@Randem

One of the most important aspects of planning a photographic project is knowing your audience. This happens in two parts: one is determining who your target audience will be, and the other is determining who you want them to be.

Today, I want to deal with the first part: Knowing who you expect to be viewing your photo(s). It’s good to ask yourself a few questions about your audience:

Who is your audience?
Do you expect them to be mostly women? Mostly men? Mostly children? Are they motorcycle enthusiasts? Boaters? Campers? Hunters? Dentists? Sports fans? Cat lovers?

Children don’t understand politics. Women don’t understand football. Men don’t understand women. You might get a teenager’s attention with photos of a band. You can usually get a woman’s attention with photos of shoes. You can always get a man’s attention with photos of women.

By what means will they encounter the photo?
Is this photo going to be published in a magazine? Will it be included in an article, or standing alone? Is it for an advertisement? A billboard? Is it going in a brochure? Is it an art piece, to be displayed in a gallery showing? Is it a product photo for eBay?

Yes, it’s safe to assume that a photo being printed in Cosmo is going to be viewed by women, whereas a photo printed in Sports Illustrated should target men. A product photo for Macy’s has a different audience than one for J C Penney, and neither is like Abercrombie.

What do you know about their personality?
Is the average viewer going to be someone who tends to be very conservative or liberal? Will they respond to religious imagery? Are they likely to be politically active? Romantic? Humanitarian? What social groups are they likely to relate to?

For some people a photo of a Bible evokes deep, personal meaning. Others just see a book. A humanitarian may view a photo of a homeless person completely differently from how a capitalist might see it.

What experiences do they bring with them?
Are they likely to have experienced a wedding? A funeral? A death in the family? Are they likely to have eaten a hotdog at a baseball stadium? Cotton candy at the fairground? Have they been in a car accident? Been in a submarine? A casino? A hospital? A snowstorm?

Some people love them, and some people hate them, but either way, most people have strong feelings about clowns. The same might be said about cats. Or priests. Or guns. Or naked women.

Sometimes, simply adding one of these themes will draw out strong, unpredictable emotional responses from your viewers. How can you use your photo to draw these memories and emotions out of the viewer?

I’ve recently written a pair of posts about the difference between taking a photo and making a photo, and the whole subject of this difference has really gotten my mind going on the subject. It would seem that I’ve got quite a lot of opinions about it!

Photo takers capture what happens to be there. Some may prefer it this way, but I believe many have simply never thought about what it would take to me a photo maker, so this will be an introduction to what is involved in making a photo.

Knowing your goal

Failing to plan is planning to fail. A good photo must start with a goal. It is important to determine up front what you want to accomplish. What thought or emotion do you want to convey? Is the photo going to represent a professional? Is it going to be used on a business card? Is it a glamor photo? An editorial? An art piece? Is it meant to sell clothing? Is it meant to illustrate a procedure? Determining the purpose up front is an important part of making a great photo.

Knowing your audience
There are actually two parts to knowing your audience. The first is determining who your viewers will be. The reason for this is that you choose imagery to which your audience will relate. For instance, if your photo is about the strong taking advantage of the weak, an adult may relate to a photo of a group of police beating up on a minority, whereas a child might relate better to a bigger kid stealing lunches from a smaller kid.

The second part of knowing your audience is determining who you want them to be. This helps you to determine aspects of the photo such as camera angle. Should the viewer be emotionally neutral to the scene? Should they feel disoriented? Are they meant to revere the subject? Scorn it? For instance, if the viewer is meant to take the side of the bully, shoot from up high, over the bully’s shoulder. If the viewer is meant to take the side of the underdog, shoot from a low angle, up into the bully’s menacing face.

Choosing a subject

While those who take photos may already be have some control over their subject, the control that is introduced when you make a photo may be quite new. Will you choose a subject with hard, chiseled features? Do you want a soft, friendly face? How should they be dressed? How should they be posed?

Choosing a location
What clues can your choice of location add to the photo? Again, with the bully example, how could your choice of location help or hurt that photo? What idea would the photo convey if you shot it at night, in a warehouse district, by the loading dock? How might that idea be different if you shoot during the day, near the merry-go-round, at a park? What about in a parking garage, surrounded by dozens of onlookers?

Controlling your lighting
Perhaps one of the most daunting of new factors one encounters in the switch to making a photo is the total control of lighting. How much light do you need? Where do you need it? Should the light be at the front? On the side? High? Low? Do you want long, ominous shadows, or soft, pleasant shading? Do you have a lot of detail that needs to be filled in? What if the light was set up that the bully’s face was hidden in a shadow… how might that change the meaning of our photo?

Composition
In addition to all the “golden rules” of composition, there are, again, new ideas to consider when “making” a photo? What part of the scene do you put in? What part should you leave out? How might you crop the shot to change its meaning? Can you use a different lens to cut out the cars in the parking garage? Can you assign a new meaning by tilting your camera to the right or left?

I’m certain that there are more aspects that could have been included, but hopefully this is enough to get the mind going, and start you thinking about how you could exercise a little control over different aspects of your photography in order to make more interesting photos.

Recently, I discussed the topic of “taking” photos vs. “making” photos. Today I’d like to continue on that thought.

The question is: What kind of photographer are you? What kind of photographer do you want to be?

There are two kinds of photographers: journalists and artists. Both require skill, but each uses it differently. One uses his camera to record the facts, the other uses his camera to express a fiction. One produces photos that are documentary, the other produces photos that are fantasy. In other words, one takes photos, while the other makes photos.

Taking a photo
The photojournalist takes photos. He “captures” a scene. He records an event. When you look at a roll of his photos in a series, you see the story of what happened. While photojournalism can often evoke an emotion (example), the photos themselves are a cold, sterile retelling of fact.

Those who tend toward photojournalism — those who tend to take photos — find their niche in such realms as news photography, war photography, sports photography, street photography, or doing school portraits.

Making a photo

The photo-artist, on the other hand, makes photos. He “creates” a scene. He sells an idea. When you look at a roll of his photos in series, you form the story of what could be, what might be, what you imagine, what you want. The very intent is to convey a thought or an emotion. Facts are covered up, because they distract too much from the fiction.

Those who tend more toward photography as an art — those who prefer to make photos — usually find their place in fashion photography, glamour photography, fine art photography, commercial photography, or stock photography.

Both of the photos on this page have the same meaning to me. One says it through through the cold retelling of fact, while the other conveys it through the expression of an idea.

More inspiring stuff coming from the Epic Edits photography blog. This time, it’s short and simple: Do you take photos, or do you make photos? There’s even a poll. I voted, and found that I’m in the minority. The overwhelming majority of votes were split between “take” and “both”.

The power is in your hand.

Well I’m sorry, I don’t like to take photos. I don’t enjoy it. I’m not a documentary photographer. Anybody can try to “capture a moment”. Any hack can pick up a camera, aim it at the action, and with a little timing (or just blind luck) capture what happened. But that’s not why I am a photographer.

The phrase taking a photo sounds dirty to me. It sounds like an attempt to steal something. Something was there. Then you took it. Now it’s not there any more. And here you are clinging to the memory of what was. To take a photo is to live in the past. It’s holding on to what was.

For me, photography is a performance art. It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s illusion. Photography is both black and white, truth and lie. My camera sees the world the way I see it; the way I want it to be seen — a beautiful, emotional, controversial, fantasy world where fact is fiction and up is down. But you only get that when you make a photo.

The photo on this page is an example of the kind of shot that can’t simple be taken. No amount of luck or timing can make up for the thought and planning that went into the shot before the shutter release was pressed. This is what I live for. This is why I make a photo.

After reading this post at Epic Edits, I felt inspired to assess my own photography and decide what I thought were my weaknesses and how I plan to improve them.

At present, I think my weakest area by far is that I’m simply not spending enough time shooting. I used to shoot every day, either out wandering, or building shots in my home studio, or working on a project with one or more models.

Lately, however, I’ve allowed too many other things to get in the way. Or, to be more accurate, I’ve made time for everything else except the thing I love.

Actually, I think anything else that I perceive to be a weakness is really just a result of that: not taking the time to shoot more.

For instance, I wish I was more familiar with various artificial lighting tricks, but I know that if I were shooting more, I would take the time to try out more techniques and get familiar with them.

Also, I know that if I were shooting more, I know I would be making more contacts and making more progress on my projects — another thing that I currently consider to be a weakness.

So what do I plan to do about it?

Simple. I’m going to shoot more. It’s time to stop making time for everyone else and start making time for me and the thing that I love. I’m going to get out with my cameras and start shooting regularly again. I’m going to make some contacts and some new friends and start bringing my new ideas to life.

Want to help?
Anyone reading this is welcome to get involved. If you think you might enjoy being a guinea pig for an afternoon while I experiment with lighting, let me know! If you or someone you know is interested in modeling, let me know!

I’m getting really tired of seeing this stuff. Tourists, doing tourist things in tourist places are not allowed to be tourists any more. Even in Disneyland:

Just as I took this photo, however, a Security Cast Member in a patrol unit approached me (well, he stopped a ways away and shouted through a rolled-down window) and told me photography was not permitted there. Since that statement didn’t make any sense, my first reaction was to question why that was. As I evaluated the possible responses, I thought “security” or “because I said so” would be what I’d get, so I complied and continued walking. I brought this up to appropriate people, who agreed there is no blanket prohibition of photography there.

Seriously, what’s the harm in a photo? As a photographer, I understand the rules about having a signed release if you plan to print your photo for profit. But that has no bearing whatsoever on taking a photo for personal use, nor even to be printed and distributed in a documentary context.

People need to be aware of their rights when holding a camera. It is not okay for Big Brother to push people around, even in the name of anti-terrorism. Nor is it okay for ignorant security personnel to make up the rules as they go.

A friend and fellow photographer, Noah Huber, recently offered some thoughts on the female nude as a subject of art, in what appears to be an attempt to get people thinking, and perhaps get the discussion rolling. Nudity finds its way into my photographic work as well, so I think it fitting and fair for me to offer a few thoughts. Since this is a response and/or continuation of that topic, I encourage you to read it first.

Noah refers to Ways of Seeing, a three-part video series by John Berger that originally aired on the BBC — udging by the clothing and hairstyles, I would estimate almost 30 years ago. Part 2 of the series deals with the female nude, so that is what I watched. Noah’s links seem to have broken themselves, but I was able to find the program on YouTube in four parts:

John Berger, Ways of Seeing - episode 2 (1/4)
John Berger, Ways of Seeing - episode 2 (2/4)
John Berger, Ways of Seeing - episode 2 (3/4)
John Berger, Ways of Seeing - episode 2 (4/4)

I found myself quite engrossed in the opinion of the woman Berger was interviewing toward the end of the third clip. She (rather humbly) suggests that women gather their opinions of themselves from the people around them, whereas men gather their opinions of themselves from the world around them.

I’m going to be a bit presumptuous and attempt to express this thought differently, through huge broad strokes and generalizations. Deal with it.

Women form relationships with the world, whereas men objectify the world.

My take
Women form a relationship with everything and everyone they invite into their lives. A bad day at work makes for a bad day at home. A positive relationship with a lover translates into a happier commute. Etc. When relationships are good, the food tastes better, the sun shines brighter, and the birds sing prettier songs. However, when relationships are bad, a typical woman may lose sleep, stop eating, stop dressing nicely, etc.

Men are different. Men can leave work at work, and leave home at home. A man can work with someone for 10 years without ever knowing (or caring) if they’re married, or have children, or play a musical instrument. I chose the work objectify above for a reason: men objectify everything. Bad relationship with a family member, coworker, lover? No problem, because with a change of scenery, it’s out of mind. But if a man ever gets the feeling that he’s not making a mark on the world, steer clear.

What does this have to do with photography? With nudity? I’m sure you’re already beginning to see some connections, but let me spell it out. In my lifetime, the complaint has always been that placing a nude woman on display — whether in a topless bar, or in a men’s magazine, or in an underwear ad on a billboard — is objectifying them.

Hmmm. Well, no shit.

But so what?
What’s wrong with that? I always hear people argue as if it’s wrong, but I’ve never heard any establish that it’s wrong. Why do you suppose that is? Here’s a hint: because it’s not wrong.

A man objectifying a woman is, quite frankly, no different from a woman trying to form a relationship with a man. Women do what women do, but for some reason it’s wrong when men do what men do. That sounds pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

But hypocrisy is nothing new. Women buy and sell and read and watch smut day in and day out (romance novels, soap operas, Ellen Degeneres) with little more than a grumble from the opposite sex. Meanwhile, men’s smut gets placed under counters in buildings with the windows blacked out; it gets moved to the upper cable channels, late at night; it gets legislated and demonized.

Perhaps the absurdity of the situation would be more evident if men began protesting women’s behavior in the way women have protested that of men. What if there were a Men’s Liberation movement? What if there were masculinists, who gathered in the streets to protest Harlequin romance novels for their portrayal of men? What if men got up in arms over the way they are represented by Dr. Phil and Oprah?

Gender bias?
Look, I’m not writing this to gripe about the disproportionate treatment of the genders, because the fact is that there are still a lot of levels on which history and society has been unfair to women. All I’m getting at is that perhaps the topic of the female nude really has nothing at all to do with any form of oppression.

Is it a gender bias? Yes. One that favors women! If there were anything more than a niche market for men to pose nude, men would be all over it. And if the roles were reversed, men wouldn’t be complaining about how unfair it is: they’d be basking in their own glory.

Women should learn to profit from it, the way that men are profiting from the woman’s need for relationships — or, at least that’s the advice a man would give, since we’re more concerned with objects. Like money.

But is it art?
So, coming back around, is the nude female art? Yes. Absolutely. As was stressed in Berger’s film, “nudity” is just another outfit that one can wear. Being nude is not the same as being naked. To be naked means to be real, honest, unposed, exposed exactly as you are — whether clothed or not — and that is not art, it’s documentary.

It is, in my mind, perhaps the artist’s greatest irony, that the nude can represent nakedness, but it can never be naked. Nudity can express love, hate, fear, excitement, comfort, pain… anything except for reality. I don’t think there is any question that nudity is art.

I think the real question is why it favor’s women as subjects. Frankly, I think there is simply a much bigger audience for the nude female. I don’t believe there’s any gender oppression at work here. I believe it’s just simple economics. The free market. Supply and demand.

While not every woman watches General Hospital, or Oprah, I think we can say fairly that most women enjoy drama, whether it’s daytime tv, or Grey’s Anatomy, or Harlequin novels, and that while there are some male consumers of these products, it would be foolish to say they’re statistically significant. Those products are consumed by women, so their creators design them primarily for women.

By the same token, I believe that the nude-as-art is primarily consumed by a male audience, and I believe that it is for that reason that the subjects tend to be female. After all, art is designed to communicate — what good would it be to communicate if you have no audience?

What complete and utter idiocy, that people have demonized the act of taking a photo. In the latest example, security at London’s Spitalfields market made an attempt to forcefully delete photos taken by a patron of the market.

Here in London, you get photographed upwards of 300 times a day, by every junior sneak, pecksniff, and petty CCTV operator who can afford a cheap little camera. The cameras often fail to help catch criminals, and they certainly don’t deter desperate muggers and junkies and stupid drunken kids. All the law seems to require by way of consumer protection is a sign saying, “You’re being filmed.”

You can be photographed again and again, but heaven help you if you take a picture back. Your person isn’t deserving of any serious privacy protection, but buildings, t-shirts, shop-windows, and market stalls are all entitled to unlimited protection from having their precious photons stolen.

It really bothers me to no end. Seriously. I would like to know exactly what devious mischief they think is going to come about from someone taking a photograph.

Or perhaps it’s not so much that they fear the patrons committing the mischief, but perhaps that there is some bigger mischief already afoot, which they wish to prevent people from capturing. Kinda makes the mind wander…

I made my start in photography with a 1-megapixel point-and-shoot Sony digital camera many years ago. I bought it from a friend, used, because that was the only way (at the time) that I would afford a digital camera. It was nice to be able to try a lot of things and see the feedback immediately on the little screen on the back of the camera, and nicer that I could delete the duds and keep the good shots, and not spend money doing so.

As I read and learned about photography, however, it became obvious to me that I was going to need some features that the little point-and-shoot unit didn’t provide. I needed control over exposure by way of aperture and shutter speed settings — not just the little +1/-1 EV adjustment. I needed manual focus. I needed to know what an f-stop was. Basically, I needed an SLR.

Digital SLR cameras were far too expensive for a guy who could only justify the cost of a used P&S, but eBay was ripe with used film SLR cameras at awesome prices, so I started learning to shoot film with a Canon AE-1.

My experience with film taught me the guts of photography. I learned how light affects silver grains, and how time and temperature of certain chemistry sets the exposed grains and removes the rest. I learned how the size of the aperture was proportionate to the focal length of the lens, and how that related to film speed and overall exposure. I learned how to get a proper exposure without a meter.

The most important thing that film taught me, however, was to value every single shot. When you have only a finite number of shots per roll of film, and only a small number of rolls, you tend to be more selective about what you shoot. And when you have to develop, dry, cut, and print your film before you get to see how it came out, you spend more time thinking about all the details before you press that button.

Over recent years, I’ve witnessed (and occasionally participated in) a number of debates over which is superior: digital, or film. In the beginning, I was very partial to film. But I think at this point in time, most digital SLR cameras produce superior images where color photography is concerned. However, there is still little doubt in my mind that a quality shot on black and white film, printed by hand in the darkroom, produces a result that dramatically outshines anything you can do in the digital realm.

The instant feedback and the low cost-per-shot of digital photography are awesome learning tools, and not to be trivialized. But the fundamental skills and knowledge that come from the film experience are also important. I believe that anyone wishing to become a truly talented photographer should invest time learning from both formats.

It puts a big smile on my face when I see digital photographers exploring our film-based past. It’s kind of like a modern street-racing enthusiast parking the Honda and spending some time under the hood of a GTO. Modern technology is amazing, and often superior in many ways, but there are valuable things to learn from our roots, and sometimes some irreplaceable experiences, too.