Rafael
Mandlerian
I don't think that Hurn really argues that photography transmits the "photographer's truth about a particular subject." On p. 28, He argues that "photography is only a tool, a vehicle for expressing or transmitting a passion in something else." I take his assertions about the need to learn about your subject simply to mean that you can't really have a passion for something about which you know very little.
Certainly, photographers can get lucky and take a powerful or beautiful photograph. But Hurn is making an argument about how to take such photographs consistently. And, it seems to me, that many of the great photographs that might appear as "lucky grabs" were actually the product of a deliberate process along the lines of that described by Hurn.
Take, for example, Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of the sailor kissing the nurse. I read an interview with Eisenstaedt in which he said that he noticed this sailor walking through the crowd kissing every woman he passed. Eisenstaedt noticed the nurse in the sailor's path and chose a position that would allow him to photograph the kiss that he knew was coming.
The photograph captures a feeling that many people were able to relate to. But Eisenstaedt didn't just get lucky. He knew to be in Times Square and had very good reason to believe that the sailor would kiss that particular nurse long before they met in the crowd.
All that said, I can see how Hurn's argument is geared primarily at reportage photographers. And I agree with you that photography can be simply about capturing something beatiful or visually arresting. Personally, I am drawn to the reportage style of photography. So, Hurn's argument really resonated with me. Reflecting upon my own experience, I would say that the vast majority of the good photographs I have taken in my life have been of subjects about which I knew a great deal and for which I did have a passion of some kind.
Certainly, photographers can get lucky and take a powerful or beautiful photograph. But Hurn is making an argument about how to take such photographs consistently. And, it seems to me, that many of the great photographs that might appear as "lucky grabs" were actually the product of a deliberate process along the lines of that described by Hurn.
Take, for example, Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of the sailor kissing the nurse. I read an interview with Eisenstaedt in which he said that he noticed this sailor walking through the crowd kissing every woman he passed. Eisenstaedt noticed the nurse in the sailor's path and chose a position that would allow him to photograph the kiss that he knew was coming.
The photograph captures a feeling that many people were able to relate to. But Eisenstaedt didn't just get lucky. He knew to be in Times Square and had very good reason to believe that the sailor would kiss that particular nurse long before they met in the crowd.
All that said, I can see how Hurn's argument is geared primarily at reportage photographers. And I agree with you that photography can be simply about capturing something beatiful or visually arresting. Personally, I am drawn to the reportage style of photography. So, Hurn's argument really resonated with me. Reflecting upon my own experience, I would say that the vast majority of the good photographs I have taken in my life have been of subjects about which I knew a great deal and for which I did have a passion of some kind.
Last edited:
lns
Established
Excellent, thanks for responding. Yes, I agree with you (and Hurn) that what appears to be lucky is certainly more than that -- your example of the sailor photo, or his own example of a photo of his with people on the beach. That it takes pre-visualization and moving into the right position, and all.
But I think he also argues that knowledge of the subject is key -- not technical knowlege of how to make a picture or how to position yourself to get a good photo, but knowledge of, or passion for, the subject itself. (I didn't read it as carefully as you, clearly, and I hope you forgive me if I am putting things in my own words.)
I also think that the very picture you bring up is a counter-example to that knowledge-of-the-subject argument. It's a successful picture because it conveys the observed emotion and presents the moment attractively -- much like HCB's man jumping over the puddle. It beautifully conveys its subject, and through hard work and pre-planning and deliberate judgments by the photographer, as you say, it is visually lovely. But I don't think it has much to do with knowing your subject, or in your more correct words having a passion for your subject. What is its subject? People? People kissing, people celebrating the end of the war? That's not a subject I could decide to do an essay about and learn about as Hurn suggests. It's more a news photo, and a masterful one, and to me it doesn't fit in with his prescription that great photographers immerse themselves in a subject, etc.
My HCB example is another counter-example, at least to me. Yes, HCB did do photo essays on assignment (like the Russia series that so inspired Hurn), but I think his reputation for greatness turns more on something else. On his ability to produce single photos of simplicity, clarity and "geometry," as he would put it. That doesn't mean I think he just got lucky. It just means, to me, that there is more than one way to be a photographer, and I think Hurn, while arguing persuasively for his method of being a documentary photographer, frustrated me because he came across as sort of didactic. To me.
I might be totally wrong, and that's why it's fun to discuss it with others who read the book. In fact, judging by the comments, everyone else loved it and totally agreed with everything it said.
So I'm not even sure I should listen to my opinion myself. I do know that reading what other people thought helps me to better understand the book and what it's trying to say.
What I will take from that part of the book, personally, was that I should be more organized about what I shoot. While not agreeing with him totally, I think that was very valid and helpful. I'm not going to self-assign myself a project or subject, and am certainly not going to do a lot of research, but I think if I narrow down what I am interested in photographing, that will help me. For I have only small, unpredictable bits of free time, and it would be better to already know what I want to photograph rather than, as he said, wandering around with a camera with no idea in mind.
-Laura
But I think he also argues that knowledge of the subject is key -- not technical knowlege of how to make a picture or how to position yourself to get a good photo, but knowledge of, or passion for, the subject itself. (I didn't read it as carefully as you, clearly, and I hope you forgive me if I am putting things in my own words.)
I also think that the very picture you bring up is a counter-example to that knowledge-of-the-subject argument. It's a successful picture because it conveys the observed emotion and presents the moment attractively -- much like HCB's man jumping over the puddle. It beautifully conveys its subject, and through hard work and pre-planning and deliberate judgments by the photographer, as you say, it is visually lovely. But I don't think it has much to do with knowing your subject, or in your more correct words having a passion for your subject. What is its subject? People? People kissing, people celebrating the end of the war? That's not a subject I could decide to do an essay about and learn about as Hurn suggests. It's more a news photo, and a masterful one, and to me it doesn't fit in with his prescription that great photographers immerse themselves in a subject, etc.
My HCB example is another counter-example, at least to me. Yes, HCB did do photo essays on assignment (like the Russia series that so inspired Hurn), but I think his reputation for greatness turns more on something else. On his ability to produce single photos of simplicity, clarity and "geometry," as he would put it. That doesn't mean I think he just got lucky. It just means, to me, that there is more than one way to be a photographer, and I think Hurn, while arguing persuasively for his method of being a documentary photographer, frustrated me because he came across as sort of didactic. To me.
I might be totally wrong, and that's why it's fun to discuss it with others who read the book. In fact, judging by the comments, everyone else loved it and totally agreed with everything it said.
So I'm not even sure I should listen to my opinion myself. I do know that reading what other people thought helps me to better understand the book and what it's trying to say.What I will take from that part of the book, personally, was that I should be more organized about what I shoot. While not agreeing with him totally, I think that was very valid and helpful. I'm not going to self-assign myself a project or subject, and am certainly not going to do a lot of research, but I think if I narrow down what I am interested in photographing, that will help me. For I have only small, unpredictable bits of free time, and it would be better to already know what I want to photograph rather than, as he said, wandering around with a camera with no idea in mind.
-Laura
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Ins, one of the things I like about the book is that Hurn only speaks to what he knows. His photographs are very much in the vein of documentary and reportage, so that is what he knows, what he realtes to, and what he talks about. That is why I use the book in my Documentary Photography class. I agree that a fine photograph can siimply be "an arresting image," a la Pete Turner, but that is not where Hurn excels. I would be very disappointed if he simply pontificated about work that had no relationship to his own experience.
I think part of the book's power (and I do think it is a very powerful book that has to be read two or three times to really appreciate) is its honesty and intelligence.
I think part of the book's power (and I do think it is a very powerful book that has to be read two or three times to really appreciate) is its honesty and intelligence.
Rafael
Mandlerian
lns said:
I agree that this is his emphasis. But I understand him to be arguing that your knowledge of the subject is what informs your decisions about how to make your picture of it.
Hurn isn't entirely clear about just how much study of one's subject he is advocating. And I think we have to be careful not to overstate it. I don't read him as arguing that one needs a a PhD in a certain subject in order to photograph it. I simply take him to be arguing that if you want to photograph people, you need to be a student of human interaction and human emotion. You need to observe and study.
Although HCB certainly emphasised the importance of geometry in his photography, I still think that his photographs are about the human interactions and human emotions that he captured. The geometry arises from HCB's choices about how to arrange his subject matter in the frame. But I don't consider his photographs to be entirely about geometry. In fact, to my mind, HCB's talk of a decisive moment does seem congruent with Hurn's method. How would you know the decisive moment unless you knew your subject well?
But I do take your point that there are different ways of being a photographer. And I agree with both you and John that Hurn is emphasising his own apprach. I don't think that this is the only way to be a photographer. But I do think that Hurn's method applies quite broadly.
lns
Established
Well, I guess I'm just being too literal. I appreciate your points. I interpreted Hurn's advice as more specific: pick a subject that interests you (for example, Wales), refine it (Wales changing from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy), learn about it and take photos to illustrate it. I think that is a good thing to do, and essential for documentary photographers who want to do a major project or essay. I just think there are other ways to be a photographer that he didn't acknowledge. But he wrote what he knows.
For me, I think my objections wouldn't have arisen if they had titled the book "On being a documentary photographer."
Anyway, it was an interesting book to read, I thought. Anything else to discuss besides my petty points? You said you had some other thoughts.
-Laura
For me, I think my objections wouldn't have arisen if they had titled the book "On being a documentary photographer."
Anyway, it was an interesting book to read, I thought. Anything else to discuss besides my petty points? You said you had some other thoughts.
-Laura
Rafael
Mandlerian
I don't think your points are petty at all!!!
What do you make of the suggestion that really good photographers are the ones who are never sure they "got the shot." I was really struck by this suggestion. In fact, I always assumed the opposite, that the really good photographers were the ones who could walk into a situation and know that they got the shot.
What do you make of the suggestion that really good photographers are the ones who are never sure they "got the shot." I was really struck by this suggestion. In fact, I always assumed the opposite, that the really good photographers were the ones who could walk into a situation and know that they got the shot.
lns
Established
That's a comforting point for me. It's nice that everyone has doubts after they click the shutter, isn't it? As I remember, he was referring to the need to work the image, to keep trying to perfect it by trying different angles and such. But the doubt about the final image is one of the fun things about traditional photography for me -- the surprise factor when you develop your film and look at the contacts. (It's probably not that different with digital really, but I wouldn't know.)
He really emphasizes the work in photography, doesn't he? Work to get the right angle and framing, work on the contact sheet and the print, and then really live with the images to see if they are good enough.
That's interesting. When I worked as a writer, I saw it as work, not fun. I wouldn't have felt I had anything in common with people who wrote as a hobby or a creative outlet, come to think of it. I never read my work after it was published, either. I had moved on to the next piece. And I would have been too critical, and probably would have seen only the ways it could have been better.
-Laura
He really emphasizes the work in photography, doesn't he? Work to get the right angle and framing, work on the contact sheet and the print, and then really live with the images to see if they are good enough.
That's interesting. When I worked as a writer, I saw it as work, not fun. I wouldn't have felt I had anything in common with people who wrote as a hobby or a creative outlet, come to think of it. I never read my work after it was published, either. I had moved on to the next piece. And I would have been too critical, and probably would have seen only the ways it could have been better.
-Laura
ljsegil
Well-known
More books?
More books?
Any interest still out there in continuing this book club? I enjoyed the first go round and would like to see it continued.
LJ Segil
More books?
Any interest still out there in continuing this book club? I enjoyed the first go round and would like to see it continued.
LJ Segil
vrgard
Well-known
I'm interested. And sorry I wasn't able to contribute to the discussion on the first book but it got delayed into a period of time that I was traveling.
-Randy
-Randy
jadyb110
jadybates
I am excited to read this book. Thank you for posting this thread. I have only begun photography 2 years ago, but my mentor has always pushed Go SHOOT, GO SHOOT, JUST GO OUT AND SHOOT & I have a feeling this book will articulate the philosophy behind that...I also always tended toward learning the art beyond getting the most expensive/best equipment...Again thank you...I will stay tuned!