Faces

People often say to me "So what do you like photographing ?" and I reply, "people". "So you mean portraits then?" they return, "no, people" I say.

So, what's the difference? If you are photographing somebody and, in particular, with their face taking up a significant part of the frame, is that a portrait? I guess most people assume that the term portrait implies that as the photographer I am seeking to reveal some great truth or insight into the inner character of my subject. In some cases that may be, pretentiously, true. However a significant number of people I photograph I barely know, although my relationship with them may be quite intense for the few minutes I might spend with them.

man in pub doorway - Kingstanding, Birmingham 2015

water gypsy Keith - Birmingham and Worcester Canal - 2015

Over the years I have been getting closer and closer (literally) to my subjects. Robert Capa said "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough", and although there are many other great photographers who keep a certain distance (yet maintain engagement) setting their sitters in an environment. I have become fascinated by faces themselves. It is, I feel, the main thing we notice about somebody when we first meet and we will use the face, and its owner's expressions, to make many split-second decisions about who and what type of person this is. Some faces are extremely expressive and others more enigmatic, but all are fascinating.

As I mentioned earlier some of the people I photograph are strangers, some I know better and others I am related to. It is the latter I find the most difficult, perhaps it's because I know them the best I feel that the particular photo has to reveal more. I am not sure, however, that this matters quite as much to the audience.

 I am hoping that through expression, lighting and composition I can convey my own interest and curiosity. By getting in close there is no hiding place and therefore I may not flatter my subject, neither, I hope, am I seeking to be cruel.

Framed

When I am teaching my kids at school I ask them when does the editing process start, "In Photoshop, sir" is the normal, and understandable reply. Finally, they get to understand it is the moment you put the camera to you eye (or look at the screen if you're under 25).

Then they get to understand that this is one of the areas where photography differs from the other art forms. It's what I call subtractive, you start with everything in front of you and you select what to  include in your frame. Henri Cartier-Bresson allegedly never cropped his negatives in the darkroom feeling that the frame of the image as defined by the camera is sacrosanct. I am not so precious and have no particular problem with cropping in post-production. Indeed, some of the greatest images are the result of some drastic cropping, Arnold Newman's portrait of the composer Stravinsky is as case in point.

Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman

Before photography came along most paintings (with the exception of Bruegel and his ilk)  were self-contained with no real suggestion of life beyond the frame. In the late 19th century artists like Degas started to paint people and objects half in the image, photography was influencing it's older artistic disciplines.

After many years using an SLR, and more recently as DSLR, I have now switched to a rangefinder style of camera (not a Leica, alas). Here one is looking through a window alongside the lens and inside this window, depending on the lens being used, is a bright frame indicating the image area. One is therefore observing life beyond the frame during the process of actually taking the photo, and it is possible to anticipate a person as they enter the frame itself. I have the option on my camera to switch to a digital view which will show me only what the lens is seeing, but I am trying to shoot in the way that the photojournalistic greats of old did.

It's taking some getting used to.

Oxford 'trashing' June 2017

First Blog

After many years I am about to revamp my website.