What is your relationship to your subjects?

[Hsg]

Beside the family/friends photos, when you photograph random strangers or even landscapes or wildlife, do you have a relationship with those subjects?

By relationship I mean, to relate to, to identify with, to be one with the subject. For example not seeing yourself as a separate entity from what you're photographing. For example, when you photograph people on the street, are you photographing strangers or people that you feel you know and people who are no different from you?

I hope I'm making sense. But basically do you or can you photograph random strangers on the street, with the same feelings as you photograph your own family and friends?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Same simple relation to all. I only photograph those whom I like.
So, I have guys with beer and ladies with legs all the time

 

[daveleo]

Not in the least.

No different than sitting at an outdoor setting (park, cafe) and watching people, it is totally visual - they are strangers. Fun, and human nature to watch others, but any assumptions I make about connections are totally my own imagination.

+1 for me.
I feel personally, totally disconnected from strangers who happen to be in my pictures.
I never feel that I am making pictures of strangers - they simply happen to be there.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I definitely feel some relationship with those I photograph, even those who I have never met and know that the relationship may only last for a few seconds. It definitely is a personal thing for me. I always want to know that if our paths should ever cross again, both of us would view that second experience as a positive. Similarly, I would never let the world see a photo that I would have any problems showing to the subject while we stood face to face.

We sometimes find that we live in a surprisingly small world where we again meet those who we have photographed in the past, even if your prior contacts were so brief. This has happened to me a number of times far away from home. I am happy to say that every one of those encounters have been pleasant.

 

[Hsg]

I never engage those I photograph because I have had bad experience. When you talk to people on the street, they feel as if you want something from them or worse, you're 'stealing' their photos. Secondly, if you're going to photograph the same locations again and again, talking with people who are always there can become awkward.

I have no relationship with my subjects as well. I just photograph the photos that I have in my head and not really the people who are my subjects.

Until now I felt this was not a big issue, but recently I feel that if one is going to enjoy photography, there must be some relation to the subject, otherwise the photos are not going to have any emotional resonance to the photographer. At least this is what I'm thinking at present and I could be wrong.

 

[shadowfox]

I think that as a the one who created the photograph, I define the (visual) relationship between the subject(s) within my photos.

Sometimes the relationship is between one subject and another, sometimes it's between the subject and what is going on in the background, sometimes, the relationship itself is the subject.

This is why I can take pictures of complete strangers and include them in the composition, then in a sense I have a relationship with them within the photograph, but not outside of that context.

When the subject is a person known to me, then that fact adds another dimension to the photograph, but my goal is the same, to create a visual relationship within that photo that is interesting and brings meaning when viewed at later times.

This is a very good question, by the way. Thank you.

 

[daveleo]

Now that I think about it, the question presumes that people in the photographs are the "subjects" of the pictures. That is not necessarily true.

 

[Darshan]

my relationship is just that..

"subjects"

 

[Bob Michaels]

..... but recently I feel that if one is going to enjoy photography, there must be some relation to the subject, otherwise the photos are not going to have any emotional resonance to the photographer. .....

I see the difference. Photography is not the most important thing to me. It is the people and what message I am striving to deliver about them. Photography is just a communication medium that has worked best for me. Although my current efforts have been textual writing based on verbal interviews with just enough photos to bring credibility to the person.

 

[Hsg]

A relationship is something very important among people, so it naturally follows that if one is photographing people, there must be a human relationship there.

I don't how this can be achieved, but I assume that all successful photographers of people have this ability.

 

[Hsg]

Photography is not the most important thing to me. It is the people and what message I am striving to deliver about them. Photography is just a communication medium that has worked best for me.

This is a very good point, you start with interest in the people first and then use photography. For most of us, photography comes first and then findings the 'subjects'. That is why, at least in my case, there is this disconnect with the subjects.

 

[Sparrow]

... the only people who seem to interact with me are the buskers, beggars or Big Issue sellers, other people don't see me it seems, they just populate my photos no relationship aside from the theft of souls thing

 

[jsrockit]

I don't have a relationship with the people in other photographer's photos, and I still enjoy them. It's the same when I'm making my own... though I do have a relationship with some of the people I photograph. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish and context.

 

[noimmunity]

It definitely is a personal thing for me. I always want to know that if our paths should ever cross again, both of us would view that second experience as a positive. Similarly, I would never let the world see a photo that I would have any problems showing to the subject while we stood face to face.

I never allow photography to let me forget that my primary question is "what kind of social relationships do I want to have?", not "what kind of images do I want to produce?".

I feel the same way about looking at photos made by others.

 

[Bob Michaels]

This is a very good point, you start with interest in the people first and then use photography. For most of us, photography comes first and then findings the 'subjects'. .....

That is just me. There are certainly those who have successfully approached things from both sides.

One could certainly say that Gary Winogrand was only interested in the photo. Same for Lee Friedlander. Or, Edward Weston.

One could also say that Diane Arbus approached it from the people side. Definitely so for Dorothea Lange.

Walker Evans was very focused on conveying information about the people's culture even though some of his photos had no people in them.

Where does Bruce Davidson fit in? Personally, I think he comes from the side of displaying individual cultures through non-specific people subjects and not the photos.

Where does Ansel Adams fit into this discussion? To what extent was he interested in nice photos and what extent in displaying the grandeur of nature so that it would be appreciated and conserved?

 

[Hsg]

That is just me. There are certainly those who have successfully approached things from both sides.

One could certainly say that Gary Winogrand was only interested in the photo. Same for Lee Friedlander. Or, Edward Weston.

One could also say that Diane Arbus approached it from the people side. Definitely so for Dorothea Lange.

Walker Evans was very focused on conveying information about the people's culture even though some of his photos had no people in them.

Where does Bruce Davidson fit in? Personally, I think he comes from the side of displaying individual cultures through non-specific people subjects and not the photos.

Where does Ansel Adams fit into this discussion? To what extent was he interested in nice photos and what extent in displaying the grandeur of nature so that it would be appreciated and conserved?

Ansel Adams did have a relationship with the landscape, not so much with the people so he very intelligently stuck to landscape. But also he had a relationship with the craft of photography.

 

[pete hogan]

When I take pictures of people they are nearly always people I know and usually related to. If not, then they are distant or unrecognizable. I will wait for others to clear the frame. That's been my practice for a very long time.

If there's an opposite to street photographer, I suppose it's me.

 

[Calzone]

I have a talent for bringing out both the best and the worst in my subjects.

Here in NYC I find both extreames readily. I am known to shoot in neglected areas, but I am no stranger to neglect in my own personal life. In urban landscape I seek out abandoned industrial areas that remind me of empty lonelyness of my past, but I counter this with with the urban street life I record that is so rich and full of life.

I also do a lot of what I broadly call street photography, where to me the street is a stage of drama, conflict and life. To me though street photography does not necessarily need people in it, yet I would say it is different than urban landscape due to having a more personal macro view. It is the small picture rather than the large picture that is meant to just capture a moment that won't endure.

I am also not afraid to approach strangers, and in turn I find that many more times I am approached and engaged by strangers, who then later I perform a street portrait of. In my past I once was a performance artist and somehow when I go out into the world all kinds of strange and wonderful things happen. I feel I get more than my fair share for some reason.

Also know that I pretty recently became the photographer for my GF who only 4 months ago became a fashion blogger. "Maggie," not her real name, is basically a shy and reserved person, but now she has really redefined herself and is putting herself out there with her blog. Last Sunday she was involved in a pro photoshoot for "Grey Magazine" that is a quarterly art, style and fashion magizine that is printed in Italy. This was the real deal with a whole crew that included a stylist, hair stylist, and makeup artist. In a month a seven look spread is going to be published. I say she has pretty good odds of being on the cover of this magazine that is rather costly.

My attitude is not to think about things too much, but rather let things happen, this is the reason why I think so many unbelievable things happen to me, and why I have more than my fair share of experiences.

BTW "Maggie" is an academic and thought about blogging for over two years. It took a rather brutal fight to where I told her let's stop talking about it and just do something, even it it turns out bad. Things for her all of the sudden are happening, and I think for a reason.

Cal

 

[robert blu]

I cannot shoot anything if I have no interest in it.People or landscape. Still or abstract but >I must be connected to it. I must feel I have a relationship to it. Positive or negative. A beautiful mountain landscape (I'm just back form a week vacation in the Alps ) or an urban area I do not like (for nay reason) but must be an emotional reaction.
robert

 

[cz23]

...Similarly, I would never let the world see a photo that I would have any problems showing to the subject while we stood face to face....

That's an admirable principle.