Photography Documentaries on YouTube - Let's all watch these and then come back here

Michael Piziak · 03-26-2022, 04:16 PM - **1 Like**

Photography Documentaries on YouTube - Let's all watch these and then come back here & discuss them: Leave our thoughts, comments, review(s), etc...

I thought, that since these are all found on youtube, then we would all have access to them.

The list actually comes from the Wix Photography website, but I'll post one at a time for us to watch & discuss, then when comments stop coming in, I'll post the next one and we'll do the same until all 10 have been exhausted. Of course, if you already feel familiar with any of the photographers, feel free to comment on them without watching the film.

Ok, here's the first one, with a running time of 1 hour & 25 minutes. I'm off to view it now & will return with my comments, & I look forward to reading your comments here too!

Richard Avedon: Darkness and Light

"The work of Richard Avedon played an incredible part in the definition of America’s style, beauty and culture in the first half of the 20th century. Mixing biographical information, his portfolio, and his own commentary over the footage, the film is a sneak peak into the life of one of the most influential and innovative fashion photographers." Source: Wix Photography Website.

You Tube

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 03-26-2022 at 05:24 PM.

Michael Piziak · 03-26-2022, 11:03 PM - **2 Likes**

Ok, I've watched the entire documentary on Richard Avedon. Here are some random notes I took down while watching the documentary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He wanted to be a creator, not an observer.

Rolleiflex - It was mentioned that he used one for some time - could one tell from the waste high images? Icertainly could tell that the Rolleiflex (or a Rolleiflex typecamera) was used – from the waste high perspective of many of hisphotographs.

“He createsstories when they’re not there…”

He criticized via atabloid like article in Harper’s Bizarre, he criticized Fashion bysaying “ look what damage it’s doing to these people…” Hewas attacking the medium in which he was operating and he said thatwas the end of it for him. I guess when you get to the point thatyou attack what your job, love, or hobby you do, then it is the endof it for you. In 1966 he then accepted a million dollar offer fromVogue.

A person said, “There will be noway to write the history of fashion photography without Avedon.”

He left Vogue in 88but he didn’t leave fashion. As he said though, his interest in ithad faded….

One subject saidthat Avedon studied you as he is photographing you, and it was adisconcerting experience…

His son said he wascomatose at home…

Who has control ofthe sitting? The subject or the photographer….
Avedon makes clearsin his portraits [of masters] is that he is the one in control: hewill make you beautiful, [or] he will make you grotesque….

In stead ofphotography being the typical collaboration (between subject andphotographer), he said "Your mine, your here, I’m taking you over, yoursurfaces I will make my own" He made photography a relationshipbetween a sculpturer and his clay…. Many of us perhapswon’t agree with this way of being a photographer – one in the documentary said it was arevolutionary approach to photography….

Someone on thedocumentary describing how he was disturbed at Avedon’s photos ofhis dying father - a person in the videos says "That is the very essence of being a photographer –it’s an invasive, in many ways, art form." But, of course, thisdoesn’t apply to some genres of photography (landscape, macro –unless of course you feel that you are intruding upon a jumpingspiders privacy, etc…) Avedon said, “If my work didn’tdisturb from time to time it would be a failure in my own eyes, it’smeant to disturb in a positive way”

Avedon speaking witha woman that was 12 years old when a vulnerable picture of herappeared on the cover of one of his books, that she didn’t reallylike because it exposed parts of her body (like freckles) that shealways covered up. Speaking to her in her adulthood, he said “You have to accept that you are there &the control is with the photographer. I have the control in the end…you [the subject] have a lot to say & I can’t do it alone, butin the end I have the control. I can tear the picture up, I canchoose the smiling one or the serious one, I can exaggerate somethingthrough the printing, it’s [you] lending yourself to artist(s)."

He describedphotography as fiction. That it is “his view.”

He said, "Photographyliterally stops something dead, it’s the death of a moment. Thesecond a pic is taken that moment is over. It’s part of themelancholy beauty of what is a photograph." Lately he says he has asense that he didn’t take the photographs & that they have alife of their own and it makes him feel that it is endlesslymysterious to him.

About light, he said “One of the greatjoys in life is watching light….to spend an afternoon and watch thelight move & the light change & a cloud cross the sun….thelessons to be learned about light by just observing …. “

“We live in aworld of images...images that replace languages or replacereading...the responsibility to your role in history to whatever isgoing to happen to human beings, you are the new writers, and we canno longer be sloppy about what we do with a camera, you have thisweapon in your hands, its a camera, and its going to teach the world,its going to teach/recall/explain to the world and to the children ofthe world what this world is [was] like...it’s an incredibleresponsibility”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, some of my thoughts.

I understand that he wanted to be a creator & not an observer. But I feel that he may have taken this too far by creating stories that weren't there and taking it to the point that he controlled whether you were beautiful, happy, sad, or even grotesque. It's very clear that the woman, that was a 12 year old girl at the time her photograph was taken (and she seen her photo as the cover of one of his books), it's very clear that she was and still is disturbed by the image. When she was an adolescent, she would go out of her way to cover up certain parts of her body, and especially her freckles on the lower part(s) of her body, but Avelon controlled the photo with disregard to her feelings about this. I say this, because obviously her photo showed up as the cover on one of his books, and if he had consulted with her, she certainly would not have wanted that photo on the cover for all the world to see - she wouldn't even have wanted that photo in the book, period. While Avelon certainly admitted that he couldn't make the photo without the subject & that the subject had some input, I get the feeling that he may have even regretted that the subject had any control at all, and if it were up to him then he would have wanted to have 100% control of how the image turned out. I think this is pretty clear as he uses the word "control" over and over and makes it clear, over and over, that he owns the control of a photograph and the subject must accept the fact that they are "lending themselves to the artist [ultimately him]." I thinks its obvious that, when it came to photography, he was a control freak, as he said that during a shoot "you're mine ... I'm taking over, your surfaces I will make my own." Furthermore, his describing a photograph as "fiction," as if it isn't real and that the photograph that results is a result of "his view" lends more proof that he may have been too much of a control freak. In the genre, the type of photography he was involved with, perhaps a photograph has a lot to do with what is created & not observed. But I think, and many of us will agree, that you can't stereotype all photography like this as genres of photography like landscape photography, street photography, macro-photography, and others are types of photography where the picture is, and should be, something that is more observed than created.

I did enjoy the documentary and found his views on light to be very interesting also. Toward the end of the film, however, when he talks about how we have this ultimate responsibility as photographers to show future generations what the world was like, well, I think that directly contradicts his other philosophies that he spoke about on how photography was a creation that is controlled.

I suppose I didn't really like hm that much, mostly based on his philosophies of photography. But it is clear that he must have done something right, as it is clear that he made a very good living for himself - which is quite evident by the nice home on the coast of the ocean. He spoke about how busy he was with all his exhibitions/galleries and publications. It's good to see that a few do make an upper class living with photography.

**AggieDad** · 03-27-2022, 04:16 PM - **2 Likes**

Michael,

I think this is a great idea, a discussion photography and photographers that gets us away from our daily discussions of lenses, tilt screens, pixels, sharpness and bokeh, and other dead horses we continue to beat.

Your first selection of Avedon was excellent. I completely missed this show when it was broadcast on the television. A thoroughly enjoyable and informative program. My thoughts and comments are a bit ragged, really just individual paragraphs of things that stood out to me as I watched the video.

I was totally surprised by the man and his personality. Everything I had ever seen about him led me to believe he was very intense at all times. But apparently when he is removed from his work, he can be quite relaxed and a bit charming. However, I think there is no doubt that he was tyrant about his work – both behind the camera and in post-production.

What struck me most about Avedon were his eyes. Throughout the program there were moments when you could see a flash in his eyes, an intensity, an apparent ability to almost see through or past things; to see just what he either wanted to see or what he was looking for. I am sure that at these moments he knew exactly what he wanted to do and exactly how to do it.

"Death of the moment." When the photograph is taken, that is the death of the moment. Funny. I have always considered it from the opposite perspective. For me, the image preserves the moment, allowing it to live on. Not really important as we are both acknowledging that the moment is transient, but still...

Another thing that caught my ear was, while talking to a small group of young (I suppose) photographers he said, "We live in a world of images ... and images have replaced reading. You are the new writers, and we can no longer be sloppy with what we do with a camera." I don't know when he said this, but it was at least 18 years ago as he died in 2004. He was prescient about this as we certainly live in a world of more images than ever today. And we cannot be sloppy with the camera, rather we need to carefully consider the subject or topic, and the presentation; the content if you will. Because today these images can be seen by a whole world of people in almost no time flat.

I think the young girl will learn to love the freckled portrait of her 12-year old self as she grows a bit older and sees life from new perspectives. Even in the interview with her, she was still voicing the concerns she had when she was a schoolgirl. I hope that with time she will see that he captured her essence, not just her freckles, fly-away hair, and denim overalls. Those things were hers, and they were who she was. They were part of her world and told a story. He didn't put those overalls on her or mess up her hair. He just told her story.

The photos of his father are, to me, a very personal thing. If those images are for his memories, so be it. If he didn't want to remember this time in his father's life, he would not have taken these pictures. I wish I had more pictures of both my mom and my dad – pictures of them the way I want to remember them. Whatever those pictures would be, they would be for me.

My own photography is almost devoid of people. I took some outdoor portraits of my wife for a class assignment, and graduation shots of my neighbor's son. That's really all. No others that I can think of. I suspect that I am simply scared. Taking a photograph of someone just seems a tremendous responsibility to me. And yet, I have a couple of projects written in my notebook that will force me to overcome the fear and "just do it."

Looking at Avedon's work and listening to the commentary has, strangely enough, given me a bit of confidence to try and put some people in my photos. Not that I would presume to say, "I can do that." But his much of his portrait work is direct and stylistically simple with the white backgrounds and the rather direct gazes of the subjects. And looking at those images makes me wonder and want to know what I will have for images using a white background and having people look straight into the camera or at me. This alone was more than I ever hoped to take away from the video.

**Des** · 03-27-2022, 09:17 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Michael Piziak

But I think, and many of us will agree, that you can't stereotype all photography like this as genres of photography like landscape photography, street photography, macro-photography, and others are types of photography where the picture is, and should be, something that is more observed than created.

Interesting discussion and thanks for initiating Michael.

All arts are constructions. Including photography. We get fooled by photography (and film) because we start with the idea that the camera is doing the creating, or even that it is simply recording some objective reality. (No-one thinks that about, say, painting or sculpture.) But even if a human hasn't set up the scene, it's still a human construct. A human decides where to point the camera. A human decides what to focus on. A human decides how narrow or wide to frame the image. A human decides on the exposure. And that is before we get to manipulation of the captured image. There's nothing wrong with this, provided we understand it's a human construct. This is true even of documentary photography, to an extent.

IsaacReaves · 03-28-2022, 08:58 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

There's nothing wrong with this, provided we understand it's a human construct. This is true even of documentary photography, to an extent.

Absolutely. One of my favorite works (and among the most famous) is Bruce Davidson's Subway. He has long since admitted that the famous scene where a man is being held at gunpoint with a short nosed revolver was staged with undercover police officers. That shot has all of the same menace and gritty realism of the other shots in the series, so as a viewer it instills the same kind of unease, if not outright dread. Whether or not the scene was candid or somewhat staged doesn't change how it was preconceived and edited to look the same.

Michael Piziak · 03-28-2022, 09:01 AM

ok, Next is Henri Cartier-Bresson

"Henri Cartier-Bresson (French: [kaʁtje bʁɛsɔ̃]; 22 August 1908 – 3 August 2004) was a French humanist photographer considered a master of candid photography, and an early user of 35 mm film. He pioneered the genre of street photography, and viewed photography as capturing a decisive moment." - Wikipedia

This 20 minute documentary is Henri speaking in his own words:

You Tube

Michael Piziak · 03-28-2022, 10:08 AM - **1 Like**

My notes & comments about Henri Cartier-Bresson

I agree with his philosophy that one shouldn't over shoot a subject or object. He said it's like eating, drinking, etc... You do it or need to do it, but it's important not to do it in excess. I think most of us would agree that most all film photographers adopt this philosophy, because most film photographers are very aware that each picture costs money - both in buying the film and processing it (even if you have your own dark room, you have to buy the materials to process the film). I think digital photography has allowed us all to take more picture of a scene. I certainly often take many photos of a scene; however, I always whittle my them down to a few keepers. I really like to just keep one. It kinda disturbs me when I can't get them down to one or two keepers. I recently took a macro of a black ant & to still have 4 images of it on my flickr page makes me still to want to get rid of a few. I think Vivian Maier was a genius in the sense that of the 150,000 plus photo she took, they say that she always took one photo of something and moved on - in the documentary, it is said that her "hit rate" was phenomenal.

Henri said that one of the beauties of photography is that it doesn't take much, any, brains. Perhaps that's why I'm attracted to it - smiles. He speaks over and over about how there is little thinking in photography. I think this is debatable - some put a lot of thought into selecting what they are about to photograph, especially landscape photographers.

He said that he is extremely impulsive. I think having that type of mental personality lends itself to photography, as taking a picture is also a quick and impulsive as the very definition of impulsive is to act momentarily or act in the moment. The quickness of most photos occur impulsively, as the shutter is only exposing the sensor in a fraction of a second. Of course, there are long exposure photos, but most photos aren't long exposure.

He said that it is seldom that you make a great picture. It's like having to milk the cow a lot & get plenty of milk to make a little cheese. I think we can all identify with this. I know that I've entered a lot of photo challenges & it is rare that I end up in the top 10 - even more rare to end up in the top 3 - and never, yet, to end up in first place.

He described the camera as a weapon. Avedon also described it as a weapon. I have never thought of it as a weapon. To me, weapons are things that can hurt something, do damage to something, or kill something. I suppose a photo can hurt or damage, so in that sense perhaps it is a weapon. He then goes on to say a camera can be many other things - a warm kiss, a sketch book, etc...

Michael Piziak · 03-31-2022, 07:23 PM

The next documentary is:

The Colourful Mr Eggleston

"Documentary photographer William Eggleston had a huge influence in the recognition of color photography as a legitimate artistic medium. In a time where professionals refused to use color film, Eggleston dragged color into the world of fine art photography through a unique visual style that is still seen as a referent today." Source: 25 Photography Documentaries You Cannot Miss

Youtu.be

Please leave a comment. Even if you don't watch the video, but know of the photographer.

03-27-2022, 04:16 PM - 2 Likes	#3
AggieDad Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,453	Michael, I think this is a great idea, a discussion photography and photographers that gets us away from our daily discussions of lenses, tilt screens, pixels, sharpness and bokeh, and other dead horses we continue to beat. Your first selection of Avedon was excellent. I completely missed this show when it was broadcast on the television. A thoroughly enjoyable and informative program. My thoughts and comments are a bit ragged, really just individual paragraphs of things that stood out to me as I watched the video. I was totally surprised by the man and his personality. Everything I had ever seen about him led me to believe he was very intense at all times. But apparently when he is removed from his work, he can be quite relaxed and a bit charming. However, I think there is no doubt that he was tyrant about his work – both behind the camera and in post-production. What struck me most about Avedon were his eyes. Throughout the program there were moments when you could see a flash in his eyes, an intensity, an apparent ability to almost see through or past things; to see just what he either wanted to see or what he was looking for. I am sure that at these moments he knew exactly what he wanted to do and exactly how to do it. "Death of the moment." When the photograph is taken, that is the death of the moment. Funny. I have always considered it from the opposite perspective. For me, the image preserves the moment, allowing it to live on. Not really important as we are both acknowledging that the moment is transient, but still... Another thing that caught my ear was, while talking to a small group of young (I suppose) photographers he said, "We live in a world of images ... and images have replaced reading. You are the new writers, and we can no longer be sloppy with what we do with a camera." I don't know when he said this, but it was at least 18 years ago as he died in 2004. He was prescient about this as we certainly live in a world of more images than ever today. And we cannot be sloppy with the camera, rather we need to carefully consider the subject or topic, and the presentation; the content if you will. Because today these images can be seen by a whole world of people in almost no time flat. I think the young girl will learn to love the freckled portrait of her 12-year old self as she grows a bit older and sees life from new perspectives. Even in the interview with her, she was still voicing the concerns she had when she was a schoolgirl. I hope that with time she will see that he captured her essence, not just her freckles, fly-away hair, and denim overalls. Those things were hers, and they were who she was. They were part of her world and told a story. He didn't put those overalls on her or mess up her hair. He just told her story. The photos of his father are, to me, a very personal thing. If those images are for his memories, so be it. If he didn't want to remember this time in his father's life, he would not have taken these pictures. I wish I had more pictures of both my mom and my dad – pictures of them the way I want to remember them. Whatever those pictures would be, they would be for me. My own photography is almost devoid of people. I took some outdoor portraits of my wife for a class assignment, and graduation shots of my neighbor's son. That's really all. No others that I can think of. I suspect that I am simply scared. Taking a photograph of someone just seems a tremendous responsibility to me. And yet, I have a couple of projects written in my notebook that will force me to overcome the fear and "just do it." Looking at Avedon's work and listening to the commentary has, strangely enough, given me a bit of confidence to try and put some people in my photos. Not that I would presume to say, "I can do that." But his much of his portrait work is direct and stylistically simple with the white backgrounds and the rather direct gazes of the subjects. And looking at those images makes me wonder and want to know what I will have for images using a white background and having people look straight into the camera or at me. This alone was more than I ever hoped to take away from the video. Last edited by AggieDad; 03-28-2022 at 06:37 AM. Reason: corrected sentence structure

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What non-photography YouTube channels do you watch?	Just1MoreDave	General Talk	215	1 Day Ago 05:18 AM
First Pentax in 1999 (ZX-50), then an MZ-S, then a ME-Super, then K-70 in 2021.	Clydesdalecoop	Welcomes and Introductions	16	06-23-2021 01:14 AM
16 Photography Documentaries every Street Photographer should watch	Winder	Photographic Industry and Professionals	17	04-17-2020 06:21 AM
Nature Documentaries not always so "natural"	MRRiley	Photographic Technique	18	09-27-2010 12:18 PM
Let it snow, Let it Snow, Let it F'ing snow	Peter Zack	Post Your Photos!	21	01-02-2008 08:00 PM

03-26-2022, 11:03 PM - 2 Likes	#2
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815 Original Poster	Ok, I've watched the entire documentary on Richard Avedon. Here are some random notes I took down while watching the documentary. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ He wanted to be a creator, not an observer. Rolleiflex - It was mentioned that he used one for some time - could one tell from the waste high images? Icertainly could tell that the Rolleiflex (or a Rolleiflex typecamera) was used – from the waste high perspective of many of hisphotographs. “He createsstories when they’re not there…” He criticized via atabloid like article in Harper’s Bizarre, he criticized Fashion bysaying “ look what damage it’s doing to these people…” Hewas attacking the medium in which he was operating and he said thatwas the end of it for him. I guess when you get to the point thatyou attack what your job, love, or hobby you do, then it is the endof it for you. In 1966 he then accepted a million dollar offer fromVogue. A person said, “There will be noway to write the history of fashion photography without Avedon.” He left Vogue in 88but he didn’t leave fashion. As he said though, his interest in ithad faded…. One subject saidthat Avedon studied you as he is photographing you, and it was adisconcerting experience… His son said he wascomatose at home… Who has control ofthe sitting? The subject or the photographer…. Avedon makes clearsin his portraits [of masters] is that he is the one in control: hewill make you beautiful, [or] he will make you grotesque…. In stead ofphotography being the typical collaboration (between subject andphotographer), he said "Your mine, your here, I’m taking you over, yoursurfaces I will make my own" He made photography a relationshipbetween a sculpturer and his clay…. Many of us perhapswon’t agree with this way of being a photographer – one in the documentary said it was arevolutionary approach to photography…. Someone on thedocumentary describing how he was disturbed at Avedon’s photos ofhis dying father - a person in the videos says "That is the very essence of being a photographer –it’s an invasive, in many ways, art form." But, of course, thisdoesn’t apply to some genres of photography (landscape, macro –unless of course you feel that you are intruding upon a jumpingspiders privacy, etc…) Avedon said, “If my work didn’tdisturb from time to time it would be a failure in my own eyes, it’smeant to disturb in a positive way” Avedon speaking witha woman that was 12 years old when a vulnerable picture of herappeared on the cover of one of his books, that she didn’t reallylike because it exposed parts of her body (like freckles) that shealways covered up. Speaking to her in her adulthood, he said “You have to accept that you are there &the control is with the photographer. I have the control in the end…you [the subject] have a lot to say & I can’t do it alone, butin the end I have the control. I can tear the picture up, I canchoose the smiling one or the serious one, I can exaggerate somethingthrough the printing, it’s [you] lending yourself to artist(s)." He describedphotography as fiction. That it is “his view.” He said, "Photographyliterally stops something dead, it’s the death of a moment. Thesecond a pic is taken that moment is over. It’s part of themelancholy beauty of what is a photograph." Lately he says he has asense that he didn’t take the photographs & that they have alife of their own and it makes him feel that it is endlesslymysterious to him. About light, he said “One of the greatjoys in life is watching light….to spend an afternoon and watch thelight move & the light change & a cloud cross the sun….thelessons to be learned about light by just observing …. “ “We live in aworld of images...images that replace languages or replacereading...the responsibility to your role in history to whatever isgoing to happen to human beings, you are the new writers, and we canno longer be sloppy about what we do with a camera, you have thisweapon in your hands, its a camera, and its going to teach the world,its going to teach/recall/explain to the world and to the children ofthe world what this world is [was] like...it’s an incredibleresponsibility” _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now, some of my thoughts. I understand that he wanted to be a creator & not an observer. But I feel that he may have taken this too far by creating stories that weren't there and taking it to the point that he controlled whether you were beautiful, happy, sad, or even grotesque. It's very clear that the woman, that was a 12 year old girl at the time her photograph was taken (and she seen her photo as the cover of one of his books), it's very clear that she was and still is disturbed by the image. When she was an adolescent, she would go out of her way to cover up certain parts of her body, and especially her freckles on the lower part(s) of her body, but Avelon controlled the photo with disregard to her feelings about this. I say this, because obviously her photo showed up as the cover on one of his books, and if he had consulted with her, she certainly would not have wanted that photo on the cover for all the world to see - she wouldn't even have wanted that photo in the book, period. While Avelon certainly admitted that he couldn't make the photo without the subject & that the subject had some input, I get the feeling that he may have even regretted that the subject had any control at all, and if it were up to him then he would have wanted to have 100% control of how the image turned out. I think this is pretty clear as he uses the word "control" over and over and makes it clear, over and over, that he owns the control of a photograph and the subject must accept the fact that they are "lending themselves to the artist [ultimately him]." I thinks its obvious that, when it came to photography, he was a control freak, as he said that during a shoot "you're mine ... I'm taking over, your surfaces I will make my own." Furthermore, his describing a photograph as "fiction," as if it isn't real and that the photograph that results is a result of "his view" lends more proof that he may have been too much of a control freak. In the genre, the type of photography he was involved with, perhaps a photograph has a lot to do with what is created & not observed. But I think, and many of us will agree, that you can't stereotype all photography like this as genres of photography like landscape photography, street photography, macro-photography, and others are types of photography where the picture is, and should be, something that is more observed than created. I did enjoy the documentary and found his views on light to be very interesting also. Toward the end of the film, however, when he talks about how we have this ultimate responsibility as photographers to show future generations what the world was like, well, I think that directly contradicts his other philosophies that he spoke about on how photography was a creation that is controlled. I suppose I didn't really like hm that much, mostly based on his philosophies of photography. But it is clear that he must have done something right, as it is clear that he made a very good living for himself - which is quite evident by the nice home on the coast of the ocean. He spoke about how busy he was with all his exhibitions/galleries and publications. It's good to see that a few do make an upper class living with photography.

03-27-2022, 09:17 PM - 1 Like	#4
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by Michael Piziak But I think, and many of us will agree, that you can't stereotype all photography like this as genres of photography like landscape photography, street photography, macro-photography, and others are types of photography where the picture is, and should be, something that is more observed than created. Interesting discussion and thanks for initiating Michael. All arts are constructions. Including photography. We get fooled by photography (and film) because we start with the idea that the camera is doing the creating, or even that it is simply recording some objective reality. (No-one thinks that about, say, painting or sculpture.) But even if a human hasn't set up the scene, it's still a human construct. A human decides where to point the camera. A human decides what to focus on. A human decides how narrow or wide to frame the image. A human decides on the exposure. And that is before we get to manipulation of the captured image. There's nothing wrong with this, provided we understand it's a human construct. This is true even of documentary photography, to an extent.

03-28-2022, 08:58 AM - 1 Like	#5
IsaacReaves Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2022 Location: Cotes d'Armor, Bretagne Photos: Albums Posts: 324	Originally posted by Des There's nothing wrong with this, provided we understand it's a human construct. This is true even of documentary photography, to an extent. Absolutely. One of my favorite works (and among the most famous) is Bruce Davidson's Subway. He has long since admitted that the famous scene where a man is being held at gunpoint with a short nosed revolver was staged with undercover police officers. That shot has all of the same menace and gritty realism of the other shots in the series, so as a viewer it instills the same kind of unease, if not outright dread. Whether or not the scene was candid or somewhat staged doesn't change how it was preconceived and edited to look the same.

03-28-2022, 10:08 AM - 1 Like	#7
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815 Original Poster	My notes & comments about Henri Cartier-Bresson I agree with his philosophy that one shouldn't over shoot a subject or object. He said it's like eating, drinking, etc... You do it or need to do it, but it's important not to do it in excess. I think most of us would agree that most all film photographers adopt this philosophy, because most film photographers are very aware that each picture costs money - both in buying the film and processing it (even if you have your own dark room, you have to buy the materials to process the film). I think digital photography has allowed us all to take more picture of a scene. I certainly often take many photos of a scene; however, I always whittle my them down to a few keepers. I really like to just keep one. It kinda disturbs me when I can't get them down to one or two keepers. I recently took a macro of a black ant & to still have 4 images of it on my flickr page makes me still to want to get rid of a few. I think Vivian Maier was a genius in the sense that of the 150,000 plus photo she took, they say that she always took one photo of something and moved on - in the documentary, it is said that her "hit rate" was phenomenal. Henri said that one of the beauties of photography is that it doesn't take much, any, brains. Perhaps that's why I'm attracted to it - smiles. He speaks over and over about how there is little thinking in photography. I think this is debatable - some put a lot of thought into selecting what they are about to photograph, especially landscape photographers. He said that he is extremely impulsive. I think having that type of mental personality lends itself to photography, as taking a picture is also a quick and impulsive as the very definition of impulsive is to act momentarily or act in the moment. The quickness of most photos occur impulsively, as the shutter is only exposing the sensor in a fraction of a second. Of course, there are long exposure photos, but most photos aren't long exposure. He said that it is seldom that you make a great picture. It's like having to milk the cow a lot & get plenty of milk to make a little cheese. I think we can all identify with this. I know that I've entered a lot of photo challenges & it is rare that I end up in the top 10 - even more rare to end up in the top 3 - and never, yet, to end up in first place. He described the camera as a weapon. Avedon also described it as a weapon. I have never thought of it as a weapon. To me, weapons are things that can hurt something, do damage to something, or kill something. I suppose a photo can hurt or damage, so in that sense perhaps it is a weapon. He then goes on to say a camera can be many other things - a warm kiss, a sketch book, etc...