Decisions, decisions
Scott and I used to discuss the ethics and responsibility of taking photos for news. The choice to photograph Mayor Dennis Donohue as he smiles during a press conferance, or as he points into the crowd scowling is a big decision. The two images would tell two different stories, and could give the thousands of viewers a different opinion on the main man of Salinas. Now, I’ve discovered that lighting someone or something adds even more decision-making. Most people think flashes and extra light is used so that the subject will show up in the photograph. Yeah, that’s important, but it also gives a mood, and tells the story. I photographed a boxer/MMA fighter. Without thinking too much about it, I went with my instincts and put a harsh, dramatic light on him. By doing this, he looks so much more badass. I like it, he likes it, but is it true to who he is? Who am I to decide who these subjects really are? I do have to take their photo though, so do I set up a light that covers the space evenly and make every shot boring, or do I decide on the spot how to light them with a specific mood? A few more I played God with…
|
 |
Scott says …
|
Just for kicks, we should do some serious drama lightning on a cute teddy bear. That would illustrate the point you’re making in this post.
You’re right, Britt — you do get some real control over how people will perceive your subject based on how you choose to light them. But when you’re practicing photojournalism, it’s uncomfortable to have all that control. It feels wrong. Where’s the objectivity?
The photojournalism comes in when you get to know your subject. A quick conversation, a little research beforehand — sometimes it’s just reading what’s on your assignment sheet and going with your gut. You’re not going to light a kindergarten teacher with a grid spot, a fog machine and blue gels (although I would very much like to see that photograph), and you’re probably not going to pose your MMA fighter like he’s in a Sears portrait studio.
Or maybe you would. Maybe your MMA fighter is a softy, he raises bunnies and bakes cookies for old folks, and that’s what the story is about. Maybe you’ll ask him to hold a daffodil. Irresponsible? Too much power? Only if your photograph does not contribute to your readers’ understanding of the subject.
I know we’re both fans of David LaChapelle, who is definitely not doing photojournalism and certainly never plays it safe with his lighting (or anything else). But many of his portraits were made for print in magazines, to illustrate stories about the people pictured. So let’s consider, for example, this photo of Chris Rock. The fingerprint of the photographer is all over this one, but does it contribute to our understanding of Chris Rock as a person? I’ve listened to his comedy albums and I’m inclined to say yes. I would guess that Rock would endorse this image of himself. Plus, it’s a fantastic and fascinating picture.
In portraiture we get leeway to interpret. To make a judgment. So if your MMA fighter strikes you as a badass, make him look like it. Light him so he looks like he’s about to jump out from a dark alley and kick your ass.
Besides, what would you rather look at: A flat, safe, picture that objectively shows what the person looks like, or a living, dynamic portrait that suggests what the person is like?
