What do photographs tell us about the photographer?

What does a photograph tell us about the photographer? Quite a bit actually.
Having never thought much about it, let me walk through the thoughts as they arise.

1. The image, as created, can be a "good" image or a "bad" image, which, by itself indicates only that that single image was made with care or not. Many things could have caused that image to be what it is.
2. If the image has been created with an obvious amount of care (ie-composition, exposure, etc.), it tells you that the photographer has some skill and has taken a measure of care in making the image.
3. If the subject, say a child, has been captured in a happy situation, one can infer that the photographer has an emotional connection to the well-being of a child.
4. If the image shows obvious techniques, such as HDR...well, it shows that the photographer has some training and is exploring different avenues.
5. This list could go on forever...but it is difficult for me to look at a single image or a handful of images and gather more than an impression of the photographer.

533.gif


However, if we are talking about a photographer's style, well, I believe that every photographer has a "style" of some sort and usually, he/she does not even recognize it. Yet, the style is evident when one looks at the overall work of that photographer. It is really not much different than other aspects of life.

Maybe we should have "style" thread to help us identify what each of us has?😀😀😀
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Equally, if the pictures are diffuse snapshots, with no detectable themes, then probably (far from certainly) he's a mediocre photographer.
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to parse that, Roger.

First, the term 'snapshot' is pejorative, it denotes both a lack of importance and a lack of caring on the part of the photographer to do anything more than make a record of the moment. Is that what a snapshot is? I have been persuaded by the work of some photographers that what would appear to be the ephemera of the snapshot can instead be a fairly detailed treatment of any given society at any given time. Ironic, sympathetic, angry, or even blasé, these seemingly mundane shots of backyard picnics and birthday parties can send powerful messages.

Second, if a photographer takes well-exposed, in-focus, and properly composed photographs, they can only be said to be 'mediocre' in the sense that they fail to excite, arouse, please, or inform. Is the photographer of such scenes therefore also mediocre? I would posit that a photographer who understands his craft and uses his tools properly is a 'good photographer' whether his photographs are of any particular interest to anyone else or not. 'Mediocre' implies a lack of capability. Ansel Adams was clearly a master photographer. His work generally fails to excite me. Was he then a mediocre photographer?

In one sense, I suppose it could be said that we are all mediocre photographers - although I have seen much talent here, there are no Ansels amongst us at the present time, to the best of my knowledge.

But in another sense, if you know enough not to position Aunt Edna so that a tree appears to be growing from her head, and you know to slow a shutter to capture the sense of running water in a babbling brook, you're not a mediocre photographer, if we are talking about technical competence.

I still skirt around the term that baffles and sometimes angers me - style. I simply don't know what it is with regard to photography. "Oh, he has a particular style," I get. It means I can spot a Meatyard photograph from a mile away. Got it. But "I am searching for my style, my own individual voice, my calling," leaves me nonplussed. What style? I doubt Meatyard, or Adams, or Winogrand said to themselves, "Oh, I won't take a photo of that beautiful scene over yonder, because that's not my style." Their style is what is displayed, what is left, what their work is boiled down to. It is an exercise by curators, agents, and their audience to define what they are or were about. It is not their sine qua non, it is merely what we see of them.

Therefore, to search for one's style seems to me to be an exercise in futility. A photographer may have preferences or tendencies that resonate with a particular audience, and may choose to capitalize on that. Is it their style? I suppose - but it seems the style chose them, rather than vice-versa.

I do not search for a style. Nor has one apparently attracted itself to me. I take the photographs I enjoy taking, and I enjoy sharing them. If someone wishes to see a style in my photographs, I have no objection. If someone thinks I am a mediocre photographer for all a' that, then so mote it be.
 
bmattock said:
I don't really know how to parse that, Roger.
. . .
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

It seems to me that there are two possibilities here. One is that you are entirely right, and that I have not given this enough thought. The other is that you are partially right and that I have not made myself clear enough. Obviously I lean towards the second. I do not entertain a third, that you are entirely wrong.

I deliberately qualified 'snapshots' with 'diffuse', not wishing to dismiss the snapshot as something entirely bad.

We have all met Serious Photographers, sometimes even Photographic Artists or Artists Who Use Photography, who have a desperate but clearly unrequited love for the medium: they are not as good as a snapshotter. Often, the worst of them are those who are striving desperately to impose their Style on everything. I think we agree about 'style', but I was not so much talking about style, as about what the photographs tell us about the photographer.

As for mediocrity: well, you can set the bounds for that as wide as you like. My own criterion is the difference between "How much more of this rubbish does he expect me to look at politely" and "OK, he's no Martin Parr but I'm seeing enough that's good, that I want to see more."

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto said:
Entirely tight? Cheers indeed Roger!
Click to expand...

Dear Jon (or as I initially typed -- honestly! -- Dear Job),

I did actually spot it before your message, even though the change was a couple of minutes later. I'm a very fast hunt-and-peck typist, but it's still hunt-and-peck. Something I regularly mistype is 'snapsh*tter-with-an-i' for 'snapshotter' (I just found that the filter would enter a row of asterisks).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Ducky said:
Nice discussion but I took the OP's question diferently. What do a person's pictures say about the person, not his/her vision. For example, does he spend a lot of time in pubs shooting in available light because he's a party guy? Does he shoot flowers and cats because he is shy or afraid of people? Does he attend and photograph kinky parties and public events because he's kinky or a voyeur? Does he use very expensive gear and shoot crap or shoot good stuff on a p&s, and why or how?
Lots of directions to go with this question.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought the OP meant too. (Good discussion though.)

Photos give us some immediate information about the photographer: where they were at the time of the photo, when did they take the photo, what they chose to photograph in a scene. All these are trivial and they derive by a simple fact. Photos are indexical things, they have a 'here-ness' and 'now-ness' index associated with them. (Of course with time the indices become a 'there-ness' and 'then-ness'.)

But you can't deduct anything deeper than that, at least not with an exacting degree of certaintly. Photos simply do not add up to propositions about the thoughts of a photographer beyond the strictly trivial. That she was there and then to take the photo. And even that is somewhat dubious in a sense as the camera is a witness of what happens in front of the lens - not of the identity of the carrier.

However, being the sophisticated simians that we are, we apply shortcuts and various techniques to comprehend a situation. If for instance we see a photographer taking abundant photos in bars then we induce that he is interested in them, or like them or at least enjoy the contents of the bottles around them. Nothing in that particular one photo actually proves this to be the case and even a full collection of such photos cannot constitute proof. But it is reliably indicative of a tendency. This way, inductively, we build our theories and we try to connect the dots when it comes to the person behind the camera. There's no way to prove our hunches about them but I think there is a way to wade through all the various emerging patterns and decide which one seems likely and equally which one is not. That we end up sometimes with different patterns is testament to the assumptions or biases each one of us begun with.

In the end absolutely anything about a photographer's intentions could be said to be random and, hence, any explanatory patterns offered by anyone are just an exercise in futility. But because we are, by and large, rational agents [in the sense of] pursuing certain goals, a charitable interpretation attributing a modicum of purposeful volition is usually preferred over the random monkey-in-the-loose one. Even although, in a strict sense (and according to science), that's what we basically are.

I think part of the fun in photography is to try and connect the dots. Sometimes the picture that emerges is interesting, sometimes not. Sometimes what one sees is what the photographer saw, sometimes not. But it's part of the journey we do when we look at photos. We are trained by nature to find patterns (and not just simple geometric ones). We would even if there was none.

And it is in that sense that what we see in a photo sometimes says more about us than the photographer.



.
 
I largely agree with you, Alkis, from an abstract perspective.

For the specific genre of environmental portraiture, however, there is more. It shows human interaction, and offers insight into how the photographer communicated. The best photographers will try to show you only what they want you to see. But "connecting the dots" of an entire portfolio will give the observer some insight into the photographer's mind, even the best won't be able to hide themselves completely.

For example, Capa's portraits of Steinbeck, Picasso, etc., tell us something about Capa himself.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
What do photographs tell us about the photographer?
Probably more than they tell us about the subject, I guess.

Cheers,
Gary
 
They reflect *EXPERIENCE* or *INEXPERIENCE*

This does not regard technical ability to a large extent.

You know, when you began, many subjects seem like they would make great images, but many/most may not....

We still see them here and everywhere..everyone with a camera is a photographer , right???

A great shot reflects the intelligence of the photographer also. That they were "thinking"....you know?

I see work by many, many Magnum photogs, for example, and i think, ...smart....very smart...

Or great eye, etc...it really reflects the intelligence of the photographer..they really do.

Study everything folks, this is all I can say...modern art has much in common with photography...keep in touch with the new trends in art and photography...

I am such a strong promoter of film and photography (as a fine art painter) because you never stop thinking..the eye is always searching and trying to understand what will work and what won't..


The greatest photographs are the ones never taken after all!

Also, I'd like to add that should one give clay to a novice, and a torso to sculpt from nature, they will intuitively sculpt their own torso..

Just as many paintings reflect more of the painter than the sitter, photography is no different here..
Diane Arbus comes to mind immediately. Hell, HCB, Erwitt, Salgado, list is endless...

My thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I am reading that people think that photographs DO tell us about the photographer, but not in what manner. For example, the blandishment that "Portraits of X by Y tell us more about Y than about X."

Perhaps I not seeing the Emperor's nouveau regalia, or perhaps I am just a common clod with no perception, but it is not clear to me WHAT we see of Y in Y's photo of X. I see nothing whatsoever.

And since no one can DESCRIBE what it is we see of Y in Y's photo of X, then I am wondering if anyone else does either, or if it is merely what one says in situations such as this.

So, if Y is exposing his or her soul in Y's photograph of X, would someone kindly tell me in what manner they do so? What, precisely, is it that you see?
 
The product points to the intelligence of the maker doesn't it? I'm talking about any work really, not just photography. It lets you inside their head in a way.

The photograph is not the subject, but a description of it, and hence likely tells us as much about the describer as the thing being described.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Last edited:
Ok Roger. Good point. I'm not a photographer! I'm an artist working with silver. Effective January first my new 11X14 prints will be $5,000 and my vintage prints from the 60's and 70's will be in the $10,000 to $25,000 range depending on age and how may were made of a particular image. I guess that leaves everybody about a five week window of opportunity to grab one at $350.
 
bmattock said:
And since no one can DESCRIBE what it is we see of Y in Y's photo of X, then I am wondering if anyone else does either, or if it is merely what one says in situations such as this.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Five photographers go to India. Each shows us 100 pictures.

One shows only beggars, people sleeping in the street, cripples.

One shows only poor people, laughing and smiling.

One shows only poor people at work.

One shows only temples: no people, ever.

One shows only movie posters, cinemas, Bollywood.

These pictures may or may not tell us anything about the photographers. If they're good photographs, we may reasonably form opinions about the sympathies and interests of the photographer. Or they might shoot all five, and only show one aspect at a time, in which case our opinions may be entirely wrong, despite being based on exactly the same premises.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
One shows only beggars, people sleeping in the street, cripples.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even with that specific subject matter, the photographer's choices can reveal something. Such as:

- was a telephoto lens used, or a wide angle?

- are the picture "hip shots"?

- how are the subjects interacting with the photographer? Are they unaware, startled, or engaged?

- were the pictures taken from a vehicle?

- What kind of camera was used? A cellphone or an SLR?

However, there's no guarantee that any analysis is correct, but it gives some hints here and there.
 
I just blew the dust off the front element of the 21/3.4 S.A. on the M2, put a fresh roll of HP5 in it, another in my pocket, and I'm heading to the Post Office, the bank, the drugstore, and maybe stop by Starbucks for some coffee. I might kick myself for not taking enough film with me. I might not shoot frame one. I don't worry about it.
 
I'm sorry, but none of the responses to my question thus far answer the question. The question was, roughly, "...if Y is exposing his or her soul in Y's photograph of X, would someone kindly tell me in what manner they do so?"

I have read the statements of several people in this thread asserting that the above statement is true - that a photograph reveals aspects of the photographer as much or more than it reveals of the subject matter. Whilst I agree with Roger that it may or may not do so, the presumption that I am reading is that it does. And in no case has anyone said in exactly what manner.

Let me be more clear. Do you look at a photograph and see that the photographer is kind? Tall? Has hair or is bald? Goes to church regularly? Beats his wife? Is sympathetic towards his subject or dislikes same? Leans one way or another politically?

While I agree that it is *possible* for such to be true - I cited the photographs that Jill Greenberg took of John McCain, which were about as clear as it is possible to be that she dislikes the man, but in most - nay, nearly all, other cases, I see no such attributes of the photographer in his or her work.

What do I know about Ansel Adams upon viewing his work? That he was technically precise, liked mountains and red filters? Well, great, but what about him do I know? I can find nothing in his photographs that tell me anything about him as a person.

So I ask again. In what manner does a photograph tell anyone anything about the photographer? This is indeed the original question asked by the O/P, is it not?
 
bmattock said:
. . . Whilst I agree with Roger that it may or may not do so . . .
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

I rate it no higher than that.

It may tell us what he wants to know, if he is any good. He may decide to 'bare his soul' (I use the term very loosely -- I'd say that the Minamata series probably came close) or he may decide to dissemble, which he can probably do.

If he is not any good, it will probably tell us that about him as a photographer; my original formulation in the latter case was hopelessly lax.

Cheers,

R.
 
antiquark said:
Agreed. Even with that specific subject matter, the photographer's choices can reveal something. Such as:

- was a telephoto lens used, or a wide angle?

- are the picture "hip shots"?

- how are the subjects interacting with the photographer? Are they unaware, startled, or engaged?

- were the pictures taken from a vehicle?

- What kind of camera was used? A cellphone or an SLR?

However, there's no guarantee that any analysis is correct, but it gives some hints here and there.
Click to expand...
Dear Derek,

Thanks for the expansion and clarification. We agree completely.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom