Reality Check - Documentary Photography

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
6:32 PM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,485
Location
Atlanta, Ga
View My Gallery
Lately, I have been involved in documentary photography. Maybe it is because of the many frustrating years in a former life as a City Planner. Maybe it is because I can approach it in much the same manner as my former work.

But, it opens my eyes to things that are easily dismissed amongst everyday life. In the near future, I hope to have some interesting images to post but I hope nothing like this:🙁

http://www.michatheiner.com/#/photos/documentary/overpopulation-in-manila-philippines/
 
I spent many seasons documenting my daughter's soccer matches. The ugly story I never documented was the behaviour of some parents and coaches at the sidelines. Talk about primal ruthlessness! But in the bigger scheme of things, inconsequential.

In my former jobs and in street photography I became much more aware of the large increase in homelessness over the last decade, and the vulnerability of people sleeping rough. The demographics of the homeless has shifted dramatically towards youth and the mentally ill. Also a noticeable increase in women living on the street and sleeping rough. This begs to be covered, but tactfully and carefully to protect the vulnerable subjects.
5610236316_f36c553a96_z.jpg
 
Very much so. A documentary project often starts out with a 'brief' but grows and evolves. In the process lots of things come to you that you had not expected and sometimes they become more poignant than the reasons you started with. I spent three years photographing in Afghanistan and out of that came some articles by my girlfriend who was with me, which are being published, and ideas for articles I will be writing in the coming months.

Like Bob, I generally don't enjoy chasing the negative, but if in a larger negative issue I can find something inspiring or surprising then I am hooked. Its those unseen aspects which intrigue me and sometimes you stumble upon them simply because you got stuck in and turned over stones. I am due to shoot some projects later this year, all of which cover tough situations with positive aspects to them that have received very little recognition. Human beings can be terrible, but it is rare that it as one sided as this. I do not consider myself an optimist, but I do know that misery inspires far less than hope, but hope needs a context to be recognised and understood.
 
When people look at a photo or a set of photos, they usually appreciate them on their own merit as photographs. In other words how appealing the images are or how powerful emotionally etc... They don't think, this is documentary, street photography etc...

When photographing tragedy or comedy, the photo can be a straight forward document of the event, but that is boring and subjective, to make an interesting photo of an event the photo must be visually interesting in a photographic sense... Pure documentary photography is really boring and in fact it actually trivializes the situation it tries to capture by its straightforwardness.
Documentary photography has to be visually interesting in case it hopes to move the viewer, but then if its too artistic it cannot be pure documents anymore.

Photography is just that, photography, to label with all the cliches such documentary and street photography etc. is to preach to the converted, namely other amateurs who look at photography in neat categories learned by hearsay mostly from other amateurs.
 
"Documentary photography has to be visually interesting in case it hopes to move the viewer, but then if its too artistic it cannot be pure documents anymore."

The first part of your sentence is perfectly clear. But, the second part? What are you saying? Please look at Eugene Smith's documentary Minimata before you answer.
 
John Rountree said:
"Documentary photography has to be visually interesting in case it hopes to move the viewer, but then if its too artistic it cannot be pure documents anymore."

The first part of your sentence is perfectly clear. But, the second part? What are you saying? Please look at Eugene Smith's documentary Minimata before you answer.
Click to expand...

Eugene smith could have photographed that deformed child, in sunshine and with all the afflictions visible. That would have been a document of the subject. Instead he photographed in a very pleasing lighting and somehow created a biblical image of the mother and the child. He created art out of the subject's condition and made it memorable, while a simple document would have been just another picture of an unfortunate deformed child.

I hope you see the difference now.
 
Possibly we have different ideas of what is "ugliness". Some will see a photo of a tragic situation and be uncomfortable with the problems. Others see the same photo and focus on the beauty of those people coping in spite of.

Also viewers tend to evaluate subjects by their own personal standards. Some will think the guy with the sign and tin cup is really sad. Others will learn that he feels sorry for the rest of us having to worry about job loss, retirement funds decreasing in value, medical costs, property taxes, and the remainder of the litany.
 
I don't see the difference now. Is Tomiko's photograph not a true document of her and her mother dealing with the everyday afflictions brought on by mercury poisoning? Do you see it as less than a document or more? Are you saying that bringing artistic vision and skill into a documentary photograph negates its validity?
 
Interesting thread with a valid discussion, especially since the photographer did not let the photos speak for themselves but instead titled the documentary. "Overpopulation in Manila". It's not overpopulation that causes a canal full of plastic bottles, or hundreds of thousands of people living in filthy conditions.
 
A photo has to be visually interesting and should have an impact on the viewer "as something more than just a picture of something."

I used to think by taking matter of fact and straight pictures on the street I was somehow being more documentary in style and true to the subject but in fact I was just wasting my time... For the simple reason that I did not enjoy looking at those photos myself... After sometime I wondered why I was taking the sort of photos that I did not wanted to look at in the first place?

Why should I document 'streets'? People can see them everyday and pass through them. Why should I show them the street as they see it everyday, whats the point? It might amuse people but it gets boring very fast. On the other hand if i take pictures of the same streets and they're beautiful, interesting and creates a mood then those images are good because i enjoy looking at them myself.

My conclusion, photography is photography itself, it has certain unwritten rules which makes some pictures interesting and memorable and a lot more forgettable and boring. So, instead of some pseudo-intellectual musing over documentary and and so on, I should just try to take photos that at least I think they're good and i can stand looking at them... So, based on that first hand experience I have rejected all the stuff that are lumped on photography by non-photographers who try to work their way into photography by neat labels, classifications and criterion. There are a lot of so called intellectuals with a lot of free time who wish to build neat systems around everything that is beyond their control, such as photography where some people simply can't do it, so they sit down and write about photography concepts... Those of us who're lucky that we take photos, good or bad is immaterial, and enjoy the process and th photos should treat all the so called conceptual stuff as a lot of hogwash and nonsense.
 
GSNfan said:
A photo has to be visually interesting and should have an impact on the viewer "as something more than just a picture of something."
Click to expand...

The general public thinks that you take a picture of what you like i.e. I like horses so I should photograph horses. Also, people tend to think you can only photograph pretty or beautiful things. However, that's not how it always works. I'm of the opinion that a good photograph can be made of anything and that you may not need a centralized subject (since the photo can be the subject).
 
dave lackey said:
http://www.michatheiner.com/#/photos/documentary/overpopulation-in-manila-philippines/
Click to expand...


I find nothing ugly about these images but then I live here.

Visiting photographers are often taken on “sight seeing tours” of certain area’s but the reality is they never see the real dirt. Quite a few photographers come here in what is called locally as poverty tourism, snap some pictures to pad out there portfolio and fly back home.

The nightly news contains more shocking images than these here. Plus it has to be said that the visiting photographers always add there opinion to the images without understanding the local landscape. $6 a day is good money here, 25% off the population actually survive on $1.50 or less a day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom