Renae in studio with a twin lens camera.
Some writers come to believe that if they only had a discernible "style" everything would fall into place and they would become successful and revered. But really, writing is about telling the story you'd like to tell without distracting the reader with undue/unneeded decoration or complexity. A reader usually looks for a lack of ambiguity and a minimum of unnecessary augmentation in order to enjoy the flow of an article or book. As well as the flow of the sentences themselves.
Most often the writers that readers enjoy are the ones who put as few stylistic twists into the writing and deliver both interesting sentences and simple to understand sentences. The fewer flourishes that take the reader's mind out of the story the more successfully the reader can submerge, happily, into the rhythm and imaginative unfolding of the story.
In photography we've collectively come to conclusions about things that move us away from musing about the content of an image and, instead, make us think about the mechanics of making of an image. Stylistic embellishments brought about by techniques but without adding meaning. In this category, historically, are contrivances such as fisheye lens perspectives, extreme telephoto compression, obvious color filters, "tromboning" one's zoom lens, obviously added "film" grain, the odd focus shifts caused by mis-used tilt/shift lenses, and the heavy handed use of high dynamic range imagery and various soft focus filters. Just to name a few.
I regard a labored and non-intuitive point of view as a stylistic exercise that also removes the power and importance of the photographic story from an image and instead offers a "trick" to provide a bit of temporary pizzazz to an image. An attempt to distance the image in question from others in the same genre. But I find super low viewpoints, captured from flat on the floor, or from a kneeling position, to be a contrivance that provides all the power (and the painful withdrawal symptoms) of a sugar high.
When we take and share photographs it seems that we say, "Here is how I view my world, or this part of my world, and now I'm sharing it with you." But nearly all of my engagements with the subjects in my orbit are done from the perspective of a camera floating more or less between 5 feet and four inches and five feet and eight inches from the ground. It's different if I'm sitting down.
I've tried from time to time to work a forced low angle shot into my working repertoire (but never my personal work) and have never had a client use the low angle shot. And I found myself relieved by the client's editing as the low angle shots never appealed to me either. Not nearly as much as a shot, well conceived and captured, from my own eye level.
In the world of writing editors and publishers are always (strongly) suggesting: "Write what you know."
By the same token I find myself only willing to make photographs that seem natural to me because my camera and I are: "Photographing what we know." And I know what my world constantly reflects back to me as I walk through it at upright.
But it's not just the eye-level point of view that works as a formal framework for me, it's also my desire to see vertical lines properly rendered and specific compositions respected. Any contrived technique or forced perspective that requires me to turn on my conscious thought and change my consistent approach to photographing inevitably ends up distancing me from the resulting photograph and, eventually dismissing it.
Because of this I seem immune from the charms of ultra-wide angle lenses. I can never figure out what do do with all the stuff on the top, bottom and sides of the frame. Anything wider than 20mms and I'm lost.
But, of course this proclivity of mine should be obvious since I've had a life long love affair with portraits. A shift up or down from the eye level of the subject makes for a shift in how we perceive the subject to a very great degree. It's a shifting of the balance of power. My preference is for the neutrality of camera height to subject eye level. I want to allow the personality and character of the subject to be the story they tell instead of editorializing with various tricks. That I would carry along the same sensibility to documenting graffiti, urban art, street photos and other ephemerata seems logical; comfortable.
To others the temptation to crouch, kneel or climb a high ladder in the service of their own vision might be more natural and even an ingrained way of experimenting with photographs and I'm not against it. But I can probably count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've enjoyed looking at a photograph that's been taken from a very low or very high point of view. Maybe that speaks more to the rigidity of my own practice than anything else.
Just my counterpoint.
14 comments:
Great insight Kirk. I feel much the same with regards to any exaggerated viewpoint or effects.
In my portraiture I typically take series of portraits of each subject (the end point is to present each portrait as a series). Two thirds of each series are formal and eye height. I take the informal ones at a slightly lower angle, a shift intended to rope in body language in addition to the eyes (as the gateway to to soul... Etc etc).
I love portraits and the connection, process and the story you're trying to tell are all.
Really enjoy your writing!
Mark
I have a book of portraits by a very well known photographer who shoots from high angles, low angles, far back, really close, etc. They tell me nothing about the subject but a lot about the photographer and how the photographer 'used' the subject to express himself rather than reveal the subject. I suppose they would appeal in an editorial context but I have to say I don't much care for them. When I look at them I am acutely aware that the photographer is trying to impress me with his unique "vision". Although I manipulate photos for artistic effect (I shoot mostly landscapes these days) I learned in the '60s, an era of great photojournalism and I tend to produce primarily 'straight' photos. Earlier today on SHORPY there was a photo of a farmer and one of his sons by Dorothea Lange. It was a straight image, plain and ordinary compared to contemporary highly produced fare but it was authentic. I like authentic over expressive. I guess I'm showing my age.
Didn't you just have a post, can't find it right now, about a cinematographer that 40mme should be used at 40 inches from the ground?
Jay
That would have been what I wrote about my favorite cinematographer, Gordon Willis. He was a fan of the 40mm focal length (on 35mm film= super 35= APSC. More or less) which would have been the equivalent of a 60mm focal length on full frame. But in saying 40mm and 40 inches he was referring to general scenes in which several people are shown in a middle or mid-thigh up composition. While this was his preferred set up for establishing shots his close ups and medium close ups (see Woody Allen's "Manhattan") are almost all done at eye level.
But, and this is important, it's hard/misguided to compare moving film shots with individual, stand alone photographs.
An establishing shot usually gives way quickly to a two shot, and then both close ups and reactions shots. Each are established for particular reasons. With a photograph we have to make one choice and go with it. For my money it's almost always at eye level.
Further, if you look at almost all documentary interviews in the video production world the camera is at eye level and the interviewer is also at the same eye level as the interviewee.
Forty inches is hardly floor level and certainly not a huge exaggeration from eye level if the shot is medium to wide (comp, not angle of view).
there was an era (50s-60s?) when a lot of cameras required you to look down into the top of them, like that TLR, and i think the slightly lower viewpoint allows us to reference that (natural height to use a TLR is probably about 40 inches).
I've been engaged on a project where I've knelt down to take the photo. I've been taking full lengths portraits outdoors, and this lower viewpoint means three things:
The camera is level, perspective is unforced.
The horizon is lower so of less importance.
There's a little more foreground; it's a project about social distancing so this is important.
Most of these shots were taken at 18, 24, or 35mm on APS-C, at distances that mean perspective is unforced. So although I'm kneeling down for these shots, I am agreeing with you!
HAHAHAHAHA......I am thrilled that you took the time to answer me in a post....that was great to see that someone takes the time to think about something that I brought up and takes the time to answer, and it was you... whom I certainly respect and enjoy as a blogger and photographer. Wow I sound like a fan boy but it is still nice to see.
Although this isn't the explicit topic of your post, it does point out that some photographers have trouble with the difference between style and affectation. Both make our work distinctive. In my opinion, the difference is that style comes across as effortless and authentic, whereas affectation seems forced and artificial; as if the only reason you're doing something is "Because I can."
My reason for almost always shooting from eye level is spinal stenosis and multiple bulging and herniated discs unrepairable by surgery. It's too damn hard to get up after kneeling and impossible to climb a ladder. So, essentially, it's "Because I can't".
John, Thanks for inspiring this blog. It made me stop and think! KT
Thank you, an excellent article and one of the few that I will retain.
When seeing the headline of this posting I asked myself: " model's eye level or photographer's eye level? ". I am not sure all of your readers are clear about what you mean.
With people? Always at the eye level of the subject. Model's eye level. Interviewee's eye level.
Well, of course I agree with you about shooting at the eye level of the subject/model/interviewee. Exceptions confirm the rule.
However, the headline was: "shoot FROM . . . .eye level". (CAPS added.) Which is how "Dogman" interprets it. And shoots. For a good reason (for him).
Christer
Post a Comment