| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2008 01:54:25 AM · #1 |
I was reading some of the descriptions on this week's ribbon winning shots, and something from Enzo caught my eye. In his, he says "...but a staged image, like most of our images are", which I found interesting. Why? Very few of my images are "staged", but many of the DPC winning images are. Staged images can be controlled - composition, lighting, subject matter, etc, and do seem to lend themselves toward challenge satisfaction in many instances. Sometimes I can "see" in my mind a particular image I'd like to do for a challenge but I've yet to find a way to creatively stage and shoot something that doesn't look like it was created by a sight-impaired jackrabbit. In the end (with one or two exceptions) I end up "looking" for something for a challenge - I tend to see what I can capture rather than create.
So for discussion, oh unwashed masses - do you stage or do you capture? Which do you prefer? Both are very legitimate approaches, one not "better" than the other, merely different. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 02:13:53 AM · #2 |
I stage. Looking at my top ten challenge entries, only one of them is not a staged shot. The recent Free Study shot is not staged, but I didn't "look" for this as a challenge entry until a couple of days before rollover when I went into my shots for the month to see what was there. (In other words, it was a happy accident!)
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 02:17:52 AM · #3 |
Only one of my top 10 scores was staged. See, six of them are insects, plus a frog. Only one features a human being, and that was definitely candid. ;-Þ
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 02:19:35 AM · #4 |
Four of my top ten images are stages, but two of those are portraits. Do those count?
Staged does well because the photog has control of the environment, and this is key when you are trying to get a good score during someones 3 seconds of viewing. I personally don't have a problem with 'staged' images. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 02:24:44 AM · #5 |
Staged definitely wins more ribbons, no question. Of the nine currently showing on the front page, all but two are most likely staged. While some of us (me in particular) may never be able to create staged photographs, we can and do learn from them. I do consciously try to watch my backgrounds, light, distractions, etc, when shooting "found" shots. I will go back to a location if I think the light will be better at a different time. (This has backfired - the light moves a whole lot more than you realize with respect to where it is in the sky with the time of year - a few weeks can make a significant difference!) It even helps with candids. I'd wager DPCers are much better candid shooters by virtue of learning from the clean look of staged shots.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 02:37:05 AM · #6 |
| Other than studio type shots (which can mean kitchen table or darkened room and a flashlight!), most of my shots are captured. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 03:04:16 AM · #7 |
| Nearly all of my shots are staged to a certain extent - though my faves from others at this site often are the captured variety. I guess what I hope for my work is that as I grow and continue to work with people that the staging aspect leads to unexpected captures. That I can place people into situations and come away with a cool capture of a/the moment. If that makes any sense at all. Maybe I am just trying to rationalize how much I do stage my entries. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 03:24:07 AM · #8 |
Staging is harder, I think -- and more expensive. Staging implies that I need hundreds of dollars of lighting equipment, reflectors, umbrellas, backdrops, etc. I'll get there, I suspect, but for now when I want to stage something (still life or portrait, for instance), I typically use natural light.
I shoot a lot of architecture and urban scenes, and lately a lot of candid street photography. This is what I enjoy most, and it's much easier. Of course, buildings are more cooperative models than a couple arguing in the street, though the latter is more satisfying to capture.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 03:28:19 AM · #9 |
I do both, depending on time restraints, family, work, and interest.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 03:46:56 AM · #10 |
| I'm more of a "found" person. I always go looking for my shot, and only if I can't find something will I attempt to stage, usually to horrific results. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 03:51:01 AM · #11 |
I think I've learnt the hard way that staging is not my forte. There is always a flatness to the end product. So I could plough more effort into trying to address this; or I could spend the time doing what gives me a buzz - keeping my eyes open, anticipating a scene unfolding, and keeping my finger poised to capture the moment. Atempting to stage, and failing, almost killed my love for photography.
Message edited by author 2008-09-22 07:51:19. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:00:08 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by PaulE:
I think I've learnt the hard way that staging is not my forte. There is always a flatness to the end product. So I could plough more effort into trying to address this; or I could spend the time doing what gives me a buzz - keeping my eyes open, anticipating a scene unfolding, and keeping my finger poised to capture the moment. Atempting to stage, and failing, almost killed my love for photography. |
I can very much relate to this! I think it's important that we do what we like, and like what we do. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:04:37 AM · #13 |
For an interesting comparison, I asked this question 3 1/2 years ago. :-) Natural vs Studio
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:08:41 AM · #14 |
| looked through my challenge images and it appears that about 1/2 of my images are staged ... I was surprised because I thought the number would be lower ... used to think I did more 'captures' .... |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:24:55 AM · #15 |
Great post.
My image are all....well, you know.
Staged images for me have little to do with photography and are more about the pre-production. I define this (photography) for myself and what I believe it to be but I don't see much of a photographic challenge in staging a shot and snapping with full control of your elements compared to the skill it takes to capture a true scene in a persuasive manner.
a color version
I was actually thinking of this same topic when I saw the Blue winner and drew similarities to a shot I took last week and why I thought it would never ribbon in any challenge. In the color version I posted there's a guy walking through the scene which DPCers would find to be a distraction and lose me points. I think it's great that he's there as he adds to the truth of the moment. If I staged the shot, the girls could have looked more joyful, their faces would have been pointed up so we could better see their expressions, the guy would never have been anywhere near in frame. I could have positioned myself to make all the lines work perfectly...perfect my exposure setting with a slick aperture setting BUT it would also look synthetic and bland.
There's a true, genuine relationship between the girls and the puddle. Occasionally I get comments where the viewer even sees a bit of me in the image (not literally). Personally I love the poetry in the everyday and it's everywhere we look. It would go against my grain to stage it or something similar
Just an opinion...
If Enzos image were to have appeared in a NY Times piece on the Holocaust would the image then have been frowned upon?
Message edited by author 2008-09-22 11:14:33. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:28:35 AM · #16 |
A elementary idea, a worthy question. Staged or unstaged subject intervention? In journalism, one does not expect manipulation of direct documentation - it would not be credible, yet the nuance, hand and craft of a journalistic photographic author is usually evident, often spectacular.
In any media, not only photography, a idea or subject may or may not exist. It most often does not.
I think through individual craft, the tools, intent, process of execution, it may be created. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:43:42 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... Staged images for me have little to do with photography and are more about the pre-production. I define this (photography) for myself and what I believe it to be but I don't see much of a photographic challenge in staging a shot and snapping with full control of your elements compared to the skill it takes to capture a true scene in a persuasive manner. ... |
He-he. This sounds similar to the argument of post-processing. The photography 'purist' believes in little PP (i.e. "straight from the camera") and the photography 'artist' wants no-holds barred with textures, overlays, heavy dodge & burn, etc...(i.e. heavy handed PP).
Isn't photography, just photography? :-P This is fun. FWIW, I fall somewhere in-between - not a fan of the heavy PP advocates, but then you already knew that. :-D
Steve, you have some great work and I'm certainly a fan of your street candids. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:48:38 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If Enzos image were to have appeared in a NY Times piece on the Holocaust would the image then have been frowned upon? |
"Frowned upon" is putting it mildly. However, this isn't a news site, nor was it a journalism challenge. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:51:34 AM · #19 |
Hmmm, interesting discussion point.
I run in the same vein as Pawdrix does - I don't look at most of my images as 'staged'. I look at them in the vein of pre-production.
Once I get inspired, I want to convey that image in my head by putting it in a tangible form. One that will capture the look, feel & emotion to match the vision in my head. Rarely or never will I be able to 'find' that EXACT imagery in regular every day encounters. If I did wait for those right set of elements to occur I would not have much in my gallery and then would truly be a frustrated artist:-)
Speaking of art - let's look at it from the perspective of the past Masters.
Vermeer's Girl With The Pearl Earring is what one would define as 'staged'. Many of his other works of people caught in everyday life with the fabulous Deft lighting fall into that same 'pre-production' of gathering your subject and elements together to match the image in the artist's head.
Then on the opposite side there is the Impressionists movement - Claude Monet was the leader in this one. Sweeping brush strokes, movement and light play critical roles in their presentations of the imagery they wish to capture. The Impressionist would go out an capture life "in the moment". They had to paint quickly to capture that vision they 'saw' in order to capture it on canvas. They may have had a rough idea what they wanted or went to a location in hopes of finding something that would strike their inner muse as worthy of painting.
Are either of these forms more valuable or better than the others? No! Each has merits for presenting the image that the artist/photographer wishes to present to their audience. That is the bottom line.
BUT I do feel that whatever method the artist/photographer utilizes in creating their vision WILL be effected by HOW they present it. By that I mean composition of elements, colors to invoke mood & emotion, movement or non-movement, and the play of light & shadow. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:54:13 AM · #20 |
In my mind, there are 3 types of photographs:
Those you find: This type refers to a location that you can return to and the photograph will essentially be the same. Seasons and lighting may change the look, but the location essentially stays the same. Landscapes are a good example.
Those you take: This type refers to a moment in time, and often has a person or people as the subject. Ex: A photograph of a someone flying a kite. Next time you go to this location, they will not be there anymore. Therefore you have documented a moment in time.
Those you make: This type refers to a set up shot. Most often in a studio. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 04:54:24 AM · #21 |
Steve, you do well with staged as well as street photography. I recall you do amazing things with restaurants, food, drink, and portraits, etc. I think a lot of that translates well into your street work, and possibly vice versa.
Andre, I agree that "captured" can also fall into "created". Landscape photographers, for instance, create the image they wish to convey. They do that through placement (of themselves, of objects within the frame), control of lighting (don't shoot midday or find a creative way to make that light work), angles, exposures. I do think "captured" can be creative - crafted, if you will. In other words, good point! |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 05:01:46 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The photography 'purist' believes in little PP (i.e. "straight from the camera") and the photography 'artist' wants no-holds barred with textures, overlays, heavy dodge & burn, etc...(i.e. heavy handed PP). |
You hit it on the head. I'm not a wild purist though I've been heading in that direction when it comes to "Photography". Pre-production and post production are fine but I'm talking about Photography. It's not about one versus the other. In fact, you could probably say they are three different art forms unto themselves. Put them together do whatever you want but photography is sacred and should be understood separately from the other two. Again they can all be mixed and appreciated but they are different elements.
It seems that to make it onto the front page these days the pre-production and the post-production carry more weight than the photographic side. I do appreciate ALL these elements but I'm more interested in Photography. The camera and the light...the rest to me is baloney (just my opinion).
A year ago, as I was bragging to some guy about my post-production work he said...
"someday you won't have to do all that" and I asked "what do you mean?"
He answered "someday you'll be able to take images that stand on their own"
For me it was one of the coolest and most poignant things I'd heard. It changed the way I thought.
Real life seems to be under appreciated here. Too many Hallmark moments for my taste that I certainly can't compete with.
Message edited by author 2008-09-22 09:10:30. |
|
|
|
09/22/2008 05:02:57 AM · #23 |
My best scoring two shots were "staged" but nothing expensive, other than camera and lens, was used to get either shot. Almost all of my shots are done by shooting what I can find.
ETA
 jeger just explained it all very nicely.
Message edited by author 2008-09-22 09:06:35.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 05:14:11 AM · #24 |
I actually did my very first set-up shot (with lights and things) for the Color in B&W challenge...it was incredibly fun, getting the light to go where I wanted it to, and such a great feeling of success when I actually got it.
It's just as fun, though, to be shooting candid moments and find one that's just brilliant.
Would you count posed portraits as set-up shots?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2008 05:17:58 AM · #25 |
Most pictures I take are captured, however all the ones I use for this site are staged. Since I went from point n click to a DSLR I have noticed a change in my photography and a frustration that I should be taking better shots than I used to.
Reading this thread made me realise that Im trying to learn a new way of taking pictures not just a new camera!
I am gradually (its going slowly!) getting better at staged shots (I hope anyway) but still most of the images i am proud of and that I post on other sites are captured rather than staged or created. My captured shots have definitely been getting better since the new camera so that makes me happy!
Thanks for starting this thread and making me aware of the difference that I hadnt even comtemplated!! |
|
