like such a device and I personally don’t like being captured by a big camera with a panting photographer behind.

But I think much of it lies in the attitude. There’s a hell of a difference between being captured by a huge Sinar camera in a studio where you can feel the photographer is caring for the subject, and then a photojournalist in the street, wearing the armor of a photo west, waiting behind his camera for the right moment to pull the trigger. You easily feel like an insect being watched by a bigger animal.

It’s the attitude more than the size of the lens. Thought I’ll give that big cameras draw more attention than smaller. But you can wear big cameras in different ways, and that’s part of the attitude as well.

If one has been standing in a photo pit with a group of professional photographers, one will know that they too hate being photographed. It’s always a great snap at a celebrity event to show the eager and well-armed photographers working. A little footage of the photographers put the celebrity event into perspective. But the photographers hate it. They too don’t like to be photographed and one or two will often ask, “Why are you photographing me?”

Of course the medias tradition of treacherous news coverage plays in as well. They came friendly and seemed honest; till you saw what they wrote in the paper! That type of behavior of course puts everybody from the media in the same category as lawyers and tax people. The ones you can’t trust because they most often have a secret agenda to get you. Every one of us who has read in a paper how rotten the concert we were enjoying the evening before was, know this feeling of betrayal from the media.

And granted, a lot of evil assholes work in the media, probably because that’s where they can do the most damage with their limited talent.

So how does one create truthful imagery that show what was actually going on, without creating or staging it for the camera, and yet wonderful pictures that sell?

People react to cameras

In any case, in any event, you will have people, and they notice and react to cameras and – mainly – the attitude of the photographer. Some photographers have made it their style to be abusive and invasive, because it gives fast results: They become the center of interest and people pose events for them, and stage photos for or with them. And that approach might work well in news coverage where you need to get 6, 8 or 10 events covered throughout a day. So you attend the demonstration in front of the City Hall and loudly ask three people if they could look this way. Thanks. Then you go to a reception where you loudly ask where is the executive director and the chairman of the board, and you get that picture.

That’s one style. And I hate that, mainly because those who practice this style has a very hard time not being like that at other events where they shouldn’t. It’s disrespectful in any case. But you can’t tell in the pictures where people pose happily, so if you don’t care about people and just want a picture, that’s one route.

The fly on the wall

Documentary is a different style, because you are supposed to document events as they play out. Not be part of them or influence the way they play out. You’re supposed to be the fly on the wall, which require a different approach. It’s like when President Obama enters the room and the tone of that room, people’s behavior and everything changes. That’s not who you are going to be. You’re going to be the unnoticed, unimportant civil servant that enters the room unnoticed and from whom nobody wants or asks anything.

So that’s your attitude. And your equipment would reflect that. You wouldn’t use flash, you would use a soundless camera, and you would choose lenses that allow you to be in the center without being there (like 80-90mm lenses that allow you to work from a distance whereas a 21mm or 35mm require you move in close to get a storytelling shot). And then you watch and wait. You try to see what’s the story, how to capture this event and atmosphere in one instant of a picture. Because you see pictures before you take them; you don’t shoot a lot of pictures and then select the story afterwards.

Nevertheless, as you go by, you will get noticed because you’re “the media” and many people like to be acquainted with “the media” and celebrity and all that. Your attention alone will tell you’re not a happy snapper but someone who does photos that might end up somewhere in the media. So as you go along quiet and discrete, the audience’s confidence will grow and they will be more and more interested in you and want to be interesting to you (they want to be in the frame) and you will have noticed who’s photogenic and would be good to have in a frame (which are usually those who like to be in one and is characterized by having some kind of minor or major star quality; they look telling and alive in a picture, and they play their character even when they are engaged in a conversation or are writing a note).

When shooting a school class, a room with a seminar, a VIP reception or anything with groups of people who’s there for another reason than being photographed, I always start out with absolute silent cameras like the Leica Digilux 2. And I might hang around in the back or far to the side for a long while observing before I start shooting (hanging at walls is always a good starting position; and you can easily shoot from there and get the light and color tone correct from there so you are warmed up and all prepared). I move quietly and don’t communicate with anybody “in the frame” verbally or even by eye contact. I guess my whole attitude is, “I’m not here and if you see me, act as if you don’t.” And it does work that way, like a secret pact.

I don’t whisper, I don’t sneak around like an insect; I walk light and soundless with normal speed and wear stealth dress that doesn’t stand out. When I shoot, I move my camera relaxed, may keep it ready in front of my eye for a long while (you can’t hear when I’m shooting or not), take it down relaxed. I don’t have any sudden “tourist movements” (which is walking, suddenly stopping and snapping a photo and then walk on).

After a while I can walk around freely. Everybody has seen me, they know what I’m doing and they don’t mind. And if anyone does, you know by now that that person does not like to be photographed - for whatever personal reason – so you don’t and you let him see that you don’t.  But at some point the audience will have grown so confident that you can move up behind the speaker and take a picture from there. Or go close to some of the persons in the audience and take an “unnoticed picture” of which they are well aware is being taken.

Often I need to work also with big dSLR cameras, but that won’t enter the scene before after a while. The mirror inside the camera makes noise that disturbs the audience. The size of the camera and lens hide me behind it and separate me from the people I’m photographing. And I think that separation is key in understanding the uncomforting feeling in being shot by a camera; and not a person.

Working a room like that, you will often experience that the flow turn around. People are waiting and hoping to be in the frame. And you might experience that the main person at say a VIP reception, approach you and kind of let you know that they’re ready and would like to be photographed.

 

One should know that if several photographers are working at the same event, the bare number of cameras could ruin it because it’s like being watched. Often the thing to do is to wait, because noisy photographers are also impatient photographers. So they will work hard and noisy in the beginning and leave early. And then you can start your work.

Befriending people

I remember Danish photographer Jan Grarup, who’ve won numerous awards for his war photography, told that when he come to a town or country, he will visit the first times without a camera. He would come as a person and an observer, gain confidence and get to know people. Then on one of the following visits he would bring along his camera and start documenting. In the film age he used Leica M6, nowadays he use Nikon dSLR.

In the article that inspired this blog, a war photographer geared up with dSLR cameras and big lenses arrive to a football match with strangers, who happen to be soldiers in a war zone, and start shooting. It’s simply bad manners. It’s “stealing a picture” rather than making one. You might as well arrive in a Humwee with a machine gun on the roof.

Attitude and gear

One thing is attitude. Another is the camera you choose. And I think there’s a reason why the White House photographers mainly use Leica M8.2 and Canon 5D cameras along with very light-strong lenses. It’s smaller, less sound and doesn’t require flash. And if one notices the participants (or at least the winners) in photojournalistic competitions, one will observe that the majority use canon 5D and other medium-size cameras instead of the big dSLR cameras. Because many of them prefer to work unseen as if they were part of the audience.

 

Different ways of covering events

Associated Press have made a great little website with stories from different photographers in war zones, in China, at the Tour de France, and many ither places. Quite interesting to hear they’re different takes on it. Stories always more than one side, and for example the story of being embedded photographer with the American troops in Baghdad is interesting in that this type of coverage is usually discussed a lot - if it’s objective or the photographer is guided by the army. Here the photographers aim is not an objective coverage of ‘a war,’ but the story amongst soldiers, making them individuals and not just ‘an army,’ presenting them in a way so her pictures will be ok to show in the newspapers of that soldiers hometown. See and hear that story and other at AP's website Depth of Field 

- Thorsten Overgaard

Comments

[Danny kagle]

interesting

[John Thawley]

Nice insights and great advice.

John Thawley
http://www.johnthawley.com

[Sebastian]

Good article, thanks.

[Ajovah]

Ive read quite a few stories by Thorsten, he has good points and takes nice pictures too.
Thanks for posting this interesting article.

[Jonesy]

Great read and beautiful pictures! Thank you Thorsten!

[Carli Bauzá]

Thanks for the post, Thorsten!
I usually find myself reminding myself of some of the tips you write about here, so reading about them is very refreshing. I completely agree with your implicit point that the subject must be respected and not taken.
Being a photographer works the same way as being a friend. There is that exchange of energy between two (or more) people that works best when there is an atmosphere of trust across the camera, and that "safety zone" has to be created by the photographer, starting with the real intention in his/her mind, which is then reflected in the way the approach is made. I believe that (with perhaps some exceptions) a photo should generally be treated more like a legacy than a trophy.

Great pics you've posted as well. Thanks again for another piece of your mind!

[C Weeks]

and you say i'm angry.

jesus. ;)

interesting read, though.

[Arthur Mola]

this was a really thoughtful article, thorsten. thanks for sharing!