FrankS
Registered User
Yes, but every second that you are looking at a screen, you are making the subject feel second in importance.
I don't think that you are looking at this from the subject's point of view.
Look, why else would Keira have the opinion that she has expressed? There has to be a reason. I'm just trying to explain it.
Here is what she said: I've noticed that the people who started on film still have the ability to see the person in front of them. Whereas for a lot of photographers who have only ever worked in digital, the relationship between the photographer and the person who they're taking a picture of sort of doesn't exist anymore. They're looking at a computer screen as opposed to the person.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'd agree with both sentiments actually. Whilst digital doesn't force you to look at the screen it does tempt many photographers to do just that and when they do, especially in a studio/portrait situation, I can well imagine that some sitters may feel somewhat secondary.
Of course, the reverse can be true come the end of the session and you both go through the images to see what you've achieved.
lukitas
second hand noob
I can see Keira's point, from both sides of the lens.
Something about the subtle difference between looking through the camera as opposed to looking at the camera.
In a studio environment, the operator went through a series of acts and adjustments, light meter, lights, camera settings etc; between every change, all the attention was on the subject, not the gear.
Even in 35mm slr or rangefinder photography, I would spend a lot of time surveying the scene, peeking above the camera. Even better were hasselblads and rolleis, especially on a tripod : you glanced down to check composition and focus, looked up at the subject to choose the moment : you looked your subject in the eye while taking the shot.
Digital cameras demand more attention : more knobs, more functions, histograms, some don't even have a viewfinder : you have to look at them from arms length to see what it frames. With an slr, or a rangefinder, your eye is in the lens, or just next to it, a compact digital, however, sits right in the middle of the foreground of the scene you are trying to shoot : you look at the camera, the camera looks at the scene, which is beyond the camera.
Digital can mount up to a tremendous amount of variables : shutter speed, diaphragm, Iso, neutral density filter, auto-focus mode, etc. With film, ISO is locked with the film, only three variables left : speed, opening, focus. Everything else happens in the scene, most of my attention goes to the subject. Digital 'demands' that I check at least four variables plus a histogram, I spend more time looking at the camera, and the subject almost feels like an afterthought. For me, juggling three variables is a feat. Having to handle four or five is a little too much for my idiot brain.
A strange thing : with digital, even though the feedback is immediate, there is a disconnect. Film, even though gratification is delayed, allows for a much more direct experience.
Sorry if all this is obvious and boring.
cheers
Something about the subtle difference between looking through the camera as opposed to looking at the camera.
In a studio environment, the operator went through a series of acts and adjustments, light meter, lights, camera settings etc; between every change, all the attention was on the subject, not the gear.
Even in 35mm slr or rangefinder photography, I would spend a lot of time surveying the scene, peeking above the camera. Even better were hasselblads and rolleis, especially on a tripod : you glanced down to check composition and focus, looked up at the subject to choose the moment : you looked your subject in the eye while taking the shot.
Digital cameras demand more attention : more knobs, more functions, histograms, some don't even have a viewfinder : you have to look at them from arms length to see what it frames. With an slr, or a rangefinder, your eye is in the lens, or just next to it, a compact digital, however, sits right in the middle of the foreground of the scene you are trying to shoot : you look at the camera, the camera looks at the scene, which is beyond the camera.
Digital can mount up to a tremendous amount of variables : shutter speed, diaphragm, Iso, neutral density filter, auto-focus mode, etc. With film, ISO is locked with the film, only three variables left : speed, opening, focus. Everything else happens in the scene, most of my attention goes to the subject. Digital 'demands' that I check at least four variables plus a histogram, I spend more time looking at the camera, and the subject almost feels like an afterthought. For me, juggling three variables is a feat. Having to handle four or five is a little too much for my idiot brain.
A strange thing : with digital, even though the feedback is immediate, there is a disconnect. Film, even though gratification is delayed, allows for a much more direct experience.
Sorry if all this is obvious and boring.
cheers
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I don't think it's ever the digital camera's fault.
It's always about how people tend to use it.
You'd think that studio photographers are immune to chimping because of their controlled environment and subjects.
But for a model to make this kind of comment, it's an indication that even the models feels like the technology is somehow getting in the way of them accomplishing their goal.
DominikDUK
Well-known
I agree with jsrockit it's not the cameras fault it never was. The problem is the person behind the camera who is unable to resist the lure of the screen.
Spray in a Studio Environment maybe not as much as a press photographer but yes you do shot a lot even in the film times pro photographers would go trough a roll of film in an amazingly short amount of time. This does not ably to all photographers of course.
I also fully agree with Shadowfox "But for a model to make this kind of comment, it's an indication that even the models feels like the technology is somehow getting in the way of them accomplishing their goal. " even though it is not strictly Technologies fault but the photographers insecurity.
Spray in a Studio Environment maybe not as much as a press photographer but yes you do shot a lot even in the film times pro photographers would go trough a roll of film in an amazingly short amount of time. This does not ably to all photographers of course.
I also fully agree with Shadowfox "But for a model to make this kind of comment, it's an indication that even the models feels like the technology is somehow getting in the way of them accomplishing their goal. " even though it is not strictly Technologies fault but the photographers insecurity.
Ok fair enough guys, but she also stated (see post # 21): "I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital."
This, to me, sounds like the same film vs. digital arguments that get throw around forums daily. Now, I've never been to a studio shoot where digital is used... but I would imagine that not everyone works the same way or has the same personality simply because they are using a digital camera. Surely, there were many ways to work with a film camera in the studio too. I'm sure there were times were a photographer, using a film camera, did not connect with their subject.
This, to me, sounds like the same film vs. digital arguments that get throw around forums daily. Now, I've never been to a studio shoot where digital is used... but I would imagine that not everyone works the same way or has the same personality simply because they are using a digital camera. Surely, there were many ways to work with a film camera in the studio too. I'm sure there were times were a photographer, using a film camera, did not connect with their subject.
semordnilap
Well-known
I wonder also if the photographers who "started with film" are older, more experienced, and approach photographing her in a different way than younger photographers who started out with digital. The age/generational difference could explain her subjective experience, at least somewhat... And I'm not talking about 'real' vs 'digital' friendships, lives, etc... I'm talking about both experience and the real differences that everyone talks about in what it is to be a pro now, as opposed to a generation ago.
Or, maybe she's just trolling us
Or, maybe she's just trolling us
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fascinating! Thanks everyone (including Ms. Knightley -- I wonder if she has ever read Thorne Smith's Rain in the Doorway). Readers of the weekly real-print magazine Amateur Photographer will know that I have the back-page column there, and this sort of discussion is why I visit RFF as well as going to Arles.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think FrankS gets it. Because he agrees more or less with my own observations.
The rest of you seem uncomfortable with what's been observed.
The rest of you seem uncomfortable with what's been observed.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Yup, it's the screen that creates barriers between photographer and subject, even if it's a phone-cam screen.
Keira Knightly, I'd love to chat with her sometime. And, shoot a portrait too while I'm there anyway
How is the screen different from a VF with regards to a barrier? When I use an LCD, I can have both eyes open and switch between the person and the camera way easier than when I have my eye to a viewfinder. Yes, I started on film.
And you're asking me, while you give the answer to that just a few posts down?
The camera doesn't have squat to do with it and it's not what Keira says either. People aren't reading the interview very well, obviously.
What she says is that people who started on non-digital photography tend to maintain contact with the subject while shooting, while people who started on digital photography are more concerned with the image on the screen and less with the subject.
Read closely folks, for once this isn't a 'conflict' between digital and analog, this is a great actress saying she prefers people who can interact with another person instead of with a digital screen!
DominikDUK
Well-known
+1 but we also tried to explore what the reason for this observation might be. Also David Bailey isn't anti digital either.
hausen
Well-known
Does the connection between the photographer and the subject only have to be about eye contact? Seems to me the great portrait photographers have an engaging personality that makes their subjects relax and trust the outcome. I also think in the 60-70s the photographer was often as much of a personality as the subject as that had to have an effect on the subjects perspective. Film was the only medium available then so is it the medium or the photographer? By the way I shoot 66% film and 33% digital so I am not anti-film.
Certainly respect Kiera's opinion but it really should read that she feels that there is a barrier....rather than everyone should feel this way. If someone tried to take a portrait of my wife with any other than the latest and greatest digital she would think they were amateurs, but she is tech head and can't understand film, records, cassette tapes, old cars, old watches etc at all. Is she wrong and Kiera right, don't think so but their opinion is right for them.
Certainly respect Kiera's opinion but it really should read that she feels that there is a barrier....rather than everyone should feel this way. If someone tried to take a portrait of my wife with any other than the latest and greatest digital she would think they were amateurs, but she is tech head and can't understand film, records, cassette tapes, old cars, old watches etc at all. Is she wrong and Kiera right, don't think so but their opinion is right for them.
But there is no reason why a person who uses a screen to compose can't interact with a person.
hausen
Well-known
I agree it comes down to personality.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Never in the interview did Keira Knightley say that photographers who use screens cannot interact with a person. Please read the interview closely.
She merely said that those who grew up in the digital age are inclined to interact less with a person, and more with their screen.
See the quote directly from the interview below...
Johan... she is implying that those who compose with a screen cannot really see the person in front of them... which is nonsense. This boils down to bias against digital again.
Highway 61
Revisited
But this is how the person who made those observations felt with the person having photographed her without using a screen while others did it another way, it seems.
I won't argue whether she's sincere or not... yet Patrick Demarchelier's photos of her are nice enough.
I agree it's obviously nonsense. Yet she has the right to think what she thinks, and afterall she might have good reasons to think so. She's probably been photographed to death for now, and chances are, that most of the photogs having shot her with their big DSLRs and large zooms weren't romantic persons.
That's true Highway 61. I guess I just took offense to her categorically saying that people who have grown up using digital all act the same way when photographing. Just seems like a generalization...especially after professing her love for film.
DominikDUK
Well-known
She said that some (inclined doesn't mean all) photographers who grew up in the digital Age are more into looking at their Screens then looking and interacting with their subject. What is 99% of the succes of the great Portrait photographers from Karsh to Leibovitz they interacted (talked, cared about, looked, etc....) with their Subject everything else was/is a far second. If a Portrait photographer was mostly looking at the Screen instead of putting me at ease, etc.. I would feel pretty much the same way as miss Knightley.
Portrait photography is about putting the subject first second and third and the techniqualities somewhere far behind. Most great portrait photographers use mostly the same lighting setup for a lot of their shot, why because they don't want to fiddle around with their technical tools during the shot and loose the rapport with their subjects.
Portrait photography is about putting the subject first second and third and the techniqualities somewhere far behind. Most great portrait photographers use mostly the same lighting setup for a lot of their shot, why because they don't want to fiddle around with their technical tools during the shot and loose the rapport with their subjects.
Highway 61
Revisited
People like her always will want to distinguish themselves from the average crowd... this is what she's doing with her "film is romantic, digital is casual" saying.
She's a young movie star who's been just shot by a mature & famous fashion photographer having caught every top model out there already... so...
She's a young movie star who's been just shot by a mature & famous fashion photographer having caught every top model out there already... so...