by



Chopper

In part one we looked at why images of people fascinate us, and the nature of portraiture. However, this only covers half of the possibilities for ‘images of people’: instances where the subject is a conscious and cooperative part of the process. What about the other possibility: where the subject is not aware the photographer, or only aware of them in the most fleeting of moments before any conscious self-image or rapport can be built?

The images in this article are all candid: unposed, unplanned, and with subject unaware. Even if it appears they may be looking at the camera in certain situations, it is a result of conscious timing, observation of something behind me, and/or a particular moment rather than catching a long stare. None of them showed any acknowledgement of my presence before or after the shot was taken, which was actually quite surprising in some situations. They saw me, but my presence didn’t register.



Unlikely protector

A ‘formal’ portrait might be thought of as a quantisation of the relationship between the artist and the subject because a relationship exists; in this way, the world of candid people photography is equally fascinating to us – perhaps more so – because it is the precise opposite. For the purposes of this discussion, candid photography encompasses everything where there is either no real relationship between the photographer and subject. It includes almost all street photography, most documentary or reportage (but not editorial, since there’s frequently two way communication and conscious selection of the presented images afterwards). But hopefully not any commissioned portraiture – if there is no interaction between photographer and subject – think of it as chemistry, perhaps – then the resulting images tend to be rather distant. Corporate head shots are really more a catalog than portraiture, so I suppose they can be excluded. There is one grey area, and that’s the kind of documentary where the subjects are aware of being photographed but not precisely when; especially over longer periods of time, any conscious facade presented to the camera usually gets dropped as the subjects revert to their ‘typical’ selves.



Stallkeeper

Since there is no relationship between photographer and subject in a candid situation, the outcome is one of two things: the instantaneous reaction to being observed/ scrutinised by a stranger, or a sort of unguarded glimpse at the subject’s reaction to his or her environment. It is this unguardedness that is interesting: there is no time for a change of self-image to be thought of (“how do I want myself to appear to a stranger?”) nor is there generally sufficient time for self-consciousness to intrude (“am I doing anything that might possibly be interpreted as negative or embarrassing?”). In some ways, we are getting a far more intimate look at the subject than they might have otherwise intended. The illusion of not being noticed in public is a false one, of course; it is that instant of self-consciousness that creates the discomfort and perhaps uncertainty of one’s own actions. Candid images of other people interest us not just because they give us a little window into the lives of somebody else – but I suspect that at a much deeper level they are also the cause of some personal comparisons and make us question our own self-image. And research has shown we can certainly understand or at least interpret the different facial expressions captured at a cross-cultural level.



Local

After years of photography, I notice a few behavioural patterns emerge when people notice they are being photographed:

Preoccupied individuals with purpose or some other urgent task tend not to care or notice the photographer, or if they do, they do not modify their actions – an example would be emergency personnel in a crisis situation, or a seasoned professional at work;

Those who are confident but not engaged in any activity tend to acknowledge the camera but either ignore it or not change their behaviour;

Those who are not confident tend to be very self-conscious and start checking their actions and how they appear to the camera – junior professionals, or people who think they might have been caught doing something embarrassing for instance;

Individuals with self-image issues tend to be very confrontational or hide behind something (teenagers, illegal immigrants)

Those who are socially uncomfortable tend to be rigid or ‘frozen’ as though they are unsure of how to react

Children are always inquisitive, generally far more observant than adults and generally friendly and open – they have nothing to hide and if anything their behaviour tends to become even more emphasised and exuberant.



The eyes

What about truly candid situations in which the photographer’s presence is never noticed? I think we are back representing relationships again: but this time, between the subject and the other individuals they are interacting with. It is a glimpse into another aspect of the subject’s personality, but again one that has been curated – it is what or how they want to present themselves to their social partners. In a situation where the subject and social partners have a deep relationship, the emotions displayed may be more genuine and wide-ranging. The precise instant captured now becomes important: an expression that may be of interest to an outside observer may not necessarily be of interest or representative of that individual; in fact, it may be so exceptional that the subject might land up being surprised or unhappy about that particular aspect of their behaviour being preserved for longer than the intended instant it was displayed in real time.



Resignation

The dominant reaction of subjects to viewing candids of themselves tends to be highly bipolar: there’s either a great appreciation that the photographer was able to capture ‘the real person’ – i.e. as others see them and perhaps as they also see themselves, or a deep feeling of violation of privacy. What doesn’t make logical sense is that the subject’s actions were of course observed by the individuals they were interacting with, and perhaps more if the interactions took place in a public space. Or perhaps those feeling derive from the discomfort of being scrutinised in detail without permission – explicit or otherwise. It does not take much of a jump to be back at stealing souls again.



Mastery

I do believe the best documentary photography has to be of this nature, though: it cannot be a faithful representation of reality if the observer inadvertently changes the situation. Quantum mechanics at a large scale, then. By far, the biggest challenges of documentary photography have always been being there at the critical moment, recognising the critical moment, and being ‘in it’ – and by extension, bringing the audience with you. It is actually quite easy to be in a crisis situation without being noticed because all other individuals are absorbed in their own priorities; it is far more difficult when subjects are not involved in events of immediate urgency as they have plenty of spare observation capacity to notice the photographer and modify behaviour accordingly, which of course results in an undesirable outcome. It is almost impossible to convey the feeling of being a participant with a telephoto lens, and the wider you go, the closer you have to get to your subject – and it’s pretty obvious how difficult it is to do that without being noticed.



Skepticism

Most modern documentary and street photography tends towards wider lenses for this reason; there is definitely an improved sense of inclusion versus a telephoto perspective, but I think the outcome is changed too much. A good example would be Bruce Gilden’s work – you cannot provoke a much stronger reaction from a stranger than by approaching them at very close range and firing a flash in their faces. It is certainly a good test of how nervous or skittish an individual might be. I wonder though whether candid images of solo individuals can really say something a bit more about the people in question: do people ‘put on a face’ even when there’s nobody watching (or they think there’s nobody watching)? Doubtful, given the effort required to sustain something like that. It’s probably therefore a safe assumption that what you see (when you are not being seen) is what you get – unless one has some serious issues, you’re hardly going to hide from yourself.



Fashion

Extrapolate this a bit further given our ability to recognise common facial expressions, and we have my working theory of the last few months: real candids, where an individual is on their own and not aware of the photographer, are really a sort of ‘happiness barometer’. Perhaps this is not entirely accurate: ‘personality barometer’ is a bit closer to what I had in mind. If you take some time to do candid street photography in a city, you’ll tend to notice that some cities have more happy people in them than others – assuming of course I’m reading facial expressions consistently. There are cities that are worried, there are others that are aggressive and confrontational. And there are still other changes depending on the weather; if you find yourself in a city that’s not happy when the sun is out, you might find it extremely unpleasant if it rains. I don’t mean to make these statements as an exclusive sweeping generalisation, but I’ve noticed this especially in places which I’ve made multiple visits to over the course of many years – Tokyo, for instance, seemed worried; London alternates between a sort of poker-faced coldness and a loss of inhibition depending on the amount of cloud cover. Kuala Lumpur is oblivious or hiding; Singapore, Hong Kong and New York are a bit aggressive. Prague is energetic/ enthusiastic and Paris is indifferent. It is not the stereotype images that are interesting – it’s those that break the mould and challenge our expectations.



Through the looking glass – for some reason, glass renders you unnoticeable. Especially with a waist level finder.

I have to say that expectation is one of the other factors that can really affect the outcome of candid photograph and portraiture in general; if you’ve been ‘caught’, then acting confrontational and that street photography is within your rights (even though it is) is probably not going to win you any friends. In fact, it’s likely to escalate to an unpleasant situation. The expectation of the subject is what drives the unpleasantness; both parties are expecting to defend what is perceived as a conflicting right – one to privacy, one to freedom of action. On the other hand, I always recommend smiling and being friendly even if it is against all of our natural instincts simply because it is not the expected thing to do. I find that in almost all cases, this disarms any hostile intent. And humour and backing down takes care of the rest. Sometimes one has to ‘lose’ to win.



Lighting up

The subject in the photograph above, for instance, caught me and confronted me. He was trying to light a cigarette inside his jacket on a windy day, and the impression was so close to that of a bird sleeping (and thus unusual) that I had to make a photograph; but the camera was slow to power up or he was fast to light and he emerged with me standing in front of him. This was the only shot I got. The ensuing conversation went something like this:

Him, angry: “WTF! Were you taking a picture of me?”

Me, smiling: “Well, I tried to, but you were too fast – I’ve never seen anybody try to light up inside their jacket before. Anyway, it’s cold out here – have a nice day!”

Him, somewhat mollified: “Uh, okay, you too.”

We then went our separate ways. I suspect he was expecting a denial or some aggression. I didn’t get the image I wanted, but I got a more interesting candid expression instead, and managed to get out of the situation.



Focus

The strange thing it that expectation also influences the outcome in planned/ conscious situations: people who are not used to being photographed (or not with serious setups involving lights and a large camera) tend to act very nervous, tense and generally not at all like their usual selves. You can almost feel the expectation is like that at a dentists’ surgery. Needless to say, this is not conducive for natural or good portraits. I’ve tried many ways of making portraits with various equipment, and find that there’s almost always the expectation that it has to be formal and stiff; I’ll make these images because the subject expects them, but then never use them. The really good images come together when everything is set up, I’m talking to the subject about something completely unrelated, and I just ‘happen’ to hit the shutter – I’ll do it a few times, and after a while, the subject ignores the flashes and camera and continues the conversation.



Weariness

I don’t subscribe to the theory that compacts or Hasselblads or rangefinders are better portrait cameras than DSLRs because the subject can see your face, though there’s definitely something intimidating about having a giant eye pointed at you. Rather, everything returns to the relationship hypothesis. A ‘better’ – or at least more transparent – portrait is made because there is no a relationship between the photographer and subject; the camera is merely witness to that interaction, recording it on command. After the rapport has been established, I can pick up the camera again and then continue shooting as normal without any change in the subject. The camera has been relegated to the position of a tool, or a device, rather than the focus of the relationship. It’s an interesting turning point on these assignments, and one I’ve consciously noticed all the time.



The invisible divide

In a candid/street/documentary situation, the same thing doesn’t quite happen because the photographer never has a relationship with the subject: it’s more a case of going unnoticed. We can take advantage of the fact that direct communications between individuals is signalled by the eyes to remain unnoticed. Similarly, if a subject is looking directly into the camera, there’s a lot more intensity and focus directed through the image at the viewer – even if what has actually happened has simply caught their heads or eyes in mid-pan. If eyes are visible, it is therefore important to have them in sharp focus simply because this is the number one point of contact for the observer, an instant homing beacon for those communicating in conversation, and painfully obvious if not well defined.



Looking for a fare

If you’re not looking directly at somebody or vice versa, there is no perceived two-way connection – it is observation in one direction only. People will tend to ignore you – which of course gives waist level finders an advantage. Here, the equipment plays a much bigger role in the outcome – which is not to say that you couldn’t do candid street photography with medium format; you can. Regardless of the hardware or the outcome though, it’s important to remember a couple of things: portraiture has and always been about preserving personality and emotion either as a product of a relationship; candid photography is an extension of that (or perhaps a purification) where ideally we see only the individual in question. What does that glimpse into another person’s life tell us about them? Certainly not the whole story, but perhaps enough that we might want to find out. MT

__________________

Turn the mood and style up to 11: the Hanoi Cinematic Masterclass in association with Zeiss (21-26 July and 28 July-2 August inclusive) is now open for registration – click here to book and for more information.

__________________

Ultraprints from this series are available on request here

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved