This may be a basic question, and maybe more suited to Phil. of Photog. (if so, I apologize), but do you find it easier to take pictures of people you are closer to, or less close to? Where within the spectrum from perfect stranger to perfect love are you most comfortable, and more importantly, do you take your best photographs? For me, it is definitely a feeling thing...the more I love (or possible hate) someone, the better my pictures are. I have basically given up on taking photographs of mere acquaintances (let alone strangers just met), unless they 'move me' enough that I am willing to waste a lot of film getting to know them. And when THAT is my modus operandi, such is bound to fail quite often.--It's hard to be real around someone when they know they are really because I want to photograph them (occasionally of course, true friendships come out of such things, but for me, after having..tortured...these new friends into a few sessions, once we become friends, the last thing either of us wants is to photograph...for a long while...). But that's just MY experience, as much as I try to deny it.

ps, I would love to post some pics, but I don't have a scanner, and I'm really really cheap, so I'm stuck with words...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), August 23, 2000

Answers

Yeah, I love what Jeff does, too. But I've found the balls (still do it, sort of, every time I'm in a bar), and I suck at it. Maybe there's more to it than balls.

Ironically, family members I'm not that good with. I'm best with close friends, girlfriends, and even some people I work with...?

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), August 24, 2000.

I take much better photos of people I'm comfortable with, because they in turn are more comfortable with me. You see I can get more spontenaity from loved ones or friends because they can carry on with there affairs or play with their kids in the park and not even notice me when I take photos, therefore I don't get those "staged" moments but rather much more genuine ones.

-- Ron Stecher (ronald.stecher@vandenberg.af.mil), August 23, 2000.

I have totally tormented my family to the brink with taking pictures of them even under the guise of "practice." My work companions are getting close to that point. I now find it easier to photograph those who are paying me to photograph them (formal weddings and portraits...all very phony!), since there is a "reason!" I'd like to break out of that box and get up the (oh well) "balls" to do what Jeff is doing! (meaningful or not ;>) but I fear I'm just too shy. Rocks don't swear!

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 23, 2000.

I think I'd put it the other way around: I find it much easier to photograph people who are comfortable around me. It's obvious when someone is nervous or "posing" rather than being unselfconcious, and it takes quite a while (and a lot of film) to break down that barrier.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 24, 2000.

I talk constantly to strangers. They don't generally seem too uncomfortable, I ask people about themselves, about their work, about their tattoos, get them talking. After a while, most loosen up. When they don't, I emphasize the awkwardness. I never talk about photography, even when try too. I keep shooting while I'm talking, that's all.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 24, 2000.

It varies a lot. It doesn't seem to be very well correlated with how well I know the person or our comfort level together. In fact, it seems to be entirely random. Some people are definitely more difficult than others, though.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 24, 2000.

My favourite portraits are those which depict character, not just appearance. C16th swagger portraits are perennial favourites (as are the Holbein studies of the More family), along with The Holy HCB and the rest of the photographic canon. I don't claim to reach such heights, but I find this style of photography much easier with people I know - if only at the editing stage where I can spot a characteristic look.

Conversely, strangers are much easier to turn into symbols, be it |bermensch or everyman. Such pictures are not portraits as such, but instead depict a mood, an impression or a state. They are mathematics to the true portrait's physics: one grounded in a definite physical reality, the other inhabiting a more abstract sphere where self-reference is the only mode of judgement.

I find the second sort of image is much more easily spoiled by minor details than the first. The difference between nearly-right and just right is enormous, and for me at least tends to be felt rather than consciously observed. I've been accused of over-analysis when trying to why that is, so I'll stick to the touchy-feely 'I know it when I see it' criterion for now.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 25, 2000.

That was...invigourating...Struan. Ok now I'm gonna get in trouble. As a painter and a photographer (more as a painter, unfortunately...), I have always sought after the same thing: the ontological uncovering of what is within via the scrupulous consideration (heart of Neurotica) of what is without...of the noumenon within which makes me so...obsessive...over whomever my subject is: I do as little as possible to idealize the Form (in the Platonic sense) of the subject--I try to copy verbatuum, within a chosen degree of detail, what is there; I put all my 'creative' efforts into bringing myself and the subject together through Content.

Hold on...

OK I really believe what I just wrote, but I think it is also pretty useless. However I'll post it just in ase anyone out there is interested.

Anyways, Thanks, Struan, for waking me up this morning :-)

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 25, 2000.

"the ontological uncovering of what is within via the scrupulous consideration (heart of Neurotica) of what is without...of the noumenon within which makes me so...obsessive...over whomever my subject is"

Well there's your basic problem, Shawn. How are you going to be an artist if you keep thinking like an art critic?

Oh well, nothing a fifth of Scotch won't fix. . .

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 25, 2000.

...and has, plenty of time!!! i don't think i think like an art critic (do i?--really?). my background and first love in life is philosophy (for better or stagnifying worse!!!); i can not help but try to see that aspect of everything i do; i reduce everything except love to absurdity. i do agree, however, that outside my own motives, such comments/philosophizing probably have no value in art.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 28, 2000.

OHMIGAAAAWD! Another philosopher! I spent 6 years of my life studying philosophy and arrived at the conclusion that the here and now is all that matters - in life as well as photography... Now what was the question?

Oh yes, I friend or foe :) I4d say foe - or rather complete strangers. Friends and family are apt to pose and I don4t care much for posing. Since I began free-lancing for a small daily newspaper I have had some great opportunities and blown most of them. In any case, I prefer the "slice of life" shot.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 28, 2000.

I prefer the "slice of life" shot

I prefer the "let's hang out, drink a little, get depressed or happy or calm, lie down (yes...lie down, that's it, nothing funny) on the bed, and let me shoot when we couldn't care less anymore if the pictures turn out or not"...see how Mom wouldn't work here?...do you have any idea how amazing a quiet human being looks against white sheets? Angelic.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 28, 2000.

Shawn, you've perfectly described the Swedish stereotype of a Danish photographer.

I follow - agree with - your meaning in your earlier post, but having been brought up on Occam and Gower I distrust such language. Congratulations for not saying "hermaneutics" :-P I'll take care of that whisky if there's any left.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 28, 2000.

I distrust it too, but I've also learned to live with the absurdity of my own position, and I don't mean that philosophically (Camus- like), either. I just stopped fighting myself with it. And when it drives me nuts, well then out comes another bottle. ps I don't know, Struan, but I'll try ta squeeze ya some CC through the T1 here...if she doesn't call screaming between now at quitting time...in which case, you're SOL, and my bartender is in for a good night...ps rangefinders and rye go better than vodka and an slr...8-+

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 28, 2000.

All the things I want to say sound like things you would say to get someone into bed.

• Generally, if they seem comfortable with the idea, i'm usually comfortable too (see what I mean?).
• The emotions you feel prior to, and about asking can make you feel uneasy, but once you've asked, you don't have so many distracting thoughts when you do it (see what I mean?).
• Asking is not so much a triumph of huevos or machismo, but a simple act, that with the others consent will pave the way for what follows (see what I mean?)

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), September 06, 2000.